To: Richard Katz:

I wrote in my post with Paul Midford:

As a layman, I'd like to thank the contributors to this thread. Will all due respect to Ellis Krauss who wrote:

As has often been the
case in the past, apparent strong disagreement winds up being close to agreement on many points once our views are fleshed out.

Richard Wrote:
Let's not rush to consensus. Even differences of nuance are helpful for those of us trying to get a grip on the situation. Now for some questions mainly directed at Paul Midford.

ESK: Just to clarify, Richard, I was not suggesting we "rush to consensus." Rather my remarks were only directly at Paul Midford and my differences. Paul and I have had some excellent disagreements and discussions about them not only online but also at conferences in the last few years. We often wind up starting out quite far apart but after honestly airing our views we usually wind up at agreeing on some points, narrowing the distance between us through clarifications on others, and continuing to be far apart on still others; but at least we find some points of agreement or partial agreement, as was the case in our previous interchange to which you referred. It was not a blanket statement about all of us having to reach a consensus.

Indeed, I am still far closer to your point of view expressed in your recent message about Japan and China and Japan and the U.S. than I am to Paul's. I always use the example of WWI and UK and Germany to those who think that economic interdependence resolves all potential military/security/political issues between nations. And, although I recognize that the "democratic peace" theories have some major flaws, I do still think that China not being a democracy (of the Western European/N. American/Japan type) will exacerbate and possibly amplify the odds of conflict with the US and Japan in the future.
Best regards,
Ellis
************************************************