I hear the Ukraine is weak.
Sometimes the US attempts to dictate policy to other countries for various reasons (often trade/business related). Sometimes these efforts are covert, sometimes they involve diplomatic and economic strong arming, and sometimes American planes bomb you to rubble if you don’t comply.
The copyright laws thing? Imperialism as far as I’m concerned, no matter which way you cut it. Everything else is (often very) arguable, but Holywood’s power grab…no, no other way of talking about it. And it’s hurting the very concept of copyright - Sweden’s the LAST place the PirateParty…
So… American Imperialism is best evident in copyright laws regarding movies produced in Hollywood?
Derp?
I mean, I don’t even know what you’re talking about here, or what aspects of Hollywood are hurting the notion of copyright. Hollywood just wants artwork produced to actually be paid for by consumers. That is, you can’t just steal copies of their work for free.
I’m honestly confused as to what parts of that you think are against the very notion of copyright. What do you think copyright is supposed to be, if not that?
I tend to argue against things like DRM which are futile in their attempt to stop people from stealing stuff, and just hurt legitimate consumers… but I don’t tend to say that everyone just deserves to get stuff for free, because they want it.
But beyond all that, I honestly am kind of awestruck that the case for American Imperialism is somehow Hollywood and copyright laws.
Well, perhaps you might want to read up on the last forty years of international copyright treaties and law.
Please explain to me the evils that you perceive to be happening.
Specifically, how somehow hollywood is harming you through copyright laws… given that really, the only thing the laws protect in that case are actually movies they made.
Are you being deprived of your god given right to watch their movies?
And this is somehow imperialistic, because… reasons?
Why would I espouse a very common position among the tech industry, as you lie your ass off about what Hollywood’s done?
Which big media company or associated (say, DRM-pushing) company are you involved with, for reference? (I include owning shares, yes)
Because I don’t believe you things like DRM, given the way your defend the DRM business of big media (which re-writes the concept of copyright, and NEVER expires, and…) and use big media’s word of “steal”.
There’s a reason that “DRM-free” is an advertising term (one heavily used in the indy games industry), and your type of attitude is the reason it is. Then let’s talk about how you are quite willing to use copyleft software… (and let’s not talk about the NSA, eh?)
Are you trying to sound crazy, or is it just happening by accident?
Ah, I was dead on then.
(and for Timex too). Tin, i had thought about just not responding, because sometimes there is no point wasting ones time. But i relented. All i can say is in this thread, and others in the ‘Politics and Religion’ section of this forum, you have all the answers, given on multiple occasions. I can’t help you in reading and understanding, i really can’t. Either you understand already or you never will because ideologically it is too much too handle, or something.
Pointers (as i feel anyone with a brain and an IQ of at least 100 can understand IF they want to):
The recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: PNAC is all you need. I’ve posted a lot about it, you can even get the actual PDF document the neo-conservatives created about it. Look and understand the timeline of it, follow the names of those involved, follow the money etc. This is not conspiracy, just 100% relevant about the wars in Iraq etc. It’s all there in black and white. That’s been the USA’s ‘playbook’ in relation to the middle-east since the neo-conservatives became cool in the backseats of Washington. I don’t think i can make it any more clear (again).
On the UN/EU issue. Do you remember the guy that Bush (Jnr) sent to represent the USA at the UN? He has a name (Bolton) and a history (hates the UN) if you care to look into it. That is a nice clear example of what the Republicans (in particular) feel about the UN. Maybe you have forgotten the almost constant sniping that america’s media directs towards the UN, in particular Fox News, so again this animosity to the UN seems to come from your right-wing. Why? Go ask the american right.
In relation to the EU. You remember that recent TFA that was going to be made between the USA and the EU, it was going to be a huge economic boost to both zones? The EU side pulled out of it, because the terms and conditions the USA had insisted on would have meant USA companies being able to sue governments and take over and control European business (in effect, that was what i had read about the reasons the EU pulled out of the agreement). That is just one example. What about recent American influence on the UK in relation to the EU, there is a bunch of interesting stuff there also (until we had finished paying of our war debt, now we are more likely to say no to the usa).
IF i felt that either yourself or Timex were you know, actually interested in this stuff, and not just doing what you do, then i’d waste my time giving you specific links to the issues you asked about, but well sometimes you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink right? (to use a good cowboy saying). That is all. 10 mins of my time wasted so well done Sirs. The information is out there, quite easy to find, maybe not so easy to accept for some?
‘Ex-US Navy man jailed for attempted espionage for Russia’:
Now why is that different from the Snowdon case? If it is. Answers on a postcard.
Zak, you didn’t really do a good job of addressing any of the points presented against you. Instead, you basically just repeated yourself.
The UN is a worthless organization that basically accomplishes nothing of value any more… It once served the purpose of allowing the US and the USSR to argue without blowing each other up, but that utility has seemingly evaporated.
At this point, it’s basically just an organization that doesn’t do anything… because any big issues are either agreed upon by the security council, in which case all the key players already agree, so whatever… or they aren’t agreed upon, in which case the UN is paralyzed.
And this is a feature of the UN… It’s not the fault of the US. As Tim pointed out, we still provide over a fifth of all the funding for the entire UN… I’m not really sure what exactly you are complaining about here. You seem to be saying, “Portions of the US poltitical spectrum don’t like the UN, and say mean things about it!” Who cares?
What ACTUAL terrible things does the US do against the UN, besides support it more than any other country?
Then, in terms of the EU, you again seem to just sidestep all criticisms and throw out a fairly random comment about the TAFTA agreement… although it’s weird, because you seem to be under the illusion that it doesn’t exist? It’s likely going to be finalized and go into effect this year.
But that is kind of immaterial to this discussion anyway, because you seem to be saying that somehow this is a case of the US wanting to destroy the EU? How exactly does that work in your mind, Zak? The US is negotiating a major trade deal with an organization that it wants to destroy?
You don’t seem to have any actual facts to back up your assertions, other than vague beliefs that the US is out to get you somehow.
And don’t bother throwing out the “I can’t be bothered to defend my position because you can just defend it for me by looking up information on the internet.” It just means you don’t know what you’re talking about.
‘Ex-US Navy man jailed for attempted espionage for Russia’:
Ex-US Navy man jailed for attempted espionage for Russia - BBC News
Now why is that different from the Snowdon case? If it is. Answers on a postcard.
Quite frankly, the answer to “how is this different from the Snowden case” is “In almost every conceivable way.”
I mean, that guy was basically just a flat out spy. He wasn’t trying to whistleblow anything. He just sold secret information to Russia.
OK, I guess this was just me parsing your post wrong. No one is going to argue that US policy in the Middle East is great. So far, no one’s Middle East policy has worked out well. I thought what you were saying was that the US had some secret, nefarious plan that included the current problems there.
So your first comment was just hyperbolic then. A portion of the electorate being unhappy with the UN is not the same thing as a US policy that is trying to destroy it.
More hyperbole then. Nations are going to try and negotiate favorable terms in treaties: that’s one of their primary jobs. Trying to turn a better profit is not the same thing as trying to engineer the economic downfall of a trading partner. In this example you have a very typical international trade negotiation: one side asks for too much, the other side calls them on it and refuses, the first side comes back with a better offer.
The problem here is that you overstate your case so far that you go into tinfoil hat territory.
Maybe that’s a good thing. “The US is trying to destroy the EU economically!” will get responses, whereas “The US uses it economic power to dictate trade treaties to it allies!” would probably just warrant a shrug, because there’s no disagreement there.
You’re mixing up the UNGA and the UN as a whole. Easy mistake to make, as they’re the “face” of the UN.
(Among others… UN organisations include the ICAO, ITU, UPU, WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF…)
@ Timex and Tin,
Like i said there is no point wasting my time, as you replies show. I have no reason to prove or show you anything, that is up to each of us as people of intellect and with access to the information (which i pointed you towards, whereas you provide none, just blanket statements). There are no black and white answers in this area, so what you have to look for is the patterns and examples you can pin down. I think it pretty fair comment that the american right is very anti EU and UN. If you can’t even begin to understand why, that is frankly your problem, not mine. I wish you well in your search for answers.
I’m not thinking that anyone is real impressed with your “I can’t be bothered to back up my statements” argument. The only folks that would work on would be folks who didn’t actually know anything about the topic, and who could simply be bluffed into submission.
Gotta agree with Timex, here, and Tim’s comment that Zak has ventured a little too far afield.
PNAC - and not one mention of it’s relevance to this bit of the discussion. Basically when all you have is people bad mouthing or ‘smacking down’ a discussion without actually making any references to the subject they claim to want to discuss, what you have is not an honest discussion, it’s a political agenda, the kind of thing evident all over Fox News every broadcast. I have zero interest in engaging with people like that, there simply is no point. Sorry if that disappoints.
Now if you want to get serious and grown up talk to me about PNAC and it’s influence on American Foreign Policy over these last decades, especially under George Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or how about talking about the fact that Saddam Hussain had nothing (as in zero) to do with 9/11, or that he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction that could be readied in 40 mins to provide a direct threat to the west, and the intelligence community knew it, but Tony Blair made them include that kind of ‘evidence’ in the infamous ‘dodgy dossier’ (om my god another thing you can google to find out what it means! i’m providing ALL the evidence in this discussion, i’m not just bad mouthing!).
Of course i suspect more Fox News discussion from the usual suspects, and until that changes you can suck me guys, get all indignant, gang-up and appear to be sincere. It’s all fake and i just am not interested until you move past that tactic, it’s not worth my time.
I wonder how much time you’ve spent saying something isn’t worth your time. Well, enjoy your contemptuous and patronizing glare. I hope it keeps you warm.
PS - PNAC doesn’t exist, anymore. DC think tanks tend to have life cycles and that one ran its course.
PNAC is definitely a valid point, at least as far as pointing out that they were influential. As a think tank, it greatly influenced US policy for about a decade or so. It’s now long dead, and its influence has waned as everyone realizes the neocon dream for the middle east was a mirage and the implementation of that dream an absolute disaster.
Policy in every country is affected by interest groups and lobbies, and they wax and wane in their influence. That’s been true for as long as there have been nation-states. Zak, I’m not sure what your PNAC-related point is…?