5 ms·

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

by 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]
        mpyne 13y ago
        > 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? Given that Snowden is not destined for either death or Guantanamo I'm not sure how to take your question. The NSA's alleged behavior is at least consistent with what we've known and thought it able to do since the Cold War. The worst I can say about it is that they are pushing right up on the edge of the law and court precedent... but is that worse than flat-out breaking the law or doing things like actually focusing specific IRS attention on specific political-interest groups? Or passing laws to disenfranchise minority voters? I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I don't think it's "Yes", given what I know of what our law enforcement and national security teams have already had the fully-legal ability to do. --- As for the friendship question, for me that goes back to who is really the 'friend' here. A 'friend' would certainly not castigate another about 'human rights abuses' (as if Snowden were clearly innocent) while at the same time having an asylum process that itself violates basic human rights as claimed by Human Rights Watch [1]. A "friend" would at least take the stick out of their eye before pointing to others' flaws. And this is why I say that the government of Ecuador has no legitimate friendly intent here. Even if I agreed with Snowden 100%, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and neither is the friend of my friend. [1] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-refugee-rights http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-ref...
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  Actually, in economic theory, trade benefits are generally seen as free and mutually advantageous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
- aroberge 13y ago
  Why should they "reward" them? ... Because the U.S. always claims to have the moral high grounds? Because they offered asylum to people declared criminals by other countries (Russia, China, ...) many times in the past? You don't have the moral high grounds by stating you do; you do so by your actions.
- danmaz74 13y ago
  Because Ecuador, in exchange, was working together with the US on the war on drugs - that's what is written in the article.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Just as deserving? So you view trading with the US as a privilege then? That's extremely arrogant.
- sophacles 13y ago
  Let's look at a slightly different viewpoint. The US is threatening MY (a US citizen) rights to trade with someone in this. Why is my government saying "we won't allow our people to trade with you without penalty". That is not an action on my behalf. That is threatening me with punishment over something they do.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Ecuador hasn't embarrassed the US, the US has embarrassed itself. After a run of such events over the last 10ish years you'd thing an approach with less aggression could be tried. See the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures for the best examples.

by antoko 13y ago

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]
        mpyne 13y ago
        > 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? Given that Snowden is not destined for either death or Guantanamo I'm not sure how to take your question. The NSA's alleged behavior is at least consistent with what we've known and thought it able to do since the Cold War. The worst I can say about it is that they are pushing right up on the edge of the law and court precedent... but is that worse than flat-out breaking the law or doing things like actually focusing specific IRS attention on specific political-interest groups? Or passing laws to disenfranchise minority voters? I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I don't think it's "Yes", given what I know of what our law enforcement and national security teams have already had the fully-legal ability to do. --- As for the friendship question, for me that goes back to who is really the 'friend' here. A 'friend' would certainly not castigate another about 'human rights abuses' (as if Snowden were clearly innocent) while at the same time having an asylum process that itself violates basic human rights as claimed by Human Rights Watch [1]. A "friend" would at least take the stick out of their eye before pointing to others' flaws. And this is why I say that the government of Ecuador has no legitimate friendly intent here. Even if I agreed with Snowden 100%, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and neither is the friend of my friend. [1] http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-refugee-rights http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/19/ecuador-fully-respect-ref...
ojbyrne 13y ago
Actually, in economic theory, trade benefits are generally seen as free and mutually advantageous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
aroberge 13y ago
Why should they "reward" them? ... Because the U.S. always claims to have the moral high grounds? Because they offered asylum to people declared criminals by other countries (Russia, China, ...) many times in the past? You don't have the moral high grounds by stating you do; you do so by your actions.
danmaz74 13y ago
Because Ecuador, in exchange, was working together with the US on the war on drugs - that's what is written in the article.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Just as deserving? So you view trading with the US as a privilege then? That's extremely arrogant.
sophacles 13y ago
Let's look at a slightly different viewpoint. The US is threatening MY (a US citizen) rights to trade with someone in this. Why is my government saying "we won't allow our people to trade with you without penalty". That is not an action on my behalf. That is threatening me with punishment over something they do.
lostlogin 13y ago
Ecuador hasn't embarrassed the US, the US has embarrassed itself. After a run of such events over the last 10ish years you'd thing an approach with less aggression could be tried. See the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures for the best examples.