Mancuso and Cases on the topic

[Josh <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>]

I agree with the majority of what Steve is saying.  My argument was not that
technically the US has hundreds of Foreign Policies in the traditional sense
rather I was reflecting on the last time we used foreign policy as the
object of change in a topic.  Although, in the traditional sense, brick kiln
research is not considered foreign policy it was a frequent case on the
Mexico topic.  I guess what I am saying is that I do not trust the term
Foreign Policy in resolutions because it tends to degenerate to relations.  In
other words - any relationship between nation x and the United States can
become Foreign Policy because there is not even a good bullsye to identify
with meaning.  Your argument also seems to make me feel even more trepidation
about the topic.  One effect that tends to happen is if no cases are topical
we make every case topical........Oh well,  I hope you are not right that
we have no inherent status quo to base a topic around.....that would just not
be good at all.....Josh

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.

---

• Prev by Date: Thanks for Kind Words, Flowers and Cards About Scott Pejaver
• Next by Date: ADI (please read
• Prev by thread: Thanks for Kind Words, Flowers and Cards About Scott Pejaver
• Next by thread: ADI (please read
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page