We are just repeeating ourselves, so let's stop. jks  Michael Pollak <mpollak@panix.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote: > I stand by my criticism of your interpretation. You collapse what Weber > called "value rationality," or fanaticism, into economic rationality, or > the adaption of proportionate and senisble means to ends. Clausewitz > would not say that war for honor and glory, individual combat at the > expense of military victory, fit with the continuiation of political > ends by other means. That was precisely the view he was attacking. No, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. The whole point of the quote is that the aims of war *are exactly the same* as those of politics. It only provides new means for reaching the same ends. And if the aims of politics are honor and glory, so will be the aims of war. You are making a distinction precisely where Clausewitz is saying there is not one. Michael</BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">Yahoo! Platinum</a> - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">live on your desktop</a>!