[thechat] US Elections

[aardvark]

> From: "Martin Paul Burns" <martin.burns at uk.ibm.com>
>
> Sorry Hugh, I think that's just way too simplistic.
>
> There's also a 'neutral' category, and a category which says "Even
> though you may be right in some matters, that doesn't give you carte
> blanche in all of them, and I'll criticise where appropriate". Picking
> sides in a binary manner is just such a macho, posturing thing to do,
> don't you think?

i think now we might as well branch into the discussion of
neutrality...

there is no true neutrality... if so, entities would be forced to
inaction at all times... and that doesn't happen...

even nations claiming to be neutral have consistently weighed in
with their opinion on international matters, had citizens offer
support one way or another, or continue to engage in
trade/business with other nations...

that is not neutrality, and while i don't have time now to cite hard
sources, if necessary, i know they won't be hard to find (i have a
couple WWII books at home that discuss this very thing)...

so, yes, it really is binary...

even a neutral nation could say, "yeah, that sucked, and we won't
be an obstruction... we won't give you military/financial help, but we
will let you pass..."

criticism is allowed, and expected, from allies... nothing bush said
indicated that everyone had to suddenly arm up, shut their mouths,
and follow us wherever...


--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg02-20
ISBN: 1904151035