Winning the War in Afghanistan

[JMA]

We must have drifted into "everything is negotiable" mode a long time ago, then, because I don't recall any American objections when the British Empire was running probably the largest and most successful opium dealing operation in history.

More recently I seem to recall the US providing money and arms to a bunch of coke dealers in hopes they'd overthrow o government of Nicaragua that we didn't much care for.

When exactly was this mystical time when everything wasn't negotiable?

Are you for real?

Everyone knows about Perfidious Albion. They did it for Empire.

...at least they never railed on and on about ethics, integrity, honesty, honour, truth, justice, morality etc. etc. while they were swimming at the bottom of the cesspool with the scum of the earth.

[Dayuhan]

They did it for Empire.

They did it for money, like all drug dealers.

But again, when exactly was this mystical period when everything wasn't negotiable?

[JMA]

They did it for money, like all drug dealers.

But again, when exactly was this mystical period when everything wasn't negotiable?

No, I'm not following you into a school yard argument.

My point is simple, and that is today everything is negotiable. Specifically the following:

"ethics, integrity, honesty, honour, truth, justice, morality"

This is the state of play today and the who, what, when and where of the past (while maybe interesting to some) does not alter this fact (even if some try to use the past to justify the present )

[Dayuhan]

You made specific reference to "when the US drifted into the 'everything is negotiable' mode". That suggests pretty strongly that you think there was a time when some other mode applied. I don't think there was one, and I can't think of any time, anywhere, when any nation has ever tried to build a foreign policy around "ethics, integrity, honesty, honour, truth, justice, morality", negotiable or otherwise.

Why lament the passing of a fantasy that never existed... and why try to attribute today's problems to a drift out of a state we were never in?

[Fuchs]

There was a time when the U.S. did not negotiate about things concerning expansion of the Soviet's influence, for example.


Even today not everything is negotiable. To discuss along this extreme idea that everything is negotiable is misleading and fruitless. You better focus on the original theme; the readiness to do business with dictators.

That, btw, was always there - and it should be. There's no reason why a nation should refuse a win-win negotiation with a dictator if it doesn't compromise its own rules.

[JMA]

There was a time when the U.S. did not negotiate about things concerning expansion of the Soviet's influence, for example.

Even today not everything is negotiable. To discuss along this extreme idea that everything is negotiable is misleading and fruitless. You better focus on the original theme; the readiness to do business with dictators.

That, btw, was always there - and it should be. There's no reason why a nation should refuse a win-win negotiation with a dictator if it doesn't compromise its own rules.

I suggest you both read me incorrectly. I am talking about a national characteristic rather than a guide to national policy.

That said, I do accept that the latter will generally follow the former.

[jmm99]

that is, subject to the process of negotiations - but, not everything is agreeable or even acceptable - WRT to the end result of that process.

Regards

Mike