"My enemy's enemy is my friend"

[Bast]

What do you think about that statement and that logic?

I'm thinking about a couple of examples right now and I won't say them just yet but I don't think this is a necessarily right logic all the time. Unfortunately, there are people naïve enough to take this for face value all the time.

What do you think?

 

[CaptainF]

I'd agree with this statement.

 

[BasketCase]

The enemy of your enemy may genuinely be a friend--for the moment.

When two normally combative parties are confronted by a huge problem, it becomes possible for the combatants to put aside their differences. But the differences are always there, and the minute the problem is solved, they surface again.

 

[Perfection]

It's clearly not alwys correct, however it often is and can be useful for describing someone's mindset.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, because your enemy is still you enemy. You should just beat the hell out of both of them; twice the glory, double the gain, half the competition!

 

[Trajan12]

It can be useful. Just have to know how.

 

[CaptainF]

No, because your enemy is still you enemy. You should just beat the hell out of both of them; twice the glory, double the gain, half the competition!

Unless of course both of these enemies band together against you because they were astute enough to see the sense in doing so.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Unless of course both of these enemies band together against you because they were astute enough to see the sense in doing so.

My point still stands. Beat them both for the hell of it.

 

[bhsup]

War makes strange bedfellows. Associates of convenience would be a better wording than 'friend'.

 

[Nuka-sama]

Just look at world war 2

 

[Shadylookin]

whether it should be or not it usually is the case.

 

[GenMarshall]

The enemy of my enemy is most certanly my friend and would take advantage of that. To make it clear its almost the situation the US had with the USSR. Where the Enemy of the USSR is the enemy of Germany. Not the best analogy but its the best I could do.

 

[greenpeace]

Its best not to have any enemies in the first place.

 

[GenMarshall]

Its best not to have any enemies in the first place.

Unfortunately, thats not the case cause we always have someone who does not like the indivudiual.

 

[Atlas14]

If I were an evil dictator, I would openly remind myself of this.

 

[Narz]

My ememy's ememy may be an ally but not necessarily (probably not usually) a friend.

 

[useless]

well its always good to have an ally... just make sure they dont backstab you...

 

[Godwynn]

No, it's not true. It could be a three-way war!

 

[warpus]

An enemy of your enemy is a potential friend.

Say I'm about to attack the English, but they are rather strong. The Mongolians, just to the north of the English, have built many cities close to English cities, and there is much cultural friction... They also seem to not like eachother very much, for some reason.

Conclusion: Try to get the Mongolians to attack the English.

Result: Relations between yourself and the Monglians improve, potentially reaching friendsesque levels

This is just sound strategic thinking. Anyone not thinking these things in a game of civilization is not opening his/her mind to all potential strategic avenues.

In real life this is far more complicated, but the same principles apply.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

What're the odds that your enemy's two enemies are enemies of his for the same reason?