> You've gotta be kidding! How can you miss a country that's always painted
> red!?!?
>
> Anyway... Yo aún me acuerdo de <a> href="http://www.globalgayz.com/ArgentinaB/images/24-1.jpg">este cartel[/url] en
> la autopista llendo a Ezeiza...
>
They didn't paint it red, not that that would have made any difference.

---

Account frozen...

> > Not really, 80% of US highschool graduates cannot correctly locate Canada
> on
> > an unmarked globe of the earth. (that little fact comes from a study done
> by
> > the National Geographic Society)
>
> Come on, with the population of New England, the Great Lakes States, and
> Washington State; it can't be that bad? What about for Mexico?
>
The study I was refering to about Canada was done some years ago. Here is a more recent study.

Keep in mind that 1 in 8 US high school students come from California. I'm refering to the question about the Pacific Ocean.

---

Account frozen...

> How about this Tom --- the US made terrible mistakes thanks to right-wing
> Nixon-era hacks such as Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. And these right-wing
> Nixon-era hacks still surround Dumbya Bush in one form or another. One can
> conclude that they are still making the same mistakes based on their past
> history.
>

How about this Carl, the worst international mistake the US ever made in the last century was getting involved in Vietnam (even though the French screwed that up first), and that blunder was made by the liberal's greatest political icon: JFK, and expanded by another social liberal, LBJ, before the US finally withdrew with its tail between its legs under Nixon's watch. How ironic.

---

> > How about this Tom --- the US made terrible mistakes thanks to
> right-wing
> > Nixon-era hacks such as Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. And these
> right-wing
> > Nixon-era hacks still surround Dumbya Bush in one form or another. One
> can
> > conclude that they are still making the same mistakes based on their
> past
> > history.
> >
>
> How about this Carl, the worst international mistake the US ever made in the
> last century was getting involved in Vietnam (even though the French screwed
> that up first), and that blunder was made by the liberal's greatest political
> icon: JFK, and expanded by another social liberal, LBJ, before the US finally
> withdrew with its tail between its legs under Nixon's watch. How ironic.
>
Although I agree we should never have gotten involved in Viet-Nam, Nixon's pull out of Viet-Nam just showed the world that we had no regards for a country which was our ally, one which we maniputlated, then left in a lurch. Peace with honor...anyway, time will tell.

Oh, if any of you are getting tired of politics, come on over the to religion thread to sharpen your claws.

---

Account frozen...

May I ask where 17-1 exactly is?
Not sure what you mean by 17-1. If you're referring to this sign, they used to be everywhere in Argentina - Usually along the main highways Unfortunately I don't have a photo of the infamous one on the way to Ezeiza international airport.

Funny, I am so used to seeing the countries of the British Commonwealth as red on maps that I find maps where this colour pattern is not followed as being quite strange.
There used to be a joke that now those were (1970s) the countries that the UK owed money to. :-)

I find even more interesting the statement that "Americans who reported that they accessed the Internet within the last 30 days scored 65 percent higher than those who did not." So much for the internet being another idiot box like TV. Murrow would be so proud - This instrument can teach.

> Although I agree we should never have gotten involved in Viet-Nam, Nixon's
> pull out of Viet-Nam just showed the world that we had no regards for a
> country which was our ally, one which we maniputlated, then left in a lurch.
> Peace with honor...anyway, time will tell.
>

I don't wish to imply that the soldiers and sailors (John Kerry included) were responsible for this blunder, or that they did not generally (John Kerry included) serve with bravery and dedication. But the US got into that war for ideological reasons rather than reasons of national security--and the ghost of Vietnam has haunted our every international move since then.

---

"This instrument can teach." For some yes, for others not.

---

Account frozen...

17-1.jpg
Oh! I have no idea, but I'll take a guess that it's about 1500km south of Buenos Aires on the Atlantic coast. I'm still trying to find the one I did manage to snag en route to Mar del Plata...

[ADDENDUM] Found it!

Tom Koenig: thank again for the calm way you response my messages. It´s obvious that behind our ways of writing there are ethnic factors: my latin ancestors became more upset as I continue to write my messages (by the way, "latin" means
descendant of "Rome", the greatest empire in the history of the world, not "mexican" as americans try to use it. I´m a citizen of the Republic of Argentina as well as of the Italian Republic and I consider that "latin" is a prestigious adjetive: it rememeber us that our ancestors were living in cities one thousand years before the german-anglo-saxons ancestors learn to use the fire...)
Regarding the capital letters: I know what they mean and I use them intentionally. But you didn´t pay atention to my facts arguing they were in capital leters, so I would (calmly) try to expose in a wittgenstenian way my arguments (about the irrationality of my words: my lecturership takes place in the Economic Sciences Faculty and I´m researching, right now, the meanings of simonian rationality: believe me, we don´t want to start talking about this).

1.- You wrote:
> Regarding the Falklands (the English name, because it is, and was in British
> hands), what diplomatic efforts were there to restore the Islands to
> Argentina? What efforts were made to compensate the British citizens who
> lived there for generations? The attack, as I remember, was quite abrupt.
> The British did not have a defensive military capability anywhere close. I
> don't bring this up to justify America's action in Iraq, just so you remember
> that countries and their leaders, yours included, do make mistakes.
My answer:
1.1.- I won´t incur in the same mistake again: I won´t write about the causes of the war because it allows you to skip my argument, which is:
1.1.1.- Everybody makes mistakes.
1.1.2.- It´s a desirable value to solve problems and to cause the less we can.
1.1.3.- It´s irrelevant (because of your skipping) if the decision of our dictator was a problem or not.
1.1.4.- The fact is that we didn´t vote him. We wanted to kill him.
1.1.5.- I encourage Americans not to vote Bush: use your freedom to move dictators away your government, no to take them to the presidency.

2.- You wrote:
> The US gives aid to lots of countries, and some are led by dictators and
> kings, but the US did not decide to attack the Falklands. You make the same
> logical error that Petit Soliel has made: that America has made mistakes,
> therefore the war in Iraq was a mistake.
My answer:
2.1.- Certainly US helps some countries.
2.2.- I don´t make any logical error. I didn´t use the deductive method to pass from "America has made mistakes" to "the war in Iraq was a mistake". I certainly consider that as a methodological mistake. My argument:
2.3.- The attack to Iraq it´s wrong because US has no power to decide it.
2.3.1.- It´s a function that belongs to the UN, due to it´s "Constitution" (es Carta, no se que palabra corresponde).
2.3.2.- The "Constitution" of the UN has been ratificated by the US.
2.3.3.- Therefore, Iraq´s conditions are irrelevant.
2.3.3.1.- Saddam could have been a lovely person, who distributed food by himself to the poor people; or a terrorist, tiranic dictator. It doesn´t matter.
2.3.3.2.- What it matters are the conditions of the "subject" (US), we don´t care of the conditions of the "object" (Iraq)
2.3.4.- The bribing of the UN´s inspectors are irrelevant.
2.3.4.1.- As far as I know, a non-proved bribing is not enough to knock out international treaties.

3.- You wrote:
> The US removed a brutal dictator, who used WMD on his own people and in his
> war against Iran, and who violated cease fire agreements and supported
> terrorists (not the ones who attacked the US on 9/11, but terrorists
> nonetheless), and who stole money from his own people to build lavish palaces
> while his country starved--I could go on. Tell me why this was a mistake
> without referring to mistakes the US has made in the past. Yes, we
> once supported Saddam, as we once supported your country. You say it was up
> to the UN to confront Saddam, but it turns out he was bribing UN officials, so
> they might never have agreed, and again, his acts of war needed to be
> addressed immediately. I have no blankets over my eyes, but your emotional
> response shows how clouded is your judgement.
My answer:
3.1.- The causes of why an attack to Iraq (or Sweden, or Uganda, or Turkey) by US is a mistake have been displayed in (2.-).
3.2.- As I have wrote in the preface, I find my emotionalism a very kind value.
3.3.- I have tried not to let the fog blind me

4.- The conclusions of my theory:
4.1.- US has one objetive: to be the world´s leader.
4.2.- In order to reach that, it would lie or tell the truth; bribe or not; make alliances with dictators or kill them arguing "democracy"; etc.
4.2.1.- What I would like to prove is that US uses coyuntural arguments to justify it´s acts to it´s blind population.
4.2.2.- So, when they need Saddam they pay him to help him reach the power. When Saddam kills kurds they support him (because they still need him). Suddenly, they didn´t need Saddam any longer: the New York Times publish "Saddam is an assassin: he have killed (example) 2 kurds". The next day Bush makes a press conferences and declares that US will destroy Iraq in order to pursuit a bigger objective: kill Saddam...in order to pursuit the last objective: bring democracy to the kurds!?!
4.2.3.- The assasination of the kurds (in the example) is true: Saddam have killed them (in the example). But, is this the real objective of Bush? The same reason he has been "tolerating" for decades is now something that can´t wait a minute?
4.2.4.- why iraq´s population needs democracy suddenly?
4.2.5.- then, why US is still ally of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
4.3.- You were right Tom, if US has made a mistake supporting Saddam, it doesn´t means that it has to be a mistake ever. One mistake doesn´t justify another and I have no intention of arguing that.
4.4.- My argument is that US lies to all of us, hiding it´s real objectives: they would say anything to confuse.
4.5.- They lie and kill and pretend to be moral (Bush)
4.6.- Bush doesn´t distinguish an Arab from a Chinese, but suddenly God reveled him that he has to bring democracy to Iraq...when he bought his first election!

I have tried to expose my fact clearly. I hope my wittgenstenian way of theorization satisfies my anglo-saxon friend and, therefore, he now will try to refutate my arguments, not just by claiming my "emotionalism", but with solid facts. I encourage him to understand speccialy: 1.1.4.-; 1.1.5.-; 2.2.-; 2.3.-; 4.- and followings

NeoAmsterdam: gracias por la onda!

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

¡Un placer! Supongo que él nunca visito, ni menos vivió en RA, así que tendría que haber un choque cultural.

> Too bad that everyone will call me a Guido sympathiser now.
You are correct.

> Tom Koenig: thank again for the calm way you response my messages. It´s
> obvious that behind our ways of writing there are ethnic factors: my latin
> ancestors became more upset as I continue to write my messages (by the way,
> "latin" means
> descendant of "Rome", the greatest empire in the history of the world, not
> "mexican" as americans try to use it. I´m a citizen of the Republic of
> Argentina as well as of the Italian Republic and I consider that "latin" is a
> prestigious adjetive: it rememeber us that our ancestors were living in cities
> one thousand years before the german-anglo-saxons ancestors learn to use the
> fire...)
> Regarding the capital letters: I know what they mean and I use them
> intentionally. But you didn´t pay atention to my facts arguing they were in
> capital leters, so I would (calmly) try to expose in a wittgenstenian way my
> arguments (about the irrationality of my words: my lecturership takes place
> in the Economic Sciences Faculty and I´m researching, right now, the meanings
> of simonian rationality: believe me, we don´t want to start talking about
> this).
>
> 1.- You wrote:
> > Regarding the Falklands (the English name, because it is, and was in
> British
> > hands), what diplomatic efforts were there to restore the Islands to
> > Argentina? What efforts were made to compensate the British citizens
> who
> > lived there for generations? The attack, as I remember, was quite
> abrupt.
> > The British did not have a defensive military capability anywhere close.
> I
> > don't bring this up to justify America's action in Iraq, just so you
> remember
> > that countries and their leaders, yours included, do make mistakes.
> My answer:
> 1.1.- I won´t incur in the same mistake again: I won´t write about the causes
> of the war because it allows you to skip my argument, which is:
> 1.1.1.- Everybody makes mistakes.
> 1.1.2.- It´s a desirable value to solve problems and to cause the less we
> can.
> 1.1.3.- It´s irrelevant (because of your skipping) if the decision of our
> dictator was a problem or not.
> 1.1.4.- The fact is that we didn´t vote him. We wanted to kill him.
> 1.1.5.- I encourage Americans not to vote Bush: use your freedom to move
> dictators away your government, no to take them to the presidency.
>
> 2.- You wrote:
> > The US gives aid to lots of countries, and some are led by dictators and
> > kings, but the US did not decide to attack the Falklands. You make the
> same
> > logical error that Petit Soliel has made: that America has made
> mistakes,
> > therefore the war in Iraq was a mistake.
> My answer:
> 2.1.- Certainly US helps some countries.
> 2.2.- I don´t make any logical error. I didn´t use the deductive method to
> pass from "America has made mistakes" to "the war in Iraq was a mistake". I
> certainly consider that as a methodological mistake. My argument:
> 2.3.- The attack to Iraq it´s wrong because US has no power to decide it.
> 2.3.1.- It´s a function that belongs to the UN, due to it´s "Constitution" (es
> Carta, no se que palabra corresponde).
> 2.3.2.- The "Constitution" of the UN has been ratificated by the US.
> 2.3.3.- Therefore, Iraq´s conditions are irrelevant.
> 2.3.3.1.- Saddam could have been a lovely person, who distributed food by
> himself to the poor people; or a terrorist, tiranic dictator. It doesn´t
> matter.
> 2.3.3.2.- What it matters are the conditions of the "subject" (US), we don´t
> care of the conditions of the "object" (Iraq)
> 2.3.4.- The bribing of the UN´s inspectors are irrelevant.
> 2.3.4.1.- As far as I know, a non-proved bribing is not enough to knock out
> international treaties.
>
> 3.- You wrote:
> > The US removed a brutal dictator, who used WMD on his own people and in
> his
> > war against Iran, and who violated cease fire agreements and supported
> > terrorists (not the ones who attacked the US on 9/11, but terrorists
> > nonetheless), and who stole money from his own people to build lavish
> palaces
> > while his country starved--I could go on. Tell me why this was a
> mistake
> > without referring to mistakes the US has made in the past. Yes,
> we
> > once supported Saddam, as we once supported your country. You say it was
> up
> > to the UN to confront Saddam, but it turns out he was bribing UN
> officials, so
> > they might never have agreed, and again, his acts of war needed to
> be
> > addressed immediately. I have no blankets over my eyes, but your
> emotional
> > response shows how clouded is your judgement.
> My answer:
> 3.1.- The causes of why an attack to Iraq (or Sweden, or Uganda, or Turkey) by
> US is a mistake have been displayed in (2.-).
> 3.2.- As I have wrote in the preface, I find my emotionalism a very kind
> value.
> 3.3.- I have tried not to let the fog blind me
>
> 4.- The conclusions of my theory:
> 4.1.- US has one objetive: to be the world´s leader.
> 4.2.- In order to reach that, it would lie or tell the truth; bribe or not;
> make alliances with dictators or kill them arguing "democracy"; etc.
> 4.2.1.- What I would like to prove is that US uses coyuntural arguments to
> justify it´s acts to it´s blind population.
> 4.2.2.- So, when they need Saddam they pay him to help him reach the power.
> When Saddam kills kurds they support him (because they still need him).
> Suddenly, they didn´t need Saddam any longer: the New York Times publish
> "Saddam is an assassin: he have killed (example) 2 kurds". The next day Bush
> makes a press conferences and declares that US will destroy Iraq in order to
> pursuit a bigger objective: kill Saddam...in order to pursuit the last
> objective: bring democracy to the kurds!?!
> 4.2.3.- The assasination of the kurds (in the example) is true: Saddam have
> killed them (in the example). But, is this the real objective of Bush? The
> same reason he has been "tolerating" for decades is now something that can´t
> wait a minute?
> 4.2.4.- why iraq´s population needs democracy suddenly?
> 4.2.5.- then, why US is still ally of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
> 4.3.- You were right Tom, if US has made a mistake supporting Saddam, it
> doesn´t means that it has to be a mistake ever. One mistake doesn´t justify
> another and I have no intention of arguing that.
> 4.4.- My argument is that US lies to all of us, hiding it´s real objectives:
> they would say anything to confuse.
> 4.5.- They lie and kill and pretend to be moral (Bush)
> 4.6.- Bush doesn´t distinguish an Arab from a Chinese, but suddenly God
> reveled him that he has to bring democracy to Iraq...when he bought his first
> election!
>
> I have tried to expose my fact clearly. I hope my wittgenstenian way of
> theorization satisfies my anglo-saxon friend and, therefore, he now will try
> to refutate my arguments, not just by claiming my "emotionalism", but with
> solid facts. I encourage him to understand speccialy: 1.1.4.-; 1.1.5.-; 2.2.-;
> 2.3.-; 4.- and followings
>
> NeoAmsterdam: gracias por la onda!
>
I would be totally ashamed to have you doing the History teaching in an American University! Your TOTAL lack of the knowledge of the actual events and the thought processes that went into them is embarassing! You ACTUALLY think "> 4.6.- Bush doesn´t distinguish an Arab from a Chinese, but suddenly God
> reveled him that he has to bring democracy to Iraq...when he bought his first
> election!" You have no concept of how or even what it takes to try and get a Country the size of the US to function as smoothly as it does! Let alone LET YOU KNOW that he thinks the Chinese and Arabs are the same!
AND that he could in this day and age BUY an election! The 2000 election was a hard fought battle decided in the end by the American Judical System! There was NO BUYING about it!

---

> I would be totally ashamed to have you doing the History teaching in an
> American University!

I would also be ashamed: I like my students to think!

> Your TOTAL lack of the knowledge of the actual events and
> the thought processes that went into them is embarassing! You ACTUALLY think
> "> 4.6.- Bush doesn´t distinguish an Arab from a Chinese, but suddenly God
> > reveled him that he has to bring democracy to Iraq...when he bought his
> first election!" You have no concept of how or even what it takes to try and
> get a Country the size of the US to function as smoothly as it does! Let alone
> LET YOU KNOW that he thinks the Chinese and Arabs are the same!
> AND that he could in this day and age BUY an election! The 2000 election was a
> hard fought battle decided in the end by the American Judical System! There
> was NO BUYING about it!

Yes, I know how to make a country function soomthly: stealing resources from the rest of the planet. That´s de ecuation of the capitalism: 7 countries lives well (G7) and the other 200 starvs. And that´s no coincidence, it´s the major example of causality. (and you say comunism don´t function!)

You say there was no buying in the 2000 election. Call it the way you want, but the candidat that got the most votes is now fishing...and the one who got eh less amount of votes is the re-elected president...I believe democracy is the power to the majority, but what can I tell to the biggest democracy in the earth! (??)

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

> You have no concept of how or even what it takes to try and
> get a Country the size of the US to function as smoothly as it does!

Easy. Make them believe they are free, put'em in front of the TV and
feed them with ignorance, they will all become stupid sheep. Make sure
they can have some money so they can buy the last TV set model, and then
use it to tell them they will be at nirvana when they can finally affoard
the new car they see on their new TV and they'll be happy like pigs in
the mud.

> The 2000 election was a
> hard fought battle decided in the end by the American Judical System! There
> was NO BUYING about it!
>

Mikey, I recall the 2000 election happened like this (since we're doing outlines):

1. The networks called Florida for Gore based on exit polls and early returns.
2. The networks retracted thier call based on more complete returns (but they were embarrased about their misleading exit poll data).
3. The Florida Secretary of State declared Bush the winner after the elections first machine count was completed, as required by Florida law.
4. The Democrats sued in the Florida Supreme Court to have the Secy of State's decision annulled, despite the fact that no law allowed the decision to be affected by any court.
5. A recount was ordered, and done by machine, according to Florida law, that went (again) for Bush.
6. The Florida Supreme Court required a manual recount, and detailed examination of the punchcard ballots, though there was no legal basis for their decision.
7. A recount started, but soon devolved into chaos as there were no standards in the law (as are found in other state's laws) for the visual examination of votes (hanging chads? dimpled/pregnant chads?).
8. The US Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court because the later had acted without legal authority.

Most people, who complain about the 2000 election and cite it as the reason Bush was illegally elected, conveniently forget two things: 1) intervention by the Florida Supreme Court was illegal, and the US Supreme Court simply put the situation back into the realm of Florida law; and 2) Bush won every recount that was completed (months after the election).

---

> > You have no concept of how or even what it takes to try and
> > get a Country the size of the US to function as smoothly as it does!
>
> Easy. Make them believe they are free, put'em in front of the TV and
> feed them with ignorance, they will all become stupid sheep. Make sure
> they can have some money so they can buy the last TV set model, and then
> use it to tell them they will be at nirvana when they can finally affoard
> the new car they see on their new TV and they'll be happy like pigs in
> the mud.

I totally agree!

Je suis d´accord (that´s the correct spelling?)

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"