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: LindyBill who wrote (240219)	2/28/2008 2:50:35 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793964

Barnett continually harps on the Bush-Cheney connection, but has he ever given consideration to what a socialist US government would do in the region? To say nothing of a socialist America? Who will be his whipping boy after Bush leaves? Can we hope to emulate that Reaganesque mix of strength and engagement (exactly what Fallon argues for)? Hard right now when we're so tied down in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so truth is, we need more FDR-like slipperiness than Reagan's square-jawed optimism. Then again, the time for any such clever diplomacy may already be gone, thanks to the Bush-Cheney legacy of sheer incompetence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that's why I worry the White House still dreams of starting a war with Iran before leaving. How else to break a strategic stalemate that deteriorates over the long haul? Having made Iran the regional kingpin, Bush-Cheney may be too tempted to try and suddenly reverse this outcome in its final months, thus locking the next president into an even more circumscribed pathway in the region, which, of course, would mean everybody there gets to abuse us further and longer, while other rising powers take advantage elsewhere around this world.

To: LindyBill who wrote (240219)	2/29/2008 2:27:27 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Fascinating stuff that shows, in my opinion, that Iran's revolution is hardly unique or unknowable or "irrational." Instead we see the same old, same old: corrupt ideologues versus less corrupt technocrats. Both think they can revitalize the failed revolution, and both are wrong. Every single person who makes a serious study of Ahmedinijad says he is a Mahdist true believer. Some journalist just wrote a bio of him and came to the same conclusion - that is isn't making it up when he claim miracles happen around him or prays for the Mahdi's imminent return in his speeches or sends letters to the West urging them to convert (following Mohammed's example). He isn't a hypocrite; he believes. If you believe that the Mahdi will return Real Soon Now and it's your job to help his return, how can that not affect your decision-making process? But Barnett just blows it all off. Doesn't exist as far as he's concerned. Islam is just the same as Communism and Maoism to him. He expects Iranians to stop believing in it just like the Communists stopped believing. He doesn't get it that Islam is already 14 centuries old and has staying power.