| Author |
Message |
lovethemho
Reacher
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 229
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:14 PM |
 
|
| Post subject: Brilliant quote from a French philosopher about english men |
Using Napolean as a mouthpiece, George Bernard Shaw makes a telling comment on British Imperialism, which is no less - if not more - apposite to the American imperialism of our time. He says: “There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find an Englishman doing it; but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his king on loyal principles and cut off his king's head on republican principles”. America is no different. It claims to act in terms of international law; but feels free to subvert international norms whenever it wants. It supports the authority of the United Nations but turns its back on the U.N. to suit its convenience. It globalises trade in the name of fairness; and most unfairly usurps the major trade benefits to its own advantage. It launches a war to secure the largest oil reserves in the world but pretends it fights for peace. It claims to act in the name of democracy, but leaves behind battered states wherever it has gone. It fights a war for peace, but makes huge profits by the sale of arms that follows. Its peacekeeping results in war. Its war brings no peace. No sooner are its interests maintained, it leaves behind a debris of enfeebled states. It is never at a loss for an effective moral attitude. |
|
|
|
|
GC
The Ginger Prince
Joined: Dec 01, 2003
Posts: 21536
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:16 PM |
|
|
pish |
_________________
You turned on the lights, Fuelled U boats by night, That's how you repay us, It's time to go home. |
|
  |
|
lucar
Board Royalty
Joined: July 05, 2004
Posts: 6265
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:22 PM |
|
|
Lovethemho, you may have idealistic ideas about what international diplomacy, etc. is. But, the goal of most entities is to look out for their own best interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:29 PM |
|
|
^^ Even if that means contradicting the principles that their own societies are established? I mean, hypocrisy is valid as long as it doesn't harm you?
So, I presume terrorism then is a valid alternative, since it is in the best interest of a lot of regimes that all infidels must die for example?
Fact is: the goals of each society are conflicting. Not everybody can win. But we can arrange for nobody to lose either. |
|
|
|
|
|
lucar
Board Royalty
Joined: July 05, 2004
Posts: 6265
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:44 PM |
|
|
I am not saying it is right. I am just saying it "is". I wish I could say that the USA was a big freedom loving benefactor of the world, but let's look at the facts. Iran, Afganistan (Taliban), Panama, Chile... |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:53 PM |
|
|
usa foreing policy has always been evil.
look what they tried to do to canada and mexico, their first neighbours. luckily they both kicked american assss. |
|
|
|
|
|
n00b
PopStar
Joined: Apr 27, 2004
Posts: 1130
Location: Hua Guo Mountain
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 12:58 PM |
|
|
| Henry_Chinaski wrote: |
Fact is: the goals of each society are conflicting. Not everybody can win. But we can arrange for nobody to lose either. |
that's seem awfully impossible to me HC. care to elaborate how it is possible?
let's take the terrorist example, even if the world managed to have a solution so that two sides (terrorist and other people) are not losing then what about US - the one who manufactured the weapons?
the fact is, there's always a loser. even a win win solution has a downside. |
|
|
|
|
|
Caesara
Post Roaster
Joined: July 31, 2004
Posts: 4572
Location: The Middle Kingdom (Shanghai)
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 01:10 PM |
|
|
| Henry_Chinaski wrote: |
| Not everybody can win. But we can arrange for nobody to lose either. |
Interesting. How? Legally? Politically -- domestically or internationally? Institutionally? Functionally? Socially, morally, culturally? How do we go about ensuring that "nobody loses"?
And lose what? Soft power? Hard power? Relativistic prestige? Economic advantage? Military overhang? Isn't some change (gain/loss) in states' relative levels of these things a part of the natural evolution of the international environment?
I think a no-lose situation would be ideal, but I'm not sure how one would go about creating one . . . not to mention enforcing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 02:51 PM |
|
|
That's an interesting discussion and good point noob. Cesara I don't know what is "relativistic prestige" or "military overhang" so I will keep it aside from the discussion. I tried google with no help. Maybe you could enlighten us the dumb souls here. Prestige hardly matters anyway (unless there is none left, but then it's something about lack of character, not win/win).
Also, if you need to "enforce" any decision it goes straight against the concept of win/win, so, let's not get confused here.
There are 6 kinds of possible relationships:
1-Win/win: both parties have a relatively favourable outcome from the relationship.
2-win/lose: one side wins while making sure the other side loses (war)
3-lose/win: i let you win so we can go along with our relationship. spineless. bad for me long term.
4-lose/lose: if i see that i will lose, i will make sure you lose too.
5-win/win or no deal: if it is not good for both of us, then we don't have a relationship
6-win: as long as i win, i don't give a f*** about what happens to you. i just want to win.
Ok. So, what takes a win/win to happen?
It takes
1)character:
-integrity: I need to be loyal to my own principles if i want to go for a win win.
-maturity: i have to have the courage to go for a win/win and also the consideration of accepting your own position and understanding it.
-abundance mentality: we both need to believe that what exists will be enough for everybody or that we will be able to share it in mutual benefit (that's why subway doesnt work here, people have scarcity mentalities, they think that there will not be subway enough for everybody so they shove and push to get what they want).
2)relationships: to go for a win/win you need to trust the other party. you need have the confidence that each one will respect the other position and will actually act in good faith. a strained relationship will NEVER allow for a win/win
3)agreements: what is being seeked needs to be clear to both sides. It basically has to have five elements
-Clear desired results
-Guidelines (how the results are to be accomplished
-Resources (human, technical, financial, organizational)
-Accountability: set up standards of performances and deadlines for such
-Consequences: clear consequences that will happen as the result of the evaluation
4)Process: a process to develop and reach and agreement, composed of
-seeing the problem from each others point of view
-identifying key issues and concerns (and NOT positions)
-most important IDENTIFY what results will constitute a fully acceptable position
-Identify possible options to achieve those results
5)Systems: rewards need to be granted with the win/win outcome in mind. Good ideas in bad result and reward systems will always lead to bad results.
Ok, so, this is the framework for win/win as per acknowledged authors.
If we analyze so many events in light of this framework we can clearly see that in one point or another we as a global society are lacking the elements to go win/win. We don't achieve win/win solutions not because we dont want to, but because the way issues are structured prevent win/win results from being achieved. We are scripted in the "win" mentality.
Look at the Kyoto protocol. Look at why don't the US want to be a signatary. Look at carbon credits. That's a good example of a solid reward system that allows countries with different energy situations to be benefited from it while maximizing the objective of driving down emissions. While it is good for everybody that the protocol is enforced, parties are not willing to compromise to a solution that benefits everybody else as they are not prepared to understand each others position or worse yet, a PROCESS to achieve a win win solution is not even envisaged. Nations are scripted in a "win" mentality, not giving a shiat about happens to their neighbour.
My point is: we are all scripted in a "win" model of relationship. America doesn't give a flying f*** about Iraq as long as it has its hands on its oil. Democracy? Bullshiat. Iraqis? They dont give a rats ass about it. The Iraqis with reason feel violated (I am not saying that they are victims and not a part of the problem too). But this "win" relationship sooner or later takes its toll on you when you dont have the force to enfore it. Yes, Palestine. Think about it. How to prevent people blowing themselves up in school buses now that the relationship is so shiat? You can't. It's gone. To have a win/win here you will need generations of relationship reconstruction. Nobody said it is easy, but I guess everybody think win/win is best.
I think we definitely have a big problem measuring what is to win and what is to lose, which is a determinant factor in having the proper mindset to achive a win/win solution.
The crime we commited on ourselves was to settle for a "win" mentality, which goes straight against the foundations of the own society that we are trying to defend. A "win" mentality is totally against the same christian idiocy that elected Mr. George Bush and the same hypocrisy that is vomited every day in churches and mosques accross the world. Look at intervention in Latin America. Look at trade policy. Want a small example that highlight it all? Taxes on South East Asian shrimps: totally illegal. Look at the garments fuss with China. Why doesn't the solution work? Cause it is MEASURED the wrong way. Why shouldn't nations be celebrating that China can produce low value adding commodities that knowledge economies shouldn't be producing anymore? Because we MEASURE a win/win in the wrong way (jobs "lost"), we don't measure the increased purchase power parity that trade with China grants. We are idiots. We only use a fraction of our brains.
Maybe win/win means that the outcome that you get out of the situation will be not as spetacular as if you went just for a "win." However, down the road, when a similar solution occurs you will not have a relationship developed enough to try to maximize the results of it. Going for "win" only DECREASES the long term output of it all. It is a short term solution for an ethernal problem. We will be in this Earth forever. Pissing in each others teas now hoping for a quick victory today will not make tomorrow any better. Israel again.
Ok. Long post. By now you must be thinking how naive HC is for trying to think win/win. He must gets fuked all the time this thinking this way. Well I dont believe in religion, god, destiny, horoscopes, or jackshiat. But I believe that human beings exceptions granted have fundamental values in themselves that are unchangeable. They can be corrupted, they can be forgotten, they can be ommited, but they are all there. Having a win/win mentality is one of these characteristics. It is a hidden instinct perhaps. A deep layer, that need to have a lot of dust crust and shiat removed out of the surface and a lot of polish applied before it can show up. We can all chose which way to related to ourselves, but we cant chose the outcome of it.
rgds,
HC. |
|
|
|
|
|
Benoist_Shanghai
Low Seater
Joined: May 18, 2003
Posts: 3057
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:18 PM |
|
|
HC made a long post and it could even be longer as there is potentially no limit in explaining the benefits of such a deal. But basically, the idea is that a win-win equilibrium is the only sustainable one. You can place the cursor where you want but what matters is the concept. At least this is what I thought.
b. |
|
|
|
|
|
n00b
PopStar
Joined: Apr 27, 2004
Posts: 1130
Location: Hua Guo Mountain
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:25 PM |
|
|
HC/Benoist, i didn't read all of it as i need to have a meeting in like 10 minutes.
but you missed what i have tried to point out.
| Quote: |
There are 6 kinds of possible relationships:
1-Win/win: both parties have a relatively favourable outcome from the relationship.
2-win/lose: one side wins while making sure the other side loses (war)
3-lose/win: i let you win so we can go along with our relationship. spineless. bad for me long term.
4-lose/lose: if i see that i will lose, i will make sure you lose too.
5-win/win or no deal: if it is not good for both of us, then we don't have a relationship
6-win: as long as i win, i don't give a f*** about what happens to you. i just want to win. |
the model is using two parties who come to negotiation table and make a deal.
we're missing those parties who don't come to negotiation table but also a stakeholder in a way (for example the weapon manufacturer).
of course above is a negative example, but in business - many of times, the losers are actually those who don't come to negotiation table. for example in a b2b negotiation, the losers could be supplier's suppliers, the end-customer, etc. that's the downside of win-win solution that i foresee. of course it doesn't matter for you who come to negotiation table because you win, but in our life - most of the time we are the end-customer. have you thought how many times we have become the losers when a win-win deals weremade between two giant companies? |
|
|
|
|
|
Caesara
Post Roaster
Joined: July 31, 2004
Posts: 4572
Location: The Middle Kingdom (Shanghai)
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:32 PM |
|
|
Prestige/overhang are just terms from my political science background. Nothing intended re "dumb ones" -- they just popped to mind when I started thinking about this discussion w/its political theory tie-ins.
| Henry_Chinaski wrote: |
| We don't achieve win/win solutions not because we dont want to, but because the way issues are structured prevent win/win results from being achieved. We are scripted in the "win" mentality. |
Right.
I tend to agree with the general body of your post (sorry, leaving office to catch Beijing flight, so no chance for a lengthy/specific response). My question wasn't whether a win-win situation was preferable or even "the only sustainable equilibrium" [emphasis mine] for the international system in the long term. My question was, given your quote and given the current structure of the international system, "How do we go about, in a practical way, creating and implementing a win-win format?" Or, how do we get rid of the "dust crust" and apply the "polish"? I was curious to see if you had any ideas, that's all.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:38 PM |
|
|
sure i do. vote properly. prοtest. communicate. organize. write. read. drink. fornicate in the name of a better tomorrow. uzw. |
|
|
|
|
|
lovethemho
Reacher
Joined: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 229
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:38 PM |
|
|
In the minds of english men there's no such thing as win-win with them negros, asians, latinos, arabs, slavs etc etc. There's only cultural clash! How dare them to even think of having a win-win case with the english men! |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:55 PM |
|
|
Well. But look at the price they paid for that: they feel hostages of the same people they hate in their own country.
Of course, blacks, asians, latins make them feel better about themselves. But in the end the balance is negative. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 03:58 PM |
|
|
As for the weapons industry, it is an overinflated legacy of the past. If we are serious about win/win, we must compromise this past and adjust the society to fulfill what we think should be our dreams in the future. I know, this sentence sounded like shiat. Anyway, the weapons industry also delivered invaluable innovation to society, not saying they should be extinguished but saying that they should be slowly phased away and transformed into something different. Weapons are HARDLY part of any win/win mentality as they lie on the win/lose principles of war. |
|
|
|
|
|
trip
Barker
Joined: Feb 03, 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Closer
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 05:17 PM |
|
|
All this from 257 words used to say that the neighborhood bully follows the philosophy of "might makes right". Interesting. Debate all you like, it will only change when the might is not there to make right...
Trip |
|
|
|
|
|
ctshen
Barker
Joined: Sep 09, 2004
Posts: 153
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 08:55 PM |
|
|
I'll make three points:
1. Instead of saying how evil America is compared to your sci fi utopia (United Federation of Planets?), compare it to an ACTUAL country, in all of human history, and show me which country was/is better.
2. I became a US citizen 18 years ago, of my free choice. If you're one too, you also have the free choice to renounce your US citizenship and join the better country in your opinion. After that, I'll respect your words much more when you verbally abuse your former country.
3. If you're not an American, please explain to me what YOUR country has contributed to bring peace to the world and helped to reduce human suffering, to a degree that gives you the justification to criticise America? I'm not interested in what you think America SHOULD do, but what your country HAS done. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 09:32 PM |
|
|
Trip has some valid points. The bully is getting what it wants. But then I ask: is giving away your "freedom" a victory? Is the might really might? In what sense?
Latest terrorism and counter-terrorism that followed proved that being safe is not necessarily being better off. And we are still all vulnerable. So, people traded their freedom for what? A "perceived" notion of safety and the maintenance of a status quo that hardly creates the long term conditions to evolve. And sooner or relater the topic will be revisited. Facing it as a linear historical event is an over simplification. The entire interaction of "getting what you want" is a cycle. It's a dynamic system. So, getting what you want now might compromising getting something better in the future.
And just to make is fair, (and bringing it to a level that even ctshen will understand that the entire discussion is not that relevant in a specific country basis), wouldn't all countries behave exactly the same way had they a chance?
I think they would.
That's why perhaps what we talk about in this thread is an utopia. But then hardly anything evolved without having an utopia first. Ben Franklin lived in utopia land too. So did Robespierre, so did so many. Plato. Skepticism has its role as a reality checker, but as a governing mentality it castrates the ability to hope for something better, and as such is not good enough for a situation where a breakthrough is needed.
Without patronizing it all, I like this definition of "change" as a combination of D x V x P where D is dissatisfaction with the present, V is the vision of how it could all be and P is the process to take us all there. I would say D is pretty much boiling: we have a lot of discontent people, we also have a Vision of where we want to be. Perhaps a bit blurred today. But we dont have a P, or not an efficient process to change it all. And to achieve change it will demand a similar and measured response for other parties, so, it's a hard and long way before we can actually see anything less than the "win" mentality governing our actions.
We are ruled by idiots. The sole superpower in the world doesn't give a shiat about the implications of its own actions other than to itself. never did, never will. |
Last edited by Henry_Chinaski on June 30, 2005 - 10:09 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730
|
| Posted:
June 30, 2005 - 10:07 PM |
|
|
If you run of good quotes by French wankers, just run a search on my username and make use of the quote functionality. Nice thread, keep up the good work. |
_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit? |
|
|
|
|
sino_chino
Raver
Joined: Nov 03, 2003
Posts: 395
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
July 01, 2005 - 01:33 AM |
|
|
Not to mention they reprimanded us on our human rights record on t¡bet and Xinjiang after having wiped out the native Americans and Australian aborgines and dislodged them from their ancestral lands. |
|
|
|
|
|
trip
Barker
Joined: Feb 03, 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Closer
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
July 01, 2005 - 06:33 AM |
|
|
^ Hey, mate... Although I agree that the plight of the Native Americans and Australian Aboriginols is horrible, the United States government cannot be blamed for what happened in Australia. Australia is, in fact, an autonomous state.
Most aussies may be affronted by this confusion.
Just helping to educate the world.
Tripster |
|
|
|
|
|
frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730
|
| Posted:
July 01, 2005 - 07:01 AM |
|
|
| Quote: |
Australia is, in fact, an autonomous state.
|
What a joke |
_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit? |
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
July 01, 2005 - 02:17 PM |
|
|
Just read that US Senate has turned down proposal to lift embargo on Cuba.
What a bunch of morons. The embargo started in 1960. Cuba is in the Stone Age thanks to that. And yeah, Fidel Castro is a big threat right?
Thanks Uncle Sam. Thanks for being so understanding and so good to the nations of Earth.
Hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
|
|
frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty
Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730
|
| Posted:
July 01, 2005 - 02:41 PM |
|
|
The truth is that Fidel Castro is a major threat to the US, although not in military or economic sense. Cuba is the symbol of continuing resistance to the US. Cuba is the fly on the United States ugly face. Long live comrade Fidel! |
_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
