Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I am not looking for a discussion or argument ... I've just been reading lately a lot of people talking about the "Anglosphere," remarking about how it was the English-speaking nations -- Australia, UK, U.S., and even the English-speaking Canadians -- who were largely behind the war in Iraq, and how there is may be some benefit in a treaty between English-speaking nations.

    I'd never really thought of the world as easily separable by language like that, across great distances, but it actually seems to make s
    • ...just happened across this entry. I realize you weren't looking for discussion or arguement, and I hope to not provide the latter, but I think two things are worth pointing out.

      With an obvious exception (the US), the associations are there in the Commonwealth of Nations [wikipedia.org], which has existed since the 1920s and currently has its most effect through cultural links instead of explicit treaties (though there are a number of policies that are harmonized between Commonwealth countries).

      What that means for in

      --

      -DA [coder.com]

      • by pudge (1) on 2005.11.15 12:10 (#44552) Homepage Journal
        Secondly, as an American living in Canada, who moved here just before September 2001, I can say pretty clearly that english-speaking Canada was not solidly behind the war in Iraq; an ipsos-reid poll I just dug up says two weeks after the war started, 54% of English Canada supported the war

        What I meant was that it was a solid majority (which I think this poll shows, pretty clearly). I didn't mean to imply the support was overwhelming.