Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Why Is The Justice Department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good question.

techdirt.com

quote:
We already mentioned the attempt by the US to extradite Richard O'Dwyer, a UK student who ran TVShack.net and TVShack.cc, both of which were seized by ICE. Unfortunately, most of the press reports out of the UK lacked details, and I wasn't even entirely sure that an actual attempt at extradition had been made, or if there was just fear on the part of the O'Dwyer family. After some digging, however, it appears that this is absolutely the case. The Justice Department, out of the Southern District of NY -- the same DOJ offices that have been involved in the ICE seizures -- and ICE, via the US embassy in London, made the request to extradite O'Dwyer. I've now heard that from three separate sources. I also called the folks in the press office at the US Attorneys' office in SDNY to see if they were willing to respond to questions about the attempted extradition, and the answer is they don't want to talk about it at all. I believe the two quotes were "there is nothing in the public record we can comment on" and "there is no additional guidance we can give you," though they did offer to send me the press release they sent out when they helped seize the TVShack domains. Helpful.

Now, let's be entirely clear here. Dwyer has not violated UK law. Pretty much everyone agrees on this. In our initial post, we discussed a few similar cases in the UK that showed such site administrators were not liable. UK legal experts have been saying that what O'Dwyer did is legal in the UK as it matches up almost entirely with previous cases where people doing nearly identical things were found to have not violated the law.

So this is a massive jurisdictional and sovereign disaster waiting to happen. Basically, the US appears to be claiming that if you do anything on the internet, you're subject to US laws. That's crazy and is going to come back to haunt US law enforcement. Do they not realize that this is the same thing that other countries have tried to do to US citizens? The US even passed a law, the SPEECH Act, to make it clear that US citizens were not subject to the liability of other national laws, just because such things happen on the internet. To then turn around and pretend the opposite is true for everyone else is just massive hypocrisy.

Separate from all that, it's highly questionable if O'Dwyer is even violating US criminal copyright law, because there is no such thing as contributory criminal infringement (there is for civil copyright law, but it's nowhere to be found in criminal law).

Yeah, I don't really know what to say here. What does the US government think it is doing?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The UK similarly enforces its Libel laws in the USA, which in principle is a much more eggregious juristictional snafu.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It thinks it's helping out some corporations and fighting free speech on the Internet, which is its enemy.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"To then turn around and pretend the opposite is true for everyone else is just massive hypocrisy."
It's being an imperialist.

Look, there are three possible attitudes in foreign relationships:
- The isolationist (chief example: Switzerland): Every nation's laws are supreme within each nation's borders. We don't bother you, you don't bother us.

- The internationalist (chief examples: European Union, the International Court of Justice at Hague). Countries must coordinate in determining what sort of laws and guideline must be followed, throughout the world.

- The imperialist. (chief examples: Russia, China, Iran, USA, Al Qaeda) Our nation's laws and guidelines are supreme, and must be obeyed throughout the world, by everyone.

----

Democrats tend to be imperialists that lean *very slightly* towards internationalism, while Republicans tend to be imperialists that lean *very slightly* towards isolationism.

But the imperialism remains.

[ June 20, 2011, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This has nothing to do with imperialism.

The US government is over reaching and should be denied in this case. But to point out a purely legal request for extradition (that will probably be denied) as a case of imperialism is a ridiculous claim.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The UK similarly enforces its Libel laws in the USA
Can you cite some examples? I am unfamiliar with such events.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This has nothing to do with imperialism.
The US government is over reaching and should be denied in this case. But to point out a purely legal request for extradition (that will probably be denied) as a case of imperialism is a ridiculous claim.

Some forms of imperialism are legal, since the laws are partially made by imperialists.

Does your conception of imperialism require a military intervention before it can be considered "imperialism"?

Seeking to impose your will on other countries is imperialism, no matter if you do it by diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, or military pressure. (When, back in the 1990s, Greece put a trade embargo on the Republic of Macedonia, seeking to pressure it into changing its name, I call that imperialism too)

[ June 20, 2011, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Some forms of imperialism are legal, since the laws are partially made by imperialists.

This is a silly comment. Extradition has nothing to do with Imperialism, since pretty much every government has used extradition at some time in the past. The Soviets attempted extradition of people whose only 'crime' was fleeing the Soviet Union.

Does that mean the US is Communist, because the Commies did it? Of course not. This is nothing more than bureaucratic bungling.

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Does your conception of imperialism require a military intervention before it can be considered "imperialism"?

My concept of Imperialism requires the direct governorship of foreign territories for it to be considered imperialism. You don't get to change words around to mean what you'd like them to mean.


quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Seeking to impose your will on other countries is imperialism, no matter if you do it by diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, or military pressure.

No, it's not and your definition is absurd. All governments of every type routinely attempt to apply diplomatic and economic pressure. That's not imperialism, that's human nature. By your definition every developed country in the world is imperialist. At that point the word has lost any meaning.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We seem to have reached a dispute of definition regarding "imperialism."

I'm sure that both JWatts and Asis could provide sources for their definitions. JWatts seems to hold to the more traditional definition of imperalism as it was initially used while Asis is using a more recent expanded definition used primarily in conjunction with the influence exerted by the United States over the world.

The root of imperialism deals with empire building. In this sense the expansion of European nations into Africa, Asia, and the Americas were imperialist. I can include in this the expansion of the United States across the North American continent, and the expansion of Russian influence within the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations.

The traditional definition then being the military conquest of other nations or peoples incorporated politically for the sake of national growth.

Asis's defintion is greatly expanded. He defines it as "one nation seeking to impose it's will on another, military, diplomatically, economically." I will say that Asis might possibly include "culturally" in there as well.

The oxford english dictionary defines imperialism as "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." I don't know if the OED is THE authority on definitions but I'd say it's as good as any other. Plenty of historians and scholars have embraced Aris's definiton.

I don't really think that the United States was attempting to extend or grow it's power in any way by seeking the extradition of a British citizen.

There seems to be differing definitions of imperialism with different authorities backing each. You can make an argument over which definiton should be followed, but it seems to me to be a waste of time. I would instead just throw imperialism out the window and break the action down into longer terms that we can all agree with.

For my part, other then the expansion of the United States across North America and into the Pacific, I have never defined American actions as imperalism, because it would marginalize what I believe are actual imperalist actions such as European imperalism. I would cite as examples the Britsh in India, China, and Africa. These seem to me to be good examples of imperalism.

I'm really not sure where Aris came up with including imperialism as part of a "three possible attitudes in foreign relationships" because I can't find it anywhere else.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Plenty of historians and scholars have embraced Aris's definiton.

I don't think you'll find many main stream historians who would agree with this statement:

quote:
Seeking to impose your will on other countries is imperialism, no matter if you do it by diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, or military pressure.
At that point you've just broadened the meaning of the word to the point of abstraction.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My concept of Imperialism requires the direct governorship of foreign territories for it to be considered imperialism.
Oh, the *direct* governorship. So I guess even Vichy France wasn't suffering from Nazi Germany imperialism, because it wasn't direct governorship, it was indirect such.

quote:
All governments of every type routinely attempt to apply diplomatic and economic pressure. That's not imperialism, that's human nature.
It *is* imperialism (by sane definitions), and as for "human nature", I'm not talking about extraterrestrials here, so of course it's human nature.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
My concept of Imperialism requires the direct governorship of foreign territories for it to be considered imperialism.
Oh, the *direct* governorship. So I guess even Vichy France wasn't suffering from Nazi Germany imperialism, because it wasn't direct governorship, it was indirect such.

No of course not. It's no secret that the Vichy weren't independent and that the Nazi's were governing by proxy. I would consider the appointment of a local proxy by the imperial power to be the equivalent of direct control. And indeed, after 1942 the Nazi's re-assumed direct control.

A more modern example would be the Cold War, in which the US had NATO allies versus the Soviets which had proxies. When France went their own way, the US was upset about it (and the W. Germans were furious) and tried to put pressure on De Gaulle to stay fully in the Alliance, but when he insisted on pulling his military out, that was the end of it.

Contrast that approach with how the Soviets dealt with Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Soviets crushed independence in Hungary in '56 and in Czecholslovakia in '68 with tanks. That's an example of an Imperialist state.

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
All governments of every type routinely attempt to apply diplomatic and economic pressure. That's not imperialism, that's human nature.
It *is* imperialism (by sane definitions), and as for "human nature", I'm not talking about extraterrestrials here, so of course it's human nature.
Your definition of imperialism encompasses almost all governments, since almost all governments routinely attempt to apply diplomatic, military or economic pressure.

The EU is currently applying economic and diplomatic pressure on Greece to abide by their loan agreements. So assumbly the EU (and all it's members) is imperialistic, neh?

NATO is using military attacks on Libya, so all of NATO is imperialistic, neh?

China is using economic pressure on most of Africa, so their imperialistic too, right? (Actually, I would probably somewhat agree about this one. [Wink] )

Can you give me a list of the governments which have not used "diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, or military pressure" in the last 20 years and so would not be imperialistic by your definition? I'm assuming that the list of non-imperialistic countries would be by far the shorter list of the two.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, it's not and your definition is absurd. All governments of every type routinely attempt to apply diplomatic and economic pressure. That's not imperialism, that's human nature. By your definition every developed country in the world is imperialist. At that point the word has lost any meaning.
All neighbors routinely attempt to apply similar pressure to force each other to conform to their standards? If you're not trying to firce them to buy the car you want them to or mow their law the way you want them to, then you're somehow not doing it right?

On what exact basis do you suggest that it's impossible for countries to be isolationist- wanting nothing to do with other countries at all, or cooperative, where they're open to trade but don't apply direct pressure to force them to conform to an given standard? The possibility of incidental influence (cultural bleeding, for example) exists, but that's out of context unless there's an active intent to use it as a tool to force involuntary changes.

All you're showing is that imperialism is the norm, and very pervasive; not that it's essential or necessary in any way.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
All neighbors routinely attempt to apply similar pressure to force each other to conform to their standards?

No, all countries do not attempt to apply SIMILAR pressure. Some countries apply greater amounts of pressure then others. Some countries apply greater pressure for different cases. But DIPLOMACY by definition includes nations attempting to exert their will on other nations. I do not believe that DIPLOMACY and IMPERIALISM are the same thing.

The assertion is that imperialism encompasses diplomatic pressure placed on a nation by another. This would include the United States putting diplomatic pressure on another nation to cease an invasion or cease persecution of a people within their border (Israel), or to cease their attempts at building nuclear weapons (Iran, North Korea). I don't believe that diplomatic pressure can be defined as imperialism, but I imagine that some of it depends of point of view. I cannot compare the pressure we have placed on Israel or North Korea or the Soviet Union to riding into Africa and claiming territory there.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A more modern example would be the Cold War, in which the US had NATO allies versus the Soviets which had proxies.
The US had proxies too -- including in Greece, and the whole of Latin America. If those countries stepped out of line, a US-backed coup was always near at hand.

But I don't know what you consider the equivalent of "direct governorship". Sending the CIA to help a dictator achieve power, isn't that imperialism either?

So, the US most certainly had an imperial sphere of minions - it wasn't *France* (France was powerful enough that it had its own imperial sphere - e.g. Algeria, and it felt America's imperialism much less), but it had a whole continent (sans Cuba) under its imperial control.

quote:
Contrast that approach with how the Soviets dealt with Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Soviets crushed independence in Hungary in '56 and in Czechoslovakia in '68 with tanks. That's an example of an Imperialist state.
USSR was indeed an example of an imperialist state. The Americans of course tried to crush Vietnamese independence too, and therefore USA was an example of an imperialist state too.

quote:
The EU is currently applying economic and diplomatic pressure on Greece to abide by their loan agreements. So assumbly the EU (and all it's members) is imperialistic, neh?
"Mutual agreements" and being made to abide with one's mutual agreements (or other people won't trust you to make more agreements with you) falls under internationalism in my books, not imperialism.

In the example provided by this thread, America ask something from UK, that it considers itself exempt from. That's not *mutual*, that's imperialism.

quote:
This would include the United States putting diplomatic pressure on another nation to cease an invasion or cease persecution of a people within their border (Israel),
...I don't think anyone in the world outside of America or Israel has been able of seeing this supposed "pressure", even under a microscope. America gives Israel lots and lots of money, and lots and lots of diplomatic support. That's the opposite of pressure.

quote:
or to cease their attempts at building nuclear weapons (Iran, North Korea).
The limitation in who has the rights to nuclear weaponry is one of the clearest examples of imperialism in the modern age! So yes, that's indeed imperialism. Not just by America though, by the whole group of permanent members in the Security Council of the UN.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, I like that "imperial sphere of minions" line. Canada and Mexico for sure are our imperial minions, LOL. (hums the imperial march)

Yeh, I can see how our influence over Canada and Mexico and Panama is equivalent to the Soviet Union influence over the Ukraine, Chechoslovkia, and East Germany.

quote:
The Americans of course tried to crush Vietnamese independence too
I missed the memo where we were going to make Vietnam a US protectorate or territory. Given the American unholy zeal for spreading democracy, I don't see how that fits. Quite honestly, I don't think we would have taken a democratic Vietnam even if they petitioned to become the 51st state. We certainly didn't crush the Philipinnes eventual independence.

quote:
I don't think anyone in the world outside of America or Israel has been able of seeing this supposed "pressure", even under a microscope
Tell that to the Egyptian Third Army in 1967. Tell that to Golda Meir when Kissinger told her to pull back from Arab occupied territory. Tell that to the Israelis when they agreed to pull out of the Sinai. What about the possibility of sanctions on the Israelis during the seige of Beruit. I'm just pulling stuff off of Wikipedia but I bet Ricky and Lisa and Hannibal can tell you all kinds of stories of US pressure on Israel.

quote:
"Mutual agreements" and being made to abide with one's mutual agreements (or other people won't trust you to make more agreements with you) falls under internationalism in my books, not imperialism
Mutal agreement would imply that BOTH parties/nations want the same thing and agree to do it together. You would also expand this to negate any form of diplomacy conducted before said agreement was made. So the Greeks WANT austerity measures, and always have wanted them, and the threat of the EU to let them burn if they don't comply with austerity measure has no effect on the Greeks.

I'm sorry but internationalism as you describe it sounds like a fantasy. Even allies disagree constantly.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LOL, I like that "imperial sphere of minions" line. Canada and Mexico for sure are our imperial minions, LOL. (hums the imperial march)
I just assumed Aris meant South America...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
I just assumed Aris meant South America...

You're probably correct, but Aris in his hyperboly mentioned "the whole continent".

The question remains on wether the CIA would have assassinated a Communist Canadian Prime Minister and set up a puppet regime.

I still don't think that the Panamanians or the rest of latin america would agree to being the "puppet states" of the United States.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I missed the memo where we were going to make Vietnam a US protectorate or territory.
As long as you intended to crush its independence, what do I care whether you would *call* it a protectorate? The Soviet Union didn't call Czechoslovakia a protectorate or a territory either, but it crushed its independence nonetheless.

Or are you gonna claim that you allowed the Vietnamese to independently, without foreign pressure, decide their own form of government?

quote:
We certainly didn't crush the Philipinnes eventual independence.
And UK didn't crush Canada's eventual independence or Australia's or New Zealand's, does that mean that UK wasn't an imperial country either?

quote:
Given the American unholy zeal for spreading democracy
In the Cold War you were determined to spread capitalism; you didn't care about spreading democracy, except incidentally. You always preferred a friendly dictatorship from a hostile democracy.

quote:
eh, I can see how our influence over Canada and Mexico and Panama is equivalent to the Soviet Union influence over the Ukraine, Chechoslovkia, and East Germany.
If we're to talk about the past, are you gonna at least admit that the Mexican-American war in the 19th century was an imperialistic war on the American side, seeking to grab Mexican territory from them?

Or are you gonna say that you were just spreading democracy to the Mexicans too, same as you supposedly did to the Vietnamese?

quote:
and the threat of the EU to let them burn
Greece is essentially begging for money. Someone "threatening" to not lend them money unless they
have assurances they can get said money back, doesn't fit even my supposedly expanded definition of imperialism.

Since it doesn't fit your definition either, why are we talking about this?

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
[QUOTE]The question remains on wether the CIA would have assassinated a Communist Canadian Prime Minister and set up a puppet regime.

You attempted to assassinate Castro and invade Cuba, so why do you think you wouldn't have done the same with Canada, if Communists had taken control there?
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for the Philippines and the Mexican-American war, yes, clearly late 19th Century USA was as much as an international bully as 21st century PRC.

As for the "Vietnamese," (comprising a number of different peoples, IIRC) I think that the American people honestly believed that they were supporting the will of the people. As we did in Korea. I think our leaders were duped by French diplomats (as they were later in Kosovo)

Aris, if some Democratic regime or movement had supported Adolph Hitler, and if the autocratic government or movement of the same country opposed Hitler, would it be "imperialism" for us to make allies and enemies based on common interests rather than on common principles?

As for how the US deals with Canada and Mexico, I challenge you to show me another superpower in history that has dealt as fairly with its relatively weak neighbors as the US has with Mexico and Canada for the last 100 years.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
The EU is currently applying economic and diplomatic pressure on Greece to abide by their loan agreements. So assumbly the EU (and all it's members) is imperialistic, neh?
"Mutual agreements" and being made to abide with one's mutual agreements (or other people won't trust you to make more agreements with you) falls under internationalism in my books, not imperialism.

[Roll Eyes] Fine, in that case the US has multiple mutual extradition treaties with the UK.

Link

So by your own very convoluted logic this is internationalism, not imperialism.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
[QUOTE]The question remains on wether the CIA would have assassinated a Communist Canadian Prime Minister and set up a puppet regime.

You attempted to assassinate Castro and invade Cuba, so why do you think you wouldn't have done the same with Canada, if Communists had taken control there?
Depends on which communists. You raise some interesting points and questions, but your imperialist arguments are rife with oversimplification.

You seem to forget that we actually got along OK with Tito's Yugoslavia, which is practically your own back yard, Aris. Hell, man, we implemented the Marshall Plan in Tito's Yugoslavia. Despite the fact that Tito was proselytizing communism in Greece. Why did US taxpaper dollars go towards helping rescue a communist government's economy, if our policy was all about fighting communism & promoting capitalism?

Our concern was less little-c communism and more with big-c COMMUNISM, i.e. that kind that involved sucking up to Stalin and/or Mao.

And we didn't assassinate Western European leaders as they plunged their country into socialism. No threats against Canada as they socialized health care.

[ June 20, 2011, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fine, in that case the US has multiple mutual extradition treaties with the UK.
I assume those extradition treaties are about sending people who committed crimes in US soil back to the US, and people who committed crimes in UK soil back to the UK.

Not applicable to this scenario.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, good point about Yugoslavia; but as a minor objection I have to note that its position protected it, close by to so many Warsaw Pact members that might have intervened in case of an attempt at a coup or invasion.

Like Austria, Yugoslavia had a chance at freedom, because it was near both enemy blocs, not in territory fully controllable by another.

Mind you, I fully accept that the Soviet Union was a significantly worse imperialist at the time of the Cold War. That both sides were imperialistic doesn't mean they were *equally* imperialistic. Soviet Union *was* worse.

[ June 20, 2011, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that the Mexican-American war was a case of imperialism. I will go further and add the Spanish-American war which included the acquisition of the Phillipines. The entire westward expansion of the United States across North America was imperialism. Today the United States has no territorial ambitions.

My point in mentioning the situation in Greece, as JWatts did, was to point out that according to your defintion of imperialism, the EU putting diplomatic and economic pressure on Greece would be seen as imperialism.

The war in Vietnam was about halting the spread of communism. It was not about establishing US control over Vietnam. There were plenty of people in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia asking for help, the same way the Greeks are asking for help from the EU.

Please ammend my statement concerning unholy zeal to read "America's unholy zeal to spread capitalism and or stop the spread of communism."

If the United States could have CHOSEN a puppet ruler of Vietnam, they would have chosen anyone but the idiots who wound up in control. The United States specifically stood back and let the ARVN set up a corrupt dictatorship as long as they maintained an anti-communist stance. The ARVN chose who would become president of Vietnam, not the United States, though the US maintained "veto" power. If the US could have CHOSEN, I don't believe they would have chosen a military dictatorship.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
All neighbors routinely attempt to apply similar pressure to force each other to conform to their standards?

No, all countries do not attempt to apply SIMILAR pressure. Some countries apply greater amounts of pressure then others.
I guess, then, that I'm glad that I don't have you for a neighbor, as I'd find it really obnoxious to live next to someone whose on'y consideration was how much they tried to tell me what to do in my own house, not wither it was any of their business in the first place.

quote:
Some countries apply greater pressure for different cases. But DIPLOMACY by definition includes nations attempting to exert their will on other nations. I do not believe that DIPLOMACY and IMPERIALISM are the same thing.
Sure they're not the same thing- diplomacy that's about drawing up mutually agreeable trade pacts or about affirming positive relationships doesn't involve pressure at all, nor does diplomacy that amounts to "please leave us alone". It's only where diplomacy is used as means to apply pressure to override sovereignty that it becomes imperialistic.

quote:
The assertion is that imperialism encompasses diplomatic pressure placed on a nation by another. This would include the United States putting diplomatic pressure on another nation to cease an invasion or cease persecution of a people within their border (Israel), or to cease their attempts at building nuclear weapons (Iran, North Korea). I don't believe that diplomatic pressure can be defined as imperialism, but I imagine that some of it depends of point of view. I cannot compare the pressure we have placed on Israel or North Korea or the Soviet Union to riding into Africa and claiming territory there.
Why claim physical territory when you can just pressure them into being your puppet without having to go through the messiness of occupation. The counter position here isn't that all diplomacy is imperialistic- only that the kind of diplomacy that is used to apply such pressure; there are also collaborative and isolationist approaches to diplomacy that do not involve such pressure and instead start from a position that respects the sovereignty of the other countries rather than attempting to override it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris, were we being Imperialistic when we provided aid to the oppressive and undemocratic regimes of Stalin and the Kuomintang, in order to fight the arguably democratically elected (by European standards) regime of Hitler, and the popular Japanese regime?

Politics makes strange and often unfortunate bedfellows, but I don't think that's imperialism. Yes, in a few cases we may have swallowed the spider to catch the fly, but the same could be said of our cosying to Stalin to get Hitler. That's not imperialism, but sloppy internationalism.

By 1930s, Americans were quite over their horrid imperialism. World War II dragged us kicking and screaming into hegemony. And the very leaders that fashioned that policy, are the ones that created the United Nations and the Marshall Plan.

quote:
Pete, good point about Yugoslavia; but as a minor objection I have to note that its position protected it, close by to so many Warsaw Pact members that might have intervened in case of an attempt at a coup or invasion.
That might explain why we didn't invade, but does it explain our warm support for the Regime, through the Marshall Plan?

When Tito died in 1980, his funeral was at the time the biggest state funeral in history, in terms of sheer number of world leaders. US newspapers talked about him in admiring terms.

Ultimately, sloppy American internationalism (like arrogant French internationalism) may look and smell a lot like imperialism, but there's a profoundly different motive.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I guess, then, that I'm glad that I don't have you for a neighbor, as I'd find it really obnoxious to live next to someone whose on'y consideration was how much they tried to tell me what to do in my own house, not wither it was any of their business in the first place.

I don't know how you took that from any statement I made.

On the flip side, that's the same attitude I get every time I show up at a house with the police when a neighbor complains about somebody beating his wife and kids.

quote:
Sure they're not the same thing- diplomacy that's about drawing up mutually agreeable trade pacts or about affirming positive relationships doesn't involve pressure at all, nor does diplomacy that amounts to "please leave us alone". It's only where diplomacy is used as means to apply pressure to override sovereignty that it becomes imperialistic.

Well, I'd like you to mutally agree with me to pay for the torque wrench you borrowed from me six months ago. If you don't pay I will stop lending you my tools and let everyone else in the neighborhood know that you're a thief. Plus I'll stop keeping your other neighbor on the other side of your house from coming and beating the cac out of you for never mowing your lawn.

That's me putting diplomatic pressure on you. I'm not forcing you, you can still say no, but there will be consequences.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant, you're obviously an Evil Imperialist at heart.

You should gladly not only let Pyr keep the torque wrench he borrowed but also give him all the tools you aren't using. So he can therefore reach his full economic potential. The reason he is poor is because you are selfishly withholding those tools from him. And his other neighbor should voluntarily mow both lawns to build up Pyr's self esteem and make the entire neighborhood a better place.

Your selfishness is clearly the problem. [Wink]

[ June 21, 2011, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris, were we being Imperialistic when we provided aid to the oppressive and undemocratic regimes of Stalin and the Kuomintang, in order to fight the arguably democratically elected (by European standards) regime of Hitler, and the popular Japanese regime?
There's a vast difference between giving aid to a country's government against the country's external enemies and against its internal ones.

The former is anti-imperialistic and supports the other country's independence. The latter is imperialistic and subverts (at best) or effectively destroys (at worst) the country's independence.

American aid to the Soviets in World War II was part of a strategy against Nazi imperialism. The NATO alliance was likewise primarily anti-imperialistic against the Soviet danger.

Supporting the Contras however (against other Nicaraguans), was imperialistic.
Supporting an invasion of Cuba or the assassination of Casto (against other Cubans), was imperialistic.
Supporting some Vietnamese against other Vietnamese: imperialistic. (you may argue that South Vietnam was a different country that could be defended against Northern Vietnam imperialism, but I believe that America never recognized them as two individual independent nations, so it's not an argument that can be used)

Really it's quite simple: if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism.

If you meddle in other nations' affairs in ways that you *do* allow them to meddle in yours: that's internationalism.

If you don't meddle in other nations' affairs and you don't want them to meddle in yours, that's isolationism.

--

Grant, JWatts, I hope you're having fun constructing strawmen, but I can no longer bother trying to determine in what bizarre way they're supposed to relate to my actual argument.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Really it's quite simple: if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism.

If you meddle in other nations' affairs in ways that you *do* allow them to meddle in yours: that's internationalism.

If you don't meddle in other nations' affairs and you don't want them to meddle in yours, that's isolationism.

Those seem reasonable.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Grant, JWatts, I hope you're having fun constructing strawmen, but I can no longer bother trying to determine in what bizarre way they're supposed to relate to my actual argument.

I'm not sure what strawman you're mentioning, but I'll reconstruct the argument so far:

You have provided three definitions for imperialism:

1. One nation seeking to impose it's will upon another nation through diplomatic, economic, or military pressure.

2. One of three foreign policy stances, conveyed as an attitude that "Our nation's laws and guidelines are supreme, and must be obeyed throughout the world, by everyone."

3. "if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism"


As a counter argument I provided a definition of imperialism from a good neutral authority, the OED. I also provided my own more difinitive definition of imperialism.

1. Imperialism deals with empire building through territorial expansion and political control of outside territories.

This definition is my own, as such it has no authority except for me. I have yet to see you provide any source or authority for your definitions, so I will assume that it is your personal definition.

You have provided several examples of American imperialism that fit your definitions of imperialism. But Jwatts, The Souless One, and I have attacked these examples because they do not fit our defintion of imperalism. These examples have been defended by Pyr, and possibly by Phil. We have also attacked the language and secondary assertions in specific claims and inferences made by you in support of your definition.

Because your definitions of imperalism do not agree with ours, we will not reach agreement on your examples until we can reach an agreement on definition. I don't think this is possible. Your defense of your definitions have not swayed our opinion, and our attacks on your definitions have not swayed yours. The only point would be to sway audience members, and I think most of the ornery crew already have their own opinions or don't care about the subject.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Your selfishness is clearly the problem. [Wink]

They've told me this on several occasions.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Really it's quite simple: if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism.

If you meddle in other nations' affairs in ways that you *do* allow them to meddle in yours: that's internationalism.

If you don't meddle in other nations' affairs and you don't want them to meddle in yours, that's isolationism.

You can make up whatever meanings to words you want to, but I'll continue to insist on the actual definitions from the dictionaries.

And could you stop the pressure on me to use your pet definitions. Your Imperialistic attitude is quite annoying. [LOL]

[ June 21, 2011, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I guess, then, that I'm glad that I don't have you for a neighbor, as I'd find it really obnoxious to live next to someone whose on'y consideration was how much they tried to tell me what to do in my own house, not wither it was any of their business in the first place.

I don't know how you took that from any statement I made.

I asked if imposition of your will was how you treated your neighbors. You responded with a generally affirmative response that they only way to deal with the was to attempt to impose your will on them.

quote:
On the flip side, that's the same attitude I get every time I show up at a house with the police when a neighbor complains about somebody beating his wife and kids.
There are times when a rational and reasonable case for imperialistic behavior can be made. Just like a case for using a hammer instead of a screwdriver can be made. That doesn't change the nature of the hammer.

quote:
Well, I'd like you to mutally agree with me to pay for the torque wrench you borrowed from me six months ago. If you don't pay I will stop lending you my tools and let everyone else in the neighborhood know that you're a thief. Plus I'll stop keeping your other neighbor on the other side of your house from coming and beating the cac out of you for never mowing your lawn.


Notice that all those are in the context of changes to your behavior not insisting that you have the right to dictate my behavior. You're not suing me, calling the cops, or in any other way actually forcing me to do anything. You're off context here because, far from applying pressure, you're actually taking a rather isolationist stance until such time as I decide to play by the rules.

quote:
That's me putting diplomatic pressure on you. I'm not forcing you, you can still say no, but there will be consequences.
No, that's you disengaging. If you were threatening to do these things, and attempting to use that threat manipulatively, that would constitute applying pressure, but disengaging on a rational basis is purely on your side of the table.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1. One nation seeking to impose it's will upon another nation through diplomatic, economic, or military pressure.

2. One of three foreign policy stances, conveyed as an attitude that "Our nation's laws and guidelines are supreme, and must be obeyed throughout the world, by everyone."

3. "if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism"


As a counter argument I provided a definition of imperialism from a good neutral authority, the OED. I also provided my own more difinitive definition of imperialism.

1. Imperialism deals with empire building through territorial expansion and political control of outside territories.

You cited an OED definition that perfectly matches Aris's position. In fact the second part of your definition "Imperialism deals with empire building through ... political control of outside territories" is exactly what we're talking about. When you use diplomatic pressure as a tool to override sovereignty, you are very explicitly asserting political control over them as if they were your territory.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is *both* of your complaints only about my usage of the word "Imperialism", not about whether America actually follows the attitude that I circumscribed by the word?

If I changed the word and named it somehow else, e.g. "Attitude B", you would agree with everything else?

quote:
"but I'll continue to insist on the actual definitions from the dictionaries."
JWatts, you previously claimed a definition "direct governorship of foreign territories", that I can't find on any dictionary. Then you kept modifying that definition -- somehow the governorship stopped needing to be "direct", it could be "by proxy" or via "client states".

So the one thing I'm certain of is that you do NOT insist on definitions, either ones given by dictionaries, not even the ones you offer yourself.

And if you *do* end up insisting on definitions by dictionaries, then it will be even MORE actions that will end being called "imperialist", as my "definition" (actually a description) of imperialism is much more *limited* than the definitions actually found on dictionaries. Look at some of the definitions from dictionary.com:
- the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries,
- an instance or policy of aggressive behaviour by one state against another
- the extension or attempted extension of authority, influence, power, etc, by any person, country, institution, etc

---

Grant
quote:
You have provided three definitions for imperialism:
1. One nation seeking to impose it's will upon another nation through diplomatic, economic, or military pressure.
2. One of three foreign policy stances, conveyed as an attitude that "Our nation's laws and guidelines are supreme, and must be obeyed throughout the world, by everyone."
3. "if you meddle in another nation's affairs, in a way that you would *not* allow it to meddle in yours: that's imperialism"

I wouldn't call those definition, I would call them descriptions.

What you've not yet gotten Grant, is that my intent wasn't to debate the definition of a word. It was to properly categorize instances of a phenomenon and circumscribe them at their proper boundaries for the purpose of understanding them. *Then* I labelled them, for the purpose of communication.

And my usage of the label "imperialism" was actually much more limited than can be found in dictionaries; I rather think that anyone NOT currently living in an imperialist nation would think my description of imperialism was too limited; not too expansive.

If I was using a schoolyard analogy, I might have used the words "the bully", "the loner", "the pal"

If I was talking Tarot imagery I might have said "The Emperor" "The Hermit" "The Lovers".

But I was talking foreign relations, so I used terms meant to describe attitudes on foreign relations.

So once again: is my usage of the word "imperialism" the only thing you two object to? Not whether my division of foreign relations stances into three categories was meaningful, and if *given that division*, I placed America's stance properly under "imperialism"?

[ June 22, 2011, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Is *both* of your complaints only about my usage of the word "Imperialism", not about whether America actually follows the attitude that I circumscribed by the word?

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Seeking to impose your will on other countries is imperialism, no matter if you do it by diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, or military pressure.

The behavior of the US does not fit the definition of the word Imperialist in any broad and consistent sense. Your definition of the word encompasses almost all governments and you use it merely as political rhetoric, not because it's informative.

Imperialism requires control over foreign territories either direct or through proxies. Pressure is not the same as control. All governments exert pressure on their neighbors.

quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
JWatts, you previously claimed a definition "direct governorship of foreign territories", that I can't find on any dictionary. Then you kept modifying that definition -- somehow the governorship stopped needing to be "direct", it could be "by proxy" or via "client states".

[DOH]

Then you didn't look very hard, because it's a trivial search.

Merriam-Webster
quote:

imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

Dictionary.com
quote:
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
thefreedictionary.com
quote:
imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Notice the political hegemony part. So yes rule by proxy would indeed fit the common definitions.

Nowhere does a legalistic demand for extradition fit in the common usage of the word imperialism. You are wrong and your attempts to justify the usage of the word are rationalizations.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts, you said "direct governorship". Which of the definitions you gave subsequently is supposed to mean "direct governorship"?

You're being very VERY rude. I don't consider it acceptable behaviour to post forehead-slaps instead of a response. If you do that again, I'm ignoring you for the rest of the thread.

quote:
Notice the political hegemony part. So yes rule by proxy would indeed fit the common definitions.
I know very well that "rule by proxy" fits the common definition of imperialism. It fits my usage too. I just don't know where it fits *your* definition which demanded "direct governorship".

quote:
Nowhere does a legalistic demand for extradition fit in the common usage of the word imperialism.
When it's a demand for an extradition of foreign citizens whose supposed crime was committed in a foreign country (where it actually was quite legal behaviour), it pretty damn well fits it. AMERICA IS SAYING ITS LAW APPLIES TO FOREIGN CITIZENS ON FOREIGN SOIL.

And frankly you'd also see that quite well, if the Iranian or Saudi governments started requesting the extradition of American citizens for crimes such as "defaming Islam" or "insulting the prophet" or "homosexuality" or whatever, and those "crimes" had been committed in America.

You'd also see that as an aggressive move against American sovereignty, and an attempt to spread their rule over the whole world.

[ June 22, 2011, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1