DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 04, 2008, 09:43:36 AM
-
http://www.thestar.com/article/436479
Good article in to-day's Toronto Star by Prof. James Laxer. I don't buy into it 100% but it lays out a plausible case for not always talking to them. Maybe the best analysis is case-by-case. Do a Ben Franklin on each proposed talking partner, and if the pros outweigh the cons on the whole, then talk.
-
The etiquette of Empire is void if one is not an empire.
The etquette should be changed, because it hasn't worked.
I see no valid reason why the US president should not talk to any world leader.
-
<<I see no valid reason why the US president should not talk to any world leader.>>
Laxer's answer was that some of the Emperor's prestige rubs off on the lower-level adversaries and boosts their stature, which increases their power and reach.
-
When there is something to get out of the talks.
The Shepherd's Dog and the Wolf
http://immortalpoetry.com/The_Shepherd%27s_Dog_and_the_Wolf
A wolf, with hunger fierce and bold,
Ravaged the plains, and thinned the fold:
Deep in the wood secure he lay,
The thefts of night regaled the day.
In vain the shepherd's wakeful care
Had spread the toils, and watched the snare:
In vain the dog pursued his pace,
The fleeter robber mocked the chase.
As Lightfoot ranged the forest round,
By chance his foe's retreat he found.
'Let us awhile the war suspend,
And reason as from friend to friend.'
'A truce?' replies the wolf. 'Tis done.
The dog the parley thus begun:
'How can that strong intrepid mind
Attack a weak defenceless kind?
Those jaws should prey on nobler food,
And drink the boar's and lion's blood;
Great souls with generous pity melt,
Which coward tyrants never felt.
How harmless is our fleecy care!
Be brave, and let thy mercy spare.'
'Friend,' says the wolf, 'the matter weigh;
Nature designed us beasts of prey;
As such when hunger finds a treat,
'Tis necessary wolves should eat.
If mindful of the bleating weal,
Thy bosom burn with real zeal;
Hence, and thy tyrant lord beseech;
To him repeat the moving speech;
A wolf eats sheep but now and then,
Ten thousands are devoured by men.
An open foe may prove a curse,
But a pretended friend is worse.'
-
I hardly think animal fables are any sort of satisfactory rebuttal for anything.
-
I hardly think animal fables are any sort of satisfactory rebuttal for anything.
It isn't really the one I went looking for , but I liked it.
It isn't really a rebuttal , just sometimes there is nothing like a common goal to talk about.
-
It isn't really a rebuttal , just sometimes there is nothing like a common goal to talk about.
=======
I think the common goal would be a peaceful prosperous world where no one is destroying anyone else or their country.
And talk and diplomacy is always preferable to saber rattling and war. The worst of all is pre-emptive war. And the worst pre-emptive war would be the sort that had no reason to be declared.
-
=======
I think the common goal would be a peaceful prosperous world where no one is destroying anyone else or their country.
Isd there any reason to think that Acmananejad would share this goal?
-
Isd there any reason to think that Acmananejad would share this goal?
---------------------------------------
Whether he does or does not could be determined by talking with him, couldn't it?
How could it hurt to talk with him?
Do you really think he wants to lose a bunch of troops and/or civilians to a war?
-
<<Isd there any reason to think that Acmananejad would share this goal?>>
If he DOESN'T, all the more reason to talk to him, IMHO. The real issue is whether the American President really shares the goal, which if recent history is any guide, is a lot less likely than whether the Iranian President does. Why is it always the other guy that plane suspects of hidden goals and not the American?
-
Why is it always the other guy that plane suspects of hidden goals and not the American?
Iran has been involved in one war in the past 200 years.
How many has the US gotten into?
Which of these two countries is famous for preemptive wars?
-
Why is it always the other guy that plane suspects of hidden goals and not the American?
Iran has been involved in one war in the past 200 years.
How many has the US gotten into?
Which of these two countries is famous for preemptive wars?
Which one gathers its citizens together every day for a twenty minutes hate , at which they chant curses at the other one?
The Present Iranian Regime is not 200 years old , they have involved themselves in one war that amounts to one third of their entire history and are now involveing themselves in two other wars with proxies. Do they actually have a need to controll the events in Lebanon? Do they have some choice other than to supply insurgents with American killing bombs?
(Ok it is a bit of exaggeration to call them American killing bombs when most of the killed are Iriqui bystanders, but I think it a legitamate statement because only the sophisticated shaped charge bombs are really any good at killing American tank crews)
-
<<The Present Iranian Regime is not 200 years old , they have involved themselves in one war that amounts to one third of their entire history and are now involveing themselves in two other wars with proxies. >>
Oh, shit, if you want to count proxy wars, then I hardly know where to start - - El Salvador, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Bay of Pigs, Somalia, Belgian Congo . . .
<<Do they actually have a need to controll the events in Lebanon? >>
I think you're confusing them with Syria, aren't you? Syria historically intervened in Lebanese affairs ever since the French and British carved Lebanon out of Syria so at least one state in the area could be dominated by Christians.
<<Do they have some choice other than to supply insurgents with American killing bombs?>>
Yeah sure, they could stand around and watch while an army of Americans invaded their neighbour, raping, torturing, murdering hundreds of thousands of good Muslim men and women and locking up dozens of thousands more in midnight raids to be abducted and tortured in secret. They elected to do what good neighbours do, help their neighbour fight off a foreign invasion. You'd help Canada fight off an invading army from the Middle East, wouldn't you? Well that is exactly what the Iranians are doing for the Iraquis. They deserve a medal for their actions rather than the endless stream of vituperative abuse that passes for reporting in the American MSM.
-
I have a feeling that if the Iranians were to invade Canada, we might be considerably more interventionist than the Iranians are with the US in Iraq.
-
<<I have a feeling that if the Iranians were to invade Canada, we might be considerably more interventionist than the Iranians are with the US in Iraq.>>
My point exactly. If Americans could figure out a way to turn hypocrisy and bullshit into energy, they wouldn't have an energy crisis.
-
I have a feeling that if the Iranians were to invade Canada, we might be considerably more interventionist than the Iranians are with the US in Iraq.
<<Do they actually have a need to controll the events in Lebanon? >>
I think you're confusing them with Syria, aren't you? Syria historically intervened in Lebanese affairs ever since the French and British carved Lebanon out of Syria so at least one state in the area could be dominated by Christians.
I am not confusing them with their partners in this crime, Syria.
If Canada really expects US help when fighting, should the US expect Canadian help when fighting?
-
<<If Canada really expects US help when fighting, should the US expect Canadian help when fighting?>>
In the real world the likeliest country in the world to invade Canada is the U.S.A. I would not expect the U.S.A. to help us in repelling an invasion from the U.S.A. if and when their need for resources becomes so desperate that invasion looks like a good option. We have no effective means of resistance. We are not Taliban.
I would think that before any invasion could occur, sea-changes would have to appear in the American political landscape that would be obvious to most observers. At that point it would be in our best interests to look for good defensive military alliances. China would be one such. We need to align with winners, not with losers. Right now the U.S.A. under present management is a loser nation. Losers are dangerous precisely because they feel impelled to prove they are still winners, and the easiest way to do so is to attack a weaker victim and humiliate it militarily. Canada would be an excellent victim. If the present disastrous course of the U.S. continues unchecked, its long, slow slide into militarism and fascism will continue at an ever-accelerating rate.
-
<<If Canada really expects US help when fighting, should the US expect Canadian help when fighting?>>
In the real world the likeliest country in the world to invade Canada is the U.S.A. I would not expect the U.S.A. to help us in repelling an invasion from the U.S.A. if and when their need for resources becomes so desperate that invasion looks like a good option. We have no effective means of resistance. We are not Taliban.
I would think that before any invasion could occur, sea-changes would have to appear in the American political landscape that would be obvious to most observers. At that point it would be in our best interests to look for good defensive military alliances. China would be one such. We need to align with winners, not with losers. Right now the U.S.A. under present management is a loser nation. Losers are dangerous precisely because they feel impelled to prove they are still winners, and the easiest way to do so is to attack a weaker victim and humiliate it militarily. Canada would be an excellent victim. If the present disastrous course of the U.S. continues unchecked, its long, slow slide into militarism and fascism will continue at an ever-accelerating rate.
Now there is a situation ripe for negotiation , horse tradeing if you will.
If we quit makeing noise about Tibet and get out of the way for a takeover of Tiwan perhaps they could finance our hostle takeover of Canada.
-
OTOH, the Chinese might feel they could take Taiwan and Tibet without anyone's help or by-your-leave but would sure like to get their hands on some of that nice Alberta and Newfoundland oil. If we act quickly enough, they might extend us their military protection in return for the oil and not even demand that we learn Chinese.
-
OTOH, the Chinese might feel they could take Taiwan and Tibet without anyone's help or by-your-leave but would sure like to get their hands on some of that nice Alberta and Newfoundland oil. If we act quickly enough, they might extend us their military protection in return for the oil and not even demand that we learn Chinese.
They might indeed , they are already drilling 60 miles from Florida.
But of course we don't really mind.
You do not have to invade anywhere to get oil , you just have to pay the going rate.
We will be buying the Cuban oil drilled up by Chineese , Communism doesn't make the oil stink , profit is good for Chineese and Cubans too.
-
The reason the US invades Canada is to get a couple of comedians named Terrence and Philip to stop making rude fart jokes and polluting America's youth.
Don't any of you watch South Park?
The US doesn't drill for oil. Surely you know that.
It is the oil companies that do all of the drilling, refining, buying and selling.