That case is not yet proven.

There are two objections to that argument.

This has never made much sense to me, this argument.

Such is the supposedly airtight case for a stronger dollar. How might it spring a leak?

This seems like a sound argument.

But this argument no longer seems convincing.

Advocates of this argument propose a different model.

That seems right.

This argument of course, shoots itself in the foot.

That's the argument I want to make tonight.

This argument has a long history.

The argument is almost entirely wrong.

Today, that argument makes little sense.

And by the same argument, this angle is going to be congruent to that angle.

And for the most part try to stop them from making this argument.

This argument clearly is no longer tenable.

The record bears this out.

But this argument neglects an important point.

There is something clearly wrong with that argument.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This last argument can be used to justify any policy.

Okay. Three stories. Here's the argument.

But that can no longer be an argument against diplomacy now that Israeli unilateralism has once again proven to be a strategic blind alley.

What is actually happening in Syria refutes this argument.

That is the argument of my new book, The Future of Power.

Such an argument is not difficult to make.

That reasoning is familiar, but is it correct?

Proponents of this argument use that term to include beings that are not yet capable of rationality but will become so in the normal course of their development.

And same argument.

2. Argumentation

On the other hand, we support the argument that national economic problems and successes have a global dimension.

Making a compelling case would have required Greece to get serious about those reforms.

Many economists have argued this case on the basis of arithmetic calculation.

McCulloch s parrot would call this conclusive.

On this narrow point, they might be right.

That argument is debatable and the record of the Kosovar government suggests that it is wrong.

But this argument is flawed because of two distinct facts.

The impact assessment commissioned by the Dutch government supported this argument.

That argument, however, overlooked the basic nature and function of diplomatic protection.

The Case for India

Again, it is hard to find strong empirical support for that argument.

The argument six months ago in favor of those bonds seemed nearly airtight.

It is most often lauded for supplying new jobs.

But the evidence that Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley provide has weakened that defense.

This argument is not very convincing, at least when applied to Europe.