Personally, I don't care if it is a "perfectly acceptable political tool". I just wouldn't do it to someone that is a friend to get what I want. It would be nice if the nations involved were friends, it's naive,to think so, I know. But I can think about it.

Mark

<font color="plum">First of all, <font color="orange">Davros</font>, I offer my apologies for mis-interpreting your statement. You are right that my "defenses" get raised automatically and the point of asking WHY we believe as we do IS a valid one.

So - to answer your question - do I think the U.S. is "right" to take this stance with Russia. The answer is YES. As <font color=dodgerblue>Ronn</font> pointed out, they don't want to actively support us, but they certainly want to benefit from our actions once it's over and done with. For the U.S. to say "Don't be so certain about the amount of economic windfall you will recieve from this" seems like a perfectly legitimate position to take.

To reference the popular children's tale....none of the other animals want to help the hen grow wheat, take it to be ground into grain, or bake the bread...but they ALL line up to ask for a piece of the bread after all the work has been done. I think America has the right to say, "Sorry, you didn't help with this...so we don't owe you any benefit from our actions."

As to my defenses and my accusation of the U.S. being "painted as the bad guy" - let's just take a look at some of the thread titles in this forum.
<font color="white">
1) America Resorts to Economic Blackmail - started by skywalker.
2) Why doesn't the U.S. pay it's debts? - started by Moiraine.
3) U.S. dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war.. - started by Dreamer128.
</font>

Maybe I'm the one that's wrong, but these titles certainly don't sound very "objective" to me.</font>

<font color="#ffccff">Actually no it doesn't. What it says and clearly shows is, "This is how the game is played". If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Every nation is free to act as it chooses, but the moment you choose, you must realize that every choice has a consequence and a reaction..sort of like the third law of thermodynamics I believe.

PS. I liked what you said to Cerek, it is good to have someone make you check to see if you were being honest with yourself.</font>

[ 03-06-2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#ffccff">Exactly how has this friend shown his friendship? just curious. :D I think I posted somewhere that it can be argued that there are several nations in europe that cannot be classified as "friend" even though they are or have been or are again members of NATO. </font>

[img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

"Forest Gump Voice": And that's all I have to say about that.

I agree! And what better way of doing this than teaching these countries the meaning of free trade, and the consequences of playing hard ball over oil and exclusive trading rights. If in this issue, you go against us because of your own self interests, why would you be suprised that we will do the same?
That my friend is simply business.

Genuine thanks to Cerek and MagiK for their reponses. I also on an ethical perspective don't think it is right, but I also appreciate from a practical perspective the reasons why it is being done.

I wish the US would just stop resorting to economic blackmail. It can only backfire in the long run and it really isn't helping to improve image of the US.

The US should just accept a country's decision and move on.

Looks like the US is desperate for more support. When you think about Saddam is no dummy. The more time he buys, the more sympathy he gets.

I can't say as I agree with this either, it's certainly not the way to conduct yourself as a power.

That pretty much says it all. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]