>> I don't consider the "Iraq stain" is of such major consequence
>> compared to all else that happens in the world that it would
>> disqualify the US. No country is perfect. While the US's actions in
>> Iraq would be seen by the vast majority of humanity as having 
>> fallen
>> short of the ideal, those who see the US as irrevocably stained by
>> Iraq tend tend to have very selective vision re the US's good 
>> points.

> Russel, you misunderstood the purpose of this thread. The aim is to
> critique you own country. Defending your own country and/or 
> critiquing
> other countries is not. Hence: so far a lot of ROFL posts and James 
> did
> not yet raise his axe :)

I THINK I've got the rules right.
I live in New Zealand (not USA) so I can defenc USA, as above.
I said my own country may seem to be a good candidate but it's 
actually not, so that fits the rules.

I said that a country whose Prime Minister sends terrorists to sink 
ships in the harbour almost in view of where I'm typing this from and 
lets off H bombs under small geologically unstable atolls "just up the 
map" from me, doesn't seem a good candidate - and that may break the 
rules  abit BUT I also said that they did good things in Ruwanda when 
nobody else would, so that probably makes it about neutral.

Just to add balance I'll try a bit more self criticism. The Maori 
people are an integrated part of our society - and about 200 years ago 
they committed near total genocide of the Moriori people who were here 
when they arrived. In turn 'the white man' (Pakeha) signed a treaty of 
agreement with them - a most unusual thing to do in the world back 
then (1840) but then proceeded to take their land in abrogation of the 
treaty and declared them to be insurgents (or equivalent) when they 
resisted and sent the world's best troops and equipment to fight them. 
Their lands were confiscated by government order because they refused 
to sell it or give it away. Since then we've sorted it all out in full 
and final agreements - we do that about once every 20 years and then 
start again and repeat the whole thing ad infinitum.

Hve I got the rules right now ?

:-)

>>> No. Germany?  Of course not.
>> A far better candidate than many.
>
> I live next to that country and I must agree. I don't think there 
> are
> many countries that have gone through a similar stage of 
> self-reflection
> and came out like the Germans did. Regretfully (former) eastern 
> Germany
> seems to have missed this stage.

I don't know enough about EG to comment well, but they suffered such 
immense privations and, unlike WG, did not find after about 15 years 
that they'd actually won the war that they thought they'd lost (as 
also did Japan) so it's understandable enough. It is unlikely that *on 
average* the East German citizens of WW2 times did more harm to others 
than was done to their children and children's children by those who 
conquered them.

>> So, how does Belgium stand as a candidate?
>
> That's not a country. It is officially, but not in practice.

Looked like a country when I drove through it :-)
Some very very moving places there.


        RM



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist