About NATO. It has nothing to do with trust.
It was based on the presence of a common enemy (eastern bloc), directed by the USA (and financed via Marshall plan). You think countries join because they trust the USA? You know the country that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mossadeg?
They join because they fear the eastern bloc and / or to have favor with the US. NATO provides economic and political benefits.
You think it's based on word? That's not how an alliance works. It's based on collective security because of a common enemy and a mutual interest to protect one another.
About military secrets. You think it's in a poor country's benefit to backstab the USA? Not a good idea. Especially when you are poor. Of course the USA doesn't share its closest secrets with NATO, obviously because there is no trust.
With the fall of the USSR, many are questioning the use of NATO, because the common enemy is gone. Well that was before Putin anyways. So what I see is it based on mutual interests and a common enemy.
To return to the original argument because I am tired of running around in circle with this. You argued that pragmatists (aka every single state) can't be allies. Alliances are by default based on interest and are a pragmatic thing to do. Once the mutual interest is gone, there is no more alliance, why do you think there is no alliance that lasted forever?
Why is it that two pragmatists who have a common enemy and a mutual interest to ally, backstab one another?
You seem to think that pragmatist kill whenever they can and not think of material benefits, which is not what the word means. They do what is efficient. If an alliance is efficient, they do it. If breaking that alliance is efficient (rendering the alliance void), they do it.
So no. To think only truthful and honest people (do they even exist in politics? Really?) can build alliances is false. We would have had alliances that lasted forever if that's the case.
Maybe you are confusing friends (a concept that does not exist in politics) with allies?
Obadiah wrote...
Is the fact that Howe was torturing people with the authority of Loghain supposed to absolve Loghain? Come on. Loghain is the Rejent, he was wasn't going to punish Howe even if he found out. He's guilty.
That's assumign that he knows, which we don't know for certain. But if he did turn a blind eye, it's to avoid losing his most powerful ally and thus open a third front in the war. He can't afford to do it. Howe was too powerful.
If you think that Loghain should have punished him, consequences be damned, even if it's not the sound thing to do, then sure. I don't think that way.
Then you'd have to be pretty sure of your righteousness in that situation. Specifically, in the case of selling elves to Tevinter to bolster his army and save the country, Loghain was wrong. He should have found another way.
When it comes to politics and war, there is no righteousness.
I have thought about it and I do not think there is another way.
Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 septembre 2010 - 02:28 .
Retour en haut
