Deceitful Diplomacy

Agreed. So, the only questionable issue remaining is the morality of this course of action. Well, on this particular ground, I'd say a honest leader should care not only for his (her) compatriots lives and welfare, but also for every human being. Certainly, in case of need compatriots come first, but, whenever possible, one should try to avoid troubles for foreigners too. I believe this latter course of action is the best for everyone, because it cements ties out of gratitude, whilst the Machiavellian approach is likely to cause rancor and worsen international relations

Tactically sure... only if the two countries don't realize what you have done.   Not only those two countries, but also the rest of the world.

There is nothing which can justify this morally.

Unfortunately, feel about it how you like and say what you like..........

but the reality is that there is not a country in existence today or in the past that did not have this as a very LARGE part of their international agenda.

Cornellia...  I doubt many of us here are part of the political elite which makes it part of his/her country's international agenda.

I know that if I was, I wouldn't have it there.

Of course you are too young and you don't remember that, but I do:

During the 30 Years War, the French did just that: they supported the Germans, the Swedes, the Portuguese and even the Turks, and everybody else, against the Spaniards and the Austrians. When they were all exausted, the Franch attacked and became the masters of Europe for allmost a century.

Like someone told me then, "the French will fight the Austrians untill the last German!"

And if you bother to read "the Art of War" by Sun Tzu, you'll find some rather similar moves sugested by this 2300 years old Master.

Putting enemies against enemis? I would do it without a second thought!

 

Britain of course sold arms and equipment to both sides throughout the whole American Civil War. In the early years when the North was struggling it sold more to the North, roughly 50% of all Northern arms in the first year came from Europe and the bulk from Britain. In th later years when the South was sturuggling Britain sold most arms to the South. By adding a few years to the war Britain made a fortune.

still, morally it is wrong, even if tacticly it is smart

Originally posted by Genghis Exactly, good example.

British Empire wrote the text book on double dealing. The peple they told in WWII  alone that they would get their own country if they help fight the Japs and Nazis could fill...... We'll not fill much really they've mostly been victim of genocide by the people Britain betrayed them to.

For your own country the American Indian Wars stand out, sign a peace treaty stick em on reservation and massacre em while they sleep. But then again Pizzaro and Cortez both outdid the US in this department. For modern politics how about Iran Gate. Buy Cocaine from Iran to sell the American public to buy arms and give to Nicuraguan terrorists, at the same time condemning drug taking and terrorism in public.