Jvstice Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 ^^ Maybe so, but it's been that way a lot longer than just the examples you give. Nations have been two faced to one another at least through recorded history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Something must be done about things such as that. I really hope someone speaks up on that issue in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Arc: just because you are allied with someone dosen't mean you share their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoiuyWired Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Oh, yeah, the Star Trek universe is great. Enjoy being Borg. And as for Star Wars, take a brief look at Star Wars history. The GFFA is more war-torn than Earth by far. But at least you get those sexy gizkas and cute littke twi'leks. If you complain about SW being war-torn, wait til 40k... though Daemonettes are about just as shexah, or eldar chicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Mur'phon- It does make a difference. The U.S.A is sellign weapons to Palestine, and Russia is selling weapons to the middle east. Many other things like this are likely occuring. Countries allied with each other are giving military aide to enemies of their allies. That's practically an act of war declaring an allyship treaty null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 How about the Stargate universe then. O'Neill/Mitchell are at least funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Arcesious, since when has Russia been truly allied with the US? Venezuela has a lot of oil interests there and the US has a vested interest in stability in that region. I suspect if things get really hot there the US will get involved because of the potential economic effects. Note that I'm not saying that it would be _right_ to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I think it was Lord Palmerston who observed in the 19th century that nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests (or words to that effect). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Well, then, would you support declaring war on a major power if they send a team of assassins into your territory to eliminate a problem that you are harboring? Still on the Canada example? If I was canadian, no I wouldn't. And though their objective was "assassination", it wasn't just a team: It was a full-fledged incursion on both land and air, by heavily armored soldiers. The difference there is that none of the involved countries are a military superpower, it's pretty balanced, actually. On a situation such as that, both Colombia and Ecuador will look for allies to support their views. Today, Rafael Corrêa met President Lula presenting proofs of the devastation of the land they've bombed. Political babbling and bluff aside, this is a serious matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Still on the Canada example? If I was canadian, no I wouldn't..... Actually, no, was making a general observation there. Problem here, like anywhere, is that it's not cut and dried. Had FARC not operated out of Equador (with their tacit permission, by default if nothing else), would Columbia have made the incursion? I agree that it's a serious matter, just not that Equador is the innocent party (there don't really appear to be any, except for the poor sobs caught in the crossfire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Pfft. It's all political posturing anyway. Chavez may be stupid, but he's not insane. His criticism of Cardinal Rodriguez a while back would indicate otherwise: Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 His criticism of Cardinal Rodriguez a while back would indicate otherwise: Link And I would reasonably do the same if I was in the same position as he is. I would criticize someone who told me I was an idiot, and told me that "he thinks he's God", so not exactly an 'insane' move. Ad homien attacks on your enemies can help to blunten their ad homien attacks too. Plus... Chavez has repeatedly lambasted the local Catholic hierarchy in recent weeks, saying it should be dedicated to parishioners rather than meddling in politics by siding with opposition parties. That doesn't sound unreasonable if you put it in the words of some other politican. Only difference is that I would prefer being subtle, but in the end, being direct might work. So, I'm still sticking with my statements: Chavez may be stupid...but not insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 And I would reasonably do the same if I was in the same position as he is. I would criticize someone who told me I was an idiot, and told me that "he thinks he's God", so not exactly an 'insane' move. Ad homien attacks on your enemies can help to blunten their ad homien attacks too. Plus... Perhaps, but attacking someone who accuses you of being an imperialist by calling them...an imperialist clown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 While Chavez might not be "clinically insane", he is a buffoon. As to engaging ad hominem w/ad hominem, you may be right that it blunts the attack of the other, but only to those with uncritical minds (unfortunately, that's often a large segment of any population). Still, so long as Chavez stays on his leash and doesn't do anything but bray loudly, he may seem "crazy like a fox". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Huh? "People should go cool off a bit, chill out their nerves," Chavez said before the summit started. "I think the meeting today is going to be positive, because it is going to help the debate. We have to debate, talk, and this is the first step toward finding the road." Meanwhile, Ecadour and Colombia is arguing with each other over the crisis, during the summit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 And the crisis has weridly ended. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_colombia I know it wouldn't have imploded into war, but to turn into a fuzzy hug-fest?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Yeah, well, what can I say? Typical. I live next to those guys. Though Correa wasn't all that satisfied with the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredi Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Atleast it's over ... now the goberments are trying to move away their difference and start their friendship again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Like little, irrational, hot-tempered children many of our leaders are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 And, they're back for Round 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 Despite bouts of brinkmanship and the risk of military missteps on the border, political analysts say a conflict is highly unlikely, especially as the neighbors' economies heavily depend on cross-border trade. I think that even Chavez isn't that crazy. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 I think Chavez is that crazy. He's playing a dangerous game, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 I think Chavez is that crazy. He's playing a dangerous game, too. Crazy enough to risk his economy? I know he's a nutjob, but I think he won't do anything that drastic if it has negative consequences for him in the long run. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 That's the thing--he doesn't think he can fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted May 18, 2008 Share Posted May 18, 2008 That's the thing--he doesn't think he can fail. Well, he _does_ have a pretty good track record. That's a good point. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.