Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (45817)	3/7/2006 8:05:56 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 90947

Your dictionary.com definition is quite conclusive of ally as intended by the many educated speakers and writers and authors who’ve written about the U.S.-Iraqi alliance during the Iran-Iraq war. Clue: “Marriage” is the wrong answer. “A connection based on kinship, marriage, or common interest; a bond or tie:“ Additionally, the Webster’s definition made it clear that they were allied in a common cause. Your attempt to make “friendship’ a necessary part of “alliance” is simply contrived and transparent. Many alliances have little or no sympathy of values or especial amity. The alliance of Athens with Sparta was not based on friendship but on a common enemy and cause. The alliance between the U.S. and your enemy Stalin was based on a common cause and a mutual enemy. The alliance between the U.S. and Iran was based on a common cause and a mutual benefit. You know very well that alliance does not requite friendship. There have been many alliances where the parties rather detested one another. The lawyer may despise the serial killer he represents but together they form an alliance for a common cause. All of this can hardly be puzzling to you. Nor can it have escaped your notice that I quoted to you previously from books, magazines, articles, and speakers--in other words, members of the educated community--whom spoke freely and without malicious motive about the details of the U.S./Iraq alliance against the Iranians. You have not expressed what it is that bothers you about the term alliance being used? It obviously carries no disrespect. It obviously does not imply friendship. It does not imply the embracement of Islam. You seemed to have no problem with understanding the alliance between Russia and the U.S. Well that alliance was based on a common cause against a common enemy. It was not about friendship or mutual affection. It was about defeating a common enemy and reversing the occupation of enemy forces. And THAT temporary alliance was against an enemy who was to hold the world hostage in fear for half a century. So what gives with your big issue over the oft written about alliance between the U.S. and Iraq against the Iranians--whose victory would have threatened American interests in the Middle East??? I mean--if you think that writers call it an alliance because they have concocted a sinister plot, then tell us what the plot is? At least it would give some context to your niggling of the word. Or do you continue like a dog in a manger because having once responded thoughtlessly and flippantly with “not really”…you will not consider the adult measure of admitting your response was thoughtless and frivolous??

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next