Retrospective on 01 Feb 2007

[Ara Abrahamian]

Hola!

Relax buddy! No war's looming! There's no need and there's no
capability. The war is somewhere else. I think this Newsweek article
summarizes the policy quite clearly: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
16931352/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Btw I'm an Iranian myself, and I live in Iran, so I must be really
concerned with a possible war. But I'm not. What Ahmadinejad's doing
to the economy is more effective than a war! Iran's gonna become
weaker because of the new aggressive US/international strategy, and
domestic problems. It will reach a point where the leaders of Iran
would consider some sort of compromise. Right now they think they have
the upper hand. What that eventual compromise will be depends on a lot
of factors. Quite interestingly Rafsanjani and some other pragmatists
inside of Iran's regime are advocating a total realignment: let's find
a middle ground solution to the nuclear issue and become friends with
US. This could create a shiite/sunni balance of power in the region.
Currently everyone's against Iran. Iran is in the losing side.

Btw "All the Shah's Men" is a very good book, but it talks about the
old Iran! You are so naive to think that the revolution happened only
because of the coup 30 years earlier! It's only one of the minor
reasons! Sociological matters are more complex than a if/then, they
are big state machines ;-)

Ara.

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hey,

> of factors. Quite interestingly Rafsanjani and some other pragmatists
> inside of Iran's regime are advocating a total realignment: let's find
> a middle ground solution to the nuclear issue and become friends with
> US. This could create a shiite/sunni balance of power in the region.
> Currently everyone's against Iran. Iran is in the losing side.

This sounds fantastic, lets hope that this happens.

> Btw "All the Shah's Men" is a very good book, but it talks about the
> old Iran! You are so naive to think that the revolution happened only
> because of the coup 30 years earlier! It's only one of the minor
> reasons! Sociological matters are more complex than a if/then, they
> are big state machines ;-)

I agree completely with you.

This is a book about some very old events, but the 1953 happened
to have deeper effects than other sponsored coups.

Miguel.

[pco...@gmail.com]

Hmmm .... and I thought mono was simply about a compiler, a class
library, and a runtime.

I mean - why else would we read this blog? Adios.

[Miguel de Icaza]

> Hmmm .... and I thought mono was simply about a compiler, a class
> library, and a runtime.
>
> I mean - why else would we read this blog? Adios.

Ah, you must be confused.

This is not a blog about Mono, this is my personal blog. I write on
it whatever I happen to be interested in at the moment.

Miguel.

[pco...@gmail.com]

Sorry about that - I got here from go-mono so I assumed it was a mono
related site.

That said, your right I am confused. It looks as if some are trying to
ridicule some of the folks fighting terrorism. I'm not sure I see any
upside at all in that. Anyway, have a good day.

On Feb 3, 1:28 pm, "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Miguel de Icaza]

> Sorry about that - I got here from go-mono so I assumed it was a mono
> related site.

Yes, from Monologue, which has the following disclaimer at the top:

"Disclaimer: this is an automatic aggregator which pulls feeds and
comments from many blogs of contributors that have contributed to the
Mono project. The contents of these blog entries do not necessarily
reflect Novell's position."

> That said, your right I am confused. It looks as if some are trying to
> ridicule some of the folks fighting terrorism. I'm not sure I see any
> upside at all in that. Anyway, have a good day.

That is strange, why would you get that impression? I think it is an
incredibly serious matter.

That being said, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with
terrorism, and attacking Iran has nothing to do with terrorism
either. The cartoon depicts the folly of the administration.

Miguel.

[andrew.m...@gmail.com]

Hi,

On Feb 3, 2:17 pm, "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That being said, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with
> terrorism, and attacking Iran has nothing to do with terrorism
> either. The cartoon depicts the folly of the administration.

Amen. How is it that after so many years of the 9/11-Iraq connection
being proven completely wrong, people still push this stuff?

We could have picked another Middle Eastern country at random to send
troops to, and terrorists would have followed us there to prove their
point.

Andrew