CDMA vs. GSM in Post-war Iraq
An anonymous reader submits: "Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pressing congress to favor CDMA over GSM for mobile phone service in U.S.-funded reconstruction plans. One reason for pushing this is that a CDMA system would benefit American companies, such as California-based Qualcomm, while GSM would favor European companies. Currently, GSM is the most widely used mobile standard in surrounding countries."
Go live in North Korea or something....
Who gave america the right to decide anything about iraq!a ughters/sons to actualy want you to decide how there country is going to be.
<br><br>
Im pretty sure that the UN will take over rebuilding the country, not the states.
<br>
<br>
Think of it from there point of you.
<br>
You go over there, rape pillage and plunder, kill a few thousand people. and expect the mothers/fathers/brothers/sisters/husbands/wifes/d
<br>
The way the americas are speaking, they want to take over, MR BUSH wants to be the DICTATOR
<br><br>
Saddam with his SUPPOSED WepsMassDestruction, will be outsted in favor of Bush, who actualy has WMD and as we know, are fuct up enuff to use them.
Say no to war.
I love seein' "Anonymous Coward" under most of these supposedly heartfelt remarks.
French President Chirac facilitated France's multibillion-dollar sale of the Osirak nuclear reactor to Iraq while the Mayor of Paris. Thank god Isreal bombed it.
So, he's evil because he's trying to protect the interests of his constituency? Which would include any companies doing business there? Conspiracy theories aside, he'd hardly be representing his district if he sold them out to foreign companies. Get real people.
No statement is true, not even this one.
Actually, they're taking a VERY clear stance- the war is wrong. Europeans have repeatedly made it clear that they don't really hate Americans, they hate the Bush administration..
Meanwhile, Americans are too stupid to figure out the subtle distinctions between, say:
-supporting "the troops" versus being against the war.
-national security policy of preemption, versus "its about the oil!"
-a dictator who MIGHT have some weapons of mass destruction, versus a legitimate threat to US national security
Please help metamoderate.
Of course, maybe you are just canadian, in which case you should be used to being our bitch by now. In that case, STFU and go make my some more syrup.