So threatening to cause the death of hundreds of people is not considered blackmail with you? I guess that also explains ‘liberating’ people by killing them…
Ever heard of the GNP percentage developed nations are supposed to send to non-developed nations? But I guess it is beyond you how foreign aid helps more than those countries who receive it.
Its all about leadership and accountability, isn’t it, when you get right down to it. Chirac failed at leadership, cravenly submtting to the expressed will of the French people. Just the sort of man GeeDubya despises.
Spain, however, now there’s the genuine article! Ah, Franco, how fondly remembered! Now there was leadership! You wouldn’t catch El Caudillo cringing before the whims of the great unwashed, nosirree! When the Big Dog barks, Spain rolls over!
And what of accountability? What are we to make of Turkey’s failure to deliver the purchased goods, simply because 95% of the ill-informed public disagreed? If a nation promises a rim job and a suck, for an agreed upon price, and fails to deliver, how can democracy be protected? How can civilization go forward if the principles of commerce are not respected?
And Mexico? Ah, well, this year’s Cinco de Mayo festivities will be muted somewhat, don’t you think? Sr. Fox will be reminded in whose pocket his cojones reside! Our Leader is not the kind of man to suffer rebuke with feckless grace and feeble generosity. They will all quickly learn what to kiss, and when.
What business have these so-called “leaders” have with decisions as to right and wrong, when such a choice has already been made for them?
Well you can bet your bottom dollar that the Afgani’s and Iraqi’s will be insisting on American money for quite some time to come and they won’t care if it is called blackmail or payback.
The rest of the world will get on with finding new trade oportunities if America “don’t wanna play no more”. But I personally find it offensive that America wants to “punish” allies for not supporting this particular situation.
Today is ANZAC day, something that means very little outside of New Zealand and Australia, but celebrates our joint history of being part of others war (for our benefit and theirs). The current war is remarkable in our history because it is the first time NZ and Aussie troops have not been together in wartime (we both have troops in Afganistan). NZ decided not to take part while Australia did and now rumblings are been made about how our lack of involvement will affect trade and Aus will be rewarded for their support. NZ has a long and proud traditon of ally status to both the US and the UK and I personally find it reprehensible that the US would “punish” a long-standing ally because they chose to exercise their sovereign right on one issue. The US rejoices in its democracy, it should allow other countries the same pleasure.
Scylla, just a quick question to allow you to clarify your statements: Is an alliance, in your view, strictly one way or are there mutual obligations involved? It is not at all clear that you acknowledge any.
Bloody Kiwis worked out a while ago that they could have all the defense they neede for free. The good ole US of A and Australia can’t afford to let anything happen to them. It’s the same with the bloody French ( Englands trouble ) and the Krauts are still pissed from WWII and the fact that no bastard helped them when they tore down the wall and they had to feed all those bloody commies. Spineless Fucks the lot of them
Oliver H:
Who said anything about not dealing with France? Not me. I think I’ve said several times that my strategy is simply because we must deal with France. France though is not the EU. It is a part of the EU.
Yeah. I know. That’s the point. Don’t inflict consequences and they can be dicks with impunity. This seems to be a tough concept for you to wrap your mind around.
Your argument by assertion is wrong (I can say that since a simple assertion is logically refutable by another.) If it was right it wouldn’t matter. Who said we think of ourselves only in the terms of the position we hold? Not me? Not anybody else.
If you say so, but that’s addressing a different argument than the one I made.
No you’re completely wrong (you’re doing the assertion thing.)
No. It’s true (and again.)
[quote]
Your kind of definition of unquestioning, brainless support was instrumental in making WWI the carnage that it was.
[quote]
No it wasn’t.
Really? Wow! If I had said otherwise you might have a point.
Cheezy poofs don’t have anything to do with integrity, nor do biscuits with gravy, nor does picking your nose and playing with dolls in the shower. Your pointless here.
Duhh, I doh-no Two ways? Mutual? What mean that?
I thought ally meant “All bow down before us,” have not considered “mutual”
Now me not know what to think.
What a moronic question.
Hehe, blackmailing Saddam. It is to laugh. Especially, while the World sat by and let him kill his own people at will. Guess what? He ain’t killing them anymore. The body count is dropping down to the normal levels that any nation has without a brutal dictator at the controls. Too bad, huh? Of course, I can understand why this bothers you. You guys got upset, fighting tooth and nail against the US, the last time they came over to help get rid of a brutal dictator that was killing his own, and other’s, people willy nilly. Remember him? Funny little fellow with a goofy mustache? Kinda looked like Charlie Chaplin?
I would have expected more from the French, but then they had their own guy who liked to walk around with his hand in his jacket. Short little bugger. No mustache. Named after a pastry.
Even the Russian should have known better…But, then they had their own guy with a mustache who had a bet going with the first guy as to who could rack up the most points. I think it was a toss up.
Oh, well. The more things change the more they stay the same. Some people like dictators, others do something about them. Takes all kinds, I guess.:rolleyes:
**
There is a rule that says which countries you have to give your money to? I don’t think so, Sparky. I am not going to give money to a beggar on the street if he spits in my eye while I’m doing it. I’ll give it to the beggar next to him who might be grateful for the hand up, not the hand out.
What an evasive answer, as the question goes to the very heart of your apparently US-centric perception of international relationships, and Elvis merely joins a lengthening list of people in this thread who have made the specific point to you about alliances and member obligations. A point to which you’ve yet offered no actual response more sophisticated than “payback is always tough to manage.”
No. It’s that certain dipshits would like to pretend that I don’t understand “ally” is a two way street, because if they pretend that I’m making such a fundamental error my argument is easy to dismiss.
It is in fact because we are allies with France, and because it is a two way street that France must face consequences for it’s unallylike behavior.
Because it is a way two way street an ally cannot reasonably expect to openly oppose and denounce us on a major issue, and expect our support and cooperation on others as if nothing had happened.
Precisely because it is a two way street with mutual obligations something has to flow back as a consequence of France’s actions.
I don’t know by what logic you assume that “two way street” and “mutual” somehow exclude reciprocal behavior.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. There are many ways of dealing with the member countries of the EU and not dealing with France. To think that companies in the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain or any of the other EU nations would not leap to pick up any trade suddenly denied to the French is mindnumbingly naive.
Scylla, at no time have you ever mentioned any obligations the US might have toward its “allies” - such as at least trying to understand their point of view enough to clearly state it prior to dismissing and denouncing it. Your view of a relationship, to the contrary, looks more like dom/sub - tell me, what do you do when the other guy doesn’t want to be bottom all the time?
The US had alliances of varying degrees of formality with most of the world, and has broken most of them. What consequences will the US face because of our faithlessness toward them? That’s the question you’re desperately trying to avoid facing.
Oh, yeah, it doesn’t matter because you have declared me a “dipshit”. Very convincing, that.
It’s the reciprocity part that’s worrying me (and, if I interpret them correctly, some of the others arguing in this thread against anti-France payback).
Your point regarding the importance of enforcing real consequences has not, I think, been lost on anyone. Consideration of the wisdom of any particular form of payback, however, must be accompanied by a consideration of the continuing consequences to us of blunt diplomacy that will in all probability be perceived as vengeful and bullying. These consequences to us (which may include a substantial loss of influence, for an indeterminate duration, on the only world economic entity in a position to approach parity with us) would have to be more than counterbalanced by the value of whatever message we hope to send to the French and other allies by exacting punishment.
And the message value of payback, also, is absolutely dependent on perception; if it’s not clearly seen as a consequence of “open opposition”, but rather as “further unilateral bullying” (channelling European sensibilities), then our target audience has learned a lesson much different than the one we intended.
Elvis:
That is not true. You simply don’t like the obligations that I have mentioned.
I know you would like to characterize “my view” this way, but that is not what my view is. The reason you are a dipshit is because of your ongoing insistence of mischaracterizing others viewpoints.
Could you be vaguer?
I don’t accept the terms of the proposition you’ve offered. It seems generalized, false and simplistic. Failing your ability to provide a specific example for study, I would say the US can expect judicious and proportional retaliation as an expression of displeasure from our allies when we fail to meet our obligations towards them.
And you’re dipshit because you insist on falsely attibuting and characterizing others. You haven’t asked the damn question before. How can I be avoiding it? This time it’s barely a coherent proposition.
And, it’s another moronic question.
These things go both ways. I have neither said nor implied otherwise.
Yes. I agree with you. How you address a friend’s failings in his obligations is tricky. Typically, I think you need to take with one hand and give with the other so that both the giving and the taking highlight the ally’s failing. You make your point, and you do not seem either like a bully or vengeful.
In this case, diplomatic coolness and a number of snubs of mostly symbolic nature can constitute the taking. As for the giving, well, I would say that France’s opposition was largely founded on their advantageous economic position within Iraq. A position that is now moot.
After the cooling off period and the snubs, when our point is made, France and French companies should be thrown a significant bone. They should get a large part of what they would expect to have had they acted as allies in the first place.
They will be recieving benefits specifically because we are not holding a grudge we are entitled (at the same we of course are because we snubbed them and rubbed their noses into it in all kinds of ways, but they really can’t be pissed about it or retaliate because our magnanimity would then make them look petty and vengeful.)
Then they end up owing us one too, which is always nice in trade talks.
That’s always a toughie too. You have to tailor your message, and be flexible without seeming to be so.
Xeno:
…and, if you want to be really tricky about this and get all the mileage you can, you let the concessions be brokered by England. England took some heat by siding with us in steadfast fashion, and may be percieved as our patsy.
If they intercede and smooth things over and bring forth conciliatory motions from us than they build a lot of strength and goodwill and prove the patsy image false.
Scylla, I think that last suggestion is likely to happen in any case, just not probably due to our machinations. (Blair doesn’t seem to need any help playing the diplomatic game.) I wish I could be confident that the current gang in Washington, outside of State Dept. pros, understands the game at that level of play. Fortunately, the diplomatic cleanup from Gulf War II (The Empire Strikes Back) might not be run entirely out of the Defense Dept.
xeno:
If they don’t understand it, you’ll get to watch episode three (Return of the Democrati) in 2004.
If they do understand it you’ll probably have to wait until 2008.
After looking around, I fail to see any.
Typical scylliness. Don’t like what you see in the mirror, so blame the mirror.
Could you be more obtuse? If you, in fact, did recognize that the US government has obligations as well as expectations in alliances, it would not be vague at all.
At last we’re getting somewhere. No, we do not know what consequences will have to be paid yet; we simply know they’ll exist (many already do) and will be serious. “Expressions of displeasure” won’t be even the start of it.
More sound and fury, signifying nothing. If you could discuss the subject without all the silly crap like the above, taking longer to write than actual explanations of your views, then you might actually gain a little respect around here for something other than funny stories about domestic life, ya know?
elvis:
You can look around all you want, but it won’t do you any good until you take your head out of your ass.
Goddamn you’re stupid. How the hell can you just make stuff and pretend it’s my argument? And then you’re going to argue with me “Oh yes Scylla clearly you think ally Dom/sub relationship?”
Who do you think you’re fooling you moron?
I didn’t say it. You said it. You attributed it to me. Now you are going to argue with me that that is indeed my viewpoint.
You’re an idiot.
No we’re not getting anywhere. Yes we don’t know. No we don’t know if they exist. No we don’t know if they will be serious, and you’re so bloody stupid in the present tense I’m hardly willing to accept your direful prognostications.
Why would I want the respect of an idiot such as yourself?