Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (47436)	4/9/2006 1:31:27 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 90947

"This is not the action of an ally" Again--you're niggling this thing to death. When the topic was introduced it was with a mutual awareness that no friendship or shared values was implied. It was a simple statement of fact. The actions of Iran created a situation where Iraq and the U.S. shared a common interest and were thus allied to that degree. Iran had been a huge ally of the U.S. before the Islamic revolution there. Speaking here about alliances between various countries through various periods does not imply any sense of amity. Rather, it asserts a relationship where some commonality of purpose is shared. An alliance does not need to aim at "winning" a war or gaining a peace. When you suggest that tanks need to be sold or given or that maximum support must be given, you are misinterpreting the entire concept. An alliance requires that cooperation is expected to achieve some mutual advantages. It does not require that there be friendship or any particular or specific support such as dropping a nuclear bomb--or selling tanks or sugar cane. "For the Americans, the best thing that could have happened was a stalemate" Actually, one can think of better things that could have happened. But the alliance achieved the purpose it was meant to achieve to a fair degree. "Even while the United States was neutral, we supplied real military equipment (warships and military aircraft) to Britain during WWII" You call that "neutral"?? I don't think either you or I or Tim have any fundamental disagreement in this matter of "alliance". I introduced the word innocently and accurately in my opinion. I think Tim took it as meaning friendship and it all went to Hell from there. You can be a lawyer for a bastard serial killer whom you hate more than any person on the planet. But when you walk together into that court room you have an alliance and you are allies--working together toward a mutual goal. Whether or not you sell the bastard any tanks has nothing to do with it. Now go relax and watch a movie or something. I'm not going to waste any more time dyeing a raven black. Nice to meet you and have a good day, DavesM.