I disagree. When it comes to proper nouns, such as the names of people, places, or countries, the respectful thing is to use them the way said people (or the people who live there) use them. For example, here in Illinois, we have the town of Des Plaines, pronounced “dess planes” NOT “de plane” a la Tatoo/Mr. Rork, regardless of how the French would render it. Likewise in Polycarp’s example, we have “The Gambia”, and the United States “is”.
Guys, the United States does not formulate policy based on who it is ‘pissed’ at. This is extremely simplistic thinking.
The U.S. opposes countries that are a threat to its national interests, and supports countries that strengthen U.S. interests.
The U.S. is hostile to Iran not because of some personal grudge, but because Iran is a major supporter of terrorism, has a huge military, is building nuclear ICBMs capable of reaching a country it calls “The Great Satan”, and is controlled by radicals who ideas that don’t fall into line with western values like freedom of religion and speech.
Lots of countries have hurt the U.S. far more than Iran has, and the U.S. gets along with them just fine. The U.S. formed a very strong bond with Japan only a few short years after Pearl Harbor. 241 marines were killed in Lebanon, but the U.S. is getting along fine there.
If Iran ousted the mullahs tomorrow and formed a true democracy and renounced terror, the U.S. would be their best buddy almost overnight. This is not about what happened in the past - it’s about the threats and opportunities that exist today.
You could not have picked a worse example had you tried. Do you refer to “Munich” as “München?” Do you speak of “Köln” instead of “Cologne?” When was the last time you had cause to discuss “Deutschland” rather than “Germany?” I suppose they have it coming, though. These ungrateful reprobates sometimes refer to the United States as “Vereinigte Staaten!” Outrageous! Have they no respect?
Oh yeah? Explain Cuba.
True. But the Spaniards call our country “Los Estados Unidos.” It means The United States but it isn’t The United States. It did bump us up a few notches in Barcelona’s Olympic parade of nations though.
It’s a 111,000 square kilometer island approximately 90 miles off the coast of Florida, but that’s not important right now.
Yes, there are differences between English and German that most people don’t comprehend. I am a jelly donut, etc. But if we are talking about English, then there shouldn’t be any confusion. The POLITE thing to do is to say “The United States IS”.
Guinistasia Said:
Cuba is a special case, because of the extremely large expatriate Cuban population in Florida. Florida is a swing state, and therefore the Cubans wield disproportionate power in federal politics.
I think we agree that the embargo should be ended.
I must also mention that non of the 9-11 hijackers where from Iran
I’m trying to figure out how this is pertinent to the question of the US being “pissed” at Iran and I’m drawing a blank.
There surely are people that are interested, but if Jodi took a survey, I would report that in Northeast Mississippi there are very few people that give a tinkers dam about Iran.
To me part of the point is that POWER_station is starting a number of threads where he makes an assumption about the U.S. that in my mind is trying to stir things up. So when he asks “are USA pissed at Iran”, then I think he should be told the truth about how we generally don’t give a rat’s ass about Iran.
Apparently, there are also differences between American English and British English that most people don’t comprehend. As Shaw quipped, America and Britain are divided by a common language. There are even books written about it.
Look, if you wish to say that “the Congress are divided over this issue,” that’s your privilege. But if British English feel(s) that (it/they) have the right to define to Americans how they may refer to their own nation, well, in the wise words of Sir Winston Churchill at the time of the Darlan fracas in 1942:
In short, it is immaterial to me whether the United Kingdom pounds salt (corporately) or pound salt (individually) but anyone from elsewhere who chooses to tell me how my country should refer to itself should do one of the above.
The British are quite tolerant of the aberrant use of the singular verb for what ought to be a plural noun. They would never dream of attacking someone’s English skills or taking offense because of such a usage, especially since to do so might imply that they were unaware of the prevelance such a usage enjoys “across the pond.”
Nonetheless, Polycarp, the shear size of the chip on your shoulder has utterly convinced me of the righteousness of your cause. The British ought to be livid when someone, especially a foreigner, presumes to tell the British how to refer to their own country.
George Bush, for instance, recently said, (by way of “thanking” the British for their assistance) “Great Britain has sent its largest naval task force in 20 years.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020311-1.html
In fact, it seems to be common practice in the U.S. to refer to Great Britain in the singular. :eek: Have you ever seen such rude arrogance?!? I know you will join me and all right-thinking folk in condemning this blatant disrespect and in telling the entire United States to “pound salt.” Being a fair-minded sort, as I know you are, you would, of course, never insist on a courtesy for yourself you were unwilling to extend to others!
Well…At least I got the answer to a question I often wondered about : “should i say the US is or the US are?”. I’m still not sure if I’m supposed to refer to the US as “he”, “it” or “she”, though…
From henceforth, the nations will be referred to exclusively as “the U.S.” and “the U.K.” and pronomially however clairobscur rules. And no verb in the present tense will be permitted to exist in the same sentence with them!! 
(Although Mr. Bush may have simply meant to indicate that he wanted no Ulstermen involved – all the U.K. naval forces being from England, Wales, or Scotland. :))
Power Station, my sincere apologies for the hijack!!
ANAHITA –
It obviously was not necessary to use any particular terminology, but that is the terminology I chose to use. And I decide whether or not I am contributing to the discussion, and I do not allow others to make that decision for me. I have already said that I apologized if I offended you, so IMO it is now up to you to either get over it, or not.
I have said nothing disparaging of Iranians, and it takes a leap of something other than logic to assume that I have. You’re free to read it that way, of course, but I don’t consider that my problem.
I doubt it. I think the two are marginally different, in that “not to give a shit about” is more analogous to “really don’t care,” as opposed to “not really care about.” The point stands, however: The average American really doesn’t care about Iran. Or Angola. Or Burkina Faso. Or Uruguay. Or Thailand. See above re: most citizens of all nations only caring about things that impact them. But I obviously was not talking about you, your family, your countryman, or you social group. I was, at most, talking about your country (though, if so, that’s news to me). And I don’t think that I would be as offended as you apparently are if someone said that, say, Monrovians do not give a shit about the U.S.
And I stand behind the statement as made, subject only to the apology already posted. Deal with it. (And if you detect some shortness in my reply, it is because I consider it “offensive and rude” to mischaracterize my statement (as if I spoke for every American) and to take it upon yourself to inform me of what “speaks well” of me as a poster. I don’t consider this little hissy fit of yours to speak well of you.)
I have no intention of taking dictation from a total stranger on what I post, or when, or how. Beyond that, since you refuse the explanation that any offense was intentional, and refuse as well the apology accompanying the explanation, I no longer consider your reaction to what I said to be in any way my problem.
“Any offense was unintentional,” of course.
So, have you guys got that out of your system yet? Or are you going to go open a new thread?
I shouldn’t have barked like that. It’s just that lately, I see a lot of really racist non-factual garbage (from all sides, and NOT that you said something that was racist at all) in GD and that seems to me to be more common than I remember.
It’s not easy to be one of the few people who have a personal investment in what is going on in the Middle East presently. By personal, I mean, my own family, friends and personal safety at stake, rather than just a discussion on a message board. I know there are others who also do care a lot about these issues, but sometimes I feel quite isolated in this forum, and I snapped when I shouldn’t have.
Forgive me if I came across as trying to tell you what/how to post.
Sorry for the hijack, as well.
Getting back on track…
From a recent BBC commentary, some quotes about the political situation in Iran, WRT the establishment of ties with the west.
Signs of thaw in Iran’s Cold War
"Another idea to be floated would be whether or not some kind of dialogue should be opened with Washington, in order to defuse the perceived American threat to Iran. "
“Some reformists have argued for months that dialogue must be started with Washington now, because if it is left till later, Iran will be in a much weaker position.”