[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 17:48:37 -0700
Which means, you are once again responding to one of my notes without
reading it, or in this case watching it. The link comes up when I click on
it, but you can go to the Thomas Barnett site
(http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ ) scroll down and find it that way.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 5:25 PM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
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 pre emptively. The
USSR wisely declined the offer and that leaves the U.S. as the party with
the aggressive tendencies. 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 <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 Barnetts sight and scroll down, youll find
<http://www.booktv.org/ram/afterwords/1005/arc_btv102905_4.ram> 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 Barnetts process would
end in World Peace, Ive essentially already answered those questions in
previous notes and he has responded to them without reading them; so I dont
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 didnt 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 wasnt 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:
