Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieA
Well France would not decline simply because there is no benefit, only if there is no net profit which factors into account the consequences of the lash back from other allies. Alliances only work when there is mutual gain in pursuit of that alliance. Once a party feels there is nothing to gain, it is as you say, meaningless, and not worth pursuing.
Anyway, I think your actual position is somewhat different to a strict interpretation of the words in your original post - which is probably why there's a bit of comment on it.
I think the comment people are making is that the commitment to allies is not unqualified.
|
I never stated in my original post that an alliance didn't have qualifications and mutual benefits.
This is the same as a friendship in many ways, or just relationships in general. It must be a two-way street. We see this in marriage. When it becomes a one-way street, and one party abuses the relationship or one party stops redeeming any benefit from the partnership, it is dissolved. This is nothing new.
However, when the relationship is good it is expected that the parties will work to help each other when needed. This is the point: the relationship ITSELF is mutually beneficial, until it isn't.
I grow corn. You grow wheat. I don't want to just eat corn, just as you don't want to just eat bread. I give you corn and you give me wheat. Not only can I now eat corn AND bread, but I can also make cornbread. And so can you. The sum is greater than the parts.