>Hi Fernando,
>
>IMHO, this article hit the nail(s) on the head.

This article circulated among a few of my countrymen (we're a wide diaspora group, currently on only three continents), and here's a few comments which appeared during the discussion. I'm translating them just as an illustration of how the same matters are seen through a different pair of glasses.

About Marshall plan: "We almost might get an idea that this was done for phylantropic-altruistic reasons. What a pulp story, dang."

Response to that: "Well, not really, since they have created a market for themselves, but it was a long term plan, which America simply doesn't have now. If they had one, they'd be investing in hydrogen cells. Technology is available... Of course, there is a certain lobby which doesn't really like the idea."

About diplomacy during the WWII and honoring the allies: "you get the glory, decoration and merits, I get Ruhr area. You get East Germany, I get Greece. You get Ploieºti, we Vienna. Generosity at its best."

About why is it hard to understand why would Iraq want nuclear power plants when they're sitting on oil: "Why not, from American POV. They do that [run power plants on crude oil] here. You must understand that the oil is so much cheaper in USA than in Europe."

About France: "I'm all thinking that France, with their 15 million Arabs in the state, will be against Iraq."

About the article itself: "Now, it's also questionable how much influence can such an article have, despite the mighty institution of Newsweek and fine packaging of the thesis so it can pass here (aka "the problem is not what we do, it's how")."

...and finally

"You know the world is going crazy when
- the best rapper is a white guy,
- the best golfer is a black guy,
- and Germany doesn't want to go to war."