Zak seems to be suggesting that some groups have ideas about things, and that somehow that translates into actual American foreign policy… although he doesn’t really seem to have any examples of that actual policy in this case.
He also has no answer to the obvious point that if the US wanted to destroy the UN, it could simply stop providing a fifth of its funding… or why the US would want to destroy the EU, given how they are currently a hugely important trading partner.
Or really, just the obvious fact that in this particular case, the US Ambassador is actually complaining about how the EU isn’t acting at all… which really would make no sense at all if the US was somehow afraid of the EU threatening someone’s power.
Zak’s position here really has no basis in reality. It’s just random fist shaking about how everything is somehow the fault of America.
‘NSA actions pose ‘direct threat to journalism’ leading watchdog warns’:
The National Security Agency’s dragnet of communications data poses a direct threat to journalism in the digital age by threatening to destroy the confidence between reporter and source on which most investigations depend, one of the world’s leading journalism watchdogs has warned.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based body that promotes press freedom around the world, has devoted the first two chapters of its annual report on global threats to an assessment of the impact of the NSA’s data sweep. Its internet advocacy co-ordinator, Geoffrey King, warns that the NSA’s dragnet threatens to put journalists under a cloud of suspicion and to expose them to routine spying by government agencies.
By storing mass data for long periods, the NSA could develop the capability to recreate a reporter’s research, retrace a source’s movements and listen in on past communications, King warns. “It could soon be possible to uncover sources with such ease as to render meaningless any promise of confidentiality a journalist may attempt to provide – and if an interaction escapes scrutiny in the first instance, it could be reconstructed later.”
CPJ’s annual report, “Attacks on the Press”, which was released at the United Nations building in New York on Wednesday, chronicles a troubled year for journalism with 211 journalists imprisoned and 70 killed – a near-record number. On top of an all-too familiar account of censorship, kidnappings, detention and killings, the committee’s warnings on the dangers of mass surveillance sound a new alarm for the digital age.
Sorry Aleck, i had not seen this before, but i’m glad finally someone mentioned this. What PNAC proves is that we were completely lied to about the reason for the last Iraq war. All you have to is read what it was about, the people involved that would become key backroom staff under Bush jnr, and most importantly the timeline. PNAC was ages before the war started, and everything in it tells us why the last Iraq war happened, and more worryingly why future wars will happen. While the actual document is old, and many of the original people moved out to pasture, it very much is part of Uncle Sams playbook, and expect to see versions of it popping up under different names and people down the road. It was simply the seed in this new era of modern American Imperialism.
The anti-UN stance from the US government (from the Republicans in particular) is nicely summed up in Timex’s ‘rant’ that proves exactly the point i’m making about the US anti-UN attitude, the non-lazy/non-brainwashed can easily follow that i’m sure. Bush assigning Bolton to the role he did makes it crystal clear what the american right think about the UN:
Anti EU motives from the US administration simply makes sense at one level, here is another very powerful player on the world stage, one that often doesn’t go along with American wishes. But there is really a lot of minutia mixed up in that main problem the US sees in a strong and unified EU. Google can help if you really want to get into the details of that, non American news sources are also good, i believe just last week there was a story about a high level us states person making a phone call saying “Fuck the EU”:
The problem with much of this kind of research is you have to get used to not using just your usual USA sources, as your media is heavily sanctioned and controlled (ABC,CNN etc) if not flat out social engineering (Fox News in particular) for fascism (in effect). So to really understand the world outside of your usa gold-fish bowl you have to be brave and read non usa based media to get a more clear picture on things. Good luck, and i will continue to ignore the insincere in this topic, as there really is no point, their aim being to simply shut down the conversation (which it will with them), but i will carry on to post articles of actual interest as they turn up, and will always engage with those that are not part of the problem (most likely) but share the concerns many people do for how the USA goes about it’s business in the wider world, and in particular where it is harmful and dangerous.
USA economy is moving towards Telephone Sanitizers industries like Copyright and “Intelectual Property”.
Because if you destroy the jobs of people that build the things (already in china), the people that design the things (already in china),… what is left is “I own the DVD trademark” and “I own round corners and slide to open”, that are how telephone sanitizers see the world.
Of course, USA is still strong and is not committing sepuku, because still have a very strong industry, a large internal market and massive amounts of natural resources. If history where a cardboard game, It would be incredible hard for the USA player to lose the game with all this win-cards. Still they are risking their position.
England was a world superpower once… Spain was a world superpower once… where are they now?
The spartans was one of these barbarian tribes from the north that invaded the mediterranean area, making the old population slave. That old population was once barbarians tribes from the north. The spartans took extraordinary actions to avoid getting the same treatment… becoming too fat and happy and complacent mediterranean habitants, and getting slaved by the next barbarian tribe from the north. That defined them… their fear to suffer what they did to others. In the end, it was for nothing.
Zak - perhaps part of what’s happening here is that you don’t have a good grip on what the American public is like. More than half of the US believes that G.W. Bush deliberately misled the populace in regards to the Iraq war, and that’s been consistently the case for years. What you present is not exactly “news” in regards to it. Likewise, American politics is possibly a little different than your operating assumption: PNAC (which came into effect one year before GWB’s Presidency and closed up shop one year after his Presidency) is one of a long line of “think tanks” that are actually dedicated to a particular cause (in this case, the Bush Presidency). They provide “third party” support of various experts who are of like mind. As a gamer, this would be similar to how every game seemingly wins an award even if the awarding agency is underwritten by the publisher.
You see, the U.S. is pretty jaded when it comes to politicians, and many people feel that if someone isn’t twisting facts and lying through their teeth, they’re almost not even trying. Someone from overseas screaming GWB lied about WMD’s won’t even get a yawn, because more than half would say “Well, duh!” while the rest have heard it for a decade. I’m glad you’re taking interest in these things, but don’t expect to teach us anything new in respect to that.
In regards to Bush and the UN, sure he hated the UN. Don’t mistake that as an organized political movement. Bolton is an ass, and everyone on this side of the pond (and both sides of the Congressional aisle) knows his appointment was just a political middle finger from Bush. That doesn’t mean that the US governmment wants the UN or the EU to be weak. It simply means that Bush didn’t like the UN. The favorability of the United Nations in the US has stayed fairly consistently in the 80’s for years, and considering that close to 50% of the US is Republican, that has to include a large amount of them as well. Politicians are beholden to public opinion, so …
In regards to the “F- the EU,” if you listen to the actual conversation plastered all over the web and step back from that tiny sound bite, you’ll find it has nothing to do with wanting the EU to be weak. Instead, it’s a remark of frustration that EU is acting in what that person views as a weak manner and that they want the US to move ahead without them.
Finally, I’m a “bleeding heart” liberal, participated in various anti-war protests, and I find the Republican wingnut group to be pretty darn vile. Just because someone here thinks you’re wrong doesn’t mean they’re somehow brainwashed. Dismissing people as such is also not an effective way to provide a convincing argument - it really just makes your position look weak, and if you’re trying to make an extreme statement, you’ll wind up getting dismissed in return. Perhaps you’re just dog-whistling for people who are of like mind, but I’d rather give you the benefit of the doubt.
The anti-UN stance from the US government (from the Republicans in particular) is nicely summed up in Timex’s ‘rant’ that proves exactly the point i’m making about the US anti-UN attitude, the non-lazy/non-brainwashed can easily follow that i’m sure.
The reason I hate the UN isn’t because it’s some kind of threatening organization, Zak… It’s because it’s totally impotent. It isn’t capable of acting with any kind of authority on important matters.
As I pointed out, it was once a place for the US and the USSR to yell at each other without shooting nuclear missiles all over the place. But these days its really not useful for dealing with actual international security issues, because the security council isn’t really ever going to agree on important things.
But there is really a lot of minutia mixed up in that main problem the US sees in a strong and unified EU.
Dude, do you have ANY idea what you are talking about here, and the context of the “F the EU” comment?
It was made because the EU is NOT STRONG AND UNIFIED. The comment was made because the EU isn’t able to act in such a way.
The comment wasn’t about the US being threatened by the EU… it was about the US wanting the EU to be stronger and actually try to deal with some of the problems in its own back yard, so we wouldn’t have to do everything.
What the UN does do pretty well comes out of its agencies for humanitarian and cultural action, it seems. Despite being limited, often severely, by security constraints, the UN does provide a lot of human services and humanitarian aid around the world. They also work pretty effectively in the cultural arena, across a pretty broad spectrum. Where it fails utterly of course is and has been the area which is sort of its reason for being, international security, but it’s hard to outline a way for such an organization that is so dependent on member states to actually be effective, not within the current system of sovereign nation states as the world default.
I do remember when the UN had a lot more cachet than it does now, though. The fifties and sixties were like its heyday. North by Northwest cafeteria scene!
You realize that the whole point of the Ambassador’s statement was that they wanted the EU to exert pressure against the pro-Russian movement of the Ukrainian government?
That is, the US didn’t want them to do something in support of the pro-Russian government, which you seemingly realize would be bad. They wanted the EU to do the opposite.
And that stuff is fine… I mean, I don’t think anyone opposes various humanitarian efforts by the UN. We all have our kids collect money for for things like Unicef.
But for the discussion here from Zak saying that the US hates the UN… which is generally talking about the UN from the perspective of international security. And it’s a silly statement, since the US has, effectively, ultimate control over the UN’s ability to act… The US can’t make the UN act, but it can stop it from acting. And the real issue that leads it to being impotent is that other competing entities (not the EU nations, but rather Russia and China) can do the same, effectively preventing the UN from doing anything when it comes to anything serious.
Except, of course, that’s what they’re doing - just not in a way which gives the government an excuse to crack down because of “foreign influence”. (And there are plenty of ways to look at irate american diplomat’s rant, so…)
This nails it on the head. The “F- the EU” comment is a statement of frustration that the EU isn’t doing more to support the Ukrainian protestors. There’s a long streak of frustration in the U.S. foreign policy world that the EU (and it’s member states) effectively leave the U.S. in the role of global policeman, even when it’s clearly in the EU’s interest to get off its duff and actually do something. While I can see how you might think the U.S. is worried about the EU becoming more powerful, I think most in the foreign policy establishment would actually welcome having a partner with similar interests as opposed to an entity that insists on being treated as a partner but doesn’t act like one.
Wait, you mean like trade with Ukraine? Where the EU had a deal, which the Russians blocked. Then, when protestors in Ukraine came out in favor of the trade deal with the EU, and the US ambassador expressed frustration that the EU was incapable of flexing any political muscle in favor of the protestors who want to align the Ukraine more closely with the EU, and the EU got offended? That sort of trade?
The truth is that the EU can do trade deals if (and seemingly only if) there is no opposition from any other party.
Now, it’s possible that the EU disagrees with the US, and doesn’t think that a Ukraine more closely tied to the EU is a good thing. Or it’s possible that the EU disagrees with the US over how to reach that goal. Or it’s possible the EU, as a body, is incapable of reaching any sort of consensus because, at the end of the day, it’s a loose-knit confederation rather than a nation-state. Or it’s possible the EU is playing a different game, where they allow the US to be the interventionist while the EU simply reaps the benefits without paying any of the potential costs. All of these are sensible (and possible) explanations. Your response… isn’t.
With respect to your one-off on the Monroe doctrine: the United States can, will, and does act in its own interests. Right now, it sees one of those interests as helping those in Ukraine who are interested in aligning with the West to do so. Similarly, Russia can, will, and does act in its own interests. Right now, it sees one of those interests as keeping Ukraine closely tied (economically and politically) with Russia. This is essentially true of all nation-states, and has been for millenia.
Whether the EU can, will, or does act in its own interests – or whether it even has interests it cares enough about to act upon – is somewhat up for debate.
Given Russia sells it weapons (and will keep doing so regardless), things like arms bans are basically purely symbolic
America and Russia end up doing what they want to, diplomatically, yes. Europe prefers a web of multilateral treaties. That’s not the same as being useless, but please keep making that mistake, and attacking European and Europeans on principle.
With all due respect, if the EU didn’t want to expand its sphere of influence via trade with Ukraine, why propose the treaty in the first place, esp. given that Russia had already registered its opposition to such measures? Why fire the first shot in a trade war and then back down? That might be part of a larger EU strategy, but that strategy will almost certainly involve the US coming in and supporting the opposition after the EU abandons them – something which any foreign policy observer could have predicted. Is that what you’re arguing? If so, I think it falls into the “EU is playing a different game, where they allow the US to be the interventionist while the EU simply reaps the benefits without paying any of the potential costs” category. It’s a valid strategy to play, but that’s not what I read your earlier comment as stating.
America and Russia end up doing what they want to, diplomatically, yes. Europe prefers a web of multilateral treaties. That’s not the same as being useless, but please keep making that mistake.
It’s not the same as useless, but it is largely the same as toothless if the EU cannot and will not act in the face of opposition from other parties. Keep in mind the EU was unable to make up its mind to act when genocide was occurring on its own proverbial doorstep in Yugoslavia. Then (like now with Ukraine), it took concerted action by the US to get any sort of multilateral action (and then only through NATO, where the US can exert significant influence). The common factor seems to be Russian opposition to the EU doing much of anything, which, again, may be a valid reason for doing nothing – but should be recognized as such.
And, to bring this all around, when the US Ambassador expresses frustration with the EU, that expression is hardly an attack on the EU because the US feels threatened by the EU’s power. In this case, I would argue that it’s effectively just the opposite.
What “trade war” are you talking about here?
Generally, a trade war is something which happens when one country tries to prevent trade with another through things like tarriffs, who then in turn retaliates with their own tariffs. What exactly are you talking about here?
Because that’s one of the likely consequences of pushing too hard.
Are they pushing AT ALL? Have they supported the protesters in any way whatsoever? Those protesters who simply want to have a trade agreement with the EU, but which was spurned solely by the pro-Russian prime minister?
That’s what’s so nuts here… you are somehow thinking that this is some kind of power grab from the US? When in reality, this whole thing is that the EU and the Ukraine were going to have a trade deal, and then the pro-Russian forces basically killed it… And then the people in the Ukraine said, “Hey, this is bull!” and the EU was like, “Oh well, whatever.”
Oh, and giving the Ukrainian government an excuse to crush the protests, too.
Dude, they didn’t NEED an excuse. THEY ALREADY DID THAT. Are you totally unaware of what is happening in the Ukraine? You seem to be arguing from a position of total ignorance here.
You realize that a week ago, one of Putin’s advisors demanded that the Ukrainians smack down the protesters, and if they don’t, then Russia themselves would have to intervene militarily?
America and Russia end up doing what they want to, diplomatically, yes. Europe prefers a web of multilateral treaties. That’s not the same as being useless, but please keep making that mistake.
Turns out, sometimes talking about stuff doesn’t get the job done.
Sometimes, you actually need to act. And if you are unwilling to do that, then you get rolled over by those who are.
The EU isn’t up against some other group of pussies here. They’re up against Russia. And frankly, unlike the US, Russia really does not give one fuck whether or not you say mean things about them.
They are going to expand their influence back into the Ukraine unless you actually do something. So that thing that you said you don’t want to do? THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
