Is the UN aggressive takeover of the internet a good thing?

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Sunner
No easy solution really, though I'd say a completely non political body that's driven with the good of the internet rather than any single entity in mind would be the best thing.
How such a thing could be setup is another question though, but it should be far easier to get technicans from various countries to get along than politicans, seeng as techies are generally interested in results and doing The Right Thing(tm) instead of flexing their political muscles.

Heh, indeed...As long as it's controlled by tech people and not politicians.

Where it should have it's seat is irrelevant to me, the US, UK, Sweden...who cares, that's the point of the internet.

Anywhere but China. The politicians in control of China have this obsession with censoring anything they don't agree with. But, yeah, other than that, where its seated is pretty much irrelevant. I'm pretty sure us techies can agree to a meeting place whenever one is needed.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: Sunner
No easy solution really, though I'd say a completely non political body that's driven with the good of the internet rather than any single entity in mind would be the best thing.
How such a thing could be setup is another question though, but it should be far easier to get technicans from various countries to get along than politicans, seeng as techies are generally interested in results and doing The Right Thing(tm) instead of flexing their political muscles.

Heh, indeed...As long as it's controlled by tech people and not politicians.

Where it should have it's seat is irrelevant to me, the US, UK, Sweden...who cares, that's the point of the internet.

Anywhere but China. The politicians in control of China have this obsession with censoring anything they don't agree with. But, yeah, other than that, where its seated is pretty much irrelevant. I'm pretty sure us techies can agree to a meeting place whenever one is needed.

Heh, yeah, China might not be the best place indeed

 

[Warthog912]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Our government leaders actually want this to happen because it will kill off hate groups on the internet w/o a big 1st amendment court fight.

You know, this is a very valid point which I didn't even think of...

Point well taken-

It's ashamed what our politicians will do these days

 

[Zebo]

Yup say goodbye to "operation rescue", stormfront, or anything else they find objectionable. In Europe and Canada you can get lengthy prison sentances for free speech so I find it trivial to believe they will revoke internet addys they find objectionable.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I can see plusses and minuses to this.

Minus - The US has had a relatively hands-off approach to the Internet thus far. Can you imagine what's going to happen when we put it in the hands of a couple hundred plus countries? Already China, Cuba, and others are clamoring for some sort of control. What about when Muslim countries and others begin lobbying the UN for resticted content so we don't offend their sensibilities?

Plus - The adoption of internet technologies worldwide. An expansion beyond US-centric control.

But I'm not sure the potential plusses outweighs the potential minuses.

Bingo! Plus the UN screws up everything it gets its hands on.

That's got to be the most idiotic comment i've heard in days.

Uh huh. It's so idiotic because the UN is a bastion of righteousness, efficiency, and fair decision making; and because those countries named want complete freedom on the Internet for all?

Sorry, but your reply seems the most idiotic comment of all because it says nothing.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Yup say goodbye to "operation rescue", stormfront, or anything else they find objectionable. In europe you can get lengthy prison sentances for free speech so I find it trivial to believe they will revoke internet addys they find objectionable.

If you had said hate speech you might be correct. But I can't think of a country where you get lengthy prison sentances for free speech.

Still, you have a point. Once you begin censoring ANY speech, you go down a road that eventually leads to banning speech you 'don't like' or find 'offensive'. It's never a good sign.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: Zebo
Yup say goodbye to "operation rescue", stormfront, or anything else they find objectionable. In europe you can get lengthy prison sentances for free speech so I find it trivial to believe they will revoke internet addys they find objectionable.

If you had said hate speech you might be correct. But I can't think of a country where you get lengthy prison sentances for free speech.

Still, you have a point. Once you begin censoring ANY speech, you go down a road that eventually leads to banning speech you 'don't like' or find 'offensive'. It's never a good sign.

I can
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.

A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime ? he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the "bubble zone" of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it ? Thou shalt not kill.

Define hate speech. Problem is there is none and it's arbitrary and moving one day it's denying the holocaust the next it's citing black crime statistics and so on. Not to mention it's anti-liberty and anti-american.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Uh huh. It's so idiotic because the UN is a bastion of righteousness, efficiency, and fair decision making; and because those countries named want complete freedom on the Internet for all?

Sorry, but your reply seems the most idiotic comment of all because it says nothing.

Meh. The U.N is a bureaucratic mess. Was somewhat useful when it was created, but now it's of little use. Only good it does now is coordinate aid organizations and give smaller countries that are usually ignored otherwise, a place to be heard.

 

[UpGrD]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe

They are mostly taking it over because the way you've handled the thing about ip's is fvcking stupid. You had enough,t he rest of the world didn't. But nah, why would you want to change it?

They're not taking it over, they are trying to steal it. Others are free to create their own internet. Of course instead of doing that work themselves, they'd rather steal from the US.

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world? You are clearly misinformed on this topic and yet are confident in accusing everyone else of stealing something... do you actually know what the internet is? If you did you would know it cannot be 'stolen' and that it would take no significant 'work' by other countries to set up thier own root servers. The only argument against doing so is that it would cut the US off from the rest of the world and visa versa.

Edit:

Originally posted by: kogase
There is very little benefit for us. Other countries just want. Other countries WANT.

Again, why the hate? Other countries may 'WANT' but also tend to give freely when asked. Last year the EU gave just over $35 billion in aid to other countries, but the US with it's superior economy contributed a third of that amount, mostly to israel. The president only had to click his fingers and thousands of british troops, hundreds of fighter-bombers, etc arrive to back him up. So other countries asked for something from the US, why not negotiate with them?

Are you including funds from individuals and private organizations in that number?
Because if you are your way off. The average US citizen gives by far more to the world that the average European citizen. Taxation is not giving freely. Giving is reaching into you pocket and handing over voluntarily to the needy. The US's private charities dwarf what is given by European governments or private organizations. Even though Europe has over twice the population as the US.
US aid in 2003- $16.2 billion
Aid from US individuals and private organizations in 2003- $57 billion
(numbers from former U.S. Agency for International Development official Carol Adelman)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Uh huh. It's so idiotic because the UN is a bastion of righteousness, efficiency, and fair decision making; and because those countries named want complete freedom on the Internet for all?

Sorry, but your reply seems the most idiotic comment of all because it says nothing.

Meh. The U.N is a bureaucratic mess. Was somewhat useful when it was created, but now it's of little use. Only good it does now is coordinate aid organizations and give smaller countries that are usually ignored otherwise, a place to be heard.

I agree with you. My question was rhetorical and highly sarcastic.

I do not want to see that bureaucratic mess that is the UN getting their hands on the Internet.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I can
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.

A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime ? he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the "bubble zone" of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it ? Thou shalt not kill.

Ok, one question:

Has it been proven that he was or wasn't violent or threatening people?

Personally, I find this to be a bull$hit reason to arrest him if he wasn't threatening anyone or acting violently. Not something I'd expect to happen in Canada.

Define hate speech. Problem is there is none and it's arbitrary and moving one day it's denying the holocaust the next it's citing black crime statistics and so on. Not to mention it's anti-liberty and anti-american.

True, definitions can change with the times. Which is why I agree that it's dangerous to censor any speech.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My question was rhetorical and highly sarcastic.

That much was obvious. I just felt the need to emphasize the point you made. Kind of redundant, but what the heck.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Drizzy
Does anyone know the history behind this? My question is WHY does the UN want control? Has the US been doing a poor job? Has the way its been run infringed upon the rights or the abilities of other countries? I just dont understand, aside from the power to say "we control the internet", why the UN would want to remove the US from the position it has been in. I assume that it is simply that some countries dont feel that they are being represented if they request changes, etc. Ugh the UN is such a beaurocratic sludge that I personally would prefer a different body be in charge.. a private company would have been ideal IMO. A company where representatives from different technology companies from different countries coming together to decide things. The same way they decide on standards for the computer fields - while sometimes messy I bet it would be faster and more efficient...

There are two main issues China and Europe have with US control of the internet. The first is that the assignment of IP addresses is completely and totally unfair and illogical. MIT has equivalent address space to the entire nation of China. The second issue is that the name assignments handled through ICANN are horrible, ICANN since chartered was supposed to open up many many more top level domains (.eu for example, at the creation it was expected that there would be over a 1000 top levels in the first year) but has failed to do so. In fact ICANN has reacted to political winds in the US by refusing to create the .xxx top level as a reaction to the xian conservatives. These two reasons are the primary motivators for moving the internet out of US control. Had ICANN reacted and became the international body it was intended to be INSTEAD of the poltically motivated puppet of corporate interests this situation likely wouldn't have presented itself.

Frankly I would rather the Europeans and Americans cooperate to create international administration that puts freedom of speech and commerce as the top priority so that dictators and totalitarian regimes don't gain control but with our current administration I don't count that likely.

In regards to your IP address argument:

What about IPv6? How many IP addresses per square inch of the earth's surface does that allow? From wikipedia: "For scale, this (IPv6) would allow an average of about 430 quintillion (4.3 × 1020) unique addresses per square inch, or 670 quadrillion (6.7 × 1017) per square millimeter, of the Earth's surface."

Why does the fact that the original IP addresses were over allocated to the people who were developing/using the internet before most of the world knew it would ever exist outrage anyone? People bitch about being under allocated when they weren't there for the development. What the hell. They weren't around when the allocations were given out freely. The people (countries) who got underallocated were the people who were very late to realize that they wanted a part of this online fad.

And for the record, the root servers have supported IPv6 for over a year.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Drizzy
what pisses me off about this is the fact that the US has paid for the majority of establishing the internet - then other countries found out "hey what a great idea" and jumped on..

In all fairness the internet is now an international thing, even though it was invented by america. Do you feel like giving the UK back all the tech it paid to develop? We could start with the internal combustion engine, steam engine, electric engine and jet engine...

Edit: this doesn't mean i think the UN should run the root servers.

Nobody is saying that the UK or anyone else can't build their own 'internet'. The UK can keep whatever combustion engine, steam engine, electric engine, or jet engine it has developed. However, since much time has passed, people would always build their own engines. But nobody should steal the engines that the UK has already made.

This is simply theft. If US assets are taken away, then the US should just take over all of Canada in exchange.

They are mostly taking it over because the way you've handled the thing about ip's is fvcking stupid. You had enough,t he rest of the world didn't. But nah, why would you want to change it?

Theft sounds like a good solution.

Besides, it's definitely better than what most of the rest of the world would do, especially in regards to free speech as already stated.

The only real solution would be to hand this over to a private organization where its charter does not allow censorship in any form. In addition, the US should be compensated in some form.

 

[Genx87]

. Last year the EU gave just over $35 billion in aid to other countries, but the US with it's superior economy contributed a third of that amount, mostly to israel.

Private donations from the United States were near 36 billion. And our govt shelled out about 16 billion.

Unlike in the EU, our charity is charity, not forced charity through taxation.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Genx87

. Last year the EU gave just over $35 billion in aid to other countries, but the US with it's superior economy contributed a third of that amount, mostly to israel.

Private donations from the United States were near 36 billion. And our govt shelled out about 16 billion.

Unlike in the EU, our charity is charity, not forced charity through taxation.

Not to mention that a large amount of EU aid is to other European countries themselves. How nice. And this isn't even counting all other sorts of aid.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world? You are clearly misinformed on this topic and yet are confident in accusing everyone else of stealing something... do you actually know what the internet is? If you did you would know it cannot be 'stolen' and that it would take no significant 'work' by other countries to set up thier own root servers. The only argument against doing so is that it would cut the US off from the rest of the world and visa versa.

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world?

I'm advocating that they should set up their own root servers instead of taking over from the US. That is the only legitimate action.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Atheus

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world? You are clearly misinformed on this topic and yet are confident in accusing everyone else of stealing something... do you actually know what the internet is? If you did you would know it cannot be 'stolen' and that it would take no significant 'work' by other countries to set up thier own root servers. The only argument against doing so is that it would cut the US off from the rest of the world and visa versa.

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world?

I'm advocating that they should set up their own root servers instead of taking over from the US. That is the only legitimate action.

Given the utterly extreme amount of misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread, I'm going to assume you don't already know that the root servers are spread over a large number of nations?
The people in P&N should become politicans, so little interest in the technical merits and possibilities of techonolgy, and so much interest in using it to forward their own agenda, be it the rise or fall of the USA or just simply to boost their ego.
Maybe Finland should get some kind of compensation because Linux Torvals was born there and lots of corporations worldwide are using Linux?
Maybe Canada should get some kind of compensation because Theo DeRaadt lives there and lots and lots of companies make use of OpenSSH and various other pieces of OpenBSD tech?
And so forth.

The whole argument is silly, what's best for the technology will in the end also be best for it's people, be they from Africa, Europe, or the US.
If you look at it through a politician's view, WTF are you doing at a forum called AnandTech Forums?

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Sunner
I'm going to assume you don't already know that the root servers are spread over a large number of nations?

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the posters here didn't know this little fact. They seem stuck in rhetoric mode. But, hey, you shouldn't be surprised. This is P&N, logic doesn't always apply here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Atheus

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world? You are clearly misinformed on this topic and yet are confident in accusing everyone else of stealing something... do you actually know what the internet is? If you did you would know it cannot be 'stolen' and that it would take no significant 'work' by other countries to set up thier own root servers. The only argument against doing so is that it would cut the US off from the rest of the world and visa versa.

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world?

I'm advocating that they should set up their own root servers instead of taking over from the US. That is the only legitimate action.

Given the utterly extreme amount of misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread, I'm going to assume you don't already know that the root servers are spread over a large number of nations?
The people in P&N should become politicans, so little interest in the technical merits and possibilities of techonolgy, and so much interest in using it to forward their own agenda, be it the rise or fall of the USA or just simply to boost their ego.
Maybe Finland should get some kind of compensation because Linux Torvals was born there and lots of corporations worldwide are using Linux?
Maybe Canada should get some kind of compensation because Theo DeRaadt lives there and lots and lots of companies make use of OpenSSH and various other pieces of OpenBSD tech?
And so forth.

The whole argument is silly, what's best for the technology will in the end also be best for it's people, be they from Africa, Europe, or the US.
If you look at it through a politician's view, WTF are you doing at a forum called AnandTech Forums?

Please. Don't attempt to dress people down as ignorant by using superficial remarks and observations. It does both you and them a disservice, but primarily you since you are making a largely generalized assumption.

Yes, the root servers are spread out over a number of countires, the large majority of which are US and western countries. However, no matter their physical location, ICAAN is still the primary oversight for those root servers. The UN wants to wrest control fom ICAAN. That is absolutely unnecessary since ICAAN, even though a US non-profit, is basically an international organization. Of the 15 member ICAAN board, only three are from the US. ICAAN also, due to its organization, largely avoids politics. It operates primarily on a technical basis and addresses technical, operational issues under the premise that the Internet should allow the greatest amount of freedom of expression and freedom from censorship possible. The adoption of international technical advances for the Internet is not even in question as we have that already. It's what happens under ICAAN. They do it pretty proficiently and effeciently as well.

If we allow the UN to take control of root servers, we'll be creating a massive beaurocracy that does not currently exist and we'll be politicizing a process that has thus far resisted any sort of overwhelming politicization. Every little tinpot despot at the UN will feel the need to chime in about the Internet. Why do you think Cuba, China, and Iran are shaking the cage and wanting a say? Do you really think it's because of their desire for freedom of expression for all and their fervent wish for everyone to have access to the greatest amount of information possible?

Elliot Noss wrote a good article on this subject back in July. As a particpant in ICAAN, he understands the inner workings of it and the drawbacks of turning the current system over to the UN. In particular, he makes the following obervations:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588-5730589.html

In fact, if the U.N. and the ITU were successful, it is not difficult to envision a Balkanization of the Internet as whole portions of the Internet decide they did not want to rely on the U.N. and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If that Balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum U.N. postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

He makes a cogent point and something to seriously consider, because even though we know it's speculation at this point, it's easy to see how it's also very likely. Turning control of the root servers over to the UN is simply a bad idea. It's the internationalization of a relatively private concern that's already internationalized. The only difference is that politics will now come into play. We simply do not need that to happen.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Last year the EU gave just over $35 billion in aid to other countries, but the US with it's superior economy contributed a third of that amount, mostly to israel.

Private donations from the United States were near 36 billion. And our govt shelled out about 16 billion.

Unlike in the EU, our charity is charity, not forced charity through taxation.

"forced charity through taxation" lol, are you some kind of right-wing spin doctor? you nearly have me convinced it's a bad thing. Private donations don't count toward my figures btw (EU citizens make plenty of those too) we are talking about governments here. This is the politics forum, not the "i'm better than you" forum.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Not to mention that a large amount of EU aid is to other European countries themselves. How nice.

European countries (not EU countries) like Ukraine deserve the aid more than most. They recently overthrew a non-democratic government in a bloodless revolution and need help to build a new democratic state. This is most certainly a worthy cause.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Atheus

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world? You are clearly misinformed on this topic and yet are confident in accusing everyone else of stealing something... do you actually know what the internet is? If you did you would know it cannot be 'stolen' and that it would take no significant 'work' by other countries to set up thier own root servers. The only argument against doing so is that it would cut the US off from the rest of the world and visa versa.

Why do you have so much hate for the rest of the world?

I'm advocating that they should set up their own root servers instead of taking over from the US. That is the only legitimate action.

Given the utterly extreme amount of misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread, I'm going to assume you don't already know that the root servers are spread over a large number of nations?
The people in P&N should become politicans, so little interest in the technical merits and possibilities of techonolgy, and so much interest in using it to forward their own agenda, be it the rise or fall of the USA or just simply to boost their ego.
Maybe Finland should get some kind of compensation because Linux Torvals was born there and lots of corporations worldwide are using Linux?
Maybe Canada should get some kind of compensation because Theo DeRaadt lives there and lots and lots of companies make use of OpenSSH and various other pieces of OpenBSD tech?
And so forth.

The whole argument is silly, what's best for the technology will in the end also be best for it's people, be they from Africa, Europe, or the US.
If you look at it through a politician's view, WTF are you doing at a forum called AnandTech Forums?

Please. Don't attempt to dress people down as ignorant by using superficial remarks and observations. It does both you and them a disservice, but primarily you since you are making a largely generalized assumption.

Yes, the root servers are spread out over a number of countires, the large majority of which are US and western countries. However, no matter their physical location, ICAAN is still the primary oversight for those root servers. The UN wants to wrest control fom ICAAN. That is absolutely unnecessary since ICAAN, even though a US non-profit, is basically an international organization. Of the 15 member ICAAN board, only three are from the US. ICAAN also, due to its organization, largely avoids politics. It operates primarily on a technical basis and addresses technical, operational issues under the premise that the Internet should allow the greatest amount of freedom of expression and freedom from censorship possible. The adoption of international technical advances for the Internet is not even in question as we have that already. It's what happens under ICAAN. They do it pretty proficiently and effeciently as well.

If we allow the UN to take control of root servers, we'll be creating a massive beaurocracy that does not currently exist and we'll be politicizing a process that has thus far resisted any sort of overwhelming politicization. Every little tinpot despot at the UN will feel the need to chime in about the Internet. Why do you think Cuba, China, and Iran are shaking the cage and wanting a say? Do you really think it's because of their desire for freedom of expression for all and their fervent wish for everyone to have access to the greatest amount of information possible?

Elliot Noss wrote a good article on this subject back in July. As a particpant in ICAAN, he understands the inner workings of it and the drawbacks of turning the current system over to the UN. In particular, he makes the following obervations:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588-5730589.html

In fact, if the U.N. and the ITU were successful, it is not difficult to envision a Balkanization of the Internet as whole portions of the Internet decide they did not want to rely on the U.N. and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If that Balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum U.N. postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

He makes a cogent point and something to seriously consider, because even though we know it's speculation at this point, it's easy to see how it's also very likely. Turning control of the root servers over to the UN is simply a bad idea. It's the internationalization of a relatively private concern that's already internationalized. The only difference is that politics will now come into play. We simply do not need that to happen.

That's ICANN.
And saying politics doesn't interfer with them is just silly, se for example the handling of the proposed .xxx domain, it's not exactly being delayed due to technical problems.

Anyway, seems like you didn't read my post at all, and you do fall into the category I mentioned about(the one about politics above technology) since you kept slamming the UN in your post as if I ever said I thought the UN would do a good job handling the net.
In case it isn't obvious, I don't.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Maybe Finland should get some kind of compensation because Linux Torvals was born there and lots of corporations worldwide are using Linux?
Maybe Canada should get some kind of compensation because Theo DeRaadt lives there and lots and lots of companies make use of OpenSSH and various other pieces of OpenBSD tech?
And so forth.

Did they give it away free? Were they forced and threatended to give it up? And so forth.

The whole argument is silly, what's best for the technology will in the end also be best for it's people, be they from Africa, Europe, or the US.
If you look at it through a politician's view, WTF are you doing at a forum called AnandTech Forums?

I fear this is the start of the colonization of the Internet.

It's like a group coming to Anandtech and taking it over because it's successful, has an international community, etc. It's theft plain and simple. You should make your own website, not take over someone else's website.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Last year the EU gave just over $35 billion in aid to other countries, but the US with it's superior economy contributed a third of that amount, mostly to israel.

Private donations from the United States were near 36 billion. And our govt shelled out about 16 billion.

Unlike in the EU, our charity is charity, not forced charity through taxation.

"forced charity through taxation" lol, are you some kind of right-wing spin doctor? you nearly have me convinced it's a bad thing. Private donations don't count toward my figures btw (EU citizens make plenty of those too) we are talking about governments here. This is the politics forum, not the "i'm better than you" forum.

Your statistic that you originally claimed is reliant upon one form of aid.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Not to mention that a large amount of EU aid is to other European countries themselves. How nice.

European countries (not EU countries) like Ukraine deserve the aid more than most. They recently overthrew a non-democratic government in a bloodless revolution and need help to build a new democratic state. This is most certainly a worthy cause.

Good for them, but that doesn't dispute the fact that much of the aid is basically for themselves.

The simple truth is that Europe gives out a horribly low amount of aid concerning the worldwide destruction they brought through colonialism. Some of these countries should be giving upwards of 50-75% of their government's income to places they raped. It's sad that they try to hide behind OECD numbers.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Atheus
European countries (not EU countries) like Ukraine deserve the aid more than most. They recently overthrew a non-democratic government in a bloodless revolution and need help to build a new democratic state. This is most certainly a worthy cause.

8 out of the top 10 recipients of European Community aid in terms of development are European countries. None of which are Ukraine, but really only one deserves aid.

In addition, European governments collect more in taxes. Plus, you are only counting one specific aid program and are neglecting any other form of aid, possibly because it would make European countries look worse.