World's Largest Democracies Re: US Unilateralism
At 09:59 AM 11/5/2002 -0200 Alberto Monteiro wrote: But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Actually, Lula's vote total is only the second-largest for a Presidential candidate in history. That record belongs to Ronaldus Magnus. Ronald Reaganin 1984. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
At 11:21 AM 11/5/2002 +0530 Ritu Ko wrote: No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Is the US *looking* for more credit than that? Actually, I think that the US is simply looking for an end to the trumped-up criticism that the US/Bush Administration does not care about the opinions of the international community. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Horn, John wrote: From: Russell Chapman [mailto:rchapman;ozemail.com.au] /8qT5dS: Permission denied Huh? - jmh Confused... Not as much as me. I posted using the same email address I have for the last 6 years or so, but from a different SMTP server. I expected to either see my post on the list, or get a rejection from the list server. Seeing my rejection on the list was unexpected. (Shouldn't have been - story of my life, really..) Seems to be working with this SMTP server now... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:05:35PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Isn't it ironic that the world's largest democracy treats every else's concerns as a joke? ;) Touchy! One Indian poster *possibly* does this and you generalise this to a billion Indians??? chuckle Imo, the world ought to be grateful. Look at the mess we have made of handling our own serious concerns. ;) So, I guess that means that you should not have any vote in the UN? And we should only read your posts if we feel like being teased or reading some pointless joke? One person's emoticon is another's trampoline, I always say ;) You do? I have never heard you say this before. Can you cite some examples? Maybe I'm deaf or haven't been paying attention. grin ;) :-) ;- etc. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:20:34PM +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: One person's emoticon is another's trampoline, I always say ;) You do? I have never heard you say this before. Can you cite some examples? Maybe I'm deaf or haven't been paying attention. Cite, deaf? Maybe I'm blind because I have no cite. Or maybe I'm not paying attention, I might ADD. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
From: Russell Chapman [mailto:rchapman;ozemail.com.au] /8qT5dS: Permission denied Huh? - jmh Confused... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
Dan Minette wrote: Why I can see being opposed to attacking Iraq, I'm rather surprised by your language. Could you specify the exact portions please? 1) Do you think that Iraq is not in material breach of the provisions that ended the Gulf War? My understanding is that Iraq agreed to regular inspections, and that it was understood that they were required and would be backed with force if need be. That's all correct. 2) Do you think that it doesn't matter, the US has nuclear weapons, India has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iraq? Given Saddam's track record, it would be really nice if he didn't have access to nuclear weapons. 3) Do you think that the sanctions should be lifted, giving Iraq about $50 billion a year in disposable income that can be used on weapons? No. 4) Do you think the sanctions should be continued? Until an acceptable alternative is found, I guess they are needed. However, I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power. Is a part of that sentence missing? Seems like it. As far as I can see, the protection of the UN is virtually worthless. Examples of this include Israel and Kosova, and While, at the same time, there is some validity in protection offered by the US. Examples of this are Israel, S. Korea, Bosnia, and Taiwan. Certainly. I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd have no problems if the rest of the world chooses to opt for US protection. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
Robert Seeberger wrote: With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? g ..the US has *let* the UN deliberate...? Interesting terminology there, JDG. :) I think John meant let the UN debate endlessly without the US taking any further action unilaterally or otherwise. Oh, I know what he meant. I just thought that the choice of words was amusing in the context of the thrust of his mail. Amusing not because I thought 'Aha! I got JDG!', but rather because it seemed a bit careless given both the subject and JDG's personal dynamics with some other listees. I was attempting a bit of harmless teasing. Quite dismally, apparently. I know its fairly fashionable for Non-Americans to view the US government in as cynical a light as possible, Fashions change, on a frequent basis. :) but it is a bit less than nice to take the same approach with individual Americans. Yes, it is. I am curious why you assumed I was doing that. And I wonder if JDG will react the same way when he reads my mail. The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the effect of being more polarizing than Johns original statement. How? I am not trying to be argumentative here but am genuinely curious. I think all of us could take a moment to wear someone elses shoes and see how our words would sound to their ears. (Sheesh, what a sentence) g Well, the meaning was clear in any case. But the problem is that I don't see how I could have changed the way it was perceived. I mean, I know why I wrote the above comment, I included a 'g' and ':)' to indicate I was joking Would ';)' have been a better emoticon? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Ritu Ko wrote: Well, the meaning was clear in any case. But the problem is that I don't see how I could have changed the way it was perceived. I mean, I know why I wrote the above comment, I included a 'g' and ':)' to indicate I was joking Would ';)' have been a better emoticon? I've noticed that some are essentially humorless when it comes to nationalistic topics. ;o) I for one got the drift of Ritu's message right away. It didn't look particular polarizing/offensive to me. But that might be because I'm a Europeen. Sonja :o) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:21:53AM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Interesting terminology there, Ritu, but I guess to be expected. Isn't it ironic that the world's largest democracy treats every else's concerns as a joke? ;) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Erik Reuter wrote: Interesting terminology there, Ritu, but I guess to be expected. Isn't it ironic that the world's largest democracy treats every else's concerns as a joke? ;) Does India treat every else's concerns as a joke? But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:59:48AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote: But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Great, next thing you know you'll be wanting veto power on the UNSC, and then, god help us, we'll all be socialists :-P -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Erik Reuter wrote: But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Great, next thing you know you'll be wanting veto power on the UNSC, and then, god help us, we'll all be socialists :-P We will fist build our atomic bombs and an intercontinental missile program, then we will require a total reformulation of the UNO, along socialist lines. Why one-country-one-vote? This is stupid, companheiro. It should be one-working-class-one-vote. There would be worldwide elections to nominate the World Representative of the Bus Drivers, the Telephone Cleaners, and the Elevator Pilots. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:19:45AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Why one-country-one-vote? This is stupid, companheiro. It should be one-working-class-one-vote. There would be No, it should be one-vote-for-average-number-of-pieces-of-clothing-worn. :-) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:21:53AM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Interesting terminology there, Ritu, but I guess to be expected. sigh Okay. Here goes: I generally consider war as unnecessary and irrational though I agree that it makes more sense to fight in self-defense than submit and be killed. The word 'unprecedentedly' was uncalled for and inaccurate, so kindly permit me to withdraw it with my apologies. :) And, yes, if war is being discussed, it makes sense to expect me to react in that manner. ;) Isn't it ironic that the world's largest democracy treats every else's concerns as a joke? ;) chuckle Imo, the world ought to be grateful. Look at the mess we have made of handling our own serious concerns. ;) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Erik Reuter wrote: Why one-country-one-vote? This is stupid, companheiro. It should be one-working-class-one-vote. There would be No, it should be one-vote-for-average-number-of-pieces-of-clothing-worn. :-) Hmmm... Let me see how many votes a typical brazilian girl would have: panties (1), miniskirt (2), microblouse (3), bellybutton piercing (4), necklace (5), wristlaces (6) and (7), anklelaces (8) and (9), ... Hmmm... Maybe it's a fair criterium Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
Alberto Monteiro wrote: No, it should be one-vote-for-average-number-of-pieces-of-clothing-worn. :-) Hmmm... Let me see how many votes a typical brazilian girl would have: panties (1), miniskirt (2), microblouse (3), bellybutton piercing (4), necklace (5), wristlaces (6) and (7), anklelaces (8) and (9), ... Hmmm... Maybe it's a fair criterium Nope, I think that's unfair. It ought to be one vote for a certain amount of fabric used in dress. Ritu GSV 5 Yards To A Saree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
/8qT5dS: Permission denied ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:56:49PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: /8qT5dS: Permission denied Ding! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 10:35:33AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Hmmm... Let me see how many votes a typical brazilian girl would have: panties (1), miniskirt (2), microblouse (3), bellybutton piercing (4), necklace (5), wristlaces (6) and (7), anklelaces (8) and (9), ... Hmmm... Maybe it's a fair criterium Don't be silly, everyone knows that the real criteria is one-vote-per-dollar-spent-on-the-military! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:05:35PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Isn't it ironic that the world's largest democracy treats every else's concerns as a joke? ;) chuckle Imo, the world ought to be grateful. Look at the mess we have made of handling our own serious concerns. ;) So, I guess that means that you should not have any vote in the UN? And we should only read your posts if we feel like being teased or reading some pointless joke? One person's emoticon is another's trampoline, I always say ;) -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
In a message dated 11/5/02 5:06:06 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Great, next thing you know you'll be wanting veto power on the UNSC, and then, god help us, we'll all be socialists :-P The UNSC might actually work better with the men drunk and the females naked. William Taylor --- Backing away slowly ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
William said: The UNSC might actually work better with the men drunk and the females naked. Ah, the old Yeltsin-Clinton approach to statesmanship! Rich VFP Cheap Shot ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
In a message dated 11/5/02 5:39:35 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nope, I think that's unfair. It ought to be one vote for a certain amount of fabric used in dress. Ritu GSV 5 Yards To A Saree **buzzer** Saree, your answer is Sarong. William Taylor -- Tudor recreationists will rule the Earth! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
William wrote: The UNSC might actually work better with the men drunk and the females naked. OK, I just got an image of Jeanne Kirkpatrick naked. You bastard, I'm coming to kill you for that. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
At 22:22 04-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I know that the US, especially under the current Administration, is often-criticized for having unilateralist tendencies, and disregarding the opinions of the international community. With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? The US let the United Nations deliberate? Excuse me? Last I heard, the UN can take all the time it needs to deliberate; no country, not even the US, can dictate to the UN how long it can take for that. You make it sound as if the UN should be *grateful* that the US has *graciously allowed* the UN to take nearly two months already to deliberate. How arrogant. Jeroen The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
In a message dated 11/5/2002 6:29:23 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, I just got an image of Jeanne Kirkpatrick naked. You bastard, I'm coming to kill you for that. See Richard Baker for the cost of the ammunition. And it was Alberto Monteiro who first mentioned the natural state of being in Brazil. As for me, I'm going out to vote and get breakfast. I wish we still had punchcards. In honor of Bill Clinton, I could put the pin in several Democratic holes and then take it back out without going into the card. As Bill said, it doesn't count if it doesn't go in. To be fair, we do have at least one big Republican hole running for office this year. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
You want US unilateralism. I'll give you US unilateralism: In the immortal words of Randy Newman: Political Science No one likes us I don't know why. We may not be perfect But heaven knows we try. But all around even our old friends put us down. Let's drop the big one and see what happens. We give them money But are they grateful? No they're spiteful And they're hateful. They don't respect us so let's surprise them; We'll drop the big one and pulverize them. Now Asia's crowded And Europe's too old. Africa's far too hot, And Canada's too cold. And South America stole our name. Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us. Bridge: We'll save Australia; Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo. We'll build an all-American amusement park there; They've got surfing, too. Well, boom goes London, And boom Paris. More room for you And more room for me. And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town. Oh, how peaceful it'll be; We'll set everybody free; You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby, There'll be Italian shoes for me. They all hate us anyhow, So let's drop the big one now. Let's drop the big one now. grin - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism You want US unilateralism. I'll give you US unilateralism: In the immortal words of Randy Newman: Political Science While studying political science, you can leave your hat on grin. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:26:38AM -0800, Matt Grimaldi wrote: All of this negotiation, etc. should have taken place or at least been wrapping up before the President made it a public issue. Absolutely not. Lots of secret negotiations behind closed doors that the citizens don't know about? No thank you. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:24 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism Dan Minette wrote: Why I can see being opposed to attacking Iraq, I'm rather surprised by your language. Could you specify the exact portions please? Its been mentioned, but sure. No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Given the fact that the cease fire was based on the assumtion that Hussein's tenure as leader was contingent on him abiding by the terms of the cease fire, and given that we agree that he is material breach, how is the US provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner I could understand an arguement that the war really isn't wise. I posted a link to an article listing the difficulties in handling post war Iraq. But, even if you took out the word unprecedentedly, it stands as a strong statement. How is carrying through on a previous agreement provoking a war? Didn't Hussein provoke the war when he threw the inspectors out? Given the potential for WMD, and given the potential for blackmail, why is going in now irrational? I think that the criterion for your sentence, even without that one word, must be a very strict one, because you have essentially stated that no responsible people could possibly be involved in planning such a war. It gives the impression to me of a bunch of trigger happy cowboys who don't care how many civilians get killed. If you remember just two years ago, there was an outcry concerning the hundreds of thousands of Iraquies killed by the privation caused by the sancitons. While I am sure this is hyperbola, it is true that, with the limited oil sales allowed by the sanctions, the military and WMD programs get the lion share of all income, and there is mass privation among the people. This must be weighted against the civilian deaths that are unavoidable in any war; as well as the potential for violence in the future. In short, I think you have, by your wording, set your self the standard of it being self evident to any thinking individual that fighting Iraq is unreasonable at this time. 4) Do you think the sanctions should be continued? Until an acceptable alternative is found, I guess they are needed. OK, just keeping the sanctions is one option. However, it is likely that they will simply slow down the acquiring of WMD. However, I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power. Is a part of that sentence missing? Seems like it. Yup, typed that too late. It should have read I'm not really sure that a world I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power is one I wish to live in. I think that we run the risk of this, unless something is done. Right now, it appears to me that North Korea has some potential to blackmail Japan, if not the US. I shudder to think what 4 A-bombs hitting Japanese cities would do. As far as I can see, the protection of the UN is virtually worthless. Examples of this include Israel and Kosova, and While, at the same time, there is some validity in protection offered by the US. Examples of this are Israel, S. Korea, Bosnia, and Taiwan. Certainly. I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd have no problems if the rest of the world chooses to opt for US protection. But, what if the UN doesn't OK it, as happened in the Balkans? It appears that the rest of the world wants the US to take all responsibility for protecting other countries while reserving the right to tell the US what to do and what not to do; including actions to protect the US. In that sense, given the many failures of the UN, it would be reasonable for the US to say that, since it has sole responsibility for world security, and since the UN has failed to keep its promises concerning the Gulf War, the US has no choice but to fulfill those promises all by itself. Now, it might not be wise, that's a totally different question, but I don't think it is inherently wrong for the US to bypass the UN as useless. I don't think the UN is useless, its just that it should be accepted for what it is, not a quasi world government. Given the history of the UN, why shouldn't governments consider it a useful place to talk, and a good tool for coordination but an organization who's pronouncements are meaningless? Finally, I am sympathetic to the idea that one country shouldn't play world policeman by itself. However, the real alternative to this, IMHO, is for other countries to become involved, not for the US to promise to do all the work, but to only act when given permission
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: Re: US Unilateralism John D. Giorgis wrote: I know that the US, especially under the current Administration, is often-criticized for having unilateralist tendencies, and disregarding the opinions of the international community. With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? JDG Well, unfortunately, no, we don't get much credit for multilateralism. We *had to be talked into* waiting for the UNSC to debate the merits of action in Iraq, and even then, we show disregard for multilateralism by stating several times over that the USA would be willing to go it alone if we couldn't muster the support of the U.N. If we wanted to claim credit for multilateralism, we would have had to follow the model that Bush Sr. used, namely quietly getting broad support from all of the key countries, then going to the public with talk of war in Iraq. I think it was much easier for Bush Sr. to get the support. At that time, folks were rather worried that Hussein would push to take over Saudi Arabia and the UAE next. He had the 5th best army in the world, on paper, at that time. Now, the primary risk from an attack by Iraq appears to be for Israel and the US. Why should anyone else take any risk for terrorism attacks that might be triggered by an attack on Iraq if the risk to their country of WMD can be minimized by simply opposing the US action? Iraq may very well not use WMD, and if they do, there should be plenty of time to support the US after it got hit. My impression was that much of the spring was spent trying to drum up support, and getting lotsa maybes and nos. The current administration seems to either be doing a poor job of good cop/bad cop, or they found themselves in a position where they shot their mouth off without doing the necessary prep work and are having to go back and fill in the details now that they've gone so far out on a limb. That's possible, but what were they doing when high adminstration officials were flying hither and yon during the winter and spring? All of this negotiation, etc. should have taken place or at least been wrapping up before the President made it a public issue. My guess is that the only thing spurring the negotiations on is the US threat to go it alone. It was sorta, US. are you with us? World No US Then, we're going alone. World Lets talk. World is a substitute for a number of different countries, not including GB. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: No, it should be one-vote-for-average-number-of-pieces-of-clothing-worn. :-) Hmmm... Let me see how many votes a typical brazilian girl would have: panties (1), miniskirt (2), microblouse (3), bellybutton piercing (4), necklace (5), wristlaces (6) and (7), anklelaces (8) and (9), ... Hmmm... Maybe it's a fair criterium Since when is a belly-button piercing clothing? :) Or jewelry for that matter? *Makes mental note to visit Brazil ASAP* Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Jim Sharkey wrote: Hmmm... Let me see how many votes a typical brazilian girl would have: panties (1), miniskirt (2), microblouse (3), bellybutton piercing (4), necklace (5), wristlaces (6) and (7), anklelaces (8) and (9), ... Hmmm... Maybe it's a fair criterium Since when is a belly-button piercing clothing? :) Or jewelry for that matter? People _must_ wear something, right? *Makes mental note to visit Brazil ASAP* The opportunity is now. Prices are based on US$ 1.00 = R$ 2.00, but the exchange is US$ 1.00 = R$ 4.00 - so everything will be _very_ cheap. The window is closing, because inflation is building up pretty fast. For example, the Mac Donalds Number 1 costs R$ 6.50, some barbecues where you pay a fixed price and eat until you die are costing about R$ 20.00, etc BTW, I had never seen as many tourists as I saw today... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:49 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism Robert Seeberger wrote: With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? g ..the US has *let* the UN deliberate...? Interesting terminology there, JDG. :) I think John meant let the UN debate endlessly without the US taking any further action unilaterally or otherwise. Oh, I know what he meant. I just thought that the choice of words was amusing in the context of the thrust of his mail. Amusing not because I thought 'Aha! I got JDG!', but rather because it seemed a bit careless given both the subject and JDG's personal dynamics with some other listees. I was attempting a bit of harmless teasing. Quite dismally, apparently. Perhaps not, It might just be me or the way it seemed to read to me. :-( I know its fairly fashionable for Non-Americans to view the US government in as cynical a light as possible, Fashions change, on a frequent basis. :) That makes me feel hopeful.:-) but it is a bit less than nice to take the same approach with individual Americans. Yes, it is. I am curious why you assumed I was doing that. And I wonder if JDG will react the same way when he reads my mail. Reading this post and going back to read your previous post clarifies what you were trying to say for me. When I first read your previous post, the smilies appeared to indicate sarcasm. The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the effect of being more polarizing than Johns original statement. How? I am not trying to be argumentative here but am genuinely curious. I believe that. Being an American, you pretty much come to expect being treated a bit on the shabby side. Before 911 one would hear criticism of the US and it would normally be about something fairly reasonable. But since then it seems like many non-Americans like to make the rhetoric a bit more personal and it can come from unexpected quarters. I think all of us could take a moment to wear someone elses shoes and see how our words would sound to their ears. (Sheesh, what a sentence) g Well, the meaning was clear in any case. But the problem is that I don't see how I could have changed the way it was perceived. I mean, I know why I wrote the above comment, I included a 'g' and ':)' to indicate I was joking Would ';)' have been a better emoticon? I dont think its a matter of fault really Ritu. And if it is, you are entirely blameless. I think its a matter of the context we live in these days. The world is filled with polemic rhetoric and speech. Its dividing us from the things we have in common and preventing us from seeing as clearly as we could. For my part, I apologise for misreading you. But not for a second did that diminish the esteem I hold for you. You really are a very cool person! xponent Course Correction Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Tourism in Brazil [was: US Unilateralism]
[[Parent Advisory: explicit content in this message]] Dan Minette wrote: BTW, I had never seen as many tourists as I saw today... I stayed in a hotel on the Copa when I was in Rio. The Copa = Copacabana. It looked very run down; there were hookers every block or so. They all looked like they had seen better days, as did the whole area. Walking at night on Copacabana beach is *not* the best way to pick hookers :-))) serious Half of these hookers were _men_, with breast implants etc. There is a market for them. Heterosexual men hire them, because they don't admit having sex with a man, but they admit having it with a woman [who plays the male role (!!!)] /serious The next day, actually, the beach did look OK, but I was there when the sewage line was broken, and no one could swim. Yikes, what a combination of bad luck! I imagine that after that you brought your Murphy Field to the P-36, didn't you? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:19 AM Subject: Re: US Unilateralism Erik Reuter wrote: But if you count the largest democracy by the number of direct votes given to the President, then the title does not belong to India, but to Brazil :-P Great, next thing you know you'll be wanting veto power on the UNSC, and then, god help us, we'll all be socialists :-P We will fist build our atomic bombs and an intercontinental missile program, then we will require a total reformulation of the UNO, along socialist lines. Why one-country-one-vote? This is stupid, companheiro. It should be one-working-class-one-vote. There would be worldwide elections to nominate the World Representative of the Bus Drivers, the Telephone Cleaners, and the Elevator Pilots. And dont forget to Buy Union G xponent The People Who brought You The Weekends Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:49 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism Robert Seeberger wrote: The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the effect of being more polarizing than Johns original statement. How? I am not trying to be argumentative here but am genuinely curious. I believe that. Being an American, you pretty much come to expect being treated a bit on the shabby side. Before 911 one would hear criticism of the US and it would normally be about something fairly reasonable. But since then it seems like many non-Americans like to make the rhetoric a bit more personal and it can come from unexpected quarters. Are you sure that the non-Americans are making the rhetoric more personal, or are you taking it more personally? I'm not saying that you're wrong; you may be right. But I've noticed that we tend to be a little more touchy about some things since 9/11. The truth may lie somewhere in between. Just something to think about. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:21 PM Subject: Re: US Unilateralism Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:49 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism Robert Seeberger wrote: The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the effect of being more polarizing than Johns original statement. How? I am not trying to be argumentative here but am genuinely curious. I believe that. Being an American, you pretty much come to expect being treated a bit on the shabby side. Before 911 one would hear criticism of the US and it would normally be about something fairly reasonable. But since then it seems like many non-Americans like to make the rhetoric a bit more personal and it can come from unexpected quarters. Are you sure that the non-Americans are making the rhetoric more personal, or are you taking it more personally? I'm not saying that you're wrong; you may be right. But I've noticed that we tend to be a little more touchy about some things since 9/11. The truth may lie somewhere in between. Just something to think about. Probobly both actually. Point being that divisions may be widening. I know my tolerance for the out and out baiting I have seen in some non-mailing list places has about worn through. And that may explain my misinterpretation of Ritus post this morning. My filters are being altered by defensive memes. What is on my mind right now is that if one lives in Belgium (for example), one probobly doesnt often hear what a bunch of arrogant shitheads ones countrymen are. I think having this type of talk lobbed in your direction on a regular basis can change the way you look at things. I think it is very possible that my attitude is suffering. xponent Too Busy To Be Tired Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Unilateralism
I know that the US, especially under the current Administration, is often-criticized for having unilateralist tendencies, and disregarding the opinions of the international community. With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
John D. Giorgis wrote: Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? Speaking for our little corner of the world, I would say yes, but we aren't a very representative group in terms of world opinion of the US. What I would say is that the protracted negotiations means the US is NOT getting the bitter spite it would have had it gone ahead. Basically the world at large is not saying good work for not doing something evil, but they're not saying it has done anything evil either... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: US Unilateralism
John D. Giorgis wrote: With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? g ..the US has *let* the UN deliberate...? Interesting terminology there, JDG. :) Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Is the US *looking* for more credit than that? Ritu Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:51 PM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism John D. Giorgis wrote: With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? g ..the US has *let* the UN deliberate...? Interesting terminology there, JDG. :) I think John meant let the UN debate endlessly without the US taking any further action unilaterally or otherwise. I know its fairly fashionable for Non-Americans to view the US government in as cynical a light as possible, but it is a bit less than nice to take the same approach with individual Americans. The point I'm trying to make is that your response has the effect of being more polarizing than Johns original statement. I dont think that was your intent, I know you better than that, you are most certainly one of the Good people I know, and one of the more consistantly reasonable ones. I think all of us could take a moment to wear someone elses shoes and see how our words would sound to their ears. (Sheesh, what a sentence) Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Is the US *looking* for more credit than that? Maybe what John is looking for is credit for showing some restraint. There is quite a bit of impetus for attacking Iraq. There are some good reasons to do so. I think it is fairly certain that the US will attack Iraq at some point, with or without the UNs blessing. Yet the US has so far complied and let the UN exercise its legalistic sophistry in eternal debates that exist as not much more than political wankery. One would have to have ignored Iraq for the last couple of decades to believe they are not currently engaged in making WOMD. Its a silly argument. xponent Off To Bed Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
