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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21716)	10/5/2004 4:04:31 PM
From: The Ox	Respond to of 23153

Hi Bruce, Yes, I think most of the article is right on target and it gives both sides, engaged in our internal domestic squables over Iraq, plenty of food for thought. I wish we could hear our elected leaders state simlilar views! Both, to increase the debate and to add more structure to the discussions. I get real tired of hearing or reading about how the ends justify the means without any rational discourse over why we've choosen these 'means'. mh

To: Bruce L who wrote (21716)	10/6/2004 10:41:58 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

This is my opinion after reading the Barnett article. I think it is inherently incorrect....IMHO Barnett's work is a recipe for a kindler, gentler imperialism that might be a good idea if it worked. But it doesn't. We haven't made more than minimal progress in Iraq and Afghanistan apart from changing the regime at the top. I am the first to agree the Middle East has a boatload of problems that need to improve. But the US laying down the gauntlet and leading the transformation is worse than folly. It will take us down a road that is much less secure than before. The light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train called post-imperialist malaise. Wait for it. The UK and France know the