tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 I awoke with grid pattern 2nd degree burns and maple syrup on my penis this morning. Should I be concerned? Quote
gambo Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 "dum-de-dum-dum" The story you are about to hear is true; the names have been changed to protect the innocent" "We just want the facts" ---How well did you know this flying toaster? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 I trusted that toaster. The waffle iron I didn't know so well. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 stfu borat u raziss zlim mofaka Sacha Baron Cohen is Jewish  and your point is?? Quote
W Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 I think that the statement that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests, is the central principle that actually governs international relations. If you think in terms of interests rather than allies, then some of the inconsistency that you are bemoaning goes away, and the reason why these sorts of unsavory compromises are a fixture of any consequential nation's history becomes evident. Â You are saying, essentially, that given the way the world actually is, every nation simply does what it has to do for it's own survival. I agree that this has some validity and relevance. However, sticking to this "reality" as official policy basically says that we will always sell out other people, even our "allies", whenever we perceive that our "interests" are at stake. Every relationship is a matter of convenience and opportunity and usefulness, and when these cease to be upheld, the other person becomes expendable. I don't treat my wife, friends, or neighbors with this sort of regard, so on the large scale, why would I want my country to relate to other countries in this manner? What comes around goes around. Â And what exactly does this say about our "interests"? What are they? What interests hold such validity to justify, for example: Â -Selling weapons to the Islamic Fundamentalists running Iran in the 1980's (oh wait, they are still there and being labeled as the new, biggest threat to America), in exchange for hostages (despite our governments stated policy of non-negotiation with terrorists), and money- which was then funneled illegally to support guerrillas in Nicaragua and El Salvador, who killed thousands of civilians in an attempt to save them from socialism (Hey, wasn't Ortega just re-elected? I don't agree with Ortega's politics, but the fact is, the people like him. Why is it so difficult for our government to allow other countries to determine their own destiny?) Â -Clinton's (and everyone before him) support of the dictator Suharto in Indonesia, whose invasion of East Timor killed an estimated 1/3 of that country's population! Â -Aid for Saddam's war against Iran (at the same time we were engaged in Iran/Contra, selling weapons to both sides) Â -Standing idly by while former Yugoslavia turns into genocidal theater (I guess such matters aren't in our "interests"? No money to be made there?) Or Sudan. Or Rwanda. Long list here. Â -10 years of war in Vietnam which resulted in 58000 Americans killed, and over 4 million Vietnamese killed. The war was lost anyway, and the its spillover into Cambodia destabilized that country enough to allow the Khmer Rouge to come to power and kill millions more people in it's ghoulish attempt to eradicate individual thought. The reason for the war was to stop communism-Vietnam went commie after all, and the system failed predicably and they've recently been given "ally" status once again as they adopt free market principles. Freedom of speech et.al. remains stifled, human rights are almost non-existent, especially in China, but that isn't what matters; what is really important is that their economies are capitalist and we can do business with them. Â The list is endless and although I list American examples, is exclusive to no country. Â It would be nice if it were otherwise, but I don't forsee reality simplifying to the extent that future leaders are spared the necessity of weighing conflicting perogatives or reconciling conflicting interests when trying to determine the best course of action. Â Despite all the justifications, the decision to undertake these actions were not being made with a gun held to our head. There were options. America was not on the verge of being taken over or collapsing. In each case and countless others not mentioned, our policies were carefully calculated and made over long periods of time. I don't think anyone would take actions that have these sorts of horrific impacts and cause so much suffering on a local level, so I'm left assuming that by the time our leaders have risen to the top ranks, they must be totally insane. Â Â Quote
Dechristo Posted January 4, 2007 Author Posted January 4, 2007 probably decomposing somewhere outside Detroit Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Interests and values; not just the former. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 'know your past, enlighten your future" hope is dope, as in hip cool shit! Quote
joblo7 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 there is the false sense among barbaric humans that the mafiosi negotiating methods are more advanced than ethical business practices . Â time to riches vs effort to riches. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Interests and values; not just the former. Â i think in many of the cases spoken of previously here, we can use "interests" and "values" synonymously; there is no need for distinction. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Â If there was a slight imbalance in the cat or toast, wouldn't it begin to spin? Â Energy source of the future? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) Interests and values; not just the former. Â i think in many of the cases spoken of previously here, we can use "interests" and "values" synonymously; there is no need for distinction. Â Completely disagree. We separate the two all the time in our foreign policy. Example: Value: Human Rights. Interest: Oil supply. You can do the math on that one. Â Another: We have few or no real interests in Africa, yet we at least pay lip service to dealing with AIDS there. Interest? No. Value? Yes. Edited January 4, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote
joblo7 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 "Also the bases in Djibouti and Senegal are strategically place to protect US oil interests. Djibouti is located at the narrow Bab el Mandeb Strait at the entrance of the Red Sea, at the "world's busiest shipping lanes and close to Arabian oilfields," according to the CIA. Senegal, at the West African coast is strategically placed in a region with intensive oil explorations, which the US hopes may become a new major oil supplier within some years." Â http://www.afrol.com/articles/14269 Quote
W Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words. Quote
joblo7 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words. Â it depends on which humans. the mafia has more interests less values. most americans have more values, less interests. Â i guess you're saying everyone has a price. which is almost true. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 "Also the bases in Djibouti and Senegal are strategically place to protect US oil interests. Djibouti is located at the narrow Bab el Mandeb Strait at the entrance of the Red Sea, at the "world's busiest shipping lanes and close to Arabian oilfields," according to the CIA. Senegal, at the West African coast is strategically placed in a region with intensive oil explorations, which the US hopes may become a new major oil supplier within some years."Â http://www.afrol.com/articles/14269 Â Small potatoes. The lion's share of the AIDs aid is going to the most hard hit country: Zimbabwe. Hardly a strategic partner, in any sense. Quote
olyclimber Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words. Thus:  SPRAY>ACTION>WORDS>VALUES  and conversely  (SPRAY)(ACTION)= ULTIMATE TRUTH  Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words. Â As individuals, we can act based on our values without personal gain (ex: altruism) or in our interests for gain. So can and do nations. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Interests and values; not just the former. Â i think in many of the cases spoken of previously here, we can use "interests" and "values" synonymously; there is no need for distinction. Â Completely disagree. We separate the two all the time in our foreign policy. Example: Value: Human Rights. Interest: Oil supply. You can do the math on that one. Â Another: We have few or no real interests in Africa, yet we at least pay lip service to dealing with AIDS there. Interest? No. Value? Yes. Â oh if it were so simple. call me cynical but i tend to think W's statement more clearly defines the interplay between "interests" and "values" than a rockwell painting. Quote
W Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 In practice, it seems that humans talk about values, but act on their interests. If the two are indeed separate entities, and if life is characterized by our actions, then "values" have no significance, they are merely theoretical; empty idealism and idle talk. Actions speak louder than words. Thus:  SPRAY>ACTION>WORDS>VALUES  and conversely  (SPRAY)(ACTION)= ULTIMATE TRUTH  I think you are missing the "values coefficient" in your equation. For America, it is 0.96. For Asia, it is 0.82. See Table 1.34a for complete listing. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 I'm not speaking of that shitbag and you know it. We do provide aid, as do other nations, to countries where we have no interests. Case closed. Quote
W Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Â As individuals, we can act based on our values without personal gain (ex: altruism) or in our interests for gain. So can and do nations. Â The personal version is far more commonly seen than the national version. Neither is prevalent, however. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 Â As individuals, we can act based on our values without personal gain (ex: altruism) or in our interests for gain. So can and do nations. Â The personal version is far more commonly seen than the national version. Neither is prevalent, however. Â Maybe in your life. Too bad for you. Quote
Dechristo Posted January 4, 2007 Author Posted January 4, 2007 like Saddam's investment in values with his payments to families of suicide/homocide bombers Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 like Saddam's investment in values with his payments to families of suicide/homocide bombers  Your intellectual universe is curling up. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.