The enemy of my enemy...
-
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.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Someday, maybe the US will choose alies based on more than short-term issues of convenience. Yeah, and on that day it'll be accused of using its unfairly powerful economic might as a tool to spread its hegemony by not interacting with countries that aren't run the way the US wants them to be run... Well, either that or we'll just be accussed of being short-sighted isolationists - again ;) -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
i think most countries would understand if the US chose not to do business with leaders who boiled their own citizens. 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.
Never said they did. I was simply stating my opinion about the immediate future based on the immediate past. 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 -
Never said they did. I was simply stating my opinion about the immediate future based on the immediate past. 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: Never said they did context suggests otherwise. but, if you say so.. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
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.
This is just a build up for a war of liberation in about 20 years. When Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defence in the George P. Bush presidency, he'll be critisized for visiting Uzbek. back in the '00s. Its all a part of the grand conspiracy of republicans to remain in power by prolonging the war on terrorism into the 22nd century. :rolleyes: Anyone care to invent Psychohistory[^] so we can predict how things will turn out in 10-20 years?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Never said they did context suggests otherwise. but, if you say so.. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
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 Hawking -
This is just a build up for a war of liberation in about 20 years. When Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defence in the George P. Bush presidency, he'll be critisized for visiting Uzbek. back in the '00s. Its all a part of the grand conspiracy of republicans to remain in power by prolonging the war on terrorism into the 22nd century. :rolleyes: Anyone care to invent Psychohistory[^] so we can predict how things will turn out in 10-20 years?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Jason Henderson wrote: When Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defence in the George P. Bush presidency in 20 years, Rumsfeld will be in his 90s. maybe by that time we'll have the tech to put his disembodied head in a jar, like they do on Futurama, but I think Rove had better get someone else lined up, just in case - maybe Jenna Bush could step up. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
This is just a build up for a war of liberation in about 20 years. When Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defence in the George P. Bush presidency, he'll be critisized for visiting Uzbek. back in the '00s. Its all a part of the grand conspiracy of republicans to remain in power by prolonging the war on terrorism into the 22nd century. :rolleyes: Anyone care to invent Psychohistory[^] so we can predict how things will turn out in 10-20 years?
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Quite cynical aren't you ! :-D Jason Henderson wrote: Anyone care to invent Psychohistory[^] so we can predict how things will turn out in 10-20 years? I hate web sites with bitmaps/texture background under text ... it is unreadable !
Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self
-
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.
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe the US will choose allies based on more than short-term issues of convenience. Unlikely, with the speed of "progress" globally, until we hit a new plateau regarding change. I think that means something. :~ BW "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." - Lily Tomlin
-
Jason Henderson wrote: When Rumsfeld is Sec. of Defence in the George P. Bush presidency in 20 years, Rumsfeld will be in his 90s. maybe by that time we'll have the tech to put his disembodied head in a jar, like they do on Futurama, but I think Rove had better get someone else lined up, just in case - maybe Jenna Bush could step up. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe by that time we'll have the tech to put his disembodied head in a jar, like they do on Futurama, i like the idea of only a brain and spinal cord in a jar. maybe the eyes too. Chris Losinger wrote: but I think Rove had better get someone else lined up, just in case - maybe Jenna Bush could step up. you think Cheney would want to do it? :~
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
-
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe by that time we'll have the tech to put his disembodied head in a jar, like they do on Futurama, i like the idea of only a brain and spinal cord in a jar. maybe the eyes too. Chris Losinger wrote: but I think Rove had better get someone else lined up, just in case - maybe Jenna Bush could step up. you think Cheney would want to do it? :~
Jason Henderson
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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