----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
> If I usually argue that certain > reports on the list that things are disastrous are not > true, that's because almost everyone else on the list > is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_ > groupthink. One of the things that I noticed is that discussion on the finer points of the question involved usually trails off into nothing. For example, yesterday Andrew Paul stated that starting a war is always wrong because it always turns out for the worst. Gautam and I question the word "always" and gave some potential counter examples. Nothing came in response. It seems that this is fertile ground for debate. My guess for a generality is that the right answer is that starting a war is usually wrong but sometimes necessary. The real question is what are the factors. Gautam came up with what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria back before the war started. We could debate those criteria if we disagree with them; we could debate the present circumstance against those criteria if we agree with them. All that would generate more light than heat. IMHO, a good start would either be a defense of Andrew's statement or statements that this is an overgeneralization, but that a better statement would be X....by those who think the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obviously I'm biased here, because I see a very complex question...and naturally see my own position as most reasonable. But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
