you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...

So Petraeus sez burning books is bad because it hurts the troops. Which raises a couple questions:


1) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence?

2) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence for the troops?


And I suppose the converse question should also be raised:

3) If you do something bad, but can show that no troops were hurt, was it really bad?


A game:

Team 1 thinks of an action commonly thought of as bad. Team 2 then must think of a way in which this action hurts the troops.

If Team 2 has an answer, they win. If Team 2 has no answer, then the action isn't bad thus Team 1 broke the rules of the game and therefore Team 2 wins.