Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (51446)	6/24/2004 1:43:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793839

I agree that the vision from the left is a failure. The vision from the right is no better. Your posts today sound like you have been honing up on H.L Mencken, Steven. You may not like the solutions of the right, but mixing them with the failures of the left is not going to solve the problems, IMO. The criticism of the Administration will go from, "you are doing it the wrong way!" to "why didn't you stop this!" in a hurry if we get hit badly. Right now we are facing a terrible situation in Iran that cannot be really dealt with until after the election. Think what that means. We are so divided we can't rationally deal with a major nuclear threat to us for political reasons.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (51446)	6/24/2004 4:23:53 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793839

I agree that the vision from the left is a failure. The vision from the right is no better. To find a vision that can work you need to move to the center, stop the shouting, take a bit from both sides, and blend with a heavy dose of common sense, probably the commodity most lacking in American politics today. I don't see it happening any time soon. Steven, Read these and get his book. nwc.navy.mil nwc.navy.mil nwc.navy.mil This guy has given this presentation over a thousand times, and to just about anybody who's important. Whether or not he's right about everything isn't the point. His powerpoint presentations are the notes folk are going to work off. I've noticed his terminology starting to slip into articles the last little while. I've just got the book and I'm only about forty pages in. It's more satisfactory than the articles I posted.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (51446)	6/24/2004 6:33:20 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793839

Niall Ferguson needs to take his pipe dream of a return to the 19th century and pop it where the sun don't shine, because it's not going to happen. The old way is gone, and it's not coming back. Either we build something new - something that works for all those who are free and struggling to be free, not just for us - or we give up. I wonder if we're up to it What Ferguson has seen, (like Barnett), is the connectedness and rule sets the 19th century had in places. Despite it's many faults the British Empire spawned a lot of democracies (and got pretty close with a few others before it hit the disasters of WW1 and WW2, but that's in the realm of what ifs). I agree, the 19th century is over. We have a new paradigm now and Barnett's model seems to describe it better than any other I've seen. It does place the US sensibly in the world and provides a rationale for what it has been doing since 9/11 and it seems to me the US has been edging into operating on the basis of Barnett's description. After 9/11 the US administration thought it could not wait for the rest of the world to catch up with its thinking and has modified its "exportation of security," as Barnett terms what the US provides the world in exchange for its energy consumption and balance of payments deficit. Franch, German, Russian, Chinese and Indian leaders are going to be told, or are being told, or have been told scenarios like Barnett's and by sometime next year they'll be discussing it at a staff level with the US. No doubt the whole thing will be a schmozzle but they'll muddle through. nwc.navy.mil