HNC's Philisophical Queston of the Day...

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

...(aka HNC's blatant attempt to elicit help from his fellow Cavers in order to help him finish his story, for which he will offer said help no recompense whatsoever.)

Is this a valid line of thinking? I mean, is it plausible, and if so, do you think world leaders consider this?

Sometimes in an alliance, you have among your allies one who is only there because you are the lesser of two evils...you can never fully trust him, just as he can never fully trust you (you may actually trust each other LESS than your enemies - you at least know what they want)...is it still an alliance, therefore, or has it become a question of, "well, now that my primary enemy is dead, I'm only promising that you'll be the second person I shoot?"

As always, I'm always grateful for your insights.  

[debk]

...(aka HNC's blatant attempt to elicit help from his fellow Cavers in order to help him finish his story, for which he will offer said help no recompense whatsoever.)

Is this a valid line of thinking? I mean, is it plausible, and if so, do you think world leaders consider this?

As always, I'm always grateful for your insights.  

Need to break it into at least two sentences.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Need to break it into at least two sentences.

Oh, of course, deb, but this isn't a bit of dialogue. It's part of character I'm building for another project, and I'm wondering if a normal person would, if the situation were present, be able to accept an alliance with someone who he KNEW was only there to kill him after your mutual enemy was destroyed.

[IassaFTots]

Oh, of course, deb, but this isn't a bit of dialogue. It's part of character I'm building for another project, and I'm wondering if a normal person would, if the situation were present, be able to accept an alliance with someone who he KNEW was only there to kill him after your mutual enemy was destroyed.

I think so.  It seems a survival of the fittest kind of thing.  I would align myself with someone who I thought wanted to kill me, in order to kill lots more people.  Then I would kill them.   

[Eupher]

After having read GWB's book Decision Points and his very revealing stance vis a vis Tony Blair and Vlad Putin, I'd have to say that Bush looked at his allies -- Blair -- from the standpoint of a rival. Allies? Yes. Trusted comrades? Absolutely not. Why not? Because Blair was liberal in thought word and deed and GWB....well, let's just say that GWB thinks of himself as a conservative, but that's just balderdash (I like that word -- it sounds kinkier than "horseshit"  ).

At least at first.

Afterwards, that relationship warmed considerably to the point of real, honest-to-God friendship.

Putin was a whole 'nother critter.

GWB made the mistake of actually believing Putin and what he said. And I don't ever once think that GWB looked at Putin like an ally -- though I think he was thinking it might be possible.  Though I do think that GWB was thinking it might be possible to be personal friends in the same way that he and Blair were friends.

Putin wound up sticking the shiv into GWB's ribs, so that angle died fairly quickly. He should've known -- GWB had momentarily forgotten that the Great Russian Bear does not, and cannot, ever trust anybody or anything that comes out of the west. It's in their blood.

[debk]

I think so.  It seems a survival of the fittest kind of thing.  I would align myself with someone who I thought wanted to kill me, in order to kill lots more people.  Then I would kill them.   

I agree with Deb.

For centuries, particularly in time of war, people and countries have aligned themselves with enemies for common good.

What's that phrase?

The enemy of my friend is my enemy, the friend of my enemy is my enemy....of something like that.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Putin wound up sticking the shiv into GWB's ribs, so that angle died fairly quickly. He should've known -- GWB had momentarily forgotten that the Great Russian Bear does not, and cannot, ever trust anybody or anything that comes out of the west. It's in their blood.

Fantastic observation, Euph. That's what I'm talking about...my character IS that Great Russian Bear. He can't be trusted and he knows this, hence he can't regard anyone else any differently.

He'd only end up killing you in the end, and hadn;t done so earlier only because he was too busy helping you kill your mutual enemies. Now it's your turn. But, since you both have this common enemy in front of you, and because you both know you have to kill IT before it eventually kills the both of you, you can only logically ally with this other guy in order to give you just a few more moments of life.

Interesting mindset.

[Eupher]

Fantastic observation, Euph. That's what I'm talking about...my character IS that Great Russian Bear. He can't be trusted and he knows this, hence he can't regard anyone else any differently.

He'd only end up killing you in the end, and hadn;t done so earlier only because he was too busy helping you kill your mutual enemies. Now it's your turn. But, since you both have this common enemy in front of you, and because you both know you have to kill IT before it eventually kills the both of you, you can only logically ally with this other guy in order to give you just a few more moments of life.

Interesting mindset.

Does that get me a bitchslap?   

Yes -- I am a bitchslap whore. 

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Does that get me a bitchslap?   

Yes -- I am a bitchslap whore. 

Dear Sir,

Pursuant to the above, I agree and will comply.

You have been BS's, my friend. 

Best Regards,

 

[Eupher]

Dear Sir,

Pursuant to the above, I agree and will comply.

You have been BS's, my friend. 

Best Regards,

 

 

[Boudicca]

Fantastic observation, Euph. That's what I'm talking about...my character IS that Great Russian Bear. He can't be trusted and he knows this, hence he can't regard anyone else any differently.

He'd only end up killing you in the end, and hadn;t done so earlier only because he was too busy helping you kill your mutual enemies. Now it's your turn. But, since you both have this common enemy in front of you, and because you both know you have to kill IT before it eventually kills the both of you, you can only logically ally with this other guy in order to give you just a few more moments of life.

Interesting mindset.

Bearing in mind that my reading experience these days is mostly restricted to paranormal, or futuristic romances, I have these this plot device employed all the time.  Of course sometimes it's just the h/h "hating" one another at first.

Historically speaking, as others have said, people and nations have aligned with others in order to take out a common enemy.  The Col War bristled with these sorts of alliances.  The US and Soviet Union fought proxy wars all over the world using lesser allies.

[DumbAss Tanker]

HNC, it's not only a valid line of thought, it's a foundational principle of international relations.  Countries don't have 'Friends,' they have shared interests.  What appears to be friendship lasts only as long as their interests are shared, as soon as they come into opposition, there is no yesterday.

This kind of thinking is also easy to see in the functioning of 20th Century 'United fronts' in guerrilla or partisan warfare.  As soon as they can knock off the big opponent, their knives are out for each other...sometimes before that, as in the case of the Palestinians, who before the field of organizations narrowed down, spent even more time and effort killing each other than they did on the Israelis.

It carries down to the way a great many people seem to conduct their personal lives as well.

[Thor]

HNC, there was a movie on over the weekend that had part of the enemies as allies stuff called The Condemned. Everybody except one was meant to die. There were points in the movie where a couple of these condemned people teamed up, only to have their partner kill them later on.

[Celtic Rose]

I agree with Deb.

For centuries, particularly in time of war, people and countries have aligned themselves with enemies for common good.

What's that phrase?

The enemy of my friend is my enemy, the friend of my enemy is my enemy....of something like that.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

I absolutely believe that that is a plausible concept, and generally brings with it the expectation of betrayal. 

[longview]

I can completely buy that line of thinking.  I may even ascribe to it (without going to the point of death, of course).

[Alpha Mare]

Oh, of course, deb, but this isn't a bit of dialogue. It's part of character I'm building for another project, and I'm wondering if a normal person would, if the situation were present, be able to accept an alliance with someone who he KNEW was only there to kill him after your mutual enemy was destroyed.

Only if said person is a total moron.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh, of course, deb, but this isn't a bit of dialogue. It's part of character I'm building for another project, and I'm wondering if a normal person would, if the situation were present, be able to accept an alliance with someone who he KNEW was only there to kill him after your mutual enemy was destroyed.

Then the question becomes: why this adversary over the other?

Claiming the ally-enemy is the lesser of 2 evils has a corollary of some virtue being present. If the ally-enemy has *some* virtue then he may become sympathetic in which case the audience may wish for the redemption of the ally-enemy rather than his destruction.

Perhaps the protagonist sees the ally-enemy as the easier-to-manage evil and he later realizes his mistake. Of course this undercuts confidence in the protagonist.

There is always the angle of betrayal/naivete but unless there are VERY subtle clues about the eventual betrayal such devices have the feel of a sledge hammer approach. Remember Twain's maxim about using miracles as a plot-resolution device: 1) NEVER! 2) if you must make the miracle so subtle that it is known but may be dismissed as credible with non-religious explanations. Remember "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner and Gene Hackman? It was *almost* an interesting thriller. Throwing in the twist of Costner actually being the "Yuri" mole ruined what little prospect that film had for being mediocre. That twist was so improbable and that when it was dropped in your lap it felt like as if they were gratuitously cheating. Part of that was because they spent half the screen time with Hackman's character assuring us there was no reasonable way the Yuri mole could possibly exist because he was just the paranoid fantasy of CIA analysts. Well, which was it? How does the fact Costner really was Yuri advance the plot?

Another option is: the protagonist is all but helpless to refuse the ally-enemy's terms for the alliance but as the protagonist grows as a character his faculties and wisdom gain him the ability to see the truth and act upon it. People prefer characters that grow because it gives them the ability to identify and that is the best form of escapism, which is what entertainment really is, after all.

[The Hollywood NeoCon]

Another option is: the protagonist is all but helpless to refuse the ally-enemy's terms for the alliance but as the protagonist grows as a character his faculties and wisdom gain him the ability to see the truth and act upon it. People prefer characters that grow because it gives them the ability to identify and that is the best form of escapism, which is what entertainment really is, after all.

AWESOME take, Sgt!!!! Thanks for putting into words what I've been grappling with.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

AWESOME take, Sgt!!!! Thanks for putting into words what I've been grappling with.

I was drinking when I wrote that.