From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 23:06:28 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> I think that you totally missed my point. My point is that
> it's very valuable and extremely healthy to be able to
> describe the point of view of one's adversaries in a way
> that they'd agree with. This principle is even used in
> psychology, as I understand it: in the Rogerian method,
> the analyst must be able to state the situation from the
> patient's point of view to the utter satisfaction of the
> latter.
> Doubtless a fine piece of satire or parody [...]
> But it completely misses the idea of this thread.
Hmmm. Well try this, then. The PNAC paper summation is what one's
adversary would admit for the record, in polite public discourse.
Instead, I'll befriend the adversary and, as a friend, relate my
understanding by shortening the whole paper to my 'pre-bomb the middle
east' summation. The author giggles a bit at the bluntness of it but
nods his head. So I meet your condition yet you say I totally miss your
point.
For an example, read 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm' at http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm . Yet Another Perle
Doc. The entire section titled 'Securing the Northern Border' can be
shortened to 'bomb Syria' (seems to me).
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 23:12:31 MST