For God, Country, and the RIAA?

From an on-the-job interview with an American member of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad:

"Of course, we are an empire, but we are different. Our empire is not defined by territorial ambitions but by ideas. A lot of ideas, like free trade, like democracy, like copyright laws."

Oh, and Christian prayer in a Muslim palace is "neat" too.

Comments

[Swamp Justice]

Also question why Iraq’s existing copyright laws are being rewritten by the RIAA’s CEO Hilary Rosen.

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/02/02/1415224.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=185&tid=99

[Swamp Justice]

oops, wrong URL. Make that:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html

[Jon H]

If their copyright laws aren’t up to snuff, it makes it difficult to turn Iraq into a destination for outsourced IT jobs…

[Jeff Clothier]

Christ, no wonder the poor Iraqis can’t figure us out. Could this be less coherent?

[Douglas Fletcher]

I thought Hillary Rosen resigned last year.

[Kevin Carson]

If you look at the actual content of that so-called “free trade”–how it differs from the free trade of Cobden (including reliance on an imperial power to impose “copyright laws” on the conquered, and to sell off the conquered’s assets to crony capitalists)–it becomes pretty clear by what “ideas” this empire is defined.

[Jean Bart]

Rome had at least two rivals that were equal to it; China and the Parthian Empire. Indeed, for all its efforts, the Romans could never defeat the Partians in war.

[Jean Bart]

Another error in the article concerns the “vast oil reserves” mentioned; most of the oil that was discovered in the region was discovered after Kitchener bumbled his way into a war in the middle east, not before it. Indeed, to be completely frank, while Britain and France did have designs on the region, they were neither very prominent nor very detailed, and certainly not as conspiratorial as the author seems to imply. Like most of the British and French imperial possessions, the middle east was an empire by accident as much as anything; or rather, it Britain and France came to be involved there due to a series of rather unintended occurrences.

[Alex]

Nothing about steroids?

[Greg]

Copyright laws are not anything the RIAA says: look back to the Founders, who said that in order for the useful arts and sciences to flourish, inventors and artists needed to be able to profit from their creations for a limited period of time. Otherwise you have rampant piracy like in China. So I don’t think the guy in the CPA was defending the heavy-handed tactics of a powerful lobby, just a component of private property.

So it’s a bad thing to turn one room in a former secular dictator’s Xena-princess-decorated palace into an “ecumenical place of prayer”? We know how offensive that is in a country where one large religious sect suffered three decades of persecution by the other.

[Jean Bart]

Greg,

Copyright laws weren’t created by America; indeed, America’s copyright laws have slowly come to look more like the laws created on continental Europe over time.

[joe]

Click on the link. There are much more important aspect to the the story than the throwawy line about copyright law.

I think JAT picked a strange hook to blog about this article.

[LauraN]

Ah, but isn’t it true? Aren’t the mongrels doing a bit better with us holding the leash? Fact is that we don’t use a choke chain and the leash is very very long – and rather frayed. LOL The mongrel can break away any time it likes. But it will probably return to the porch, beaten up by the real world, tough lessons learned, and hungry. And if it bites the hand that feeds it? Mmmm…that is when things get interesting. That is when Mercy comes to bear.

Of course, it’s all just BS. We’re sitting in finery typing in comfort, our own leashes we choose to ignore dangling behind us. It is a different thing to be the mongrel and choosing your master. But I still think I’d choose the butcher over the mortician. LOL

[joe]

I am not running the “Arabs/dogs” metaphor any longer.

Iraq is as violent a place as was under day-to-day Baathism, or very nearly so. There are terrorist bombs killing civilians left and right. And even the current pseudo-Pax Americana is not sustainable. What comes after could prove to be as bad as the suppression of the Shiite uprisings, and much more drawn out.

[LauraN]

Och, the violence in the past was hidden but the people far more repressed. Soon, they’ll weary of dying at the hands of their so-called countrymen and find ways to bring them to light. If they’re smart, they’ll do it in a way that puts the blood on our hands. No problem there. But they are choosing to not bring those terrorists to light. Their choice brings their death.

As for the Pax Americana (gotta love that) – I honestly believe that a majority of the people simply want to do as middle class Americans do – live, love, die. I doubt they’ve anything more in mind. But it requires a large leap – the reach for something outside of the past experience. I think they’ll do it.

I think there will be terrible internecine wars if we leave before they manage to purge each other of the upper echelon troublemakers. If we’re wise we’ll ensure those types are pointed out and taken out. But that’s not something pleasant for the citizenry to consider. It’s logical and wise. But distasteful. But it would do the job.

[LauraN]

Definitely the wrong hook. The entire piece seemed to me a self-congratulatory piece for the author as an anti-capitalist: I am here, this is what I think and what a good boy am I.

Speaking of American fighting forces he notes “Its hegemony in the post-Cold War era goes virtually unchallenged.” Yes. For once our tax dollars are put to their proper use – to ensure we are the top dog in a world of mongrels.

The remainder of the story tries to link historical occupation and our own, link former failures of said occupations and possibly our own. As though the above-noted hegemony would avail us naught. LOL

What is not mentioned at all is the fact that, if we leave before we bring about a stable economy and a form of enterprise, the backwards thinking will have them all squabbling and fighting their ancestral wars amongst themselves until another madman capable of any atrocity steps to the fore.

I don’t know if we can do it – I just believe that it is true. After all, the only thing that has saved any country from such a fate has been individual success multiplied throughout the population. It is Hope that saves men. I think that is what we brought and what we ought to ensure remains when we leave.

[joe]

You can’t have it both ways, Laura. Either military action is about the law of the jungle (top dog in a world of mongrels), or it’s about spreading Hope, Freedom, and Wuv.

Your attempt to smoosh the two together adds up to “those mongrels will be much better off if we’re keeping them in line.” White man’s burden.