[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:27:51 -0700
Well, I really wanted Eric's take on what Barnett had to say about Iran,
perhaps China as well.
I suppose I am curious about how you'll (Irene) be able to misread something
you watch. But I suppose you'll (Irene) will manage.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:56 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
To be continued after I watch the thing on Barnett. Will revert.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/10/2006 9:52:34 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
My point? Well my point is that Barnett has developed an approach to the
future that will plausibly end war. I quoted a CSPAN 2 interview with
Barnett that provides a good overview of his ideas.
But wait, you might say. What on earth does that have to do with
Leningrad and the Russians who died during WWII. Well, I will answer that:
One needs to follow the bouncing ball. First Irene responded to my note
about Barnett without watching the interview and made up all sorts of silly
and absurd things she imagined he must be saying. Second, I was so
disgusted with Irenes comments that I scoffed at them with a reduction ad
absurdum demonstration of where her statements led. Third, Judy who hadnt
read Irenes response to my note saw my reduction ad absurdum and thought I
was intending something serious and expressed outrage. Fourth, I explained
the reduction ad absurdum. Fifth, Jack Spratt (who doesnt seem to know t
hat he isnt fat but instead eats no fat) jumped in and made light of
Americas efforts in both WWI and WWII. Sixth, I took issue with Jack and
quoted Mosier and Ian Kershaw to support my view. Seventh, Jack scoffed at
Mosier as a film critic and some who wasnt qualified to write a serious
history. Eighth, you ask Really, what is your point? [Perhaps I missed a
few points, if so I apologize to the Pointees.]
To summarize, my point is that Barnett has developed some interesting ideas
in the deterministic fashion of Fukuyama and the interview to be found on
www.thomaspmbarnett.com <http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/> is interesting
and, in my opinion, important:
http://www.booktv.org/ram/afterwords/1005/arc_btv102905_4.ram
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:51 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
Lawrence, I know I'm not allowed to answer when you address posts to other
people, but the enemy did do the dying. And it wasn't the Americans who
killed the enemy on that front. If you write back and say how terrible it
was for the Americans in the Pacific where Americans did die, then Americans
are a bunch of slobbering war mongers. I notice that John McCain is antiwar
BTW. Maybe you're saying the Russians are stupid for fighting the Germans?
The Americans COULDN'T help the Russians in Stalingrad or Leningrad.
Rather than give credit for an unbelievable effort, you belittle it.
Really, what is your point?
Other related posts:
