Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Nov 2005 17:54 UTC, submitted by sebFlyte
GNU, GPL, Open Source ZDNet has published the second part (part I) of its special report on the use of open source in governments around the world. This time it's looking at what's driving open source takeup in developing markets, with a particularly close look at projects and the driving forces behind them in China, India and Brazil.
Order by: Score:
Brazil
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 19:51 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

It is not only anti-americanism but anti-monopolism and anti-IP. USA, whose economy was based on industry, is basing your economy in "Intelectual Property" (IP) exploration. Microsoft products and proprietary software in general are one the most lucrative IP product.

We, in Brazil and many other countries, saw all our local software industry being aniquilated by predatory competition of big american software corporations like Microsoft. Free software is the only viable strategy to fight this and develop local software industry and consulting companies.

Another important factor is that we know that USA is forcing developing countries to fight piracy using commercial retaliation. These countres have no way to do this because there are no money. They know that it is necessary another viable alternative to don't be retaliated by USA for no fight piracy. American software companies always charge your proprietary software with the same price (in dollars) in every country, even if these prices are abusive when compared with local salaries.

A brazilian (ex)government people, Sergio Amadeu, compared Microsoft to drug dealers, with reason see http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7654).

A stupid and partial prů-Microsoft guy (your website is mantained by MSN and Microsoft) wrote an article atacking free software zealots comparing them with Shi'a palestinian Muslims (in portuguese but you can see the ironic pictures).

I respect USA people but Bush is a stupid monkey. The stupid and suicide Bush acts with other countries is feedbacking anti-US sentiments also. USA has no right to remain with troops in Iraq.

Coca-Cola and Hollywood were changed by Microsoft and McDonald's as symbols of american imperialism. It is natural, therefore, that Microsoft is not seen good by governments of other countries.

Excuse my english because it is not my native language. Americans should effort to learn another languages too. This ignorance of the rest of the world contribute to anti-US sentiments.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Brazil
by Bitterman on Mon 14th Nov 2005 20:07 UTC in reply to "Brazil"
Bitterman Member since:
2005-07-06

Americans should effort to learn another languages too. This ignorance of the rest of the world contribute to anti-US sentiments.

I'm half portuguese by blood, you speak that language in brazil for a reason. When portuguese language controls much of how the world works let me know and i'll learn it better. until then i wont be forced to learn everyones language just cause someone thinks im an arrogant american.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Brazil
by Esaltato on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
Esaltato Member since:
2005-07-07

It can be fun/useful to learn others' languages, not only the anglosaxons', which is the predominant one.
I for one think English is a quite ugly language, purtuguese is much nicer.
There is one nice thought on English killing the rest of the world's languages by Tolkien, yes the "ring" guy:
"Col. Knox says 1/8 of the world's population speaks 'English', and that is the biggest language group. If true, damn shame -- say I. May the curse of Babel strike all their tongues till they can only say 'baa baa'. It would mean much the same. I think I shall have to refuse to speak anything but Old Mercian".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Brazil
by joelito_pr on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

Then People should at least learn Spanish and Mandarin Chinese because those are the two most spoken languages in this world(according to the CIA with English comming in third)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Brazil
by intangible on Tue 15th Nov 2005 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Brazil"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Most widely spoken by the numbers I would understand, but how about geographically widespread? You'd be hard-pressed to find a location in there world where you couldn't find someone who speaks a little English. Try finding a Mandarin Chinese speaking person in the more isolated places in Australia, Brazil, Africa, United States, etc. Now Spanish on the other-hand...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Brazil
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 15th Nov 2005 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Brazil"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Look closely... Mandarin is most widely spoken *first* language. The current global predominance of the English language isn't a consequence of the number of its native speakers, but arises instead as a result of the number of English speakers for whom it is a second (or third or fourth) language.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Brazil
by Smartpatrol on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:06 UTC in reply to "Brazil"
RE[2]: Brazil
by dr_gonzo on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Its called a free market economy! you know capitalism?"

What point are you trying to make here? Is the Brazilian market embracing OSS instead of closed source software not free market too? Just because a market force is not driving the way a US Government/Company wants it to, doesn't make it any less free.

Why does Chavez need to go?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Brazil
by archiesteel on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Tsk tsk. This line of thinking is exactly why the U.S. is so much disliked in the rest of the world, and increasingly in South America.

Chavez may not be perfect, but he represents South America's desire to stop being the U.S. "backyard", as originally set by the Monroe doctrine. Chavez is basically taking up to the torch of being a thorn in Uncle Sam's side from Castro, with the exception that in his case his country is rich in Oil.

Chavez has already survived a coup attempt that is widely believed to have been supported by the U.S., which shows that Washington only believes in democracy when it suits its national interests. (By the way, the manner in which he survived the coup shows how brillant a man he really is.)

The fact is that South America is not moving towards communism, but rather towards true independence from U.S. hegemony and a mixed economy. After all, the U.S. has tried to force "pure" capitalism (which is not even what you'll find in the U.S. itself) unto its client nations in order to serve its own interests. It's well past time that South America asserted its economic independence.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Brazil
by morgoth on Tue 15th Nov 2005 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Brazil"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "which shows that Washington only believes in democracy when it suits its national interests."

You are ABSOLUTELY correct in this assumption.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Brazil
by Soulbender on Tue 15th Nov 2005 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Its called a free market economy! you know capitalism?"
Supporting your local companies isn't communism.

"What is the world coming to when a buffoon like Hugo Chavez can become the leader of a coutry."
I dunno, with guys like Reagan and Dubya why dont you tell us?

"Say what you want about Bush but Hugo needs to GoGo."
Why? How is this the US' problem?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Brazil
by RGCook on Tue 15th Nov 2005 00:57 UTC in reply to "Brazil"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

You want our stuff and yet you condemn us for not being able to afford it. Perhaps if the OSS solutions were all they were made out to me, you wouldn't even have to show your political bias, by talking about Iraq.

As to the analogy between MS and drug dealers, I think the real addiction has more to do with wanting to use superior software, but being frustrated by an inability to do so.

You don't have to upgrade or be held hostage. I, like you, do not like the monopolistic situation. But the fact is, you can either bitch and moan and raise unrelated points to show your bias, or you can take productive action and work to make OSS better and truly viable.

BTW, we adopted our language from England. So you can't blame us for that too.

With tongue in cheek and all due respect to the people of Brazil,

Bob

Reply Score: 0

RE: Brazil
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 15th Nov 2005 15:28 UTC in reply to "Brazil"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"Excuse my english because it is not my native language. Americans should effort to learn another languages too."

I don't disagree with that statement, but the more extreme forms of it that accuse Americans of arrogance for not knowing a second language piss me off.

It is not possible to learn a second language satisfactorily without speaking and listening to native speakers. In Europe, you drive a couple hours and you are in a country with a different language. You get TV signals from different language areas and have frequent contact with native speakers of other tongues. I think it escapes you sometimes how large the US is geographically. I would have to drive for several days straight to get to Mexico. Barring that, Everywhere I could go is English speaking.

People just don't have the opportunity to practice a second language. They don't have the need either. Allmost no one they will encounter will speak anything but English (with the exception of Spanish speaking immigrants, which is why many people here do learn Spanish). When one does encounter a foreign speaker, he/she almost always insists on using English (with the blessed exception of the French ;) ).

I was at one time fluent in German, but it has been 3 years since I lived there and my ability is rapidly going down the tubes. This is not because I am arrogant, it is because opportunities to speak with Germans come very infrequently. I can't hop on the train for a weekend in Hannover to polish up my language skills.

So congratulations to all of you who learn many languages out of necessity, to speak with your neighbors. It's a little more homogeneous here, creating neither the need, nor the necessity to pick up a second or third tongue. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Brazil
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Brazil"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Uhmmm...more excuses, huh?

Accidentally, I think I've never spoken to native English speaker. Accidentally, that's also the only foreign language in which I'm not that bad... (and it's not used in any of neighbouring countries). Accidentally, I have no English TV or Radio except from satellite. Accidentally, you can watch TV in my language via staellite. Accidentally, in US alone lives few million people speking my language fluently, a lot of them in Michigan for example.
Now...what were you saying?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Brazil
by rcsteiner on Tue 15th Nov 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Brazil"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

When I lived in Minnesota, the only folks I had much change of encountering who didn't speak English fairly well were the few thousand Hmong, Somali, and Russian immigrants living in the Twin Cities.

I never encountered western European languages.

As the previous poster said, there isn't much incentive to learn other languages if there isn't any local exposure to them. I've forgotten most of what little Spanish and German I learned in high school and college through lack of usage because I've rarely had a chance to use them!

Also, remember that the US has almost 300 million people. A few million people speaking your language would be less than one percent even if they were evenly distributed, which they aren't, and even places like Michigan (in the center of the US) are almost 1000 miles away from places like Minnesota (which is also in the center of the US). The US is a *big* place.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Brazil
by Sphinx on Tue 15th Nov 2005 19:43 UTC in reply to "Brazil"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Hmmph, and all this time I thought they hated us because we've turned into a theocratic bunch of war mongering imperialist pigs led by the idiot dunce with little concern, respect or understanding of the rest of the world or anybody in it. Almost all of us over 30 speak more than one language, (not including Canadian), was an educational requirement in secondary school during the 60's and 70's to pass either spanish or french.

Reply Score: 1

Its true
by Bitterman on Mon 14th Nov 2005 20:01 UTC
Bitterman
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think ppl want some pride too. People are tired of things coming out of America they want to think they can do better. This is why Governments back thier own linux distros like France, Germany, China haven't they all put a stake in thier local versions? This is certainly something Red Hat deals with. In many cases its the best choice but its not chosen for some reason and sometimes can go as far as being straight hated.

OSS is OSS guys. As long as the country's political opinions stay clear of the product whats the problem.

Reply Score: 1

Nice article, pity about the title
by dr_gonzo on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:04 UTC
dr_gonzo
Member since:
2005-07-06

I was expecting some crazy rant about how anybody that uses free/libre software is a stinking commie. The article was pretty good though. I suppose the web site has to drum up advertising revenue so it needs more hits. A title like that is bound to make people read it.

I hate that phrase, it doesn't mean anything.

Reply Score: 1

Ignorance
by Smartpatrol on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:11 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

I respect USA people but Bush is a stupid monkey. The stupid and suicide Bush acts with other countries is feedbacking anti-US sentiments also. USA has no right to remain with troops in Iraq.

As soon as Brazil takes over securing human rights and god given freedoms in the world then I am sure America will be happy to move their troops from Iraq.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ignorance
by dr_gonzo on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:24 UTC in reply to "Ignorance"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

If America is "securing human rights and god given freedoms in the world" which your comment implies, then why is it supporting various regimes (Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Turkey etc. etc." throughout the world that flout human rights and why is it holding innocent people in various places around the world like Guantanamo Bay?

I'm not into name calling but when people spout off with such self righteousness and hypocrisy, I have to speak up.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ignorance
by archiesteel on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:07 UTC in reply to "Ignorance"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, the good thing about Bush (from a non-American point of view) is that through his incompetent unilateralism he has severely reduced the U.S.'s influence on world affairs.

Right-wingers in the States have this strange notion that having the world's largest military somehow gives their country the right to act unilaterally, without giving a damn about how other nations feel about the issues.

Even with Canada, the U.S. biggest trading partner, the Bush administration's arrogance has severly damaged economic relations. The fact that the U.S. is basically reneging on NAFTA about softwood lumber tariffs sends a very bad message to all its economic partners, i.e. that it cannot be trusted to honor its own word.

It's time for the U.S. to learn some humility and earn back the respect of its friends, otherwise it will truly be isolated, which would have dire consequences for its economy.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ignorance
by Smartpatrol on Tue 15th Nov 2005 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Ignorance"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the good thing about Bush (from a non-American point of view) is that through his incompetent unilateralism he has severely reduced the U.S.'s influence on world affairs

If you believe that then you are trully living in your own fantasy world.

Right-wingers in the States have this strange notion that having the world's largest military somehow gives their country the right to act unilaterally, without giving a damn about how other nations feel about the issues.

Huh? Right only republicans voted to commence hostilities in this last bout. Oh youíre talking about the countries that had in the mid nineties conducted behind closed doors deals to develop Iraqi oil at the same time screaming about removing sanctions on Iraq so that they could start this in motion. Despite the fact Iraq had still not complied with the terms of surrender he agreed to during the end of hostilities after the first gulf war. Lets see I believe those countries were France and Germany imagine that!

Even with Canada, the U.S. biggest trading partner, the Bush administration's arrogance has severly damaged economic relations. The fact that the U.S. is basically reneging on NAFTA about softwood lumber tariffs sends a very bad message to all its economic partners, i.e. that it cannot be trusted to honor its own word.


Donít know much about that really and frankly I donít care. I do know that this is one small issue when it comes to NAFTA since Canada makes alot of the cars we buy.

It's time for the U.S. to learn some humility and earn back the respect of its friends, otherwise it will truly be isolated, which would have dire consequences for its economy.

LOL that is hilarious statement! Are you aware of how many global economies are dependent on US consumers? How many countries are dependent on the protection of our military including Canada? You view of global power politics is extremely limited. I suggest your first read some history books older then 2001 and try and get out some maybe visit more then one city in America.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ignorance
by archiesteel on Tue 15th Nov 2005 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ignorance"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

If you believe that then you are trully living in your own fantasy world.

If you can't realize that what I say is true, then you've drunk too much Kool-Aid.

Ways in which America is weaker than it was before Bush:

a) Its military is stretched out in the Iraq quagmire, with enlistment at record lows and morale being a serious issue

b) Soured relations with long-time allies, the latest casualty being Britain with Tony Blair losing a vote because his own party members are abandoning him over Iraq

c) General increase in anti-American sentiment abroad, in allied countries as well as the Middle East

d) A highly polarized citizenry, with Conservatives being drunk with power antagonizing the moderate majority

e) Gas prices rising

f) Trade deficit increasing

g) US dollar losing ground to Euro

Huh? Right only republicans voted to commence hostilities in this last bout.

I'm not talking about Iraq here, I'm making a general comment. So I'll just ignore the rest of your right-wing talking points.

Donít know much about that really and frankly I donít care. I do know that this is one small issue when it comes to NAFTA since Canada makes alot of the cars we buy.

5 billion dollars may not be a big issue to you, but it is to us. Perhaps we'll just increase our oil prices in order to recoup the money you owe us, eh?

LOL that is hilarious statement! Are you aware of how many global economies are dependent on US consumers?

Economics is a two way street. If an economy depends on the US, then the US depends on that economy as well. You can't sell if there's no one to buy from, and you can't buy if there is no one to sell to. For a conservative, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how economics work (something that's far too common, unfortunately).

How many countries are dependent on the protection of our military including Canada?

Really? Protection from whom? Martians?

Your military can't even handle small countries like Iraq or Vietnam, we're not counting on your protection for anything. We've got enough guns to defend ourselves if need be. Not to mention we have a very powerful ally on our side: winter. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler how easy it is to invade a country like ours.

You view of global power politics is extremely limited.

No, your view of international politics is extremely limited. I read Le Monde, the International Herald Tribune, the Economist, le Courrier International, Ha'aretz, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Times and Le Monde Diplomatique on a regular basis. Try watching something else than Fox once in a while...

I suggest your first read some history books older then 2001 and try and get out some maybe visit more then one city in America.

I'm a history major. I probably know more about the history of your own country than you do.

I regularly go to L.A. for work. I've been to Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, San Francisco, New York, Vermont, Maine and Florida (many cities in those last three states). That's in addition to visiting France, Italy, Switzerland, Morocco, India, Nepal and Cuba.

Where have you been?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ignorance
by Smartpatrol on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ignorance"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06


a) Its military is stretched out in the Iraq quagmire, with enlistment at record lows and morale being a serious issue


Quagmire? and i am the one crinking the Kool-aid? LOL. The enlisment is low becasue its a natural process of weeding out the Sunshine soldiers(the ones that join up just for the college money) this is not because people do not believe in our efforts its becasue of people saying "Oh wow i might have to go to war and i could possibly die?" Alot of those sunshine soldiers left the military before this all started. I know becasue i served in the military with those panty waists.


b) Soured relations with long-time allies, the latest casualty being Britain with Tony Blair losing a vote because his own party members are abandoning him over Iraq


Allies in what? Our so called allies have never been tested in the past this latest bout weeded out the true allies and those that have ulterior motives. Those that stood the test were countries like Finland, Britain, Japan and Turkey. Those fair weather friends were countries like Spain, Canada, Italy, France, and Germany the later two acting more like enemies then being friends that disagree like Turkey did.


c) General increase in anti-American sentiment abroad, in allied countries as well as the Middle East


No one likes the top dog thats a fact they loved us when we protected the free world from the Soviets. Its just trendy to hate the USA. Ultimately this is not a popularity contest. As an American i can care less what the Germans or the Idiot French think of us.


d) A highly polarized citizenry, with Conservatives being drunk with power antagonizing the moderate majority


A citenzery that overwhelmingly elected a conservative governemnt House, Senate and President. Your fantasy of abuse of power, as much as you leftists would like it to exist simply doesn't.


e) Gas prices rising


Wait a minute wasn't the same leftist yelling about how we invaded Iraq for their oil and that we were importing all this cheap oil from iraq blah blah? Where is it? i haven't seen it. Oh I thought according to you lefties Bush was in bed with big corporate America seems like he could have made a deal with his Oil Company buddies to bring the price of gas down?. Not to mention last time I checked the US was a free market economy where supply and demand dictates the prices of petroleum among many other commodities not the president of the country.


f) Trade deficit increasing


As it has with every president based on what the markets are doing. Balming this on Bush is like saying Bush had something to do with the Trade Towers..oops you people believe that lie too.


g) US dollar losing ground to Euro


Doesn't affect America as much as it affects Europe. Either way i can't see where bush is responsible for this.

5 billion dollars may not be a big issue to you, but it is to us. Perhaps we'll just increase our oil prices in order to recoup the money you owe us, eh?

Perhaps we should close our northern border and let your economy rot.

Economics is a two way street. If an economy depends on the US, then the US depends on that economy as well. You can't sell if there's no one to buy from, and you can't buy if there is no one to sell to. For a conservative, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how economics work (something that's far too common, unfortunately).

No i have an acute undertanding of economics. America is the largest consumer economy on the planet. We are more then capable of providing products domestically like we have in the past. Not to mention we are the mecha for technology something the world craves and can't get other places.

Really? Protection from whom? Martians?

Your military can't even handle small countries like Iraq or Vietnam, we're not counting on your protection for anything. We've got enough guns to defend ourselves if need be. Not to mention we have a very powerful ally on our side: winter. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler how easy it is to invade a country like ours.


LOL True no one considers Canada a threat becasue even a gang anarchists gays with parka's can take Canada over in a weekend.

No, your view of international politics is extremely limited. I read Le Monde, the International Herald Tribune, the Economist, le Courrier International, Ha'aretz, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Times and Le Monde Diplomatique on a regular basis. Try watching something else than Fox once in a while...

Most of the publication you listed are bias towards your liberal ideology it doesn't impress me any. Your simple mindedness is expected you swallow the stereotypes which indicates to me that you are not an original thinker but one of the mindless liberal sheep that spouts the ideological line on command. Perhaps you should take your own advice and try watching FOX sometimes.

I'm a history major. I probably know more about the history of your own country than you do.

OoooOo! Evidentially you did not comprehend what you studied. You got the liberal version of history no doubt and believe it without question. Sure you are good at spouting out Historical facts and probably rule Trivial Pursuit when it come to history but itís obvious you have no idea what it all means. This is a common symptom with college educated people no original thought process unimpressive.

I regularly go to L.A. for work. I've been to Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, San Francisco, New York, Vermont, Maine and Florida (many cities in those last three states). That's in addition to visiting France, Italy, Switzerland, Morocco, India, Nepal and Cuba.

Where have you been?


Since you asked I have been in every single state west of the Mississippi and a few on the other side of the river. Countries I have visited or lived in: Canada (Have family there who are snobs much like you), Mexico, Germany (Lived there Immediate family there), Austria, Switzerland (have immediate family there) Italy, Lichtenstein (Drove through it almost missed it), Denmark and Kuwait (lived there for a year) what do I win?

Ultimately the liberal ideology has been proven bankrupt of ideas and void as away of life time and time again throughout history. The real world, human nature and the basic desire to be free always trumps liberalism (Socialism) as a means of government. It is a dream that exist old at the mercy of a polite society. You will probably never understand this but I will hope one day you might.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Ignorance
by archiesteel on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ignorance"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Perhaps we should close our northern border and let your economy rot.

You wish you could, but you can't. You need our oil.

No i have an acute undertanding of economics.

Anyone reading your posts can clearly see that the reverse is true.

America is the largest consumer economy on the planet. We are more then capable of providing products domestically like we have in the past.

You mean before you abandoned your manufacturing sector to the Chinese? Riiiiiight!

Most of the publication you listed are bias towards your liberal ideology it doesn't impress me any.

Yeah, right, the WSJ, the Economist and the London Times are liberal...

Stop it, you're just embarassing yourself.

Let me use your own words: your simple mindedness is expected you swallow the stereotypes which indicates to me that you are not an original thinker but one of the mindless conservative sheep that spouts the ideological line on command.

I have watched FOX. It is nothing but propaganda. At least your brain is squeaky clean.

This is a common symptom with college educated people no original thought process unimpressive.

Typical redneck nonsense. When faced with facts, express doubts in education.

Please re-enlist and go back to Iraq as soon as possible. Darwin wants you to.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ignorance
by Christiaan on Tue 15th Nov 2005 00:30 UTC in reply to "Ignorance"
Christiaan Member since:
2005-11-15

Smartpatrol it's dipshits like you, blindly believing dumbass shit like this contrary to all the massive evidence, who truly give U.S. Americans a bad name. If you choose to be so ignorant do the rest of us a favour and just STFU.

Reply Score: 0

v @ Bitterman
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:15 UTC
RE: @ Bitterman
by dr_gonzo on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:28 UTC in reply to "@ Bitterman"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

How can a language be civilised or uncivilised?!?!

All languages are influenced by others. I suppose English may be more so because it has been brought into contact with so many other languages.

Anyway, I think Russian and Italian are the nicest sounding languages ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: @ Bitterman
by jack_perry on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE: @ Bitterman"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

How can a language be civilised or uncivilised?!?!

Personally, I think that the more guttural a language is, the more uncivilized it is. However, that's purely aesthetic, and reflects my preference for Italian.

As for Russian... I don't understand how they can pronounce half those words! It should be illegal to assemble consonants together like this: vststv

I'll admit that it sounds beautiful when Russians pronounce it.

Edited 2005-11-14 21:40

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: @ Bitterman
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @ Bitterman"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, try this:

Chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie w Szczebrzeszynie


;P

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: @ Bitterman
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE: @ Bitterman"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps if it's a bit primitive/not sophisticated? :>

The worse in that regard is Swedish I guess...many, many things are simply impossible to translate in reasonably comparable style from my language (Polish). A big problem for translators of poetry ;)

English is better, but still...

Reply Score: 1

USA in Iraq
by jack_perry on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:38 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

USA has no right to remain with troops in Iraq.

The UN's Security Council would seem to disagree with you. Several resolutions refer explicitly to the United States as if its troops should be in Iraq; for example, paragraphs 13-15 of Resolution 1546 asks member states to contribute to the multinational force in Iraq. See http://www.uniraq.org/

Incidentally, as an American, I speak and/or read with varying degrees of fluency English, Italian, Latin, Spanish, Russian, and occasionally even Esperanto. I hold a passport which has been stamped by several countries, and I do not relish the thought that there are billions of poor people in the world who can't afford Microsoft Windows.

Of course, I find that a little less troubling than the fact that they can't afford a decent meal, either, which is why, like most Americans, I give a relatively large proportion of my income to charities that, well, feed the poor. Ah, but my capital crime must be that these charities usually do so with American-grown corn and grain.

Reply Score: 1

RE: USA in Iraq
by chemical_scum on Tue 15th Nov 2005 01:05 UTC in reply to "USA in Iraq"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

Well Professor Perry as someone so cosmopolitan and well travelled you are no doubt aware the majority of people around the world despise the US and its aggressive and imperialist government, even though they generally like individual americans. They are appalled at its double standards and its fake democracy (nearly a majority of US voters don't vote because they have lost faith in the system).

The original US invasion of Iraq (supported by its snivelling little puppets Bliar and Howard) was definitely illegal under international law and without UN support. It was justified by claims that have now been shown to be nothing more than a tissue of lies. The fact that the US now may have bought sufficient support (the way corporations buy politicians inside the US) in the UN to give a limited acceptance of its fait accompli, still does not alter the initial illegality of a war of aggression (it does not matter if Saddam was a "nice man" or not).

Everyone outside the USA knows that the US is only there to secure the second largest oil reserves in the world and install military bases to strategically dominate the biggest oil producing region.

Finally, yes the poor in what we used to call the third world need more than charity and dependance. They need economic development. Not economic development that only benefits the multinational corporations and a local elite, but development the brings forward the living conditions of the mass of ordinary people. Strangely enough that seems to be something the US goverment and it's corporate backers are determined never to allow.

Edited 2005-11-15 01:18

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: USA in Iraq
by morgoth on Tue 15th Nov 2005 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE: USA in Iraq"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "The original US invasion of Iraq (supported by its snivelling little puppets Bliar and Howard) was definitely illegal under international law and without UN support. It was justified by claims that have now been shown to be nothing more than a tissue of lies. The fact that the US now may have bought sufficient support (the way corporations buy politicians inside the US) in the UN to give a limited acceptance of its fait accompli, still does not alter the initial illegality of a war of aggression (it does not matter if Saddam was a "nice man" or not)."

Again, totally correct. It's nice to see so many posters hitting the nail on the head!

Quote: "Everyone outside the USA knows that the US is only there to secure the second largest oil reserves in the world and install military bases to strategically dominate the biggest oil producing region. "

Again, correct.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Re: USA in Iraq
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:54 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

Everybody knows that UN is heavily influenced (by power and money) by USA. OK, Sadam Hussein was a bad dictator but USA sholdn't bomb Iraq, killing many innocent civilians. And after destroy many buildings, american companies were contracted to recontruct Iraq, with public money (or oil) of Iraq.

Iraquians didn't love Sadam but they also didn't love the american "cirurgic" (maybe lobotomic) bombs killing civilians.

Mr. Bush is seen by people of my country as a fool and weak monkey

http://www.aquilaarts.com/bushmonkey.html

who is using Sadam & Bin Laden as excuses to invade Iraq and steal Iraq's oil to satisfy american people with your cheap oil to power your big cars.

Reply Score: 0

Barbarian roots of english
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 21:58 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

Well, see the barbarian roots of modern english language

http://www.rswarren.com/articles/writing_barbarian_english.php

The English language is a linguistic train wreck, a collage of historical influences, dating back to the 5th century invasion of Celtic England by barbarian Germanic tribes. These peoples, known today as the Anglo-Saxons, dominated the native Celts and spoke simple and emotional dialects that today form the core of the modern English language. The most commonly used English words today are direct descendants of their languages, some barely changed in 1500 years.

As Christianity spread to England, Latin and Greek words were added to the language by the Church; even more Latin was added five hundred years later during the French Norman conquest of England.

While modern English has been influenced by virtually every culture on the globe, the foundation of the language still mainly consists of the uneasy coexistence of these two historical branches, Anglo-Saxon and (mainly French) Latin. Understanding this relationship is the key to understanding the English language.

The two bear striking differences. Latinate words are longer, more precise, more abstract and more intellectual. They were the words of scholars, historians, church elders, and scientists - words meant not to express simple emotion, but to precisely convey a specific idea to an educated mind. They require time for thought and reflection. Latinates are complex words, created by complex civilizations - ancient Greece and Rome.

By contrast, the barbarian Anglo-Saxon words are very short, usually no more than two syllables. They're emotional and direct, the words of combat and passion, sex and death, love and hate, pain and pleasure. They're dramatic and simple. There is no room for subtlety in the language of a people adapted to living hard and dying harder.

Most of the English language is either Anglo or Latinate, and knowing how to tell the difference between the two - and how to use them effectively - will immediately improve the quality of your writing tenfold.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Barbarian roots of english
by archiesteel on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:21 UTC in reply to "Barbarian roots of english"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I understand that you are critical of the US's foreign policy - any non-american in their right mind should be - however I think you attacks on the English language are unfair.

Far from being a defect, English's "bastard" roots are in fact one of its strength. It makes the language very adaptable and very healthy. This is why English has 5 times as many words as my own native tongue (French). It is the ideal language for international communications, and shouldn't be seen as an instrument of US hegemony.

In fact, English was instrumental in India's quest for Independence from the British crown. The various people of India used English to communicate together (there are over 100 languages and dialects in India) and organize their Independence movement.

It's okay to have a lingua franca to communicate amongst ourselves. It only becomes a problem when this language becomes a tool for cultural imperialism. That, however, is not the fault of the language itself, but rather of the cultural policies of the dominant superpower. Fortunately, the U.S. was recently rebuked at the U.N. on the protection of cultural industries in other countries.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Barbarian roots of english
by morgoth on Tue 15th Nov 2005 02:36 UTC in reply to "Barbarian roots of english"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

English is a bastard language, and in fact is called a "Germanic language" as many of the root words are Germanic in origin. Ask anyone who speaks both English and German, and they'll tell you that many words are very very similar. Let me see...

vater - father
tochter - daughter
haus - house
brot - bread

That's just a few simple words. English also has sizeable influences from french, latin, some greek, some celtic (pre Anglo Saxon invasion), as well as Arabic and most probably a word or two from other languages. I don't speak any latin languages (well, other than a few swear words in Portuguese).

If you want a really nice language, try Gaelige :-) All the nice words that you just don't know how the hell to pronounce ;-) it's an elegant language, with very precise rules.

Go raibh maith agat.

Dave

Reply Score: 0

Guantanamo
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:04 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

As soon as Brazil takes over securing human rights and god given freedoms in the world then I am sure America will be happy to move their troops from Iraq.

OK, shall we learn from Guantanamo's experience

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0823-03.htm

?

Or death penalty of poor and black americans in south of USA

http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/prisonguide.htm

?

Reply Score: 3

Chavez, Venezuela and Oil
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:12 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

Chavez is now a USA enemy like was Sadam, Bin Laden and everybody who don wont sell oil to USA for a (low) price dictated unilaterally by USA. This is the true reason of Iraq invasion and, probably, another military dictator sponsored by CIA to become president of Venezuela.

Venezuela is member of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries)

http://www.opec.org/aboutus/member%20countries/venezuela.htm

It is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world, and supplies about 13% of daily oil imports into the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2549589.stm

Reply Score: 2

Anti-Americanism
by Jody on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:16 UTC
Jody
Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, as both a tax payer, and someone that served (6 years) in the Military, I would love for some other nation to increase their military spending by several billion a year and volunteer to be the new enforcer of UN policy.

If you don't like the foreign policy of the US, you are welcome to write your government and request they impose an immediate additional 10 - 15% tax for military spending so that your country can also carry out thankless missions like having thousands of troops acting as a buffer between North and South Korea till forever.

Or you can spend trillions of dollars on a highly mobile military force so you can be quick response when some imperialistic nation decides to invade some little country that does not have the resources to defend itself.

You spend your 10 - 15%, and I will save mine.

I am not going to say I agree with (or respect) the bush administration (BTW I am Libertarian). But if you don't like the way the US is handling things, you can start by having your government pick up some of the smaller UN peace keeping missions so they are not handled by the US. If your government is not interested join the French Foreign Legion or something, just don't armchair quarterback the US.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Anti-Americanism
by archiesteel on Mon 14th Nov 2005 22:30 UTC in reply to "Anti-Americanism"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, as both a tax payer, and someone that served (6 years) in the Military, I would love for some other nation to increase their military spending by several billion a year and volunteer to be the new enforcer of UN policy.

Well, the problem is that the U.S. isn't (and shouldn't be) the enforcer of UN policy. In fact, Kosovo and Somalia aside, the only time the U.S. enforces UN policy militarily is when its own national interests are involved - which is why it unilaterally invaded Iraq despite opposition from the UN (claiming that the UN resolutions gave it that right, when the UN itself disagreed with this interpretation).

The U.S. could start by giving the UN the money it owes it so that the UN could in fact finance its own peacekeeping operations. However, it's no secret that the U.S. doesn't want the UN to be an effective, working body - for starters, it only recognizes the UN's authority when it suits its interests (case in point, its refusal to support the ICC), and there's no way that it would ever let an international body interfere with its own hegemony, which it sees as the legitimate perks of being the world's last superpower.

If the US really was into enforcing UN regulations and upholding human rights, don't you think it would have done something to prevent the Rwanda genocide? Or the East Timor genocide? Don't you think it would support the Kurd's self-determination efforts? How about honoring UN resolutions against Israel?

Make no mistake, there is only ONE thing that matters to the U.S.: its own national interests. Not democracy, not justice, not peace. Sad but true.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Anti-Americanism
by Jody on Mon 14th Nov 2005 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti-Americanism"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

the US really was into enforcing UN regulations and upholding human rights, don't you think it would have done something to prevent the Rwanda genocide?

AFAIK, it was the UN that could shouldered Rwanda. The US didn't get involved because of what happened in Somolia. Also, this is a good example to point out what I am trying to say.

Everyone wants to blame the US for Rwanda but where the hell was everyone ELSE? You don't need 200,000 troops to do a peace keeping mission in Rwanda, so why is it automatically the responisbility of the US?

Everyone hates the way the US handles things, Rwanda would have been a perfect mission for some other country to show the US how they sould be doing things but they didn't did they. Nobody did anything.

If the US gets involved people say they didn't handle things correctly and should have never gotten involved, when the US does not get involved people say what happened is the fault of the US for not getting involved.

Small UN peace keeping missions come up all the time, people don't have to be Monday morning quarterbacks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti-Americanism
by archiesteel on Tue 15th Nov 2005 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-Americanism"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The US didn't get involved because of what happened in Somolia

I fail to see how the two are related, except for the fact that they're both African countries. Apart from that, the two situations had virtually nothing in common.

Everyone wants to blame the US for Rwanda but where the hell was everyone ELSE?

You misunderstood me. I didn't say that Rwanda was the fault of the US. However, you can't go around claiming that the US is the world's peacekeeper and not recognize that in this case they did nothing.

In fact, what I'm saying is that the US shouldn't be the world's police. That job should involve a multilateral force. You, on the other had, seem to indicate that no one else can do the job, but at the same time you refuse to recognize that - if what you said was true - then the US should in fact have intervened in Rwanda.

You don't need 200,000 troops to do a peace keeping mission in Rwanda, so why is it automatically the responisbility of the US?

Actually, it would have taken a lot of troops on the ground to prevent the genocide. Probably not 200,000, but a lot more than what was there. Also, the UN needed a clearer mandate in that case. The US (along with other members of the security council, such as France and England) should have taken this more seriously. They didn't.

So it's quite simple: either the US is the world's police, as you seemed to indicate in your original post, in which case it dropped the ball in Rwanda and East Timor, or the U.S. is a participant like any others, and therefore does not deserve the glorious role you attribute to it. Which is it?

Everyone hates the way the US handles things, Rwanda would have been a perfect mission for some other country to show the US how they sould be doing things but they didn't did they.

This is very immature way to look at it. We're not talking about teenage girls here, but powerful nations. A lot of countries are to blame for what happened in Rwanda, the U.S. is among them. But to bring this all down to a matter of spite between the U.S. and "rival peacekeepers" shows a profound lack of respect for the hundreds of thousands of people killed.

If the US gets involved people say they didn't handle things correctly and should have never gotten involved, when the US does not get involved people say what happened is the fault of the US for not getting involved.

That's a gross oversimplification, and in fact it's simply not true. No one said that the U.S. should not have gotten involved in WWII. Few people from outside the U.S. were critical of its interventions in Somalia and Kosovo (the main critics were anti-Clinton Republicans in the U.S.).

Again, you're taking a very immature approach towards this. It reminds me of Cartman saying "Screw you guys, I'm going home." That's not a sensible way of conducting international politics...

Small UN peace keeping missions come up all the time, people don't have to be Monday morning quarterbacks.

Consider this:

"As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 US personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers. As commander-in-chief, the President of the United States never gives up command authority over US troops."

So not only are there very few american soldiers as part of peacekeeping missions, the U.S. will refuse to allow them to be under the command of another country, even long-time allies such as Canada or the U.K. The U.S. is the only country to be allowed this privilege.

Grantend, the U.S. foots about 25% of the bill of peacekeeping missions, and that contribution should not be diminished. However, the U.S. is also notorious for not paying its dues to the U.N. in the past.

If one was to rate the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping, one would have to say "passable." It's not bad, but it's not the glorious "if we don't do it no one will" effort you want to portray.

I don't blame you, however, since this overhyped american role in peacekeeping is part of official U.S. propaganda. I do suggest that you read up on this issue a little more before commenting on it, however.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Anti-Americanism
by Jody on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anti-Americanism"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

"I fail to see how the two are related, except for the fact that they're both African countries."

The Battle of Mogadishu was only a year prior to the Rwandan Genocide, Clintons advisors warned against getting involved fearing another Somalia. Wikipedia it.

"However, you can't go around claiming that the US is the world's peacekeeper and not recognize that in this case they did nothing."

The US is not the "world's peacekeeper" but you can't deny they are generally very involved.


"So it's quite simple: either the US is the world's police, as you seemed to indicate in your original post, in which case it dropped the ball in Rwanda and East Timor, or the U.S. is a participant like any others, and therefore does not deserve the glorious role you attribute to it. Which is it?"

No, it is't that simple. It isn't the job of the US to be all things to all people. In my opinion, they need to scale back overseas operations and begin to transfer some of the responsibility and control to other nations.

The problem with that is every wants to talk about what the US is doing wrong but nobody wants to shut up and take over responsibility.

"["Everyone hates the way the US handles things, Rwanda would have been a perfect mission for some other country to show the US how they should be doing things but they didn't did they."]

This is very immature way to look at it. We're not talking about teenage girls here, but powerful nations. A lot of countries are to blame for what happened in Rwanda, the U.S. is among them. But to bring this all down to a matter of spite between the U.S. and "rival peacekeepers" shows a profound lack of respect for the hundreds of thousands of people killed."


It may be an immature view, but it still does not hide the fact the US did nothing and nobody else seemed to demonstrate they are able to handle some of the responsibility. Since you are so vocal about the lack of US participation, how many people did your country send to Rwanda?

"If one was to rate the U.S. contribution to peacekeeping, one would have to say "passable."

Good, we can send the troops home and cut hundreds of billions of dollars off the budget tomorrow then. Your country (your taxes) can come up with the trillions of dollars to take over what the US is doing today, and we will disband our military because if someone threatens to invade us, you can send your troops to stand in their way.

Thank you so much for giving me back 20% of my income, it's been good talking to you.

PS. You can start with North Korea, have at it.

Edited 2005-11-15 04:11

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Anti-Americanism
by archiesteel on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Anti-Americanism"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The Battle of Mogadishu was only a year prior to the Rwandan Genocide, Clintons advisors warned against getting involved fearing another Somalia. Wikipedia it.

I know the particulars, but the fact is that the two situations were quite different - the main difference being that a genocide took place in Rwanda, while in Somalia it was civil war.

The US is not the "world's peacekeeper" but you can't deny they are generally very involved.

Financially, yes. Militarily, no. Kosovo and Somalia aside, the U.S. only gets involved militarily when its interests are at stake, and only rarely under the U.N. banner.

It may be an immature view, but it still does not hide the fact the US did nothing and nobody else seemed to demonstrate they are able to handle some of the responsibility.

Well, that's because other countries want to go through the U.N. instead of acting outside of it (like the U.S. in Iraq). The problem is that the U.S. seeks to cripple the U.N. every chance it gets, not accepting any challenge to its hegemony.

Since you are so vocal about the lack of US participation, how many people did your country send to Rwanda?

Exactly one omre than the US did.

Just so you know, Canada soldiers have participated in more peacekeeping missions than the U.S. has, despite our military being a lot smaller than yours.

Good, we can send the troops home and cut hundreds of billions of dollars off the budget tomorrow then.

Which country are U.S. peacekeeping force currently in? Tell me, because I'm curious to know.

Oh, and the U.S. doesn't put "hundreds of billions of dollars" in peacekeeping mission. You're confusing this with the war in Iraq.

Your country (your taxes) can come up with the trillions of dollars to take over what the US is doing today, and we will disband our military because if someone threatens to invade us, you can send your troops to stand in their way. Thank you so much for giving me back 20% of my income, it's been good talking to you.

Jeez, how old are you, 15? I'm trying to have a serious conversation here.

PS. You can start with North Korea, have at it.

Really? How many U.S. soldiers are currently in North Korea?

Try making some sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Anti-Americanism
by Jody on Tue 15th Nov 2005 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Anti-Americanism"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

[""PS. You can start with North Korea, have at it."]

Really? How many U.S. soldiers are currently in North Korea?"


Now which one of us is not being serious, who said sending troops is the only way to handle North Korea?

For starters, what about joining the 6 nation talks? (the Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US)

Also, no the US has not invaded N. Korea, but they do have a significant force in the "buffer zone" between North and South Korea. Also, standing in North Koreas way to prevent them from invading South Korea is not a peace keeping mission?

Canada could take over responsibility as an occupational force in the Koreas and join the six nation talks tomorrow so why don't they?

Does Canada not care because there is nothing in it for them? Isn't that the wrong doing you are accusing the United States of?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Anti-Americanism
by archiesteel on Tue 15th Nov 2005 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Anti-Americanism"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Now which one of us is not being serious, who said sending troops is the only way to handle North Korea?

May I remind you of what you wrote in your previous post?

Good, we can send the troops home and cut hundreds of billions of dollars off the budget tomorrow then. [...]
Thank you so much for giving me back 20% of my income, it's been good talking to you.

PS. You can start with North Korea, have at it.


You clearly linked North Korea with sending troops home and cutting "hundreds of billions of dollars" - 20% of your income, according to some secret formula of yours.

Now, usually when people mention something in a paragraph, then something else in the one right after it, you expect the two items to be related. You created the link between the two, not me.

For starters, what about joining the 6 nation talks? (the Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the US)®

Canada has not been invited to join these talks, nor would it make sense for it to do so since it does not have a strategic interest in the situation.

Also, no the US has not invaded N. Korea, but they do have a significant force in the "buffer zone" between North and South Korea.

If by "buffer zone" you mean the DMZ, then as far as I know you're wrong. U.S. troops have been pulled out of the DMZ in 2003 (though about 40,000 U.S. troops remain in South Korea proper).

Also, standing in North Koreas way to prevent them from invading South Korea is not a peace keeping mission?

No, it isn't, at least not as far as the U.N. is concerned. That's what we were talking about, remember? U.N. peacekeeping missions? The reason the U.S. is in Korea is to preserve its national interests in that region of the globe.

Canada could take over responsibility as an occupational force in the Koreas and join the six nation talks tomorrow so why don't they?

In fact, it couldn't because its armed forces are already spread thin in numerous other peacekeeping missions, in addition to helping you guys out in Afghanistan.

Does Canada not care because there is nothing in it for them? Isn't that the wrong doing you are accusing the United States of?

Canada cares, however a) it does not have the resources, already being part of many peacekeeping missions, and b) it does not have the historical interest in Korea that the U.S. has.

What I'm accusing the U.S. of is only intervening when its interests are at stake. Canada has been in lots of places where its national interests are not at stake, either through the U.N. or outside of it (Afghanistan comes to mind).

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Anti-Americanism
by Smartpatrol on Tue 15th Nov 2005 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Anti-Americanism"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

You are fighting a loosing battle a lot of the people here are extremely ignorant of History and what the United States as a whole is about. They donít have the higher cognitive reasoning power to analyze obvious facts and apply simple logic to deduce some semblance of the truth. They overlook these truths with zealous frothing at the mouth just for the opportunity to hate America and propagate their ignorance to others.

I think its time as Americans we re-evaluate our dealing with the rest of the world. Its time to pull our troops back, stop food and economic aid, raise our import tariffs for consumer goods from all the ungrateful countries in the world. Then sit back crack a beer and watch the rest of the world fall to pieces.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti-Americanism
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anti-Americanism"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course you don't mention the (mostly) Canadian and Dutch force there that saved many thousands...
When larger force get there, it was actually the French mostly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anti-Americanism
by morgoth on Tue 15th Nov 2005 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti-Americanism"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Quote: "Make no mistake, there is only ONE thing that matters to the U.S.: its own national interests. Not democracy, not justice, not peace. Sad but true."

Absolute truth.

Quote: "However, it's no secret that the U.S. doesn't want the UN to be an effective"

And again, the absolute truth. Bush, along with his lackeys, Howard and Blair are out to try and dominate the world between the three of them, and as an Australian, I'm ashamed of my Prime Minister's actions.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE: Anti-Americanism
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 04:48 UTC in reply to "Anti-Americanism"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that US owes UN biggest debt of most countries?

And of course it cooperates...
But the sad thing is that in reality US too often uses UN so their action have support and so on.
If there's no-gain/long mission, other countries do the job usually...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anti-Americanism
by rcsteiner on Tue 15th Nov 2005 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti-Americanism"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12
RE[2]: Anti-Americanism
by Soulbender on Tue 15th Nov 2005 05:29 UTC in reply to "Anti-Americanism"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I would love for some other nation to increase their military spending by several billion a year and volunteer to be the new enforcer of UN policy."

The US isnt the only country volunteering troops for UN missions.

Reply Score: 1

Open Source means independence
by moleskine on Tue 15th Nov 2005 01:59 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

People can read too much into "anti-Americanism". If the world's software monopoly was German, Indian or Japanese, folks in other countries would be reacting in much the same way, I would guess. No one, in any country, likes the idea of handing themselves over to a foreign company from a foreign culture. They want to feel that their fate is in their own hands.

Open source has a great deal to offer in this regard, bringing with it local jobs and local expertise too. No country thinks that importing all its food is a good idea. Why should they think that importing all their computer software is a good idea. If Microsoft can't understand this fairly common-sense notion, that's Microsoft's problem.

Reply Score: 2

v Wake up Americans
by CanuckleFrog on Tue 15th Nov 2005 05:43 UTC
RE: Wake up Americans
by archiesteel on Tue 15th Nov 2005 06:21 UTC in reply to "Wake up Americans"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Please stop cheapening the word "fascist" by misusing it the way you are. That is extremely insulting to the memory of those who suffered under real fascism.

By the way, free speech exists in Canada just as much as it does in the States. You may rail against "hate speech" laws (not surprising, since your own extremism does make you a kindred spirit to neo-nazis), but they're really not that different from the laws limiting free speech in the U.S. as well, i.e. laws against libel or slander.

The anti-U.N. sentiment you display on your web site is typical of the paranoid far right, which sees enemies everywhere - not realizing that it is this attitude that in fact creates enemy.

The biggest irony is when far-right nutjobs claim that american liberals are threatening the U.S., when it really is the fact that there are liberals in the U.S. that makes most people from abroad be tempered in their attitude towards it.

In other words, if everyone in the States was like you, then the U.S. would only have enemies and it wouldn't survive, neither politicall nor economically. You can't bomb the entire world into submission - heh, you have enough trouble with a single middle-Eastern nation (not to mention that you had your ass kicked by an impoverished southeast Asia country...)

The only way out for the U.S. is to start to be a good global citizen and to stop acting as if it owned the world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wake up Americans
by zima on Tue 15th Nov 2005 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Wake up Americans"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And it's also 'funny" how he doesn't realise that US itself undergoes fascization (but hey...most people don't know what the word really means)

Reply Score: 1

Tto make a long story short ...
by tilde on Tue 15th Nov 2005 14:03 UTC
tilde
Member since:
2005-11-15

... ZDNet is crap. I don't even read it because one can be sure that the stuff there is close to "100% freely made-up".

Now, the osnews headliner indicates that the ZDNet story is extremely poor, and to gain at least some hitrate from it (remember, hitrate=cash), they want to start some anti-americanism flamewar. As long as Bush is in charge that stuff does not get old.

And so they did.

:-D

Reply Score: 1

A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

... I've ever read on OSNEWS.

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

and educational too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anti-Americanism
by trayuscore on Tue 15th Nov 2005 23:24 UTC
trayuscore
Member since:
2005-07-06

"f the US did shut itself off from the rest of the world and stopped trying to interfere in the foreign policy of other countries, most of the world would welcome it in the same way a married couple appreciates it when an overbearing mother-in-law "that's only trying to help" backs off"

What short memories people have. The Europeans sure had no problems using their military force for establishing colonies and pushing their foreign policy back in the day. Now that most of the continental Europeans nations no longer have any military forces of any significance and no longer can effect change, now they're all about peace. Some of you can deluded yourselves into thinking that you've reformed and are on a heroic mission to save the world from the Americans or whoever, but really the vast majority of European countries are weak. But no doubt somewhere in the future, Germany will rearm itself, and we'll be watching them march across Europe yet again.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Brazil
by trayuscore on Tue 15th Nov 2005 23:26 UTC
trayuscore
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Hmmph, and all this time I thought they hated us because we've turned into a theocratic bunch of war mongering imperialist pigs led by the idiot dunce with little concern, respect or understanding of the rest of the world or anybody in i."

Heh heh,you forgot to mention that said dunce found us with a surplus and promptly spent us into deficit in true Reagan style so that now they'll have to make cuts to pay for Katrina.

Reply Score: 1