Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tekboy who wrote (49481)	10/7/2002 7:22:22 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I think, bottom line, that if you really thought they'd bungle the aftermath, then there's grounds for opposing invasion while still respecting Pollack's arguments, even if he wouldn't necessarily agree... I meant to finish the book on my Texas trip. Didn't. Got too involved in reading a Greg Iles' novel. I assume the reason he argues for the "necessity" of a post invasion reconstruction is the fear of the consequences in the Arab street for regimes such as Jordan, etc. That's on the reading list for Wednesday forward this week. One of the more interesting moments on my Texas trip was to discover that one of my two brothers, the one who is a fairly serious economist at the University of Texas, had read the Kepel book. It's not one you would pick off the Barnes & Nobles book shelves. Turns out he was looking for stuff on these issues, spotted a Harvard University Press publication on the topic, thumbed through it in the bookstore, took it home and then simply read it right through. It was his introduction to "Islamism." That's a tough way to get started.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next