4 ms·

Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. > (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care

by mpyne 13y ago

Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. > (which would have hurt innocent civilians - does the US even care about that anymore?) There are two sides to that particular story bub, and only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. So what you're basically saying is that Ecuador has decided to harm their own innocent civilians in order to head toward granting asylum to a U.S. citizen to poke their thumb in Uncle Sam's face (again).

lucian1900 13y ago
They are standing up against the bully that is the US. That is a service to their own citizens and those of various other countries around the world.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  In what sense? If a member of the Ecuadorian opposition party infiltrated their government and stole classified information, then fled to the United States, wouldn't they demand to get him back?
  - antoko 13y ago
    The US didn't demand him back (and he isn't even there yet). They are threatening to remove some economic benefit that is completely unrelated to the issue at hand to coerce the Ecuadorean government to fall in line. That's pretty obviously bullying, and the Ecuadorean government has simply called uncle sam's bluff.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      "Economic benefits" are generally not free. Why should the U.S. reward a country that has shown a willingness to embarrass them on the world stage (twice, now) when there are a hundred other countries that would be just as deserving (not to mention the millions of Americans here at home who could benefit from a bit of largesse)?
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        your best friends are the ones that are allowed to tell you what you are like. the people who don't do that, they are not your best friends.
        mpyne 13y ago
        If I believed for a second that Ecuador's government had genuine friendship-based concern for the U.S. and its actions I think I'd agree with you. But that's not what this is.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        That doesn't change the fact that the more any entity relies on threats, the less it can have have real friends. This is like the physics of relationships and just how it is. Wether or not it applies here doesn't even matter for it being generally true, and the US seems to threaten friend and foe alike, if in doubt. Why, it even treats its own citizens like subjects quite often.
        mpyne 13y ago
        I agree that threats are not how friendly countries carry on friendly business. What I do not agree on is that Ecuador is acting at all as a "friend" to the U.S. in this matter, for the reasons I stated above.
        eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        The best friends are those that don't allow you to make mistakes. The ones that aren't really your friends are the ones that pander to you, for fear of embarrassing you. They are doing you a disservice. Which is of greater embarrassment, the alleged behaviour of the NSA, or an offer of asylum to a whistle blower destined for death or Guantanamo? Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006: "So was I right not just in supporting the war, but in actively prosecuting it? I’ve been asked a million times since the invasion whether, knowing then what I know now, I would have made the same decision. And no, I wouldn’t. How could we have agreed to invade Iraq if we had known that there were no WMD there?"[1] Earlier in the same article: "As I spelt out the seriousness of the situation and my conviction that we now had to confront Saddam Hussein militarily, my wife Alice and children Will and Charlotte were up in the gallery listening. None of them shared my view. Each of them would have been among the million or so demonstrators on the recent protest march through London against the war if it had not been for their loyalty to me and their wish not to embarrass me." Jack Straw, Blair and Straw's family would have been better friends had they caused embarrassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_t... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack-Straw-I-stopped-going-war-Iraq-This-I-didnt.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack-Straw-I... [1]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    And ideally these things should be decided on their merits, not who has control over a bigger economy.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I don't know, would they? This idea that a government would demand that another, non-allied government return someone whose crime is leaking secret information doesn't make any sense to me. I get why you'd extradite an accused murderer or similar, but an accused leaker? Why would another country listen to such a demand?
    - danmaz74 13y ago
      Especially given that the US government has made it extremely clear that such spying was targeting foreigners, including, most likely, Ecuadorian people.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - fleitz 13y ago
    The purpose of classified information is not to hide human rights abuses.
corresation 13y ago
Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. Ecuador hasn't yet taken in Snowden. So no, your analogy doesn't fit: They are rejecting bullying outright.
- atwebb 13y ago
  Also, it's often not better to say that.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    Agreed - but a better parallel to this situation is if you suspect you will be fired soon, to leave with dignity of your own accord beforehand.
dllthomas 13y ago
It feels satisfying to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" but it's usually a bad idea. Removing a point of leverage before its attempted use is a slightly different scenario, though.
jeremyflores 13y ago
> only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. A meaningless technicality. You can't seriously be arguing that the US' continued hegemonic paternalism toward Ecuador isn't a major source of their population's problems.

by mpyne 13y ago

lucian1900 13y ago

They are standing up against the bully that is the US. That is a service to their own citizens and those of various other countries around the world.

twoodfin 13y ago
In what sense? If a member of the Ecuadorian opposition party infiltrated their government and stole classified information, then fled to the United States, wouldn't they demand to get him back?
- antoko 13y ago
  The US didn't demand him back (and he isn't even there yet). They are threatening to remove some economic benefit that is completely unrelated to the issue at hand to coerce the Ecuadorean government to fall in line. That's pretty obviously bullying, and the Ecuadorean government has simply called uncle sam's bluff.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    "Economic benefits" are generally not free. Why should the U.S. reward a country that has shown a willingness to embarrass them on the world stage (twice, now) when there are a hundred other countries that would be just as deserving (not to mention the millions of Americans here at home who could benefit from a bit of largesse)?
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      your best friends are the ones that are allowed to tell you what you are like. the people who don't do that, they are not your best friends.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        If I believed for a second that Ecuador's government had genuine friendship-based concern for the U.S. and its actions I think I'd agree with you. But that's not what this is.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        That doesn't change the fact that the more any entity relies on threats, the less it can have have real friends. This is like the physics of relationships and just how it is. Wether or not it applies here doesn't even matter for it being generally true, and the US seems to threaten friend and foe alike, if in doubt. Why, it even treats its own citizens like subjects quite often.
        mpyne 13y ago
        I agree that threats are not how friendly countries carry on friendly business. What I do not agree on is that Ecuador is acting at all as a "friend" to the U.S. in this matter, for the reasons I stated above.
        eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        The best friends are those that don't allow you to make mistakes. The ones that aren't really your friends are the ones that pander to you, for fear of embarrassing you. They are doing you a disservice. Which is of greater embarrassment, the alleged behaviour of the NSA, or an offer of asylum to a whistle blower destined for death or Guantanamo? Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006: "So was I right not just in supporting the war, but in actively prosecuting it? I’ve been asked a million times since the invasion whether, knowing then what I know now, I would have made the same decision. And no, I wouldn’t. How could we have agreed to invade Iraq if we had known that there were no WMD there?"[1] Earlier in the same article: "As I spelt out the seriousness of the situation and my conviction that we now had to confront Saddam Hussein militarily, my wife Alice and children Will and Charlotte were up in the gallery listening. None of them shared my view. Each of them would have been among the million or so demonstrators on the recent protest march through London against the war if it had not been for their loyalty to me and their wish not to embarrass me." Jack Straw, Blair and Straw's family would have been better friends had they caused embarrassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_blair#Relationship_with_t... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack-Straw-I-stopped-going-war-Iraq-This-I-didnt.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208155/Jack-Straw-I... [1]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago
  And ideally these things should be decided on their merits, not who has control over a bigger economy.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't know, would they? This idea that a government would demand that another, non-allied government return someone whose crime is leaking secret information doesn't make any sense to me. I get why you'd extradite an accused murderer or similar, but an accused leaker? Why would another country listen to such a demand?
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    Especially given that the US government has made it extremely clear that such spying was targeting foreigners, including, most likely, Ecuadorian people.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- fleitz 13y ago
  The purpose of classified information is not to hide human rights abuses.

corresation 13y ago

Well it's always better to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" as you get booted from the door. Ecuador hasn't yet taken in Snowden. So no, your analogy doesn't fit: They are rejecting bullying outright.

atwebb 13y ago
Also, it's often not better to say that.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  Agreed - but a better parallel to this situation is if you suspect you will be fired soon, to leave with dignity of your own accord beforehand.

dllthomas 13y ago

It feels satisfying to go "You can't fire me! I QUIT!" but it's usually a bad idea. Removing a point of leverage before its attempted use is a slightly different scenario, though.

jeremyflores 13y ago

> only one side has taken actual action so far to hurt those civilians... and it was the government charged with protecting those same civilians. A meaningless technicality. You can't seriously be arguing that the US' continued hegemonic paternalism toward Ecuador isn't a major source of their population's problems.