Well, I suppose if you drop enough bombs on something...

I guess that means you need to try harder, Condi.

Oh, she probably just had a slip of the tongue.
What she meant to say is that the US has no permanent allies.

If she's said the US had no enemies, that'd be asinine.

Saying we have no permanent enemies is pretty much true. Remember when we sold arms to the Taliban? Remember when we helped out ol' Saddam back in the day? Nothing stays the same... can someone explain to me why this is asinine?

Di Atribe: If she's said the US had no enemies, that'd be asinine.

Saying we have no permanent enemies is pretty much true. Remember when we sold arms to the Taliban? Remember when we helped out ol' Saddam back in the day? Nothing stays the same... can someone explain to me why this is asinine?

Because we have been secretly plotting against you. You have been under the pretense for years that we are one of your closest allies, but it was all lies. Soon we shall strike and you will never see it.... FARK!

That's a nice way to explain away your focus in Sovietology, Dr. Rice.

2/10

Fail!

What about People magazine?
Oh...not US weekly.
Never mind.

SoothinglyDeranged: Because we have been secretly plotting against you.

Now that I think about it... this explains the black helicopters... hm....


/nice use of "allies" right next to "all lies"
//slashie for you

As long as e can find new ones to bomb, why would we need a permanent one?

NewportBarGuy: That's a nice way to explain away your focus in Sovietology, Dr. Ric

What's your doctorate in?

We must be doing something wrong if that's the case.

Hmm...if we drop 2 tons of high explosives on someone-who-hated-us's nutsack, do they continue hating us after death, or are they reset to neutral?

Di Atribe: What's your doctorate in?

Last I checked I wasn't Secretary of State of the United States.

I'll give Condi this, she's was the one who held off Rumsfeld and Cheney from their Iran War fantasy, and that took balls. We all owe her for that.

But, her lack of experience in the diplomatic realm has really led her to be a highly ineffective Sec. of State. National Security Council is fine, it's more of a theoretical and policy dartboard idea group. But, Sec. of State? She's out of her element, Donnie.

Just when you think Buscho's mouthpieces can't say anything dumber...

She's right, even Bush will be out of office in another year.

But, but Palmerston.

NewportBarGuy: Last I checked I wasn't Secretary of State of the United States.

No you're not. Which is why I find it interesting that you think you somehow know more than she does about foreign policy.

Di Atribe: Saying we have no permanent enemies is pretty much true.

Yup. We're on pretty decent terms with England, for example. heh.

Condoleezza Rice: "US has no permanent enemies, except the Democratic Party"


Fixed.

Di Atribe: No you're not. Which is why I find it interesting that you think you somehow know more than she does about foreign policy.

And how exactly are you qualified to determine that she does know what she's doing in matters of foreign policy?

Acknowledging permanent enemies would be an omission on our behalf that we believe they can endure indefinitely. Sure, we've always been at war with Eurasia; doesn't mean Oceania isn't bound to emerge victorious at some point.

Vast strategic manoeuvre - perfect co-ordination - utter rout - half a million prisoners - complete demoralization - control of the whole of Africa - bring the war within measurable distance of its end victory - greatest victory in human history - victory, victory, victory!

I got a better one: "The US has no real leadership outside of a bunch of incompetents stirring hate to disguise the lack of anything helpful going on."

It seems that Ms. Rice is probably one of the most useless people we have today. Why she doesn't bother to retire and fade into obscurity is beyond me.

Wouldn't it be nice for us as a country to behave in such a way that we have no ENEMIES, permanent or otherwise? Is that too much to ask for?

Why don't we just take lessons from the Swiss? We could have saved those 532 billion taxpayer dollars that we spent on our military this past year and put them toward something worthwhile.

Di Atribe: No you're not. Which is why I find it interesting that you think you somehow know more than she does about foreign policy.

Because can read her biography? I can also look at her results as Sec. of State and say "Wow, bang up job there." I gave her props for her handling of the Iranian situation, if she had done something else I would have commended her on that as well.

The business of diplomacy is best left to the tea-sipping blue-blood types. Their lives are constant cocktail parties, lectures, and "Oh, yes... I know your cousin we read at Oxford together.Now about this trade embargo." It's an incestuous group of people that smooth things out and handle things in back-channels. Condi just doesn't have that backround.

I'm a huge Colin Powell fan, and even he was borderline. His prominence earned from his military success gave him non-official status amongst that group. Condi doesn't even have that.

I'm sure she is a smart woman, and she'll make a fine Team President for the Royals in 2009. An effective Sec. of State? No farking way.

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." - Lord Palmerston

I would say that the same holds true for enemies.

In a way, she's right. Today's enemies are tomorrow's friends, and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies.

When you have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world a few times over, you do not have enemies. You only have nuisances.

Boom!
Boom!
Boom!

Outlaw_Rudy: Hmm...if we drop 2 tons of high explosives on someone-who-hated-us's nutsack, do they continue hating us after death, or are they reset to neutral?

The Germans, Japanese, and Italians seem to like us well enough. We fought a war with Mexico and now it seems like most of them want to come here. We had a war with Spain, now they are nice enough. Same with Great Britain and we now even supposedly have that "special relationship." Vietnam even seems to hold no grudge.

Why the asinine tag? I'm not a fan of Condi or anyone else in the administration, but this seems perfectly reasonable/obviously true. After all, a country we dropped two atomic bombs on (Japan) is now practically our closest ally besides the UK, whom we fought a war of independence against.

Anyone who thinks that all conflicts have to be permanent probably won't survive in this world very long.

We don't have the kind of attention span it takes to maintain a prolonged hateful relationship.

Had it not been for the US, Iran wouldn't have been an "enemy" to begin with. After 911 Iran helped in the battle against al-Qaeda and reached out to the US in an attempt to establish better relations, but then Bush rebuked them in his "axis of evil" state of the union. America has such hostility towards Iran that it even spurns them when Iran offers to help in Iraq.

That's not to mention what the US did to Iran in the 1950s.

As for North Korea, the rift in our relationship was due to Bush violating the nuclear agreement negotiated under Clinton.

http://www.contrariancatalogue.blogspot.com (new window)

Other than Republicans, I presume.

....only permanent bases.

glaurunge Dude, North Korean 'rift'? That started in the 1950's when we were in a war with them. A war that has officially never ended.

Untrue condi. We've always been at war with Eastasia

Sure, if we think that only states can be "enemies".

Savoir-Faire: glaurunge Dude, North Korean 'rift'? That started in the 1950's when we were in a war with them. A war that has officially never ended.

I was refering to the rift over North Korea's nuclear programs, which had achieved a diplomatic settlement that lasted until Bush came to power and had it scrapped.

Enemies as permanent as parrots.

Counter_Intelligent: In a way, she's right. Today's enemies are tomorrow's friends, and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies.

RocketVat: Untrue condi. We've always been at war with Eastasia

Doubleplus untrue. Oceania is at war with Eurasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I bet the House of Saud has permanent enemies, they'll get some politically connected US oil family to deal with it.
They've already gotten rid of one.

China sees your two and a half centuries and raises you another four thousand years.

Sheesh. We're the bratty 12-year old of nations.

Di Atribe: No you're not. Which is why I find it interesting that you think you somehow know more than she does about foreign policy.

I don't have to be an NFL Football player to know that the Dolphins suck.

*** This offer not valid in Cuba.

Ukraine is weak!

Di Atribe

No you're not. Which is why I find it interesting that you think you somehow know more than she does about foreign policy.

I hope you realize that if no one is allowed to criticize government figures, unless they've done the job themselves, then chances are you shouldn't be criticizing Hillary, Kucinich, Teddy Kennedy, or anyone else....in fact, you probably shouldn't be in the politics tab at all, or Fark for that matter.

/criticizing is kind of the point

FTFA: The third member of the "axis of evil," Saddam Hussein's Iraq, did not do so to Bush's satisfaction and was invaded in 2003, although no weapons of mass destruction were found. The administration has said it wants to deal diplomatically with the threats it sees from North Korea and Iran.

Translation: "We're overstretched and can't afford to fark up again."

Well, it is true. Most of USA today's best allies are nations that the US fought bloody wars against: Britain, Japan, Germany to name just the most obvious examples.

At the same time most of today's worst enemies were nations that were formerly allies (They might have had a change in leadership since the US last acvtively supported them, but they are still the same people if not the same governments.)

There are very few nations or peoples that have since the foundation of the USA always been more or less the same friend-or-foe-wise.

At one point or another the US has been at war with most of its closest allies. If you think about it you could even say that half of the US itself could not be counted as a permanent ally due to that whole civil war thing. France might be the closest thing the US has to an actual permanent ally and considering the relationship between France and the US in recent years that is just sad.

I can't think of anyone who has 'always' been an enemy of the US.

"US has no permanent enemies, as we kill them to help fulfill the New Testament in a manner the Old Testament God would be proud of."

FTFA:

"The United States doesn't have permanent enemies, we're too great a country for that,"



Established governments? That's a stretch at the moment but obviously, in the end, economics will dictate that everyone is your friend until you are replaced at the top.

Countries' populations? Yeah, that's a different story.

Considering more countries' citizens consider America to be the largest threat to international peace than any other country, I'd say that you guys may want to work on your 'greatness'. (source)

/denial is always the first stage