Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> Max, this is *exactly* the same seven point list I refuted last week.
>
> It looks like it's travelling around like a bit of internet folklore, with
> each guy adding or subtracting his own introduction. This guy's is a star
> exercise in counterfactual fallacies. It essentially assumes what is to
> be proven: we give them lots of money, therefore it must be in our
> national interest. Because otherwise why would we do it? It just
> wouldn't make sense. QED.
What makes you so sure (a) that you _know_ the "national interest" and (b) that everyone else (or at least the elite in power) also know it?
What _is_ the National Interest? Is there, in fact, any such thing as The National Interest?
I would not have the remotest idea of how to write a one-page leaflet or poster, or make a two-minute speech, in which I demonstrated clearly what The National Interest is -- and if you are talking about appealing to more than that narrow populace who every day read the WSJ, the NYT and the Washington Post, and every week read the Nation, and every month or quarter read Foreign Affairs, then you had better start giving serious thought to how you are going find an audience among the rest of the population. I really doubt that abstruse philosophical discussion on The Real National Interest is going to cut much ice.
Carrol
Carrol