scottelliott at grandecom.net
Fri Mar 2 10:53:21 CST 2007
Lots of things are worthy of debate, does not mean it should be included in a
Mid-East topic Area. Example--North Korea has a huge impact on Mid-East
profliferation, does not mean North korea should be listed as a Mid-east topic
country. There are better reasons to exclude Afghanistan than include in my
opinion--and it is not just a question of who's map we refer to.
Anyway, one of the things I do like about Mancuso's proposed topic wording is
that it does list specific countires. Just as there are maps listing
Afghanistan within the Mid-East, there are just as many that place it in South
East Asia. Egypt is included in some and excluded in others. So, I think listing
specific countires is the way to go.
For what its worth, if a mid-east topic area is chosen, I'd prefer the
resolution to be restricted to countries or entities that the U.S. does not
have official relations, or net negative relations, with at this time. I
believe those to be the Palestian Government under Hamas, Syria, and Iran. This
would make for much cleaner debates--the Affirmative would be making a
substantial policy change toward engagement.
These are hardly "negative" or "destructive" criticisms of the topic area (btw I
think it is high time we debate the Mid-East, or proliferation, or emerging
More information about the Mailman