Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 412956
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

First off, the cold war is a long time over. Secondly, you don't seem to know much about European armies. On their own and compared to the US, individual European powers have small standing armies but together they form quite a formidable force.


I see. First, don't under-estimate the social consequences of the Cold War. The U.S. is still very much the primary guarantor of the E.U.'s territorial integrity, even if there's presently not any great external threat, and we don't talk about it much anymore. And second, how exactly would the entire E.U. stack up against the U.S. as a combined force? I'm pretty sure you guys aren't even second-place, and I think second place is also pretty distant, but I'd have to check to be sure.

If you seriously think that the idea of a unified European armed forces does not make the US nervous then it is you, my friend, who has a seriously warped view of the world. To think that trade negotiations of any kind are done without keeping thoughts of military power in mind is very naive and completely flies in the face of history.


Yes, I'm pretty sure that a combined E.U. military force doesn't frighten the U.S., because the U.S. and the E.U. are close allies. The U.S. is not threatening the E.U. here, and the E.U. isn't threatening the U.S. Nobody at the ACTA - or pretty much any EU/US trade discussion - is rattling sabers, I can all but guarantee you. You're pretty much the only person I've ever heard try to claim that the US and EU are menacing each other with displays of military might, double plus that we're doing it over a treaty about international copyright law.

I agree that the original point stands, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that the US uses it's military might in ways that are considered bullying by the rest of the world. The parent post was getting all huffy about Europe being protectionist. How can a US citizen claim protectionism by any other state or group of states and still keep a strait face? Just take a look at the WTO and the World Bank. It's the definition of hypocrisy to claim that Europe is protectionist when coming from a US centric point of view.


The U.S. isn't bullying Europe, nor is it engaging in protectionist practices. (I cannot wait to read your response to that.) The worst thing that we've done is dig our heals in and obstruct global climate legislation -- which is a bad thing, but hardly "bullying" on a grand scale. We're also an extremely open market. Like, to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Honestly, you make it sound like the U.S. is actively threatening to annex mainland Europe -- which is just ridiculous.

Edited 2010-03-09 22:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I see. First, don't under-estimate the social consequences of the Cold War. The U.S. is still very much the primary guarantor of the E.U.'s territorial integrity, even if there's presently not any great external threat, and we don't talk about it much anymore. And second, how exactly would the entire E.U. stack up against the U.S. as a combined force? I'm pretty sure you guys aren't even second-place, and I think second place is also pretty distant, but I'd have to check to be sure.

Wow. Just, wow! What is it that you don't understand about what I'm saying? I'm not talking about Europe's current military might and I already pointed out that it wouldn't stack up to the US. What I'm talking about is a unified European military, including budget for R&D. It's no secret that the US is extremely jealous of it's current military dominance. Anything that could potentially knock them off of top spot in the future is worrying to anybody at the top of their game.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that a combined E.U. military force doesn't frighten the U.S., because the U.S. and the E.U. are close allies. The U.S. is not threatening the E.U. here, and the E.U. isn't threatening the U.S. Nobody at the ACTA - or pretty much any EU/US trade discussion - is rattling sabers, I can all but guarantee you. You're pretty much the only person I've ever heard try to claim that the US and EU are menacing each other with displays of military might, double plus that we're doing it over a treaty about international copyright law.

If you seriously think that just because we are close allies now that the situation couldn't change in the future then you are seriously mistaken. Yes it seems unlikely but history has plenty to say about broken alliances.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see I've yet to say anything about either side menacing each other militarily. What I was pointing out was that all countries negotiate on the basis of their strength. If you're so naive that you think the US wouldn't use it's military superiority as leverage in economic dealings then I can't help you. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't have to be Europe we're talking about. The amount of examples I could give you...

Furthermore, where did I mention that the US is using it's military power to enforce ACTA? Do you need glasses by any chance or do you just like putting words in my mouth?

The U.S. isn't bullying Europe, nor is it engaging in protectionist practices. (I cannot wait to read your response to that.) The worst thing that we've done is dig our heals in and obstruct global climate legislation -- which is a bad thing, but hardly "bullying" on a grand scale. We're also an extremely open market. Like, to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot.

I've already given one example of US bullying tactics towards Europe. You know, the whole Cuban embargo policy? Where you not paying attention? Maybe you don't know the following but the US did state that any ship or aircraft that had been band and repeatedly tried entry into US ports would be fired upon. If that doesn't sound like bullying to you then I don't know what possibly could.

Honestly, you make it sound like the U.S. is actively threatening to annex mainland Europe -- which is just ridiculous.

No I'm not. That's all in your head I'm afraid, probably brought on by your lack of comprehension.

Reply Parent Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

... well then.

OK, then, just to go around again...
1) U.S. military might is not a factor ACTA negotiations. At all.
2) The U.S. is not systematically bullying Europe. At all. And I'm not sure I'd be willing to consider blockading Cuba "bullying Europe." But that's a whole 'nother tangent.
3) The U.S. military is not worried about Europe. Because we are close allies, and will all but certainly remain so for the foreseeable future. A hell of a lot would have to change for the US and Europe to come into direct confrontation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

DirtyHarry Member since:
2006-01-31

Honestly, you make it sound like the U.S. is actively threatening to annex mainland Europe -- which is just ridiculous.


No I'm not. That's all in your head I'm afraid, probably brought on by your lack of comprehension. [/q]

But..... they did. There's a law accepted under the Bush administration that grants America to invade (yes! invade!) the Netherlands if an American would ever stand trial before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Now, how many American citizens know about this???

Reply Parent Score: 2

essdeekay Member since:
2006-01-31

The U.S. isn't bullying Europe, nor is it engaging in protectionist practices.


That's not entirely true. I agree with most of the rest of your comments, but both the US and Europe engage in protectionist practices when it suits them - I don't agree with it, but to dismiss that it occurs is naive.

One recent example of this is the US' Aerial Refueling Tanker program (aka KC-X), which had two primary bidders - Boeing (US) and a consortium made up of Northrop Grumman (US) / EADS (European).

2003: Boeing won the contract only to have the contract award revoked due to an ethics scandal related to the contract
2008: Northrop/EADS were awarded the contract - US senators in uproar that US tax dollars may go to European company
2008-2010: USAF change terms of contract to favor Boeing's smaller aircraft, making Northrop/EADS' position untenable
2010: Northrop/EADS officially withdraw their bid

However you look at the goings-on of that program, there definitely are protectionist practices occuring in the US at this very moment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Fair enough -- FWIW, that whole affair draws negative press over here, too.

How about this: protectionism right now is extremely low, and isn't a major systemic problem?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

nor is it engaging in protectionist practices.


I guess you mean "this time" (which is questionable anyway) because otherwise this is just incredibly naive.

Reply Parent Score: 3