Not exactly. We've been using the term "friend" to describe an ally a bit here, but that's not entirely correct. If my friend were attacked, I'd help simply on emotional grounds or some sense of comradeship - without expecting anything in return. If I were running a nation, and there was no net benefit to my people (e.g. an expectation that if my nation gets attacked my ally would be willing and able to help my nation, and that the benefit of this outweighs the costs/reasons for not helping), then I wouldn't offer help. And even if there is a net benefit to justify the assistance, the level of assistance will be in line with the expected net benefits. Hence, there is no real "obligation" to help just because they are our allies.

The point of having an ally is essentially, to know you are not floating alone in the ocean. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine. You need some help, I'll do what I can. I need some help, you got my back.

If Japan is being invaded, and asks for France's help, and France declines to help them for no other reason than there is no profit in it for them, then France would be lambasted by all it's other allies. The relationship is a commitment and a promise. If you are allies you are supposed to have a degree of camaraderie, or else it is meaningless.

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.

I honestley find myself confused.

Both sides make compelling arguments.

History also shows our mistakes

YouTube - Blackadder - How did the war start? (eng sub)

but despite it all I must admit I still lean toward allies...not so much the making of conflict but if it comes to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with them!

Yeah I read it. I'm disputing the idea that any of it was done for humanitarian reasons.

You sort of seem to think that it was part "doing the right thing" and part self-interest.

But again.... in your defence I don't think what you originally said was that controversial. It is just lacking in some contexts. That's all.

Not sure about you, on face value, this sounds very unqualified to me!

Making alliances is like entering into commercial contracts. There is no "real" duty or requirement (despite a so called "legal obligation") to fulfill the terms - you just have to weigh up which more beneficial - paying the cost of breaching the contract (including reputational cost) and taking up some other opportunity; or sticking with the terms of the contract and forgoing an alternative opportunity.

Treaties and alliances is why ww1 became such a blood bath. Once one nation got into it, everyone else allied with one side or other got draged into it as well. The US used to have a saying, "free trade with everyone, treaties with no one." They need to go back to that. Trade with every nation, cause trade is all we want. Don't make treaties with anyone, cause we don't want to get draged into thier personal problems, we just want thier trade goods.