6 ms·

My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." Th

My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." The parallel here, in my mind, is that Google has an opportunity for accomplishing several things while "posturing" for war with the Chinese government: * Put pressure on the Chinese government to change. This is the public-facing goal of the campaign. The cause. * Make up for any negative press about privacy by reinforcing the idea that their users' accounts are meant to be completely private and secure. * Align themselves with human-rights causes, garnering trust amid doubts about trustworthiness and projecting a policy on censorship. Posturing for war will likely prove very good for Google, and may result in the Chinese government caving. But if they actually have to go to war, it will be painful. In my mind, it would be ideal for Google to posture for as long as they can, and as loud as they can, and see if they can't get the Chinese government to back down at all. Any significant win, without going to war, could be cause to not go to war, for it could be wrapped up as the government "cooperating". Never attribute to goodwill, that which can be more adequately explained by good marketing.

joe_the_user 17y ago
Actually, I think Google very definitely declared war on China by making very public, very damning accusations. The Chinese government could not possible allow itself to be seen caving into a single corporation and Google now cannot allow itself to be seen going back on "Don't Be Evil". This is the end for Google and China. War should be avoided at most costs but not all costs. Right on Google.
tokenadult 17y ago
My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." You had a history teacher who said this?!? Doesn't the period of history he teaches include the United States war against the Axis (World War II)? Yes, the United States delayed entering that war about as long as any country could, but it was on the right side of that war, and it was better for the world that the United States went to war in that case. (Similar points could be made about other countries in other wars; I mention the United States only because you mentioned a teacher of United States history.)
- msg 17y ago
  Maybe he meant that war is always evil, even if it is the lesser evil.
praptak 17y ago
> "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." Does not compute. You cannot posture for war without occasionally going to war.
- didroe 17y ago
  Saying something is never good doesn't equate to saying it never happens. And saying something can be good doesn't imply that it always is.
miked 17y ago
...actually going to war is NEVER good." I wonder if African-American slaves would agree. Or West Europeans, especially those in concentration camps. Or South Koreans.
- modoc 17y ago
  You could argue that those last two examples were suffering due to a country "actually going to war". Once that happened, there was more war to be had to return to balance. I believe also that a large number of the slaves who ended up in America pre-Civil War were captured during tribal wars and sold, so you could argue that in fact all of your examples were caused by at least one party engaging in active violent warfare.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

joe_the_user 17y ago

Actually, I think Google very definitely declared war on China by making very public, very damning accusations. The Chinese government could not possible allow itself to be seen caving into a single corporation and Google now cannot allow itself to be seen going back on "Don't Be Evil". This is the end for Google and China. War should be avoided at most costs but not all costs. Right on Google.

tokenadult 17y ago

My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." You had a history teacher who said this?!? Doesn't the period of history he teaches include the United States war against the Axis (World War II)? Yes, the United States delayed entering that war about as long as any country could, but it was on the right side of that war, and it was better for the world that the United States went to war in that case. (Similar points could be made about other countries in other wars; I mention the United States only because you mentioned a teacher of United States history.)

msg 17y ago
Maybe he meant that war is always evil, even if it is the lesser evil.

praptak 17y ago

> "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." Does not compute. You cannot posture for war without occasionally going to war.

didroe 17y ago
Saying something is never good doesn't equate to saying it never happens. And saying something can be good doesn't imply that it always is.

miked 17y ago

...actually going to war is NEVER good." I wonder if African-American slaves would agree. Or West Europeans, especially those in concentration camps. Or South Koreans.

modoc 17y ago
You could argue that those last two examples were suffering due to a country "actually going to war". Once that happened, there was more war to be had to return to balance. I believe also that a large number of the slaves who ended up in America pre-Civil War were captured during tribal wars and sold, so you could argue that in fact all of your examples were caused by at least one party engaging in active violent warfare.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]