(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by CoolDe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



UNITED NATIONS (NorthSouth News) July 22, 2000 -- Following closely on
the heels of the split up of Microsoft Corp., the United Nations
Security Council and the World Trade Organization issued a Finding of
Fact on Friday which declared the United States to be an illegal
superpower.  In unusually harsh statements, the UN found that the
United States abused its superpower status to impose democracy and
western culture on competing nations.

Doug Legalbert, head of the U.N. legal team, stated that the United
States has a long history of illegal activity.  "The recent
intervention in Kosovo and the ongoing embargo of Iraq are recent
examples of the United State's abuse of their superpower status," said
Legalbert, "they act like they're the world's policemen."  "We have
evidence that they may have even spied on other nations," he added.

"It's just not fair," said a dictator of a small counry in South
America, "they worked hard and got ahead, and all we have is
rainforests.  We should burn their land and stomp all over the
ashes."

Other countries echoed this sentiment, upset about American
intervention during the Gulf War, Vietnam, and World Wars I and II.
"America sucks," cried all of France in unison, "they are uncultured
and their language is choppy."

According to an ambassador who wished to remain anonymous, "Illegal
behavior requires prompt and harsh punishment. . . the global
community is considering a handful of remedies to keep the United
States in check."

Some of the actions that may be taken include:

*  Splitting the country into three "Baby Americas".
     - Western states will get the Air Force and Democrats
     - Middle/mountain states will get the Marines and the
       reform party
     - Eastern states will get the Navy and the Republican party
   The remaining armed forces and population will be shifted to make
   each region relatively equal in both land area and population.

*  Requiring the Baby Americas to fully open their borders to
   prevent "exclusionary tactics" in which the U.S. had previously
   limited the number of immigrants.

*  Requiring that the government and miliarary to switch to "Open
   Source".  All present and past government and military secrets will
   be openly published so that other nations can build, among other
   things, new weapons of mass distruction.

"Requiring the government to go open source is the best thing that
ever happened.  They will finally be forced to reveal the truth about
aliens and stuff," said one Linux advocate.

(Disclaimer: This does not necessarily represent the views of me, my
country, my employer, my internet service provider, my mom, or anybody
I know.)

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by David » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> UNITED NATIONS (NorthSouth News) July 22, 2000 -- Following closely on
> the heels of the split up of Microsoft Corp., the United Nations
> Security Council and the World Trade Organization issued a Finding of
> Fact on Friday which declared the United States to be an illegal
> superpower.  In unusually harsh statements, the UN found that the
> United States abused its superpower status to impose democracy and
> western culture on competing nations.

> Doug Legalbert, head of the U.N. legal team, stated that the United
> States has a long history of illegal activity.  "The recent
> intervention in Kosovo and the ongoing embargo of Iraq are recent
> examples of the United State's abuse of their superpower status," said
> Legalbert, "they act like they're the world's policemen."  "We have
> evidence that they may have even spied on other nations," he added.

> "It's just not fair," said a dictator of a small counry in South
> America, "they worked hard and got ahead, and all we have is
> rainforests.  We should burn their land and stomp all over the
> ashes."

> Other countries echoed this sentiment, upset about American
> intervention during the Gulf War, Vietnam, and World Wars I and II.
> "America sucks," cried all of France in unison, "they are uncultured
> and their language is choppy."

> According to an ambassador who wished to remain anonymous, "Illegal
> behavior requires prompt and harsh punishment. . . the global
> community is considering a handful of remedies to keep the United
> States in check."

> Some of the actions that may be taken include:

> *  Splitting the country into three "Baby Americas".
>      - Western states will get the Air Force and Democrats
>      - Middle/mountain states will get the Marines and the
>        reform party
>      - Eastern states will get the Navy and the Republican party
>    The remaining armed forces and population will be shifted to make
>    each region relatively equal in both land area and population.

> *  Requiring the Baby Americas to fully open their borders to
>    prevent "exclusionary tactics" in which the U.S. had previously
>    limited the number of immigrants.

> *  Requiring that the government and miliarary to switch to "Open
>    Source".  All present and past government and military secrets will
>    be openly published so that other nations can build, among other
>    things, new weapons of mass distruction.

> "Requiring the government to go open source is the best thing that
> ever happened.  They will finally be forced to reveal the truth about
> aliens and stuff," said one Linux advocate.

> (Disclaimer: This does not necessarily represent the views of me, my
> country, my employer, my internet service provider, my mom, or anybody
> I know.)

> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

I just want to know how this is on the topic? a country is not a company and is
not subject to the same laws and regulations.

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Ciaran Dun » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> UNITED NATIONS (NorthSouth News) July 22, 2000 -- Following closely on
> the heels of the split up of Microsoft Corp., the United Nations
> Security Council and the World Trade Organization issued a Finding of
> Fact on Friday which declared the United States to be an illegal
> superpower.  In unusually harsh statements, the UN found that the
> United States abused its superpower status to impose democracy and
> western culture on competing nations.

Do you think the peoples of Guatamala and El Salvador share your
optimistic view that the US struggles to "impose democracy and western
culture on competing nations.". Or do you think they may see the US as
the bringers of chaos, death and misery ?

Twit.

[.. snip rest of paranoid UN rant ... ]

Cheers,
Ciaran
(And yes, I am having a bad day)

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Peter Nelso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>> UNITED NATIONS (NorthSouth News) July 22, 2000 -- Following closely on
>> the heels of the split up of Microsoft Corp., the United Nations
>> Security Council and the World Trade Organization issued a Finding of
>> Fact on Friday which declared the United States to be an illegal
>> superpower.

. . .

Quote:>I just want to know how this is on the topic? a country is not a company
and is
>not subject to the same laws and regulations.

But if it was the US would be in the same trouble Microsoft is.

The posting makes an excellent analogy.   The US is highly
successful and this creates great resentment around the world.
Sure, some of our success is from throwing our weight around,
but a lot of it is because people actually LIKE our stuff
better.    For example, many countries resent the way US
culture such as rock music and MacDonald's and Hollywood
have impinged on their culture.   It's cheap and trashy, they
say; the local stuff is *better*, but their citizens BUY it!
This drives them nuts.

Or take the profit motive - we work our butts off and are
highly productive and countries like France are pissed off
because they don't want to have such an avaricious,
money-oriented society where people work all the time
but if they don't compete on our terms they lose.   Too
bad, France; we LIKE getting rich.

Same with Microsoft.   You can prove until you're blue
in the face that Windoze, and Office, and IE, etc, are
crappy and other software is *better*.    But Windows
sw and Wintel PC's are what people buy - even when it
DOESN'T come preinstalled.    So "better" is in the eye of
the beholder.  It's like some French art flick which is
"better" because it has good acting, clever dialogue,
and deep insights into the human condition.   But their
own people prefer the Hollywood flick with no plot
or dialog, but lots cars blowing up and some starlet's
*flashing on the screen.

That's Microsoft - it blows up a lot and it's also on 95%
of the desktops.

---peter

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Peter Nelso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




>> UNITED NATIONS (NorthSouth News) July 22, 2000 -- Following closely on
>> the heels of the split up of Microsoft Corp., the United Nations
>> Security Council and the World Trade Organization issued a Finding of
>> Fact on Friday which declared the United States to be an illegal
>> superpower.  In unusually harsh statements, the UN found that the
>> United States abused its superpower status to impose democracy and
>> western culture on competing nations.

>Do you think the peoples of Guatamala and El Salvador share your
>optimistic view that the US struggles to "impose democracy and western
>culture on competing nations.". Or do you think they may see the US as
>the bringers of chaos, death and misery ?

Most of the death and misery in South America is home
grown as a result of centuries of petty dictators and
people who would rather worship some vision of the *
they see outlined in moss on a church wall or follow some
"shining path" guerrilla leader than demand true democracy
in their government.    Look at Peru - they had a democracy
and Fujimori came to power, gave himself dictatorial
priveleges and his popularity went UP!

Does the US take sides in the petty disputes down there?
Sure; we have interests in the region.    But they are still
South America's disputes, death squads, terrorism,
corruption, etc.

---peter

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by CoolDe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


I'm happy that Peter Nelson understood my satirical attempt of an
analogy between the perception of Microsoft in the computer industry
and the perception of the US in the world.  Hopefully the silent
majority was also amused.

Ciaran Dunn: The post wasn't intended to share my views on foreign
policies.  It's all made up to make a point...

Rex Ballard:  You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the
same time.  On one hand, you say there are 55 million Linux users and
growing fast, and on the other hand Microsoft has achieved world
domination and is a mafia.  Your slippery slope attempt of a response
was almost as funny as the original article, but it was so long I
didn't finish reading it.

The other point I was trying to make is that the suggested remedies
(ie. suggested by MS's multibillion-dollar competitors) to MS's alleged
practices are extreme and absurd and the incredibly competitive and
dynamic computer industry is taking care of itself just fine.

Ciao!

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Matthias Wark » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


It was the Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:15:17 -0500...

Quote:> It's like some French art flick which is
> "better" because it has good acting, clever dialogue,
> and deep insights into the human condition.   But their
> own people prefer the Hollywood flick with no plot
> or dialog, but lots cars blowing up and some starlet's
>*flashing on the screen.

> That's Microsoft - it blows up a lot and it's also on 95%
> of the desktops.

You've basically made the point of "Microsoft deserve the right to be
successful because they're successful", assuming the consumer to be
perfectly informed about all the alternatives.

Great point :)

mawa
--
My baby said she loved me, but she lied, lied, lied!
                                                     -- The DynaTones.

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Darren Winsp » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:15:17 -0500, Peter Nelson


> The posting makes an excellent analogy.   The US is highly
> successful and this creates great resentment around the world.

Well, we'll just forget certain things that made them successful like
dropping nuclear bombs...

The Americans aren't as innocent as you imply.  Sometimes I'm ashamed
Tony Blair has his head so far up Clinton's arse.  Then again, he's
finally getting his act together wrt the EU.

Quote:> Sure, some of our success is from throwing our weight around,
> but a lot of it is because people actually LIKE our stuff
> better.

Some stuff, not others.

Quote:> For example, many countries resent the way US
> culture such as rock music and MacDonald's and Hollywood
> have impinged on their culture.

Well, I prefer British music and I am a fan of some big-budget movies,
but MacDonald's food *does* taste like cardboard.

Quote:> It's cheap and trashy, they
> say; the local stuff is *better*, but their citizens BUY it!
> This drives them nuts.

I don't buy MacDonald's food, but I don't have to go out of my way to
get real food.

Quote:> Or take the profit motive - we work our butts off and are
> highly productive and countries like France are pissed off
> because they don't want to have such an avaricious,
> money-oriented society where people work all the time
> but if they don't compete on our terms they lose.   Too
> bad, France; we LIKE getting rich.

So, basically, either play by your rules or be crushed.  Hmm...

Quote:> Same with Microsoft.   You can prove until you're blue
> in the face that Windoze, and Office, and IE, etc, are
> crappy and other software is *better*.    But Windows
> sw and Wintel PC's are what people buy - even when it
> DOESN'T come preinstalled.

But the problem is it *is* preinstalled.  I have to go out of my way
to get a computer without Windows.  At one point that meant I had to
build my own if I wanted a PC.

Quote:> So "better" is in the eye of
> the beholder.  It's like some French art flick which is
> "better" because it has good acting, clever dialogue,
> and deep insights into the human condition.   But their
> own people prefer the Hollywood flick with no plot
> or dialog, but lots cars blowing up and some starlet's
>*flashing on the screen.

Correction, the lemmings do.

Quote:> That's Microsoft - it blows up a lot and it's also on 95%
> of the desktops.

Most of my friends don't want Windows (Hell, one of them's simply more
or less given up on it and has returned to his Playstation), but
Microsoft stomped out the competition.

--
Darren Winsper - ICQ 8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.veryComputer.com/

"Microsoft stated that they had very little Monopoly power," stated
Jackson in his findings of fact, "However, upon closer investigation,
we found that not only did they own all the properties on two entire
sides of the board, they also had three houses on Boardwalk and Park Place!"
        --http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Ciaran Dun » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> I'm happy that Peter Nelson understood my satirical attempt of an
> analogy between the perception of Microsoft in the computer industry
> and the perception of the US in the world.  Hopefully the silent
> majority was also amused.

> Ciaran Dunn: The post wasn't intended to share my views on foreign
> policies.  It's all made up to make a point...

I understood your point... I think I just subscribe to too many history
groups where there are many kooks with stranges views on the UN and
American FP(and nazism... but lets not go into that :). So sorry
about that... bad day... still having a bad day actually :/

As to your point regarding perceptions of the US compared to MS... I
think it is more useful to consider the IBM situation of a few decades
ago... I am of the view that governemnt intervention in large (near)
monoply companies is not really necessary... generally things sort
themselves out for the better.

I mean IBM would be in the same situation today even if they hadnt
gone thru all that government lawsuit business. To refer back to
your analogy... who knows what will happen to America 50 or 100
years from now... currently they are * in the world... but
history has a way of sorting that out also... unless we are, as
they say, at the end of history.

However that does not mean to say that we should not be forever aware
that large companies can illegally and unfairly dominate a market.
Personally I like to see govt keeping a close eye on the bigger, more
powerful corporations. They, if anyone, can easily afford to defend
themselves. Its all a question of balance.

With power (and noone can deny that MS(or the US) has a great deal
of power) comes the responsibility to wield it wisely.

Anyone... enough of this... Im turning into a sophist... back to
the real world.

Cheers,
Ciaran  

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Osug » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> <a rather amusing piece comparing the antitrust case against MS and

possible "remedies" for any illegal behavior to the UN doing the same
to the US - unfortunately, I snipped it>

Sorry to take my frustration out on you, CoolDev, but I am getting very
tired of people attacking straw men (I think that is catagory of
fallacy that these argument falls under).

It may or may not be true that Netscape and others convinced the DOJ to
target MS because they could not compete. Maybe Netscape and friends
are spoiled pathetic little companies that couldn't innovate to save
their lives. Maybe not.

It may or may not be true that MS is a major source of innovation in
the computer / IT industry. Maybe MS is the only source of innovation.
Maybe not.

It may or may not be true that 95% of computer users want to use MS
software (ditto for whether or not they like that software).

It may or may not be true that breaking up MS would be a bad idea that
would cripple the computer industry in America for centuries to come.

Bill Gates may be Satan. He might be the Buddha. Maybe not.

None of the above matters one bit. Read the judges findings of fact.
Whether anyone likes it or not, those findings are FACTS as they
pertain to what goes on in the courts of America. Even if one or two of
the findings are in reality wrong, they are considered FACT in the
courts.

And the facts are (I am limiting this to what I can remember off the
top of my head):

1. MS (through Windows) has a monopoly in operating system software for
ibm clone personal computers.

2. MS felt that its os monopoly was treatened, for technical reasons,
by Netscape's Navigator and Sun's Java.

3. MS used their monopoly power to convince, cajole, and/or force
various other companies, as well as consumers, to use MS's own Internet
Explorer rather than navigator. This included giving IE away for free
and then later, claiming that it had become an integral part of the
opperating system.

4. (number 3 above) cost MS lots of money and would on the surface seem
to have no economic benifit - that is, they aren't going to make any
money from getting IE on to every computer.

5. The judge accepted that (number 4 above) was evidence that MS was
not merely "innovating" when it tied the browser to the operating
system.

6. The judge accepted that in order to preserve its monopoly, MS used
that monopoly power to attack navigator, as evidenced by (3),(4), and
(5) above.

7. The judge found that MS hurt consumers by:
a) overcharging them
b) forcing them to have a browser on their machine whether they wanted
one or not
c) forcing them to use IE even after another browser had been made the
default browser, even sometimes when IE had supposedly been uninstalled
d) as a consequence of (b), resources (memory, disk space) on
consumers' machines was wasted, resulting in performance losses
e) rendering consumers' machines less stable due to tying the browser
to the operating system

As you can see, there is nothing in there that says MS
cannot "innovate" by adding features to windows. They are not
being "persecuted" for being successful. Whatever the motivations
behind the trial originally, the trial has shown that there are in fact
potentially illegal reasons why MS has been so successful. The court
has found significant legal issues that must be resolved. All the MS
FUD in the world cannot change the fact that, in a court of law, where
MS was free to present the best case it could with the best lawyers
money can buy, the judge found the case put forward by the DOJ much
more convincing.

I have no ideas on any remedies should the court find against MS (which
does seem likely). Anyone involved in that will need the wisdom of
Solomon to craft a remedy which is both appropriate and fair.

But I am tired of hearing people complain about the "persecution" of
successful companies who were just "innovating." The fact is that they
were not innovating and they are not being persecuted.

Osugi Sakae

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Rex Balla » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> I'm happy that Peter Nelson understood my satirical attempt of an
> analogy between the perception of Microsoft in the computer industry
> and the perception of the US in the world.  Hopefully the silent
> majority was also amused.

It was amusing, especially to see a Microsoft Advocate trying to
wrap Microsoft's activivties as described in Judge Jackson's Finding
of Fact which include finding that border on Blackmail, Fraud,
Extortion, and Racketeering (none of which will be requested in
findings of law) in an analogy intended to evoke feelings of
Patriotism.

Actually, a more legitimate comparison would have been to use
Germany and it's activities from 1934 to 1938.

But then if you had done that, we would have considered the mere
break-up to be insufficient.  We would have had to build a "Berlin
Wall" between the buildings of the Microsoft campus :-).

In other posts I have suggested that a break-up of Microsoft wouldn't
serve the public interest.  Since Bill, Paul, and Steve would own
controlling interests in all three companies, and they would have
to have a cooperative relationship, there wouldn't be the same
advantage that there was in breaking up the "Baby Bells".

While there are those who favor the "broadsword" approach, I would
suggest that the public would be better served by measure that address
the primary issues.

  1- nullify those clauses of those contracts which give Microsoft
     "exclusive status".  This would include such things as cliff-tier
     pricing, control of the boot sequence, and control of the desktop.

  2- Provide a mediation process between OEMs and Microsoft which
     will allow OEMs to challenge contracts.  It would also provide
     remedies if Microsoft attempts to * uncooperative OEMs.

  3- Review of Microsoft contracts for clauses and conditions which
     have an exclusionary effect.

  4- Restrictions on Nondisclosure agreements - particularly those
     NDAs which are intended to obstruct justice or those which
     prevent disparaging remarks against Microsoft - particularly
     publication of benchmarks and market surveys that may adversely
     impact Microsoft.

  5- Penalties for Microsoft's use of "extensions" when the intent
     or effect of these extensions us exclusion of either applications
     or platforms.

These measures don't need to be permanent.  The only need to be kept
in place long enough to create a competitivo market in which Microsoft
holds less than 50% of the entire market.  Once a competitive market
was established, the OEMs wouldn't want to paint themselves into
a corner that excluded 50% of the market.  The application vendors
wouldn't want to write software exclusively for Microsoft, and
Microsoft couldn't retain market share without the cooperation of
OEMS and ISVs.

Quote:> Ciaran Dunn: The post wasn't intended to share my views on foreign
> policies.  It's all made up to make a point...

> Rex Ballard:  You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the
> same time.  On one hand, you say there are 55 million Linux users and
> growing fast

55 million users (about 10% of the market have tried Linux), 25 million
of which are regular users (5% use linux in dual-boot), and 10
million of which are exclusively Linux users (less than 2% can dump
Microsoft completely).

What this indicates is that people WANT an alternative, and they
are willing to try to "climb the electrifed fence" (all the market
barriers to entry erected by Microsoft) and that have of them
"die on the wire".

New players and the establishment of nearly $80 billion in Linux
focused capitalization will help.

Quote:>, and on the other hand Microsoft has achieved world
> domination and is a mafia.

Microsoft has total control of 500 million PCs including workstations,
laptops, and servers.  They protect that market using the practices
described in the "Findings of Fact".  This is the tip of the iceburg,
but Judge Jackson limited the case to 12 witnesses for each side.

Quote:>  Your slippery slope attempt of a response
> was almost as funny as the original article,

The proceedings themselves are having much of the required effect.
Now that the OEMs knew Microsoft's tactics, and now that the OEMs
have decided not to play that game (IBM and DELL refused to accept
terms that prevented them from installing and promoting Linux). It
also has made Microsoft less inclined to punish ISPs for not
implementing "Netscape Killers".

Fox has chosen to exclude Linux users from it's visitation, and
advertisers will need to choose whether they want to support
sites that alienate Linux users.

Linux will probably define it's own paradigm, similar to the way
it defined the ISP server, "Remote Hosting", Intranet, and extranet,
all of which were established and defined by the OpenSource products
that make up a Linux distribution.

Of course, in each of these paradigms, the OpenSource products can
also be migrated to any UNIX platform.  I wouldn't be surprised
to see "Appliance Workstations" being adopted by SCO, Sun, IBM,
HP, and other UNIX vendors.  Furthermore, Apple will probably
provide the same paradigm with OS/X.  And Linux will have it's
own strong market and branding.

The establishement of competition backed by OEMS, VARS, ISVs, and
ISPs will break the Microsoft monopoly, without creating an economic
crisis resulting from a sudden collapse of Microsoft stock that could
talk Mutual funds and retirement plans with it.

Quote:> but it was so long I
> didn't finish reading it.

Too bad, you missed the punch line. :-)

Quote:> The other point I was trying to make is that the suggested remedies
> (ie. suggested by MS's multibillion-dollar competitors) to MS's
> alleged
> practices are extreme and absurd and the incredibly competitive and
> dynamic computer industry is taking care of itself just fine.

No, Microsoft has engaged in practices which would be illegal under
nearly any circumstances, but are extra illegal under it's monopoly
of the PC market.

Quote:> Ciao!

> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.veryComputer.com/ The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!

--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.veryComputer.com/
Linux - 55 million and growing at 2%/week!

Sent via Deja.com http://www.veryComputer.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by CoolDe » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:15:17 -0500, Peter Nelson

> > The posting makes an excellent analogy.   The US is highly
> > successful and this creates great resentment around the world.
> Well, we'll just forget certain things that made them successful
> like
> dropping nuclear bombs...

Now this is totally off topic, but lets not forget that we saved your
collective asses.

This relates well back to the original posting:  Much of the world
looks down on the US because we have (and have only twice used, I
believe) atomic weapons.  They forget how it not only ended WWII, but
that the ideas/science for developing nuclear weapons was "in the air"
at the time.  The world may be FAR worse off if a less disciplined
nation had developed it first.  Draw your own analogies in the spirit
of the original post, just don't post 'em here. ;)

(And the rest, they say, is history...)

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Donal K. Fello » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> Do you think the peoples of Guatamala and El Salvador share your
> optimistic view that the US struggles to "impose democracy and western
> culture on competing nations.". Or do you think they may see the US as
> the bringers of chaos, death and misery ?

> Twit.

I thought it was rather amusing, but then I've always liked parodies,
satire and debunking of officialdom.  The only thing wrong with it was
that it wasn't saved for April 1...  :^)

Donal.
--

-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
   be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Darren Winsp » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:39:46 -0800, CoolDev




> > Well, we'll just forget certain things that made them successful
> > like
> > dropping nuclear bombs...

> Now this is totally off topic, but lets not forget that we saved your
> collective asses.

If the Japanese hadn't attacked, Europe and eventually Asia could have
been taken over.  Eventually, the Germans and the Japanese would have
taken over the USA had we not joined forces.

Quote:> This relates well back to the original posting:  Much of the world
> looks down on the US because we have (and have only twice used, I
> believe) atomic weapons.

The people who authorised the use of the atomic weapons knew the
Japanese were seriously considering surrender.

Dropping bombs on civilians is typically refered to as a war crime.

Quote:> They forget how it not only ended WWII, but
> that the ideas/science for developing nuclear weapons was "in the air"
> at the time. The world may be FAR worse off if a less disciplined
> nation had developed it first.

Ah so it's a case of "we have it, so we might as well use it" then?

Quote:> Draw your own analogies in the spirit
> of the original post, just don't post 'em here. ;)

Oops, too late.

Quote:> (And the rest, they say, is history...)

BTW, how come the US (And the UK, ho hum)were only too happy to slap
the Serbs about while they simply ignore the Russians who are
slaughtering civilians?

It's a funny old world.

--
Darren Winsper - ICQ 8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org

"Microsoft stated that they had very little Monopoly power," stated
Jackson in his findings of fact, "However, upon closer investigation,
we found that not only did they own all the properties on two entire
sides of the board, they also had three houses on Boardwalk and Park Place!"
        --http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=3825b6d8-019cd640

 
 
 

(On topic) UN declares US declared to be illegal superpower

Post by Jim Richards » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


On 21 Dec 1999 18:01:13 GMT,
 Darren Winsper, in the persona of

 brought forth the following words...:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:39:46 -0800, CoolDev



>> > Well, we'll just forget certain things that made them successful
>> > like
>> > dropping nuclear bombs...

>> Now this is totally off topic, but lets not forget that we saved your
>> collective asses.

>If the Japanese hadn't attacked, Europe and eventually Asia could have
>been taken over.  Eventually, the Germans and the Japanese would have
>taken over the USA had we not joined forces.

FDR was desperately trying to get us in a war with Germany, which
is why we were escorting convoys from Halifax and depth charging
German subs in international waters as early as may 1940. Could
the Axis power's have digested Europe and Asia, and then come
after the US? possibly, would they succeed? Unlikely. Consider.
 In June 1941 when Hitler attacked the USSR, German intelligence
estimated that the Soviets had approximately 200 divisions under
arms. They were short by aproximately 100 divisions. Soviet
tactics were abysmal, their equipment was often inadequate. But
they fought for their homes, could afford to (and did) take over
20 million casualties in defence of the Rodina. German divisions
almost entered Moscow before they were turned back. But Moscow is
2000+ miles from the far end of the old USSR. Hitler _might_ have
been able to take the USSR, but digesting would have been a job
that took generations, and they would not have the ability to
mount a strong offensive elsewhere for at least 10 years. This is
also assuming that the could sucessfully invade the UK, not a
trivial task in itself, and they threw that away when Hitler
ordered the bombing of the cities, instead of following Goering's
plan of pounding the RAF into submission first. Without control
of the Air, they had no way to neutralize the Navy, and would be
unable to support their beachheads properly. It is conceiv?ble
that despite this, they could have taken the UK, but not if they
were simultaneously engaged in the preparations for Barbarossa
(the invasion of the USSR).
 As for Japan, they simply lacked the industrial strength for a
long term  conflict. Their supply lines were too vulnerable (US
subs sunk over half of the japanese tonnage sunk by the USN, a
disproportionate amount from their merchant marine.) Japan had
the same problem with China that Germany had with the USSR, too
few resources to take and hold too much terrirtory. Could they
have done it if the US hadn't intervened? Possibly, but as with
Germany, they'd be a decade or more digesting the spoils before
they could mount a credible threat to the US. The very most you
could say is, that if the US had not been involved, and had
everything gone well for the Axis, then it is remotely possible
that the Axis would have been a threat to the US by 1950 or 1955,
maybe...Then they'd have to invade and take the US, and that
would make their earlier fights look like a tea party. The US
shares no land border with any of the Axis powers. But perhaps
Mexico would join the Axis and give them a base of operation. In
which case, if the US had maintained the same poor state of
readines that they had in 1937 when the military began seriously
rearming, then there might be a chance that the Axis could pull
it off. So if the US did nothing right, and the Axis did nothing
wrong, and the dice rolled in their favour in evey case, then
maybe th?y could do it.

Quote:

>> This relates well back to the original posting:  Much of the world
>> looks down on the US because we have (and have only twice used, I
>> believe) atomic weapons.

>The people who authorised the use of the atomic weapons knew the
>Japanese were seriously considering surrender.

Which of course is why the Japanese military attempted a coup
after Hirohito did surrender, and tried to keep fighting.

Quote:>Dropping bombs on civilians is typically refered to as a war crime.

yes, dresden, cologne, coventry, heidleberg, tokyo et al, all
crimes of the state against the individual, it's been a brutal
century.

Quote:>> They forget how it not only ended WWII, but
>> that the ideas/science for developing nuclear weapons was "in the air"
>> at the time. The world may be FAR worse off if a less disciplined
>> nation had developed it first.

>Ah so it's a case of "we have it, so we might as well use it" then?

>> Draw your own analogies in the spirit
>> of the original post, just don't post 'em here. ;)

>Oops, too late.

>> (And the rest, they say, is history...)

>BTW, how come the US (And the UK, ho hum)were only too happy to slap
>the Serbs about while they simply ignore the Russians who are
>slaughtering civilians?

>It's a funny old world.

because governments are tyrants, whether they oppress their own
people at any given time or not.

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
        Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.

 
 
 

1. declaring variables in a script



Please tell us what scripting language you use (Perl, bash, Python
etc.). Some scripting languages doesn't like non-alphanumeric first
characters in variable names. Some code would be nice to see too.

/A

--
Andreas K?h?ri, <URL:http://hello.to/andkaha/>.
All junk e-mail will be reported to the appropriate authorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

2. red hat interface

3. Removing "declare" messages on login

4. xfig

5. Microsoft is Dead, declares MS V.P. Ballmer

6. apache -- detecting cookie accepting

7. HOW TO DECLARE A MODEM ?

8. Modem Help!! - Newbie

9. Help: WARNING - broken Config.in! CONFIG_AEDSP16 not declared

10. Korn Shell IFS When Declaring An Array

11. what library do I link to declare the sigmask function

12. Microsoft buys into Apple - Jobs declares "war" over

13. Which shell interpreter has priority: The declared, the current or calling?