tdn said:
*"Yep. And the hell with a country that actively snubs world opinion and acts only on its own short-sighted wishes.
We’re still talking about France, right?"*
Yes we are.
Or is there an implication that is it wrong for the US to pursue its own interests and right for France to do so?
…I’m so confused…
Southwest is the most profitable major airline in the US - and, along with JetBlue, one of the only two. Their business models and cost structures are not all that radically different from the bankrupt majors, but their management practices are. The analogy isn’t perfect, certainly, but the point that an organization consists of all of its people and functions as well as they are allowed and encouraged to applies to governments as well.
Toaster, perhaps you could unconfuse yourself by stating why it’s right for any particular country to pursue its own interests at the expense of others, but wrong for others.
At the expense of others? How does this relate to the French? Was our attack on Iraq at the expense of the French?
What I am wondering is why the US is being attacked for pursuing its own interests, when the French are being lauded for pursuing their own interests. Kind of a double standard, I think.
I would use the book I mentioned as a cite to support the idea that accountablity practices are a at least a part of what has led to AA’s bankruptcy. American, and a number of other airlines have rushed to emulate many of Southwest’s business practices.
My point here is that the accountability thing isn’t helpful in many circumstances, perhaps especially not in the foreign relations context we currently find ourselves in.
Telling people in business that accountability isn’t always the best policy to pursue meets with a lot of blank stares. I expect the same with people in goverment. But the fact is, Southwest is eating their lunch right now, and they are one of the only groups to do anythning differently in this area.
Bush seems fixated on accountability, and I find this a very shortsighted attitude.
Maybe it’s something he learned at Harvard Business School.
>> Bush seems fixated on accountability
On others but not his own. Or would he admit he made a mistake if no WOMD are found? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Exactly what I was trying to point out. Why is it OK for the US to flout world opinion, but not France? We’re not standing on any moral high ground when we call them out.
Take another look at the thread title and then try to figure out the error in your post.
Coulda learned that at Harvard Business School, too. Or on his Poppy’s knee, for that matter.
Take another look at the thread title and then try to figure out the error in your post"
I know that the thread title is “So now we’re going to “punish” the French”…which is about the US’s response to France.
duh
I guess I should clarify, then: IN THIS BOARD…the US is being attacked for pursuing it’s own interests; because that’s a Bad Thing. France is being lauded for pursuing it’s own interests; because that’s a Good Thing. Say what you want about the US’s response to France (and I have my own teeth grinding feelings about them), but this is an argument that has no merits. If the US is deemed bad for pursuing it’s own interests, then so should France.
etc…
Nobody in this thread has criticised the US for pursuing its own interests or lauded the French for pursuing theirs. If you think the USA is getting a raw deal elsewhere on the SDMB why don’t you make your comments in the relevant threads instead of this one?
What argument do think is being made here that “has no merits”?
I found it amusing when a bunch of politicians dumped some bottles of French wine in the gutter. I am assuming they paid for it so, how does that punish the French? Yeah, let’s buy some really expensive French wine and dump it in the gutter! That’ll teach the French! And they better watch out or next time we’ll also buy some French Cheese and dump it too! And it will be really expensive Cheese!
Used to be.
**
I disagree. It has nothing to do with satisfaction. If we seek payback on France simply because it will feel good to do so, we are very stupid indeed.
We onlly do it to what extent it serves a constructive purpose as both a lesson and an example. As both it must be an inevitable consequence to be effective.
I am disapointed that you would assume I would think otherwise. If this was a one-off, retribution would be petty and pointless. Because France is an ally it is most important that we remind them what being an ally means. In this case they have not acted as an ally and they need to be reminded of the privileged position they enjoy as an ally, and how it can change if they don’t act like one.
For Chrissake my good man, I’m not suggesting we bomb the Arc de Triumph, or anything, but I think the cold shoulder is appropriate as well the temporary removal of benefits of our friendship that they have come to expect.
I have worked in precisely that type of market, Coll, as a trader of CMOs. It is precisely because that market and those players have long memories, that you do not allow yourself to be screwed. There are consequences to being a pushover, just as there are consequences to being a hardass. One must act judiciously and in proportion.
But thank you for being the only person to actually address the issues I raised. I do grow tired of dipshits whose primary coin is that of indignance.
Ii had overlooked this post earlier, but will now respond.
This is precisely what Axelrod’s research is all about. His unexpected discovery was that TIT FOR TAT was a very good strategy in a variety of situations where there is a repeated series of relationships. In this case, TIT FOR TAT would suggest punishing the French once for their bad behavior with respect to Iraq, but then cooperating with them as long as they cooperate with us.
That’s the result for a two-person game. Adding multiple players would seem to increase the value of punishing the French, since such punishment would deter bad behavior by other allies as well as France.
Actually Axelrod’s model deals with two-person, non-zero-sum games. These are much more complicated than two person, zero-sum games. I have a vague memory from reading Von Neumann and Morgenstern many years ago that there may be some sort of mathematical equivalence between two-person-non-zero-sum-games and three-person-zero-sum-games.
Scylla, I see on preview that you know from practical experience what Axelrod deduced from theory. It’s always refreshing when theory and reality match!
I mean yeah, Whee! I kind of figured it out in Kindergarten.
If I let Irving get away with stepping on my lunch bag and making fun of me, he’ll do it again. If he gets away with it a couple of times, other people will start doing it.
It’s not that fucking difficult.
If you find it refreshing when theory and reality match, you either have faulty theory or a poor grasp on reality. As a lifelong pessimist, I generally find life most refreshing when expectations and reality don’t match.
But enough relentless self-revelation.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, the French people were solidly opposed to the Iraq war. They did not skulk stealthily to the UN in order to backstab the USA. Thier elected representatives reflected thier convictions faithfully, forcefully, and, in my opinion, correctly. One neither honors nor supports a friend if he concurs with a foolish and dangerous action.
If you see your friend fill his lap with gasoline and reach for the matches, in what way are you treacherous if you try to slap them from his hand?
**
I suppose you could look at it that way philosophically. Anecdotally, a coworker travelled to France this fall, and it was his opinion that most of the French were kindly disposed towards America, especially in the rural areas, and that a lot of French people supported us on the Iraqi question.
As for Chirac, you claim to be a pessimist but your asessment of his motivations seems unabashadly optimistic.
France seems to have had the inside track diplomatically with Saddam and benefitted from the status quo. Do you consider the possibility that Chirac’s objections had quite a bit of founding in self-interest rather than as the caring friend?
His recent turnaround seems pretty grubby to me, and this holding up the release of the sanctions seems nothing less than proof that he’s simply being a total douchebag.
If there was a skeeter on your Peter would you wack it off?
“Anecdotally”? Yeah, well, my sisters hairdresser’s friend says he’s seen proof that Saddam is a homo. If you nip over to Google, you can scan for French poll results about the Iraq war. Roughly 80% opposed.
Notwithstanding, I quite agree that the French people are kindly disposed towards Americans. For a while there, damn near everyone was kindly disposed towards Americans! The friggin’ Germans were having candlelight vigils wearing shirts saying Ich bin ein Amerikaner after 9/11.
Then Fearless Misleader pisses it all away being a hard-ass.
Chirac may be a human slug for all I know, but he was reflecting the clear opinion of his people, so it hardly matters. One hastens to point out that The Man Who Would Be Chruchill blustered most firmly that he was going to get that 2nd vote, yessiree, Bob, gonna see everybody’s cards on the table, no matter what the “whip count” was, he was firm, he was determined, he cut and run when he saw he was beat. So we never actually got to see if France would veto, or, for that matter, whether or not Russia and China would have joined in. Because GeeDubya wimped out.
When you take a Reagan, do you remember to wipe your Nixon?
Thought so.
Well, I rather disagree that seeking payback at present serves a constructive purpose. Quite the contrary, since the US is not the only game in town and in large part our threats of punishment during the run up backfired. The famous sec. council vote you recall. We lost votes as time went on.
That indicates a dynamic that is already running against us.
See, it works both ways.
Privledged position? Good fucking lord, it’s a matter of mutual need.
Your POV is forgetting the trade offs – again exclusion of France presumes they do not have other choices and that the same does not bear costs on the US. I submit that neither is true. Upcoming trade negotiations, where we already come in with a weak hand after the moronic and coutner-productive steel tariffs, foot-dragging on WTO decisions etc. are but one example that immediatley springs to mind.
Well that is comforting, however I do not see that you’re looking at the big picture of the web of relationships.
However this requires more argumentation than I have time for at present, and perhaps even deserves a real debate.
Good then we are speaking to the same experience.
Judiciously and in proporation.
Given a large % of the other big players or important players have not seen the US as acting either judiciously or in proporation, this then should give pause.
The payback at present has already been done, we went to war with a big fuck you to everyone else. Now the consequences are looking none too pretty, or better the near term is a lot more fucking complicated than the Bush folks thought.
To put it in terms you will understand, the position has way more fucking risk than initially priced – now punishing France for having essentially warned of this and balked on coming in on the deal hardly seems either judicious or in proportion. It strikes me as peevish and short-sighted, above all since in addition to the cost of reconstruction, the US is facing some serious budgetary imbalances, and all the implications that has for our current and capital account balances.
In short, at present is a time for long-sighted statemanship.
That’s fine, I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think you’re lookinig at the big picture.
December, the argument goes both ways insofar as the punishment also is easily seen as coming from France, Russia, Germany in re trade negs etc.
Hwoever, I need to get work done, so expressing my disagreement with your reading of the lessons from multiplayer games on this issue, esp in light of sitaution given past games, will have to wait.
Couple nitpicks.
IIRC, we were gaining votes as time went on and we stalled out with 8 votes, 3 votes on the fence, and 4 opposing. Not a minority, but not enough to pass.
[/QUOTE]
Last I heard we had 40 countries backing us. It was only a big fuck you to France, Germany, and Russia.