Originally Posted by Debol1990

Millennials could give a flying fuck less about guns, have them don't have them whatever you want just dont shoot anyone.

OK, but it hasn't worked that way in the past or the present, and I don't see change in the air either. So assume, based on the historical record, there will be plenty of people shot if there are plenty of guns around. Be OK with that of not. Just be honest.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I think gay marriage would take a back burner to substantive issues if we were to actually talk about those. Right now they take what they can get...

We concern ourselves with things that are made important during our formative years. Millennials are open minded because that's how they were raised, or at least enough of them for that to represent the dominant POV. In another 10 years the New Prophets will begin arriving on the scene. They'll face an entirely different array of issues needing attention. Guns may be on the list ... or not. At some point, a trigger event will make guns into a do-or-die issue. I don't see the 2nd Amendment surviving that -- not that I'll be a witness..

Originally Posted by Kepi

Really simple here, Eric. The majority have moved on past the culture wars. The majority of Boomers are going to be arguing this to their graves,

I disagree with you that "the majority of Boomers are culture warriors" of course. The majority of Blue Boomers are concerned about the real issues of the day, like climate change and inequality. Some of these issues date from the Awakening, like the gun issue, the ecology issue, the peace issue, and the economic equality issue especially as regard to all groups in society. Many issues from the Awakening, especially the cultural ones, are getting settled. Some Blue Boomers (and almost all Red Boomers) are hung up on particular cultural issues and need to move on, that's true.

but they're going to be a smaller and smaller segment of the population, and at a certain point it's just going to be shut out of the national conversation entirely. Look at how quickly the conversation turned from guns, with bitter resignation, an argument with a physically measurable impact either way, to the confederate (battle) flag, which is purely a symbolic gesture. This shows that 1) it's a symbolic culture war issue to most people, and 2) therefore the compromises are likely to be negotiated not within each issue but in the overall context of society.

We are resigned about the gun issue solely because the GOP and the NRA have too much power now, and that's because you younger folks don't know how to vote. And that's why fast track passed too.

So, while I personally have certain misgivings with regard to how we're treating the victims' families in all of this with regard to politicizing their deaths before they're even buried, this is probably the most the anti-redneck crowd is going to get. Meanwhile, gun regulation is moot because technology makes it too easy to circumvent regulation, and therefore the gun portion of the culture war is a foregone conclusion.

No, the Blue Boomers here have shot down your arguments, as often happens here.

Meanwhile, there's a third factor involved, which is the count down. Most people are growing tired of the culture war, and would ultimately prefer that both sides shut up. It's an increasingly large impetus that I'm seeing in the conversation: the goal not being to shut one side or the other down, just being to derail the whole thing and make both sides look and feel unwelcome.

That's how I think this whole thing ends: when Millennials come into their own, they're going to just shut the whole thing down by voicing new opinions with regard to what they want to debate about.

What they may want to debate about, instead of the culture war issues, are the real issues which many real Democrats and other progressives already want to debate about, which I've already stated. The problem is not only some folks who want to keep debating about cultural issues, but about real resistance to real progress from big money and big mouth ideologues.

You refer to mere generational resentment or battles, and it is that which will be passe by the time the 2020s roll around. If you think the problem is boomers arguing over nonsense, and that all we have to do is move on as they die off, you are going to be disappointed. Real entrenched power exists on the red side, which wants to perpetuate real problems, and it needs to be defeated. And that means you guys will need to learn how to vote and take civic action.

The time for nonsense, whether culture wars or generational bashing, will be over. The time for action by all on the blue side will be here. It will be time to defeat the red side= free-market fundamentalism and the influence of big money. It will be time to take action on ecology and economic issues, and democratic reform.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Millennials could give a flying fuck less about guns, have them don't have them whatever you want just dont shoot anyone.

It doesn't work of course; if guns are around they will be used. And you don't speak for "millennials." The only reason reasonable regulations on guns are not passed now is because you guys don't know how to vote yet.

Millennials by and far think most recreational drugs need to be DECRIMINALIZED the war on drugs plays directly into the militarized police issue.

Correct.

The only person I have spoken too in seriousness about the most recent shooting is my dad (boomer) millennials honestly aren't even paying attention its become un-important background noise. Boomers are focusing on "why" he killed those people, and he has some crazy ass reason but the truth is that kid is nuts, he would have found some reason to kill them or someone else for some reason.

as for flying the confederate flag, alright I get it its controversial so if the states want to take it down fine...if retailers don't want to sell it..ok that's their prerogative. I just see it as a meaningless reactionary gesture, some psycho posed with it therefore we should remove it from public....why? what are we accomplishing besides appeasing a couple of hardcore southern democrats and giving them some meaningless symbolic victory over....flags?

Since nothing can be done on guns, due to NRA ownership of the GOP, liberals focus on the flag issue. At least something symbolic can be done, which at least helps a little bit in requiring people to drop old fashioned nonsense like the "heritage" of racism and slavery.

IDK i feel like most millennials just haven't been fired up since OWS simmered, there is sort of a prevailing feeling that all these issues are nonsense and the real issue is....well out there... and we all sort of know it needs to be dealt with soon.

The real issues are inequality due to free-market fundamentalism, and pollution/climate change due to... free-market fundamentalism. Along with this is democratic reform of various kinds so that real issues CAN be dealt with.

side note: Eric I'm still reading your posts in this thread via catch up, your opinions are so lock-step with the progressive left it borders on satirical. There is no way you agree with them 100% of the time on everything and truly believe they are the only solution...can you? Please someone tell me he is joking... anyone?

My opinions are on the left, but I am not in lock-step with anyone. If you are deceived into granting any credibility to right-wing deception, that's your problem.

WHO is wasting time on WHAT?

From Barack Obama.com:

"The Supreme Court ruled this morning in the King v. Burwell case, protecting health care subsidies for millions of Americans.

And Speaker Boehner's response? "We will continue our efforts to repeal the law."

Opponents of Obamacare just keep trying to take it apart -- meanwhile, OFA supporters keep working to help folks get covered across the country."

Originally Posted by Kepi

Meanwhile, there's a third factor involved, which is the count down. Most people are growing tired of the culture war, and would ultimately prefer that both sides shut up. It's an increasingly large impetus that I'm seeing in the conversation: the goal not being to shut one side or the other down, just being to derail the whole thing and make both sides look and feel unwelcome.

That's how I think this whole thing ends: when Millennials come into their own, they're going to just shut the whole thing down by voicing new opinions with regard to what they want to debate about.

Aka, how the Glorious won the Glorious Revolution--though in that case it was sick and tired over Puritan ideologues arguing old and dead matters from the Reformation and super harsh "no tolerance" Cavalier governance. The Glorious Generation changed the conversation (albeit they had representatives who could do so) and pushed aside the Puritans and Cavaliers in New England each in their turn by simply changing the conversation each time--first by throwing out the "no tolerance" Cavaliers from power politically, and then the Puritans' old age fears of witches amongst them, socially in America--and in England of Catholics plotting to bring an end to the Anglican Church, socially; while they gathered a consensus around their own members of the Royal family at the expense of forcing out the Cavalier member of the Royal family who wasn't on their page.

The Glorious were a foppish crew (like how we might call the Millennials a "hipster" crowd--for which they were a source of unending comedy for writers looking to make fun of those who obsessed with being the "trendiest" fop) and had more interest in laying the foundations for modern market capitalism & triangular trade, fighting the French and Indians on the frontier (which successive generations would continue doing until the Liberty generation was the last to do so), pulling back slightly on the rakish culture of the Cavaliers (though not as completely as the Sentimentalist Enlightenment Generation members would have preferred), and drinking that newly popular fad drink called tea that the Cavalier cohort & Portuguese-born English Queen, Catherine of Braganza had popularized when she came from Portugal to marry Charles II. But the Glorious took it a step further by creating formalized social rituals around drinking that fad drink, to the point that for later generations how well you lived up to those social rituals indicated how well bred you were--like how Millennials are continuing the coffee house culture that Generation X started.

There's a lot that I see that Millennials have in common with the Glorious Generation--on both sides of the Atlantic concerning that particular generation of Civics.

Highly individualized and commercial Civics who acted to enforce that individuality & commerce in a group mindset.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Aka, how the Glorious won the Glorious Revolution--though in that case it was sick and tired over Puritan ideologues arguing old and dead matters from the Reformation and super harsh "no tolerance" Cavalier governance. The Glorious Generation changed the conversation (albeit they had representatives who could do so) and pushed aside the Puritans and Cavaliers in New England each in their turn by simply changing the conversation each time--first by throwing out the "no tolerance" Cavaliers from power politically, and then the Puritans' old age fears of witches amongst them, socially in America--and in England of Catholics plotting to bring an end to the Anglican Church, socially; while they gathered a consensus around their own members of the Royal family at the expense of forcing out the Cavalier member of the Royal family who wasn't on their page.

The Glorious were a foppish crew (like how we might call the Millennials a "hipster" crowd--for which they were a source of unending comedy for writers looking to make fun of those who obsessed with being the "trendiest" fop) and had more interest in laying the foundations for modern market capitalism & triangular trade, fighting the French and Indians on the frontier (which successive generations would continue doing until the Liberty generation was the last to do so), pulling back slightly on the rakish culture of the Cavaliers (though not as completely as the Sentimentalist Enlightenment Generation members would have preferred), and drinking that newly popular fad drink called tea that the Cavalier cohort & Portuguese-born English Queen, Catherine of Braganza had popularized when she came from Portugal to marry Charles II. But the Glorious took it a step further by creating formalized social rituals around drinking that fad drink, to the point that for later generations how well you lived up to those social rituals indicated how well bred you were--like how Millennials are continuing the coffee house culture that Generation X started.

There's a lot that I see that Millennials have in common with the Glorious Generation--on both sides of the Atlantic concerning that particular generation of Civics.

Highly individualized and commercial Civics who acted to enforce that individuality & commerce in a group mindset.

~Chas'88

If the Millennials are the New Glorious, the next saeculum will be a doozy!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If the Millennials are the New Glorious, the next saeculum will be a doozy!

Considering the Elightenment Saeculum is what I would call a Mega-Crisis, it would appear to confirm my theory.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nah; the only reason to practice hitting the target, is to shoot something. If you think you are a hunter out in the woods and you think you need to shoot a rabbit, then that's the target. If you live in a city the only potential target is people.

No, it's just a hobby like playing poker. Both hobbies require the accumulation of skill. I can "shoot" pardon the pun for perfection, but I'll never achieve it in both hobbies. There's a reason I head to the poker room instead of playing slots. There's absolutely no skill involved with slot machines and that's why I think they're boring.

Nope. The reports were clear that these were young people rising in the streets, deposing a corrupt tyrant. That's the Arab Spring link. These conspiracy theory links are nonsense. A fringe group does not identify a nation. The KKK is not the USA.

This is not a conspiracy issue. A simple Google search brings so much shit on this I can't post every link.
Here's another.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_4938747.html
OK, so is the huffingtonpost a conspiracy site? For that matter is Bloomberg?
USA today? Is that another tin hat site?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ists/24664937/
Are the neo-nazis a major force, well, I don't think so. I they are more of a set of thugs who are doing pay back for stuff Russia did to Ukraine. I'd liken it to drug cartels in the US. They aren't part of mainstream culture, but they wreak a lot of havoc. As follows:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances OK, this is the agreement that Russia reneged on here. [Now if I were Ukraine, I would have just kept the nukes, given that part of the world. I also think it would be a good idea for Poland to spin up a few centrifuges as well.

The people rose up in Libya to depose Qaddafi. They did it with help from NATO, permitted by the UN. A good idea? That's debatable. It seemed a good idea to me at the time, to save some people from the kind of massacre that we failed to save the people of Syria from.

It looks like a huge clusterfuck now. I do believe there's a reason why there's a refugee crisis where Libyans are paying to board leaky boats which are pretty guaranteed to sink. Libya went from a somewhat decent place to live although under a dictator to a failed state. That's the problem. Some countries have to have a strongman or they just fly apart.

The mission creeped and it became help to overthrow Qaddafi. But there was no follow up, to help Libyans establish a new state and rule of law. Libya had no basis for such. Some help was needed. Was that a potential quagmire? One could be excused for saying so. But now it's up to Libyans to try and remake their country.

Good luck in getting a bunch of squabbling tribes to make that happen.

You can pulls strings and levers without getting involved directly in wars. The USA needs to do that in concert with other nations. There needs to be rule of international law.

The US needs to follow international law first. Let's hand Guantanamo back to Cuba as a start. It belongs to them and we stole it.

So, the tyrants can be insulted. I don't care.

I'd add hypocrites. Assad = bad, house of Saud = Good. House of Saud beheads more folks than even IS.

It's called international law. In our age, anarchy is not workable. Libertarians are obviously wrong. Deregulate industry, and a few greedy barons take over a market.

Please phone up Obama for being a sell out wrt TPP. Mission accomplished.

So, we need police, and they need guns right now, because otherwise they are outgunned by all the individuals and criminals who think they have a "right to bear arms."

They do need the things you mentioned. They do not need drones, armored personnel carriers, asset forfeiture proceeds, etc. A militarized police force tends to make some folks a bit paranoid.

They ARE trading partners; so are China and the USA. That has nothing to do with alliances.

Germany got sucked into this sanction thing with Russia. OK, so Russia supported Assad which is bad, but we do the self same thing with Saudi Arabia and somehow that's good.

Yes, but what exists now is not much better. Russia is a mess, seemingly forever. But I suppose there has been some gradual improvement, over the very long term. But don't kid yourself that Russia has been liberated. Putin is a tyrant and a plutocratic overlord.

Well, perhaps that's the arrangement the Russian people want. Given Russia's chaotic history, they may just want stability and a government that only gets nasty when criticized. I'm not Russian and Justin seems AWOL, but I'd just defer to what he'd have to say about this.

My only point is that if you ask me for a platform, I can point to the Green Party's. But nobody's platform is completely perfect from my point of view; even my own.

I don't expect that. I just want something besides parrot platforms. Kinser's works,

lower taxes, lower taxes, brrrk, brrrk.
more defense spending, more defense spending, brrrk, brrk.
That's the Republican platform. It's hard to get something worse than bird brained platforms like that.

The Green Party platform: A quick glance. There are only 2 things I hate.

1. "Multiculturalism" - The US has so many minor cultures that mixing all up would be a mess.

2. "A Global Green Deal: Build world peace and security through a Global Green Deal. First, the US should finance universal access to primary education, adequate food, clean water and sanitation, preventive health care, and family planning services for every human being on Earth. According to the 1999 UN Development Report, it would take only an additional $40 billion to Fund Global Basic Human Needs, an amount that is only 13% of the 2000 US military budget. Second, the US, which now spends half of the world's military expenditures by itself, should demilitarize its economy and reinvest the Peace Dividend in financing and technical assistance for an Ecological Conversion of Human Civilization to Sustainable Systems of Production."

Memo to Green Party, The US is up to its eyeballs in debt and can't do that. Any peace dividend should go to the complex task of transitioning off of fossil fuels. That's a big chose. Recycling plastic is another big chore.
We'd need the Millie/Xer planeteer platoons paid a "living wage" to go and pick up all of that plastic on land and in the oceans and send it off to recycling. Plastic leaches out all sorts of endocrine disruptors which means we need to get it out of the environment. We'll get a huge cancer reduction dividend from that one program alone.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Aka, how the Glorious won the Glorious Revolution--though in that case it was sick and tired over Puritan ideologues arguing old and dead matters from the Reformation and super harsh "no tolerance" Cavalier governance. The Glorious Generation changed the conversation (albeit they had representatives who could do so) and pushed aside the Puritans and Cavaliers in New England each in their turn by simply changing the conversation each time--first by throwing out the "no tolerance" Cavaliers from power politically, and then the Puritans' old age fears of witches amongst them, socially in America--and in England of Catholics plotting to bring an end to the Anglican Church, socially; while they gathered a consensus around their own members of the Royal family at the expense of forcing out the Cavalier member of the Royal family who wasn't on their page.

The Glorious were a foppish crew (like how we might call the Millennials a "hipster" crowd--for which they were a source of unending comedy for writers looking to make fun of those who obsessed with being the "trendiest" fop) and had more interest in laying the foundations for modern market capitalism & triangular trade, fighting the French and Indians on the frontier (which successive generations would continue doing until the Liberty generation was the last to do so), pulling back slightly on the rakish culture of the Cavaliers (though not as completely as the Sentimentalist Enlightenment Generation members would have preferred), and drinking that newly popular fad drink called tea that the Cavalier cohort & Portuguese-born English Queen, Catherine of Braganza had popularized when she came from Portugal to marry Charles II. But the Glorious took it a step further by creating formalized social rituals around drinking that fad drink, to the point that for later generations how well you lived up to those social rituals indicated how well bred you were--like how Millennials are continuing the coffee house culture that Generation X started.

There's a lot that I see that Millennials have in common with the Glorious Generation--on both sides of the Atlantic concerning that particular generation of Civics.

Highly individualized and commercial Civics who acted to enforce that individuality & commerce in a group mindset.

~Chas'88

I more or less agree, and the technology in place really puts them in a position to set up the framework for the post industrialized, automated world. There's a lot of basic "okay, so how do you live?" questions that need to be fleshed out before we can proceed. Meanwhile, we're still arguing over gun control and abortion in the national sphere like a bunch of cavemen.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If the Millennials are the New Glorious, the next saeculum will be a doozy!

Probably. If population trends continue, you've got a relatively high probability that population will decline, causing a long, deep dark depression right around the onset of the 3T.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

No, it's just a hobby like playing poker. Both hobbies require the accumulation of skill. I can "shoot" pardon the pun for perfection, but I'll never achieve it in both hobbies. There's a reason I head to the poker room instead of playing slots. There's absolutely no skill involved with slot machines and that's why I think they're boring.

It's a hobby practicing your skill to shoot something.

This is not a conspiracy issue. A simple Google search brings so much shit on this I can't post every link.
Here's another.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_4938747.html
OK, so is the huffingtonpost a conspiracy site? For that matter is Bloomberg?
USA today? Is that another tin hat site?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...ists/24664937/
Are the neo-nazis a major force, well, I don't think so. I they are more of a set of thugs who are doing pay back for stuff Russia did to Ukraine. I'd liken it to drug cartels in the US. They aren't part of mainstream culture, but they wreak a lot of havoc. As follows:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances OK, this is the agreement that Russia reneged on here. [Now if I were Ukraine, I would have just kept the nukes, given that part of the world. I also think it would be a good idea for Poland to spin up a few centrifuges as well.

A minor element in Ukraine society, as I said. Not a basis for opposing the Ukrainian Arab-Spring era revolution.

It looks like a huge clusterfuck now. I do believe there's a reason why there's a refugee crisis where Libyans are paying to board leaky boats which are pretty guaranteed to sink. Libya went from a somewhat decent place to live although under a dictator to a failed state. That's the problem. Some countries have to have a strongman or they just fly apart.

Libya is mostly just the embarcation point for refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea--- all over the clusterfucked Middle East.

Good luck in getting a bunch of squabbling tribes to make that happen.

I wish them luck!

The US needs to follow international law first. Let's hand Guantanamo back to Cuba as a start. It belongs to them and we stole it.

I agree.

I'd add hypocrites. Assad = bad, house of Saud = Good. House of Saud beheads more folks than even IS.

Saud is bad. Assad is a monster.

Please phone up Obama for being a sell out wrt TPP. Mission accomplished.

I sent him emails, and to my Senator Dianne too.

They do need the things you mentioned. They do not need drones, armored personnel carriers, asset forfeiture proceeds, etc. A militarized police force tends to make some folks a bit paranoid.

A little common sense would be nice, yes.

Germany got sucked into this sanction thing with Russia. OK, so Russia supported Assad which is bad, but we do the self same thing with Saudi Arabia and somehow that's good.

Assad has killed over 200,000 of his own people for no reason at all. The Saudis have not done that in the Arab Spring era, but bought off their people with some favors.

Well, perhaps that's the arrangement the Russian people want. Given Russia's chaotic history, they may just want stability and a government that only gets nasty when criticized. I'm not Russian and Justin seems AWOL, but I'd just defer to what he'd have to say about this.

I wouldn't, but it's true Russia is a hard thing to melt.

I don't expect that. I just want something besides parrot platforms. Kinser's works,

lower taxes, lower taxes, brrrk, brrrk.
more defense spending, more defense spending, brrrk, brrk.
That's the Republican platform. It's hard to get something worse than bird brained platforms like that.

The Green Party platform: A quick glance. There are only 2 things I hate.

1. "Multiculturalism" - The US has so many minor cultures that mixing all up would be a mess.

2. "A Global Green Deal: Build world peace and security through a Global Green Deal. First, the US should finance universal access to primary education, adequate food, clean water and sanitation, preventive health care, and family planning services for every human being on Earth. According to the 1999 UN Development Report, it would take only an additional $40 billion to Fund Global Basic Human Needs, an amount that is only 13% of the 2000 US military budget. Second, the US, which now spends half of the world's military expenditures by itself, should demilitarize its economy and reinvest the Peace Dividend in financing and technical assistance for an Ecological Conversion of Human Civilization to Sustainable Systems of Production."

Memo to Green Party, The US is up to its eyeballs in debt and can't do that. Any peace dividend should go to the complex task of transitioning off of fossil fuels. That's a big chose. Recycling plastic is another big chore.
We'd need the Millie/Xer planeteer platoons paid a "living wage" to go and pick up all of that plastic on land and in the oceans and send it off to recycling. Plastic leaches out all sorts of endocrine disruptors which means we need to get it out of the environment. We'll get a huge cancer reduction dividend from that one program alone.

The Green Party claims to believe in fiscal responsibility. So, there are limits to what the USA can do at any particular time. Of course, the USA needs to help other countries to go green.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's a hobby practicing your skill to shoot something.

Yes, Eric the Obvious it, does. First I shoot the breeze [atmosphere] . I shoot cans so that would be kicking via a bullet the can down the road if the can is on a road. If a stray cow left some shit, that would be shooting the shit. Video Required!

A minor element in Ukraine society, as I said. Not a basis for opposing the Ukrainian Arab-Spring era revolution.

I implied butting out as opposed to opposition. The neo-nazis have a parallel relationship to the Weather Underground/SLA in the Consciousness Revolution.
The importance to the overall schema may be minor, but folks sure do make some strong memories of those sorts of organizations. I has just a kid and I remember those 2 two organizations like all get out.

Libya is mostly just the embarkation point for refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea--- all over the clusterfucked Middle East.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree, but since Libya is a failed state, there's no effective border so yeah sure.

I wish them luck!

I just want them to ignore us.

Saud is bad. Assad is a monster.

Well, someplace and sometime there will be sociopaths , but if we decide to do regime change, the effect is usually not good.

I sent him emails, and to my Senator Dianne too.

Getting an email to Obama may do something. OTOH sending any sort of communication to the Oklahoma delegation is a waste of time. It's mighty grand, a gaggle climate deniers and "lower taxes, lower taxes, brkkk brrkkk , raise defense spending, raise defense spending, brrrkkk brrrk parrots. Having a bird brain brigade delegation implies bird brain voters of course.

Assad has killed over 200,000 of his own people for no reason at all. The Saudis have not done that in the Arab Spring era, but bought off their people with some favors.

True.

I wouldn't, but it's true Russia is a hard thing to melt.

Well, like I said, poking the bear is bad foreign policy.

The Green Party claims to believe in fiscal responsibility. So, there are limits to what the USA can do at any particular time. Of course, the USA needs to help other countries to go green.

[(Given X number of costraints)]

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I implied butting out as opposed to opposition.

It's a wise course, but I'm undecided myself as to the extent to which we should butt out.

Well, someplace and sometime there will be sociopaths , but if we decide to do regime change, the effect is usually not good.

We can help those Syrians who want regime change.

Getting an email to Obama may do something. OTOH sending any sort of communication to the Oklahoma delegation is a waste of time. It's mighty grand, a gaggle climate deniers and "lower taxes, lower taxes, brkkk brrkkk , raise defense spending, raise defense spending, brrrkkk brrrk parrots. Having a bird brain brigade delegation implies bird brain voters of course.

My sympathies.

I wonder, given the USA's penchant for getting into wars, what will be done when the war cycle comes around again in 2025, and given the liklihood that a major war will be breaking out in the same places where war already exists today around the beginning of 2021 (unless a conflict involves Japan).

If the IS is not contained, the Syria war continues, Iraq is unstable, Afghanistan is still fighting or has succumbed to the Taliban, Israel still refuses to make peace, central and northern Africa is still in chaos and terror, and these places still threaten us with potential or actual terrorist attacks by the militant jihadists, and the penchant for USA war-making is still active, what might be done?

I had a fantasy bordering on the Cynic Hero-type solution. Not the same, but let's assume this worst-case scenario, which is quite possible in fact given the situation today. I could envision a world coalition, not just the USA and a "coalition of the willing," but all of NATO, the Americas, and possibly Russia and Eastern powers too, with UN sanction and participation, joining forces to invade and colonize the Middle East and upper Africa. I imagine it would take at least 2 or 3 million troops; maybe more.

This would be a 4T Crisis War like WWII. But with superior numbers and technology, it is probably doable to reconquer these nations and set up and run colonial governments for quite a while; perhaps decades; gradually transferring sovereignty back to these nations when they begin to show signs of growing up.

I remember how Napoleon III brought freedom out of order for France in 1850-1870. This would be a larger-scale operation, in a more-backward area. But could a world coalition like this pacify this region and institute democratic government, economic justice and rule of law that could last? Could the world afford it? Would the anti-war movement resist this war and render it ineffective?

Color me very skeptical about such a project. But the thought might occur to people in power, if it appears there's no other way to school and educate these folks about how to live and operate in society, rather than endlessly kill each other and terrorize the world.

The alternative? We are just going to wait for these folks to learn to behave, protect ourselves from them as best we can, avoid travelling there, pull some levers where we can without invading, etc., and hope for the jihadist fever to burn out, Israel to come to its senses, etc.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't work of course; if guns are around they will be used. And you don't speak for "millennials." The only reason reasonable regulations on guns are not passed now is because you guys don't know how to vote yet.

Eric I don't even understand how people like you exist. Millennials don't vote the way you want so we don't know how?? Dont you see that you are a walking example of why so many people hate boomers?

You are like the Democrat version of Donald Trump, its honestly shocking to me that people like you really exist.

Originally Posted by Debol1990

Eric I don't even understand how people like you exist. Millennials don't vote the way you want so we don't know how?? Dont you see that you are a walking example of why so many people hate boomers?

You are like the Democrat version of Donald Trump, its honestly shocking to me that people like you really exist.

So what?

Millennials would have voted the way I want, generally, because they are generally liberal. It doesn't take a boomer to know that. But the problem was that they didn't vote. Now that is not a difficult point to understand, and I have made it here hundreds of times. What about it do you not understand?

It's not rocket science. If you young people don't vote, then you leave it up to those folks you hate; those old boomers. And no, we boomers are not doing a particularly good job at voting the way I want us to.

It should not be hard to understand the point about more gun control. It lost by a narrow margin in congress. Are you even aware of that fact? Now, if you are, let's see if you can add 2+2 and get 4: Millennials are generally liberal and vote Democratic. Older folks vote Republican. But younger voters don't vote in midterms. What happens? The choice is left to older folks. They vote for a Republican congress. Republicans don't pass gun laws. Capich? Do you need another review?

It's not my fault if a few folks here are incapable of understanding the simple, obvious points that I make.

Eric the Obvious; I like Rags' name for me better.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The difference being that in those old days the cycle was longer and lifespans were shorter. It was much easier for civics to put aside their elders then, since most of them were dead.

The real saeculum as described in T4T is most-likely really only the modern, post-Enlightenment/Romantic/Revolution saeculum.

So it can't be a pox on both houses this time; or partially but not entirely. Because the Blue/Green Boomers advocate the actions that clearly must be taken: roll back climate change by changing our energy use, and ending the gross inequality resulting from the Reagan counter-revolution and free-market fundamentalism. All other issues are secondary to these; success in our 4T depends on these. What to do about war and guns (the peace movement) is important too, but the culture wars are receding into the background. The Millennials are already putting a pox on the culture wars.

Is that just because gay marriage was upheld by SCOTUS? Does it really matter all that much? Most of our lives aren't really affected by this, and the world isn't going to fall apart as a result. I personally have always been neutral on this particular issue, and have never had really sharp pro or con feeling on abortion as well. That issue, however, has been very divisive. Many consider it an act of murder, and yet if the mother can't afford the expense of raising the baby, that it could be the lesser of two evils lest he or she end up in conditions of squalor like dogs trained for fighting. Yet the delicate balance, no doubt, would be for the mother to take said baby to a place of safe haven so that he or she could be put up for adoption. I was adopted myself. Bottom line is that I for one never sweated much over either of these issues.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's a wise course, but I'm undecided myself as to the extent to which we should butt out.

I have an idea as to the extent to butt out of other people's problems. Always and all the time. Unless a state directly attacks us we should let them carry on with whatever nonsense they want to. You can't stop people from being stupid.

We can help those Syrians who want regime change.

No we can't. Syria is undergoing a civil war. Let them fight their civil war. I know that this is a strange concept for you Boomers but it is called minding your own business. We should practice that in the middle east right now...we should mind our own business the hell out of that place starting with not buying oil from there at all.

My sympathies.

With some exceptions that is pretty much the FL delegation as well.

I wonder, given the USA's penchant for getting into wars, what will be done when the war cycle comes around again in 2025, and given the liklihood that a major war will be breaking out in the same places where war already exists today around the beginning of 2021 (unless a conflict involves Japan).

If the US gets into a major war in the next 20 years it will be because of a failure of the current leadership (which is primarily Boomer and Boomer Lite Xers) to understand that other people's problems are just that--other people's problems and we should butt out of their business.

If the IS is not contained, the Syria war continues,

No matter how much involvement the US has in Syria the war is going to continue until someone wins. The problem with Syria is that the same people who want to overthrow Assad also just love IS. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend in Syria. Solution: Butt out and let Syrians decide what they want for Syria.

Iraq is unstable,

Iraq is an artificial state, the product of British Colonialism. The best thing for Iraq would be to break up into Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Western Iran.

Afghanistan is still fighting or has succumbed to the Taliban

Afghanistan has returned to its status quo then....permanent civil war. Solution, Butting out.

Israel still refuses to make peace

Israel is never going to have peace until the Jews are absorbed by the larger and native Palestinian population. Solution, cut off Israel to force them to give the land they stole back to the Arabs. If having a "Jewish Homeland" is that damn important to them I think we have a few empty states that could be used. I'd give them one of the Dakotas or perhaps Eastern Montana or some other worthless strip of near desert...if they insist on desert how about Arizona.

central and northern Africa is still in chaos and terror

Africa will be a clusterfuck until the last remnants of colonalism are removed. The best course of action is to do nothing here. Let them fight it out.

, and these places still threaten us with potential or actual terrorist attacks by the militant jihadists, and the penchant for USA war-making is still active, what might be done?

The Jihadis are mostly upset over the US having bases in the Middle East. Solution, leave the middle east, we don't need it and it is more trouble than it is worth. Once the oil is gone (and if we must have oil, it matters not who owns it so long as they sell it to us) it will revert to an impoverished backwater.

I had a fantasy bordering on the Cynic Hero-type solution. Not the same, but let's assume this worst-case scenario, which is quite possible in fact given the situation today. I could envision a world coalition, not just the USA and a "coalition of the willing," but all of NATO, the Americas, and possibly Russia and Eastern powers too, with UN sanction and participation, joining forces to invade and colonize the Middle East and upper Africa. I imagine it would take at least 2 or 3 million troops; maybe more.

This would be a 4T Crisis War like WWII. But with superior numbers and technology, it is probably doable to reconquer these nations and set up and run colonial governments for quite a while; perhaps decades; gradually transferring sovereignty back to these nations when they begin to show signs of growing up

While that is not out of the realm of possibility it is improbable. Russian interests are not in line with Chinese interests which are not inline with Western interests.

That said I find it Ironic that someone from a country just 24 decades old is saying that cultures that are millennia old need to "grow up". If anything it is the US that needs to "grow up" and realize that its empire has got to go and we can't be the policeman for the world. We have our own more pressing problems.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The Jihadis are mostly upset over the US having bases in the Middle East. Solution, leave the middle east, we don't need it and it is more trouble than it is worth. Once the oil is gone (and if we must have oil, it matters not who owns it so long as they sell it to us) it will revert to an impoverished backwater.

Probably the best solution. We'll see what happens, though. The USA war cycle will be coming around again in 2025, plus the saecular "great crisis" cycle simultaneously, and there will be things to butt into if we (or the powers-that-be) choose to.

That said I find it Ironic that someone from a country just 24 decades old is saying that cultures that are millennia old need to "grow up". If anything it is the US that needs to "grow up" and realize that its empire has got to go and we can't be the policeman for the world. We have our own more pressing problems.

The general pattern seems to be today, that the earlier a region was in the vanguard of human development and progress, the further behind and more backward it is today.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That said I find it Ironic that someone from a country just 24 decades old is saying that cultures that are millennia old need to "grow up". If anything it is the US that needs to "grow up" and realize that its empire has got to go and we can't be the policeman for the world. We have our own more pressing problems.

Agreed, and it really shows how the last 4T really changed the American mindset. The idea of preventing another Hitler or later on another Stalin from gaining power through "early intervention," got ingrained into the American psyche as a lesson of WWII. After all, if we'd only just gotten into WWI earlier... there'd have been no Communist Revolution. And if only we'd challenged Hitler, millions of lives could have been saved. That's the origin of this mindset that came in the wake of WWII, and I don't see Boomers who were raised with this mindset in its prime giving it up so easily, even if a few of them spoke out against it with regards to Vietnam when the dismal truth hit them in the face.

We need to now learn the lesson that "early intervention" works only "some of the time" and even then "not very well," and learn to be smarter by keeping our noses out of other people's business, as most of the problems we face now come from us sticking our noses where they don't belong--just like Gladys Kravitz. She only made her life more troublesome, more hectic, and harder for herself by spying on her neighbors from across the street. There's a reference Eric should get.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Agreed, and it really shows how the last 4T really changed the American mindset. The idea of preventing another Hitler or later on another Stalin from gaining power through "early intervention," got ingrained into the American psyche as a lesson of WWII. After all, if we'd only just gotten into WWI earlier... there'd have been no Communist Revolution. And if only we'd challenged Hitler, millions of lives could have been saved. That's the origin of this mindset that came in the wake of WWII, and I don't see Boomers who were raised with this mindset in its prime giving it up so easily, even if a few of them spoke out against it with regards to Vietnam when the dismal truth hit them in the face.

A few of them; ha ha! That was the Boomer experience; running up against this mindset and protesting against it. Boomers were the ones who changed it, when it did hit us. John Kerry, now Secretary of State, was one of the leading voices against it back then.

The danger may be in going too far in the other direction again. In recent years, we've had some results from both mindsets: early intervention, and butting out.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Agreed, and it really shows how the last 4T really changed the American mindset. The idea of preventing another Hitler or later on another Stalin from gaining power through "early intervention," got ingrained into the American psyche as a lesson of WWII. After all, if we'd only just gotten into WWI earlier... there'd have been no Communist Revolution. And if only we'd challenged Hitler, millions of lives could have been saved. That's the origin of this mindset that came in the wake of WWII, and I don't see Boomers who were raised with this mindset in its prime giving it up so easily, even if a few of them spoke out against it with regards to Vietnam when the dismal truth hit them in the face.

There's a short phrase for the above. It's called "fighting the last war." Sane folks know that this tactic always fails, but many, many times assorted countries/civilizations do it anyway with bad results.

We need to now learn the lesson that "early intervention" works only "some of the time" and even then "not very well," and learn to be smarter by keeping our noses out of other people's business, as most of the problems we face now come from us sticking our noses where they don't belong--just like Gladys Kravitz. She only made her life more troublesome, more hectic, and harder for herself by spying on her neighbors from across the street. There's a reference Eric should get.

~Chas'88

Bewitched? Uh, that show aligns with my early childhood, man. IIRC, Tabitha is a 1966 cohort, so she'd be another "witch child" to go along with all the other Xer witches/demons/brats. Endora is a meddling Lost in this show.

Kinzer I am a Boomer & I agree with everything you wrote. We need to butt out. And if there were no oil over there we wouldn't even be messing around over there

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But they don't need to, and really, today, no-one needs to.



Right, but shooting target practice really is only practicing to shoot something. People would lose nothing else if guns disappeared. But since guns won't disappear for now anyway, the only real question is, why resist a few reasonable regulations just because the gun lovers, the NRA and libertarians say no? Proper regulations will not take your relaxation method away, even though there are far better methods.

If the gun debate is part of the culture wars, then as you suggested, willingness to compromise seems timely now if we want to move beyond endless, silly debates. The gun debate is depressing and tiresome. I'm all for moving beyond it. Once the GOP gets its walking papers, then maybe we can.

Eric, you cannot tell people what to do just because you do not agree to it. I do not like guns either btw but people should be allowed their freedom. Don't like guns, don't own one. Culture wars need to end and allow people their freedom. You are fighting a battle that you will not win. You are also judging people on what you think they are intending to use their gun for instead of listening to them. If you want people to listen to YOU pay them the same courtesy. I for instance have always had an interest in archery because it is a genuine skill to try to get it on the center target. That does not mean i am going to go all hunger games on people. It is like arcade games. It is a challenge and is relaxing. Now try to listen to this post Eric and get beyond your ideology and see the people around you and listen to them.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Eric, you cannot tell people what to do just because you do not agree to it. I do not like guns either btw but people should be allowed their freedom. Don't like guns, don't own one. Culture wars need to end and allow people their freedom. You are fighting a battle that you will not win. You are also judging people on what you think they are intending to use their gun for instead of listening to them. If you want people to listen to YOU pay them the same courtesy. I for instance have always had an interest in archery because it is a genuine skill to try to get it on the center target. That does not mean i am going to go all hunger games on people. It is like arcade games. It is a challenge and is relaxing. Now try to listen to this post Eric and get beyond your ideology and see the people around you and listen to them.

Back to your old ways I see.

You misread what was a very moderate post back in June. Guns need to be regulated; I agree I can't win a battle to ban them. But the people want regulation; that makes it a winnable battle. Culture wars are irrelevant. I was responding to what Mr. Kepi said he wants his gun for. It is my opinion that it's an unnecessary hobby, and I'm a 'stikin' to it It's a poor excuse for risking peoples' lives by opposing gun regulations; which Kepi does thinking that it will infringe on his hobby. But I'm not going to try to pass a law that says they can't have their hobby. But for people to oppose gun laws because they think it will end their target practice hobby, is nonsense.

In the long term, I think people need to learn that they don't need guns, unless they are in the army or the police. And in the very long term, maybe we can dispense with them too.