[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:25:11 -0400
Lawrence, glad to see you didn't hang up your saddle after our last shoot out.
I've heard Barnett speak before (can't seem to get the below link to open) and
he didn't say much of anything that grabbed me beyond we need new rule sets.
Maybe he has a plan but somehow I doubt that one person other than me has all
the answers. Think of it this way. Who was scarier than Red China? They got
the bomb and what happened? Nothing. They went on to give us cheap goods at
Walmart. Likewise with Iran. From what I can figure out, it's more a prestige
thing with Iran. They consider themselves a regional power and want into the
club. It's also unlikely they would share the technology with Hezbollah since
Iran influences but doesn't directly control Hezbollah. I heard a discussion
on this subject and it seems that at one point the U.S. invited the USSR to
nuke China preemptively. The USSR wisely declined the offer and that leaves
the U.S. as the party with the aggressive tendenci
es. It's possible that Teheran may simmer down once it gets the bomb, if it
gets the bomb, since it will have achieved nuclear parity. They're a long way
off from the centrifuges (or whatever equipment) that they need to take the
next step to bomb making. Hopefully the Israelis won't overreact and get
together with the U.S. to take the preemptive action against Iran that the U.S.
missed an opportunity for with China. Truly, do you think Iran wants to fry?
That's what would happen if they attack Israel.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/9/2006 7:13:26 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Barnett's Blueprint for Action
Eric,
If you go to Thomas Barnett?s sight and scroll down, you?ll find Watch Thomas
P.M. Barnett interviewed by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) on "After Words"
This is a CSPAN 2 interview with Barnett having to do with his new book,
Blueprint for Action, which you can view on RealPlayer. While this interview
would answer Andreas? questions about how Barnett?s process would end in World
Peace, I?ve essentially already answered those questions in previous notes and
he has responded to them without reading them; so I don?t think Andreas has the
objectivity necessary to watch this 58 minute interview. But you do.
One of the most provocative elements in this interview is that Barnett thinks
we ought to let Iran have nuclear weapons. He presents a powerful argument for
this point of view. I believe that whenever we discussed the question, I used
some term like ?if it is truly unacceptable that Iran have nuclear weapons,
then we should be prepared to bomb them if they are close to obtaining those
weapons.? Perhaps I didn?t say that every time, but I probably said it fairly
often. Which is to say that I did have some doubt about how much danger a
nuclear Iran would represent; so I wasn?t hostile to what Barnett had to say.
However the Iranian leaders have expressed the wish to see Israel destroyed and
Barnett seemed rather weak on what he thought Israel might do.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
