The enemy of my enemy...
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Someday, maybe the US will choose alies based on more than short-term issues of convenience. When our long time allies leave us "high and dry" you can expect more of the same. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen HawkingAhhh!!! Now I understand The Washington Global Dictionary: ally: n. someone who does as it pleases you Sorry, but this edition wasn't available in Europe :rolleyes:
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
Ahhh!!! Now I understand The Washington Global Dictionary: ally: n. someone who does as it pleases you Sorry, but this edition wasn't available in Europe :rolleyes:
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: Sorry, but this edition wasn't available in Europe If you look at it from the perspective of France and Germany making their own decisions opposite of US/UK then I would disagree. It appears they read and understood their editions quite well. Remember, all of these things work both ways (as they should). Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen Hawking -
Just a question for you, how would you choose an ally? The idea that these people would do something like boil their enemies just shows me that they are no better than the people we are fighting. But in all seriousness how would you choose an ally in part of the world where it honestly seems life is way to cheap. Not intended to be a confrontational question, just a question of when can you bargain with the devil, and how much support can you show someone who would use tactics like these people. Would you try to engage them in ways that are not going to support the regime in a military manner, but maybe might indirectly benefit them? An example might be trading with Castro, and helping to provide cash income to his regime. Is it better sometimes (to a limitied extent) to engage people who are reprehensible, short of provide support in repressing their people? I have mixed feelings in all honesty. I don't think its an all black and white issue. Isolating a country to try to force the government to collapse is going to almost always affect the people there. China is probably better off with having access to the world, but the Chinese government is not a humanitarian regime by any stretch. Where would you draw the line? Personnaly I'm glad I don't have to try to make that decision. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Just a question for you, how would you choose an ally? i don't know... so, i'll start by picking at your post and maybe i'll have something at the end... :) Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that these people would do something like boil their enemies just shows me that they are no better than the people we are fighting. exactly. which raises the question: why are we fighting X under "humanitarian" guise, but we're friends with Y, who is just as bad ? to me, this is exactly why GWB's (and his supporters') claims that Iraq was a "humanitarian" effort seem so hollow. Saddam was no worse than the douche bags in charge of any of a dozen other countries that we're friends with. yes, i realize we (the US) can't police the entire world, and i'm fine with that; i don't want us to. and really, that's not the point; the point is that Saddam wasn't so much worse than anyone else; he's just your average third world tyrant - the same kind we're more than willing to be friends with, when it suits our short term goals. Doug Goulden wrote: Isolating a country to try to force the government to collapse is going to almost always affect the people there. yup. maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty fuckers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
peterchen wrote: Sorry, but this edition wasn't available in Europe If you look at it from the perspective of France and Germany making their own decisions opposite of US/UK then I would disagree. It appears they read and understood their editions quite well. Remember, all of these things work both ways (as they should). Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen HawkingThat's purely my european socialist tree-hugging blindly-anti-US view of the topic, and while I'm very iuch an advocate of "works both ways", this time, no, it doesn't. The US have in the recent years pushed their long-term-alliances far to the limits, often risking the alliance for their current goal. See NATO: The US pushed changes they deemed appropriate, often by valuing the change more than the alliance. Even if that change is necessary, that's not the way to convince allies. With many international treaties the US is the "odd one out". This is not someone I would like to ally myself with.
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
Doug Goulden wrote: Just a question for you, how would you choose an ally? i don't know... so, i'll start by picking at your post and maybe i'll have something at the end... :) Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that these people would do something like boil their enemies just shows me that they are no better than the people we are fighting. exactly. which raises the question: why are we fighting X under "humanitarian" guise, but we're friends with Y, who is just as bad ? to me, this is exactly why GWB's (and his supporters') claims that Iraq was a "humanitarian" effort seem so hollow. Saddam was no worse than the douche bags in charge of any of a dozen other countries that we're friends with. yes, i realize we (the US) can't police the entire world, and i'm fine with that; i don't want us to. and really, that's not the point; the point is that Saddam wasn't so much worse than anyone else; he's just your average third world tyrant - the same kind we're more than willing to be friends with, when it suits our short term goals. Doug Goulden wrote: Isolating a country to try to force the government to collapse is going to almost always affect the people there. yup. maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty fuckers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: drop textbooks on them Just not these[^], ok? :rolleyes: Nice to see you two in some kind of constructive argument. I just step back and watch - maybe I learn something ;)
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
That's purely my european socialist tree-hugging blindly-anti-US view of the topic, and while I'm very iuch an advocate of "works both ways", this time, no, it doesn't. The US have in the recent years pushed their long-term-alliances far to the limits, often risking the alliance for their current goal. See NATO: The US pushed changes they deemed appropriate, often by valuing the change more than the alliance. Even if that change is necessary, that's not the way to convince allies. With many international treaties the US is the "odd one out". This is not someone I would like to ally myself with.
"Der Geist des Kriegers ist erwacht / Ich hab die Macht" StS
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: That's purely my european socialist tree-hugging blindly-anti-US view of the topic Your words not mine. ;P peterchen wrote: while I'm very much an advocate of "works both ways", this time, no, it doesn't. I don't see why not. peterchen wrote: The US pushed changes they deemed appropriate, often by valuing the change more than the alliance. Even if that change is necessary, that's not the way to convince allies. Sometimes a leader needs to push. peterchen wrote: With many international treaties the US is the "odd one out". This is not someone I would like to ally myself with. Then don't. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen Hawking -
Sorry, let me re-phrase more in the spirit of what I was thinking at the time: Now that even our long time allies are leaving us "high & dry" when the mood suits them, I believe we can expect more short term (short sighted?) alliances in the future. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen HawkingHere's a newsflash. So long as the US continues to make such idiotic decisions, and to align itself with oppressive regimes, more rational countries will continue to judge each request for assistance on it's merits, thus continuing to be allies, as opposed to vassals. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
-
Here's a newsflash. So long as the US continues to make such idiotic decisions, and to align itself with oppressive regimes, more rational countries will continue to judge each request for assistance on it's merits, thus continuing to be allies, as opposed to vassals. Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Christian Graus wrote: So long as the US continues to make such idiotic decisions... more rational countries will... If we don't agree with you we're "idiotic" while you're "rational". Kinda one-sided don't you think? Christian Graus wrote: judge each request for assistance on it's merits, thus continuing to be allies, as opposed to vassals. As it should be. I think you're reading something into my statements that wasn't meant to be there. I have no problem with every country making their own decisions based on merit (short or long term) as it relates to their own agenda. After all, that is what international relations and capitalism is all about. Every government needs to look after and represent its people. If you're waiting for the US to look after your needs or any other country's needs before it's own you're gonna be waiting a damn long time. I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here or defend any US involvement with Uzbekistan. I don't agree with it in the least, but it is not the first time a country has made dubious "friends" and it won't be the last. My point all along is that based on the current world political climate I expect to see many nations making shorter (more specific goal oriented) agreements in the future. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen Hawking -
Christian Graus wrote: So long as the US continues to make such idiotic decisions... more rational countries will... If we don't agree with you we're "idiotic" while you're "rational". Kinda one-sided don't you think? Christian Graus wrote: judge each request for assistance on it's merits, thus continuing to be allies, as opposed to vassals. As it should be. I think you're reading something into my statements that wasn't meant to be there. I have no problem with every country making their own decisions based on merit (short or long term) as it relates to their own agenda. After all, that is what international relations and capitalism is all about. Every government needs to look after and represent its people. If you're waiting for the US to look after your needs or any other country's needs before it's own you're gonna be waiting a damn long time. I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here or defend any US involvement with Uzbekistan. I don't agree with it in the least, but it is not the first time a country has made dubious "friends" and it won't be the last. My point all along is that based on the current world political climate I expect to see many nations making shorter (more specific goal oriented) agreements in the future. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen HawkingMike Mullikin wrote: If we don't agree with you we're "idiotic" while you're "rational". Kinda one-sided don't you think? Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here or defend any US involvement with Uzbekistan. I don't agree with it in the least, but it is not the first time a country has made dubious "friends" and it won't be the last. So we agree that this decision IS idiotic ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Just a question for you, how would you choose an ally? i don't know... so, i'll start by picking at your post and maybe i'll have something at the end... :) Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that these people would do something like boil their enemies just shows me that they are no better than the people we are fighting. exactly. which raises the question: why are we fighting X under "humanitarian" guise, but we're friends with Y, who is just as bad ? to me, this is exactly why GWB's (and his supporters') claims that Iraq was a "humanitarian" effort seem so hollow. Saddam was no worse than the douche bags in charge of any of a dozen other countries that we're friends with. yes, i realize we (the US) can't police the entire world, and i'm fine with that; i don't want us to. and really, that's not the point; the point is that Saddam wasn't so much worse than anyone else; he's just your average third world tyrant - the same kind we're more than willing to be friends with, when it suits our short term goals. Doug Goulden wrote: Isolating a country to try to force the government to collapse is going to almost always affect the people there. yup. maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty fuckers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. I don't have a problem with that idea, if you look at China and how it opened up prior to Tianamen Square that was what was happening to a large extent. The US was making inroads at opening trade and the people there saw the benefits to a Democracy. I still remember watching on television as they showed what happened there. I guess the problem I see, is what do you do when the government of a nation cracks down brutally on its own people. In China the government rolled back much of the progress that had taken place. In the USSR under Gorbachev and his glasnost policy, when the tanks rolled the troops refused to fire on the people. Do you disengage from the leaders of a nation that represses their own people? Do you just keep on going hoping that the benefits of the money and trade reach the people? I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. But I don't know that governments like North Korea or Uzbekistan are ever going to fold to the will of the people. I think Saddam and his kin were probably the same way. How do you open the minds of people who control their own people by limiting their access to information and the benefits others would give them? If Gorbachev hadn't allowed the start of glasnost during his tenure, the collapse of the Soviet Union might have come years later than it did. (I won't offend you by pointing out the fortunate circumstances of having Ronald Reagan in office at the time and John Paul being the Pope from a Soviet Bloc country all at the same time ;P). Chris Losinger wrote: i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. I don't know about that, I would have to same I'm relatively left of the idea of bombing all of the people that some folks might think we should have at. I do believe in a more carrot and the stick stance..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: If we don't agree with you we're "idiotic" while you're "rational". Kinda one-sided don't you think? Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here or defend any US involvement with Uzbekistan. I don't agree with it in the least, but it is not the first time a country has made dubious "friends" and it won't be the last. So we agree that this decision IS idiotic ? Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
Christian Graus wrote: So we agree that this decision IS idiotic ? I'm not so quick to call something idiotic just because I don't agree with it. Especially in a case like this when I have so few details about the situation. On the surface it looks bad, but I'll reserve "idiotic status" until I know more about it. The US seems to be under a huge microscope right now so I'm learning to become slow and deliberate about "news" stories both positive and negative until they get "fleshed out" over time. Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the microscope on the US. It kind of comes with the territory. But it rarely pays to rush to judgement in these matters. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen Hawking -
Christian Graus wrote: So we agree that this decision IS idiotic ? I'm not so quick to call something idiotic just because I don't agree with it. Especially in a case like this when I have so few details about the situation. On the surface it looks bad, but I'll reserve "idiotic status" until I know more about it. The US seems to be under a huge microscope right now so I'm learning to become slow and deliberate about "news" stories both positive and negative until they get "fleshed out" over time. Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the microscope on the US. It kind of comes with the territory. But it rarely pays to rush to judgement in these matters. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen HawkingDammit Mike, how can we conduct a flame war if your responses are going to be balanced and reasonable ? :P Christian NO MATTER HOW MUCH BIG IS THE WORD SIZE ,THE DATA MUCT BE TRANSPORTED INTO THE CPU. - Vinod Sharma Anonymous wrote: OK. I read a c++ book. Or...a bit of it anyway. I'm sick of that evil looking console window. I think you are a good candidate for Visual Basic. - Nemanja Trifunovic
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html[^] Uzbekistan became one of the US's new-found best friends during the scattering of the Taliban. Turns out the leader there is as bad as Saddam ever was; he has actually sentenced people to be boiled to death. X| Someday, maybe the US will choose allies based on more than short-term issues of convenience. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Just a question for you, how would you choose an ally? i don't know... so, i'll start by picking at your post and maybe i'll have something at the end... :) Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that these people would do something like boil their enemies just shows me that they are no better than the people we are fighting. exactly. which raises the question: why are we fighting X under "humanitarian" guise, but we're friends with Y, who is just as bad ? to me, this is exactly why GWB's (and his supporters') claims that Iraq was a "humanitarian" effort seem so hollow. Saddam was no worse than the douche bags in charge of any of a dozen other countries that we're friends with. yes, i realize we (the US) can't police the entire world, and i'm fine with that; i don't want us to. and really, that's not the point; the point is that Saddam wasn't so much worse than anyone else; he's just your average third world tyrant - the same kind we're more than willing to be friends with, when it suits our short term goals. Doug Goulden wrote: Isolating a country to try to force the government to collapse is going to almost always affect the people there. yup. maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty fuckers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. Would it do any good to point out the obvious cultural imperalism involved with doing that, and also that Japan came around only after we had thoroughly bombed them? For the most part, however, I agree with you absolutely - the US should stop trying to find allies. We should waltz in where ever we like, do our business and leave without asking permission or for help from anyone. Actually, I'm Reverend Stan.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. Would it do any good to point out the obvious cultural imperalism involved with doing that, and also that Japan came around only after we had thoroughly bombed them? For the most part, however, I agree with you absolutely - the US should stop trying to find allies. We should waltz in where ever we like, do our business and leave without asking permission or for help from anyone. Actually, I'm Reverend Stan.
bitwiser wrote: For the most part, however, I agree with you absolutely - the US should stop trying to find allies. We should waltz in where ever we like, do our business and leave without asking permission or for help from anyone. It seems the US have already adopted this strategy :| bitwiser wrote: Actually, I'm Reverend Stan Ah, that sounded familiar! ;)
Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum - Greg "Pappy" Boyington
-
Jason Henderson wrote: you think Cheney would want to do it? nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). i don't think the R's will let her into the big tent. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
-
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
I'll let you know when I've finished reading it...:-O Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. I don't have a problem with that idea, if you look at China and how it opened up prior to Tianamen Square that was what was happening to a large extent. The US was making inroads at opening trade and the people there saw the benefits to a Democracy. I still remember watching on television as they showed what happened there. I guess the problem I see, is what do you do when the government of a nation cracks down brutally on its own people. In China the government rolled back much of the progress that had taken place. In the USSR under Gorbachev and his glasnost policy, when the tanks rolled the troops refused to fire on the people. Do you disengage from the leaders of a nation that represses their own people? Do you just keep on going hoping that the benefits of the money and trade reach the people? I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. But I don't know that governments like North Korea or Uzbekistan are ever going to fold to the will of the people. I think Saddam and his kin were probably the same way. How do you open the minds of people who control their own people by limiting their access to information and the benefits others would give them? If Gorbachev hadn't allowed the start of glasnost during his tenure, the collapse of the Soviet Union might have come years later than it did. (I won't offend you by pointing out the fortunate circumstances of having Ronald Reagan in office at the time and John Paul being the Pope from a Soviet Bloc country all at the same time ;P). Chris Losinger wrote: i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. I don't know about that, I would have to same I'm relatively left of the idea of bombing all of the people that some folks might think we should have at. I do believe in a more carrot and the stick stance..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. here's a nice little survey: http://www.msnbc.com/news/916685.asp#survey[^]. (also, interestingly, GWB disapproval numbers 55% of those polled say that they won't support $60B over the next three years to rebuild Iraq. people already think we've spent too much money in Iraq - where was the outrage when GWB was proposing the war, asking for his initial $80B? didn't they understand that reconstruction would take a long time? it's clear that this country has a hypo-short attention span and no concept of long-term consequences. that doesn't bode well for the people of the countries we choose to reconstruct. here's my prediction: expect the US to be basically out of Iraq before the end of 2004, when GWB/Rove will declare the Iraq war, lack of WMDs, lack of terrorists, to be "old news". -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, was the book any good? Amazon ratings don't look too good. i think the first one starts out with "Awful..." To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: When our long time allies leave us "high and dry" you can expect more of the same. quick, get a newspaper. France, Germany, Canada and many others were part of the Afghanistan conflict. nobody left us "high and dry" there. To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.