Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

Surprised no one has been discussing the Megaupload story. This shit is SOPA without SOPA.
 
Surprised no one has been discussing the Megaupload story. This shit is SOPA without SOPA.

There's not so much story to what happened to it as there is to what happened after. I watched the planning of the attacks on the US government and entertainment industry websites. The more important part is that if the user information is harvested from Megaupload, the users could be charged. I'm sure they'll go after the paying users first if they do.

Either way, it is like you said: SOPA without SOPA. Not to get all conspiracy theory, but from various sources I've looked at, the whole piracy craze was planned from the start by the entertainment industry.

I really shouldn't laugh but he was 15 and in grade 8?

It was in Texas, too. That doesn't surprise me as much.
 
I really shouldn't laugh but he was 15 and in grade 8?

Late birthday and/or held back one grade?

I'm not posting about Megaupload cause it's all over the news and at this point America is clearly past the point of no return. At this point the only thing that can stop America's implosion affecting other nations is......well, the actions of other nations.
 
It seems like they care more about monitoring us than any of the primary goals in the bills. </captain obvious>
 
Just read the intro to the Syrian uprising wikipedia page, some interesting 2012 updates were summarized in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Syrian_uprising

It's interesting that the official story is the Syrian defectors are leading the insurgency single-handed. I wonder what kind of secret foreign support is going on.

Either way, it seems like the right thing to do, so i hope the West starts fighting its wars more in this style :)
 
I can't wait until the East, West, and all the other directions on a compass stop trying to manipulate everyone else, with death and destruction for all.
 
Honestly i'm still on the fence about the military hawkishness. I definitely think the military should be reduced, because the West seems to have enough economic influence at this point that many of the worldwide troop deployments are just excessive. But i really do like the idea of westernized countries giving non-westernized countries financial/supply assistance for a movement that is seemingly much more in line with popular opinion/grievances than the existing regime.
 
How do you know what popular opinion is? Have you personally visited the respective countries and mingled amongst the average citizen?

What we get is heavily spun, western/current regime interest favored propaganda, about both domestic and foreign issues.

The readiness with which people support mass murder abroad with little or no solid evidence of need is appalling.
 
Speaking of which, I've heard Libya is having a lot of trouble reorganizing since we bombed them to hell.

What do you guys think of the possibility of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz?
 
Depends on what the US does. Iran is going to need to feel it either A. Has no option left in the face of a US invasion or B. Be given the green light by Russia/China to start WWIII. Iran cannot beat the US solo, but they can bleed it pretty good. It's going to be up to the US to light that match, or Russia/China.

So far, instead of reacting militarily to the sanctions, Iran is merely working out bilateral trading agreements with it's oil consuming partner nations in their respective currencies, bypassing the USD entirely.
 
Depends on what the US does. Iran is going to need to feel it either A. Has no option left in the face of a US invasion or B. Be given the green light by Russia/China to start WWIII. Iran cannot beat the US solo, but they can bleed it pretty good. It's going to be up to the US to light that match, or Russia/China.

So far, instead of reacting militarily to the sanctions, Iran is merely working out bilateral trading agreements with it's oil consuming partner nations in their respective currencies, bypassing the USD entirely.

That's worrying, attempting to bypass the USD is what got Gaddafi taken out. Well, that and the fact that the new African currency would have been gold. I'm not sure which will happen first, military action with Iran, or borrowing and lending picking up in the private sector enough so that the FED drops the recently doubled monetary base from the reserves and into the market. Either way, the latter is inevitable and it will be one stepping stone closer to hyper-inflation.
 
How do you know what popular opinion is? Have you personally visited the respective countries and mingled amongst the average citizen?

What we get is heavily spun, western/current regime interest favored propaganda, about both domestic and foreign issues.

The readiness with which people support mass murder abroad with little or no solid evidence of need is appalling.

I have to say, these are some of the more convincing points you've made around here :)

Hm, I noticed Romney hinting at military hawkishness in a recent debate by saying America should lead the free world.

Anyway, there's certainly a lot of people who share the hawkish view regardless of its merits, and not just in America. Anecdotally, a Polish friend I have has expressed respect for what he calls the stability of American foreign policy.

Suppose American foreign policy actually lends stability to a lot of otherwise unstable regions of the world. Couldn't you say this justifies it a bit?
 
Stability for who? At the expense of who/what? Coming from the Polish person it's pretty ironic, because it's thanks to US foreign policy that Poland was taken over by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia.

I'm sure people in the Middle East, and Central/South America would consider USFP decidedly de-stabilzing.
 
Ugh, some day i should actually learn more about int'l affairs and make up my mind about this stuff. Pretty hard to have an informed opinion on presidential candidates otherwise.
 
Specifically in regards to Poland:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/european/938

It was 70 years ago on March 31 when Great Britain committed the fatal blunder that led to World War II: issuing a war guarantee to Poland. This was the war, as Pat Buchanan says in his recent book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, that &#8220;led to the slaughter of the Jews and tens of millions of Christians, the devastation of Europe, Stalinization of half the continent, the fall of China to Maoist madness, and half a century of Cold War.&#8221; Buchanan&#8217;s book is essential for understanding why World War II was so unnecessary.

Poland was a creature of the Versailles Treaty. After being partitioned several times in history by Prussia, Russia, and Austria, Poland was reconstituted after World War I at the expense of a defeated Germany. But as Buchanan says: &#8220;Versailles had created not only an unjust but an unsustainable peace.&#8221; To give Poland a port on the Baltic, the city of Danzig, which was 95-percent German and had never belonged to Poland, was detached from Germany and made a Free City administered by the League of Nations. A "Polish Corridor" connected Poland to the Baltic and severed East Prussia from Germany.

The regime in Poland, according to contemporary British historian Niall Ferguson, was &#8220;every bit as undemocratic and anti-Semitic as that of Germany.&#8221; Marshal Jozef Pilsudski, the dictator in Poland who had come to power in a coup, considered making a preemptive strike against Germany before signing a 10-year nonaggression pact with Hitler in 1934. Poland had joined in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement, seizing the coal-rich region of Teschen. Hitler&#8217;s offer to Polish foreign minister Jozef Beck &#8212; a man known for his duplicity, dishonesty, and depravity &#8212; to guarantee Poland&#8217;s borders and accept Polish control of the Corridor in exchange for the return of Danzig and the construction of German roads across the Corridor was rebuffed.

Britain did not object to Danzig being returned to Germany, knowing that a plebiscite would result in an overwhelming vote in favor of return. Lord Halifax, the British foreign secretary, deemed Danzig and the Polish Corridor to be &#8220;an absurdity.&#8221; Hitler wanted an alliance with Poland, not war. He issued a directive to his army commander in chief: &#8220;The Fuehrer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this.&#8221;

But then, after false alarms about an imminent German attack on Poland, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain addressed the British House of Commons:

I now have to inform the House that ... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty&#8217;s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to that effect.

It was March 31, 1939. Germany terminated its nonaggression pact with Poland on April 24, and Poland would cash this &#8220;blank check&#8221; on September 1, when Hitler invaded Poland. Chamberlain had repeated the blunder made by Kaiser Wilhelm on the eve of World War I.

Former prime minister Lloyd George considered the war guarantee &#8220;a frightful gamble&#8221; and &#8220;sheer madness.&#8221; The British army general staff &#8220;ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum&#8221; if they approved this, said Lloyd George. Former First Lord of the Admiralty Cooper recorded in his diary: &#8220;Never before in our history have we left in the hands of one of the smaller powers the decision whether or not Britain goes to war.&#8221; It was &#8220;the maddest single action this country has ever taken,&#8221; said a member of Parliament. Newspaper military correspondent Liddell Hart wrote that the Polish guarantee &#8220;placed Britain&#8217;s destiny in the hands of Polish rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment.&#8221; Only the warmonger Churchill seemed to think the war guarantee was a good idea, foolishly asserting: &#8220;The preservation and integrity of Poland must be regarded as a cause commanding the regard of all the world.&#8221; Buchanan simply calls it &#8220;the greatest blunder in British history.&#8221;

Buchanan refers to modern British historians Roy Denman, Paul Johnson, and Peter Clarke about the folly of the Polish war guarantee:

The most reckless undertaking ever given by a British government. It placed the decision on peace or war in Europe in the hands of a reckless, intransigent, swashbuckling military dictatorship.

The power to invoke it was placed in the hands of the Polish government, not a repository of good sense. Therein lay the foolishness of the pledge: Britain had no means of bringing effective aid to Poland yet it obliged Britain itself to declare war on Germany if Poland so requested.

If Czechoslovakia was a faraway country, Poland was further; if Bohemia could not be defended by British troops, no more could Danzig; if the democratic Czech Republic had its flaws, the Polish regime was far more suspect.

Britain could not save Poland any more than it could have saved Czechoslovakia. As Buchanan wrote elsewhere:

Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe. The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism.

Neither Britain nor France had the power to save any nation of Eastern Europe. Yet, Britain was willing to go to war rather than allow Germany to dominate Europe economically, unaffected by a British blockade.

It is the Polish war guarantee for which Neville Chamberlain should be forever judged harshly, not the Munich Agreement for which he is often castigated. (The Munich Agreement essentially ceded to Hitler large sections of Czeckoslovakia in order to reduce the possibility of a European War. This has often been referred to as Chamberlain's "appeasement" of Hitler. Many believe this agreement gave Hitler the resolve to invade Poland, setting off WWII.) It is March 31 that ought to be a day that will live in infamy. The bloodiest conflict in human history was neither good nor necessary.

Laurence M. Vance is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State.
 
Hm, so i'm not quite clear on Germany's rationale for invading Poland if they really wanted an alliance. Is it because Britain's war guarantee made Poland appear hostile to Germany? There's definitely some missing links in that story as to Germany's motives and diplomatic stance.