Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mike,
A war isn't an awakening; a time period is an awakening. A war that
occurs in an awakening time period may or may not be significant
during the awakening.

Exactly. You now acknowledge that wars occur during awakenings, they themselves are not awakenings. Thus, the Vietnam war is an awakening war because it occurred IN the 1964-1984 Awakening. Similarly, the Spanish-American War is an awakening war because it occurred IN the 1886-1908 Awakening. And the English Civil War is an Awakening war because it occured IN the 1621-1649 awakening.

You said this: S&H do not say that the English Civil War was an awakening in England

They don't call any war an awakening because a war isn't an awakening.

They do describe a Purtian Awakening that occurred between 1621-1649. In there description of this Awakening they describe events in England, including the execution of Charles I, which is part of the ECW. You didn't buy this description as evidence that S&H include the ECW in their Purtian awakening. You had problem with the word enthusiasm.

Well, was there an awakening in England during the Reformation? Here is their description:

The Protestant Reformation (Second Turning, 1517-1542) began in Germany with Martin Luther?s famous protest and spread swiftly to England. The enthusiasm peaked (in the mid-1530s) with King Henry VIII?s break with the Papacy, William Tyndale?s Bible, popular reform movements, and Parliament?s confiscation of vast Church estates. It ended when reformers tired or (like Thomas Cromwell) were executed, and when foreign wars with Scotland and France diverted the popular imagination.

No mention of an awakening, just that word enthusiasm.

Now if the 1517-1542 period is an awakening in England according to S&H, then the 1621-1649 period is too. And this means that the ECW falls inside this awakening and so is NOT a Crisis in England in the eyes of S&H.
************************************************** ***
Some of the turnings S&H describe, like the Reformation apply to England, but NOT to America. You can tell this because S&H do not discuss American events in their description for the Reformation.

Some of the turnings, like the Transcendental Awakening apply only to America, NOT England. You can tell this because S&H discuss ONLY American events in their description for the Transcendental Awakening.

But one turning, the Puritan Awakening, applies to both America and England. You can tell this because S&H discuss both American and English events in their description for the Puritan Awakening.

The Puritan generation is the only American generation, of whom none were born in America. When they were born there was no New England. So they are an English generation, some of whom came over to America and gave birth to the first American generation. In 1621 when the Awakening began, the Puritans were all still in Old England, and it was an Awakening in Old England. It was not a Crisis. S&H claim that this Awakening lasted until 1649.

Nowhere do S&H say that the awakening that began in 1621 in England ended there before its counterpart in New England did.

It is quite clear to me that when S&H discuss Anglo-American turnings they mean that the early ones, up to Merrie England, are English and that the later ones, from Reaction and Restoration on, are American.

But the Puritan Awakening is both English and American because New England is created during this Awakening. New England is not in existence for the entire period and so it cannot be exclusively American.

Once American-born Cavaliers come of age, then America begins its own saeculum.

Dear Mike,

So let me understand this. You took me all through history to the
Vietnam War, to the Spanish-American war, just to make a point about
awakening periods that you could have simply stated in one sentence,
and isn't particularly relevant anyway? This is really silly, Mike.

I've already referred you to Generations, page 122, where it
refers to both Oliver Cromwell and Ren? Descartes as "Prominent
Foreign Peers" in the Puritan Generation, indicating that S&H make no
distinction between English and French as foreigners in their
analysis of this period.

On "History and Lifecycle" on that same page, the English Civil War
isn't even listed, beyond the beheading of Charles I and the
restoration of Charles II. More prominent than the ECW is the "Great
Migration" to New England that began in 1630 and ended in 1641, when
Massachusetts separated itself from England.

So it's very clear that your never-ending analysis of the word
"Enthusiasm" is not what S&H ever intended.

No one who has any understanding of what S&H mean by an awakening
could possibly think that the English Civil War in England was an
awakening type event. I even showed that by comparing it to S&H's
description of the Vietnam War, and also to the American Great
Awakening. I don't think you believe it either. There is no way that
S&H said that it's an awakening event, and there's no way that it is
an awakening event.

I've gotten to the point where I can't add anything to this
discussion except repeat what I've already said. How many ways can I
defend the fact that 2+2=4? And it's pretty clear that you're
absolutely, totally committed to finding every possible way to claim
that 2+2=5, for whatever motivation you might have. It's all making
me dizzy. So I guess all I can say is, believe what you want.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No one who has any understanding of what S&H mean by an awakening
could possibly think that the English Civil War in England was an
awakening type event. I even showed that by comparing it to S&H's
description of the Vietnam War, and also to the American Great
Awakening. I don't think you believe it either. There is no way that
S&H said that it's an awakening event . . .

Why don't you e-mail Neil Howe to find out?

Dear Sean,

I've thought of that many times, since we're using these texts as if
they were in ancient Sanskrit, trying to interpret the meanings of
words.

However, this has gotten to be sufficiently emotional that for me to
do so would put him in a position of having to take sides, which he
may or may not want to do.

What's really needed is for an uninvolved third party to send him a
message, outlining the issues in a neutral way, and asking him if
he'd like to express an opinion or get involved in the discussion.
Feel free to step up if you're so inclined.

Sincerely,

John

Iraq Today vs 1960s America
That this comparison is not perfect in every way is understandable without automatically negating the truth in the comparison, yet some differences seem daunting:
Iraq is occupied by a foreign power. While there may be internal and generational differences, these seem overshadowed by the fact that the US in the 1960s saw youth rebelling against their own government while Iraq?s new government is more in the position of being (or being locally perceived by the rebels as) a puppet government of ?the real enemy? which is foreign. (I keep thinking of Iraq as being comparable to first century Palestine which was occupied by the Romans with the Herodians as the local client kings in parts of Palestine.)
It seems the Iran-Iraq War might have been even more traumatic for Iraqis (and Iranians) than World War II was for Americans. This should intensify feelings and might cause radically different outcomes.
The conflicts of the 1960s in America felt to some participants as if they were going to result in profoundly revolutionary changes; instead, the ?60s Revolution petered out in the 1970s. If the rebels win in Iraq, this will be a very different outcome from the American experience.

You say on your website: ?Today in Iraq, just under 20 years after the Iran/Iraq war, there's no desire for another civil war or insurrection.? That?s a bold statement, and one obviously central to your thesis: Iraqi adults will not support violence unless something extraordinary occurs.
Now: 1) Will the adults actually do anything to stop the young from waging revolution? 2) Will adult opposition make any difference? Adults are outnumbered thanks to the huge casualties of the Iran-Iraq War, and the history of revolutions shows that you only need about one-third of a population?s support to win a revolution. 3) Can the anti-American forces in Iraq get that? Do they have enough young people on their side? (In the US during the ?60s, every young person did not support the protests?far from it.)

On your analysis of the ?60s: The split between M.L. King and Malcolm X was not the only one in the 1960s. In the youth movement of the period, the hippies and the war protesters were not necessarily on the same page; there was not one monolithic youth culture but several overlapping ones, and the turned-off versus the turned-on was a major division. It surfaced dramatically at a mid-60s anti-war rally where the primary organizers were trying to get the crowds worked up to go out and start the violent-if-necessary overthrow of the system; then Ken Kesey stood up and told people to turn their backs on the system rather than confront it. ?Who invited this guy?? asked the angry organizers. The answer seems to have been that he was invited because he was part of the anti-establishment culture even if not part of the militantly turned-on faction. (Like King and X, Kesey was also, I believe, of the generation prior to that of the then-current youth--as leaders often seem to be.)

Dear Miles,

Thank you for your detailed comments. They are appreciated.

Originally Posted by miles51

> Iraq Today vs 1960s America

> That this comparison is not perfect in every way is
> understandable without automatically negating the truth in the
> comparison, yet some differences seem daunting:

> Iraq is occupied by a foreign power. While there may be internal
> and generational differences, these seem overshadowed by the fact
> that the US in the 1960s saw youth rebelling against their own
> government while Iraq's new government is more in the position of
> being (or being locally perceived by the rebels as) a puppet
> government of "the real enemy" which is foreign. (I keep thinking
> of Iraq as being comparable to first century Palestine which was
> occupied by the Romans with the Herodians as the local client
> kings in parts of Palestine.)

The essential force fueling an awakening is a "generation gap," a
clash between children and parents that can morph into a clash
between children and any authority figures. During the
Austerity/High period following a crisis war, the authoritarian
parents (Heroes) create austere rules and impose stringent
compromises designed to guarantee that "no such war will ever happen
again," and so that "our children will have better lives than we
had." These parents genuinely have the future of their children and
their society at heart, but they come across as authoritarian and
unyielding to their children, and the children begin to treat their
parents with contempt.

But it goes farther than that. If each child thought that only
his parents were like that, then the child might not
generalize. But the strength of the entire Hero generation is also
its weakness. The Heroes have unified society behind a set of rules
and compromises that protect everyone, which means that every Hero
becomes an authority figure with the same kind of message as the
child's father. So the child transfers his contemptuous feelings
towards his father over to any authority figure that's available.

In the case of 1960s America, the authority figures were clearly
represented by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. In the case of
Iraq in the last year, the authority figure was Paul Bremer, and the
forces of occupation. It makes no difference who the authority
figures are; they become in effect the kids' fathers, and are treated
just as contemptuously. They are blamed whenever anything goes
wrong, and receive no credit when things go right.

Originally Posted by miles51

> It seems the Iran-Iraq War might have been even more traumatic
> for Iraqis (and Iranians) than World War II was for Americans.
> This should intensify feelings and might cause radically different
> outcomes.

I would certainly support that conclusion. The Iran-Iraq war would
be more comparable to our Civil War, which also took place on home
soil.

However, there's an open question about this that I've been puzzling
over. To what extent does it matter if the crisis war takes place on
home soil? The context in which this arises is the contrast between
the English and the Americans in World War II.

There's no doubt that the Americans were extremely traumatized after
Pearl Harbor, as they watched for incoming bombers on both coasts, and
sent their sons, brothers and husbands over to D-Day. (In fact, Japan
actually did bomb the West coast -- by attaching thousands of bombs to
helium filled balloons. About a thousand of them reached our soil and
exploded.)

But look how much worse things were for Londoners. Look how much we
were traumatized by 9/11, and think about how Londoners had buildings
get bombed and collapse around them every day. They had several
9/11's every day for a couple of years.

So were they more traumatized by WW II than the Americans? That's
the open question. My suspicion is that the answer is no, but I
can't prove it.

Originally Posted by miles51

> The conflicts of the 1960s in America felt to some participants as
> if they were going to result in profoundly revolutionary changes;
> instead, the '60s Revolution petered out in the 1970s. If the
> rebels win in Iraq, this will be a very different outcome from the
> American experience.

This is the classic mistake that the rebels make in any awakening.
They expect the people to rise up the way the did in the preceding
crisis war, but they never do. The fact that the kids feel contempt
for their parents doesn't mean that kids want a civil war. Remember
that a generation gap is a horizontalsplit, while a civil war
(or any crisis war) is a vertical split across a fault line.



As the above diagram shows, there is absolutely no relationship
between the two. Having a war across a fault line is a "natural"
thing to do, for "survival of the fittest" tribes, societies and
nations. Human beings are programmed for that kind of genocide. But
human beings are not programmed to kill their fathers, which is what
a civil war during an awakening would be. So a civil war during an
awakening is impossible. And I mean literally impossible. It simply
can't happen.

If you ever have a chance to see the show Les Miserables (it's
an incredibly beautiful show, so you should see it even if you read
the original by Victor Hugo), then you'll recall the students at the
barricades waiting for the people to rise up against the Javerts of
the world, just as they did during the French Revolution years
earlier. But the people don't rise up, and the students get killed.
That's the mistake that the most extreme rebels always make during an
awakening.

Originally Posted by miles51

> You say on your website: "Today in Iraq, just under 20 years after
> the Iran/Iraq war, there's no desire for another civil war or
> insurrection." That's a bold statement, and one obviously central
> to your thesis: Iraqi adults will not support violence unless
> something extraordinary occurs.

I started making this statement early in 2003. I stuck to it despite
repeated warnings, day after day after day, from high-priced
analysts, journalists, pundits and politicians that Iraq could spiral
out of control into a civil war or insurrection. These people don't
have the vaguest idea what they're talking about because they don't
understand the generational paradigm. A civil war during an
awakening period is impossible, because the conflict is across a
generation gap, not across a fault line.

Originally Posted by miles51

> Now: 1) Will the adults actually do anything to stop the young
> from waging revolution?

The adults remember the horror of the last war and will do everything
in their power to prevent another one. The kids want to rebel
against their parents, but they don't want to kill their parents. So
the adults won't have to do anything to stop a revolution, since a
revolution cannot possibly occur.

Originally Posted by miles51

> 2) Will adult opposition make any difference? Adults are
> outnumbered thanks to the huge casualties of the Iran-Iraq War,
> and the history of revolutions shows that you only need about
> one-third of a population's support to win a revolution.

This is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by miles51

> 3) Can the anti-American forces in Iraq get that? Do they have
> enough young people on their side? (In the US during the '60s,
> every young person did not support the protests---far from it.)

Absolutely not. The only way that the Iraqis could ever engage in
war against the American occupiers is if the Americans do something so
heinous that a mid-cycle fault line occurs. But in fact, all the
"adults" are supporting the coalition forces -- with reservations to
be sure, but adults consider America to be friends, not enemies. And
everybody knows that there's no need for a revolution: The Americans
will be only too happy to leave when they can. We're not like the
Iranians, who would like nothing better than to annex southern Iraq.
So there's no fault line between the Americans and the Iraqis, so an
insurrection is impossible.

Originally Posted by miles51

> On your analysis of the '60s: The split between M.L. King and
> Malcolm X was not the only one in the 1960s. In the youth
> movement of the period, the hippies and the war protesters were
> not necessarily on the same page; there was not one monolithic
> youth culture but several overlapping ones, and the turned-off
> versus the turned-on was a major division. It surfaced
> dramatically at a mid-60s anti-war rally where the primary
> organizers were trying to get the crowds worked up to go out and
> start the violent-if-necessary overthrow of the system; then Ken
> Kesey stood up and told people to turn their backs on the system
> rather than confront it. "Who invited this guy?" asked the angry
> organizers. The answer seems to have been that he was invited
> because he was part of the anti-establishment culture even if not
> part of the militantly turned-on faction. (Like King and X, Kesey
> was also, I believe, of the generation prior to that of the
> then-current youth--as leaders often seem to be.)

That's not surprising. At any time in any population, there's always
a small minority that are violent for whatever reason. In Iraq today,
al-Sadr is an example. During an awakening, this small minority finds
a voice and tries to turn the riots and demonstrations into violence
and revolution, but it never amounts to much.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

There's no doubt that the Americans were extremely traumatized after
Pearl Harbor, as they watched for incoming bombers on both coasts, and
sent their sons, brothers and husbands over to D-Day. (In fact, Japan
actually did bomb the West coast -- by attaching thousands of bombs to
helium filled balloons. About a thousand of them reached our soil and
exploded.)

Doing not much more than causing forest fires.

But look how much worse things were for Londoners. Look how much we
were traumatized by 9/11, and think about how Londoners had buildings
get bombed and collapse around them every day. They had several
9/11's every day for a couple of years.
So were they more traumatized by WW II than the Americans? That's
the open question. My suspicion is that the answer is no, but I
can't prove it.

My girlfriend and I have been engaged in a long-term cultural project over the past 4 years--seeing every single winner of the Best Picture Oscar. Last weekend, we watched the winners for 1940, 1942, 1950, and 1960. The 1942 winner was Mrs. Miniver, which depicted the span from just before the invasion of Poland to the middle of the Blitz. It was very instructive, even if it was high-quality morale-boosting propaganda, complete with a "Buy War Bonds" ad at the end. One of the touching scenes was a flower show held during a break in the middle of the bombing. The characters in the movie were traumatized, but they weren't as traumatized as we were right after 911. That the Germans were going to bomb them was no surprise! Terrible and devastating, yes, but no surprise. 911 was a complete surprise to us, even more than Pearl Harbor. After all, the US had issued an ultimatum to Japan and people who were paying attention knew that things were getting tense. Very few people had a clue about Al-Qaeda!

The 1940, 1950, and 1960 films were also instructive, but in a way not relevant to this topic. I'll post about them in another forum when I'm inspired.

This is the classic mistake that the rebels make in any awakening.
They expect the people to rise up the way the did in the preceding
crisis war, but they never do. The fact that the kids feel contempt
for their parents doesn't mean that kids want a civil war. Remember
that a generation gap is a horizontalsplit, while a civil war
(or any crisis war) is a vertical split across a fault line.

This insight makes Charlie Manson smarter than one might think. He used the parricidal impulses of his disciples to try to ignite a race war--a vertical split. Of course, Charlie was a Silent, not a Boomer, and he remembered the last Crisis War. Good thing for the rest of us that his timing was wrong.

BTW, John, using HTML tags instead of BBCode tags in this forum sometimes makes hash of all your formatting when you are quoted. The default setting for replies is to disable HTML and people who reply to you have to uncheck that feature for your formatting to be visible (such as I did in this post). I also find it odd that you use email/USENET quotes (>) instead of just letting the quote function work. What do you do, copy and paste it into Outlook Express and quote it, then paste it back here and add the quote tags? It seems like so much more work!

As the above diagram shows, there is absolutely no relationship
between the two. Having a war across a fault line is a "natural"
thing to do, for "survival of the fittest" tribes, societies and
nations. Human beings are programmed for that kind of genocide. But
human beings are not programmed to kill their fathers,

Much to the disappointment of Freud.

I own a book called "The Modern Mind" about the history of thought during the 20th Century. In it, the author opines that the three most important 19th Century influences on 20th Century thought were Marx, Freud, and Darwin. He then said it was a shame that two of them were wrong.

which is what
a civil war during an awakening would be. So a civil war during an
awakening is impossible. And I mean literally impossible. It simply
can't happen.

Are you still trying to win that point with Mike Alexander? The English Civil War was a civil war fought across what you call a vertical divide. It happened at the end of a period that Strauss and Howe identify as an Awakening. I have news for you. If it did happen, it can happen!

:x :!:

On the other hand, I agree with you that a successful civil war across a generational gap, which is more likely to be attempted during an Awakening, is a complete non-starter. In fact, I rather like the example you give below, as I've seen the musical.

If you ever have a chance to see the show Les Miserables (it's
an incredibly beautiful show, so you should see it even if you read
the original by Victor Hugo), then you'll recall the students at the
barricades waiting for the people to rise up against the Javerts of
the world, just as they did during the French Revolution years
earlier. But the people don't rise up, and the students get killed.
That's the mistake that the most extreme rebels always make during an
awakening.

Originally Posted by miles51

> You say on your website: "Today in Iraq, just under 20 years after
> the Iran/Iraq war, there's no desire for another civil war or
> insurrection." That's a bold statement, and one obviously central
> to your thesis: Iraqi adults will not support violence unless
> something extraordinary occurs.

I started making this statement early in 2003. I stuck to it despite
repeated warnings, day after day after day, from high-priced
analysts, journalists, pundits and politicians that Iraq could spiral
out of control into a civil war or insurrection. These people don't
have the vaguest idea what they're talking about because they don't
understand the generational paradigm. A civil war during an
awakening period is impossible, because the conflict is across a
generation gap, not across a fault line.

And what is your evidence that Iraq is in an Awakening? You might be right; I just want to read your reasoning one more time.

Originally Posted by miles51

> On your analysis of the '60s: The split between M.L. King and
> Malcolm X was not the only one in the 1960s. In the youth
> movement of the period, the hippies and the war protesters were
> not necessarily on the same page; there was not one monolithic
> youth culture but several overlapping ones, and the turned-off
> versus the turned-on was a major division. It surfaced
> dramatically at a mid-60s anti-war rally where the primary
> organizers were trying to get the crowds worked up to go out and
> start the violent-if-necessary overthrow of the system; then Ken
> Kesey stood up and told people to turn their backs on the system
> rather than confront it. "Who invited this guy?" asked the angry
> organizers. The answer seems to have been that he was invited
> because he was part of the anti-establishment culture even if not
> part of the militantly turned-on faction. (Like King and X, Kesey
> was also, I believe, of the generation prior to that of the
> then-current youth--as leaders often seem to be.)

I believe this incident is described in Tom Wolfe's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". It's a very good inside account of the early days of the Awakening. And, yes, Kesey was a Silent.

Thanks for your thoughts. I hope you are right about the older generation of Iraqis. I am concerned that the Bush administration made a mistake from the moment they decided to declare a war on terror instead of a war specifically on al qaeda; for while we might be able to punish al qaeda and thereby show other terrorists that we mean business without having to attack all of them, in trying to take on every terrorist at once we may have needlessly expanded the fight to include, for example, Iraq (and next perhaps Iran) before we have finished taking care of al qaeda; it puts us in danger of going to war with too many terrorists and troublesome Arabs or Muslims simultaneously. At this rate, we might not need to do anything specific to do something horrendous enough to anger the older generation in the Arab and Muslim worlds. If people throughout the Middle East merely get the perception that the US is making war on every Arab or Muslim, we could find out that we have bitten off more than we can chew. If your confidence that older Iraqis don?t think this and are not likely to think this is based on opinion polls, those might not be reliable. Or, even if the polls are right, they might not be relevant since the danger of the Arab world coming to believe that the US is making war on all Arabs is not whether older Iraqis believe it but whether older Arabs from numerous other Arab countries believe it.

Just as the split in the ECW was between different religions, not different generations (vertical rather than horizontal), a split between Americans and Arabs (or Christians and Muslims) would be completely vertical. (BTW, Arabs and Muslims are overlapping sets. Both are involved here, but I don't make the distinction consistently due to laziness; nevertheless, I want to keep the distinction in mind. It has been suggested that the Bush administration thought that what works in Afghanistan might work in Iraq, and this led to some miscalculations. I just hope the administration is not that stupid. One cannot treat Iraqis, who are Arabs, the same way one treated Afghans, who are not Arabs.)

John wrote:

More prominent than the ECW is the "Great Migration" to New England that began in 1630 and ended in 1641, when Massachusetts separated itself from England.

Actually, what ended the Great Migration was that people started going from Massachusetts back to England at a greater rate than they were going from England to Massachusetts. Puritans were needed in England, ultimately, to fight in the Civil War; so they stopped going to Massachusetts.

Vince wrote:

911 was a complete surprise to us, even more than Pearl Harbor. After all, the US had issued an ultimatum to Japan and people who were paying attention knew that things were getting tense. Very few people had a clue about Al-Qaeda!

On one hand, I don?t think that most Americans on the eve of World War II were paying attention to Japan, just as most were not thinking about Arab extremists on 9/10/01. However, just as some people were paying attention to Japan, some of us remembered when the attempt was made on the World Trade Center back in 1993; we also remember that when the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, a lot of people immediately wondered whether it was another attack by Arab terrorists.

BTW, do we have to use the word genocide--which means the extermination of a whole group of people--when we are actually talking about mass slaughter that, for all its horror and barbarity, does not even attempt real genocide?

The Nazis wanted to kill all Jews; the Turks wanted to kill all Armenians. Those were instances of genocide; in most wars, by contrast, no one thinks it necessary to attempt genocide: decimation is usually more than enough.

Dear Vince,

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> >>> John J. Xenakis wrote: There's no doubt that the Americans
> were extremely traumatized after Pearl Harbor, as they watched for
> incoming bombers on both coasts, and sent their sons, brothers and
> husbands over to D-Day. (In fact, Japan actually did bomb the West
> coast -- by attaching thousands of bombs to helium filled
> balloons. About a thousand of them reached our soil and
> exploded.)

> Doing not much more than causing forest fires.

I assume that even the Japanese themselves were assuming that this
kind of "bombing" was only for psychological purposes. In your work,
did you get any idea of what kind of psychological effect, if any,
these bombs had?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> My girlfriend and I have been engaged in a long-term cultural
> project over the past 4 years--seeing every single winner of the
> Best Picture Oscar. Last weekend, we watched the winners for 1940,
> 1942, 1950, and 1960. The 1942 winner was Mrs. Miniver, which
> depicted the span from just before the invasion of Poland to the
> middle of the Blitz. It was very instructive, even if it was
> high-quality morale-boosting propaganda, complete with a "Buy War
> Bonds" ad at the end. One of the touching scenes was a flower show
> held during a break in the middle of the bombing. The characters
> in the movie were traumatized, but they weren't as traumatized as
> we were right after 911. That the Germans were going to bomb them
> was no surprise! Terrible and devastating, yes, but no surprise.
> 911 was a complete surprise to us, even more than Pearl Harbor.
> After all, the US had issued an ultimatum to Japan and people who
> were paying attention knew that things were getting tense. Very
> few people had a clue about Al-Qaeda!

> The 1940, 1950, and 1960 films were also instructive, but in a way
> not relevant to this topic. I'll post about them in another forum
> when I'm inspired.

Wow, this sounds like a fantastically interesting project. If any of
your material is going to be shown on tv, please let us know.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> BTW, John, using HTML tags instead of BBCode tags in this forum
> sometimes makes hash of all your formatting when you are quoted.
> The default setting for replies is to disable HTML and people who
> reply to you have to uncheck that feature for your formatting to
> be visible (such as I did in this post). I also find it odd that
> you use email/USENET quotes (>) instead of just letting the quote
> function work. What do you do, copy and paste it into Outlook
> Express and quote it, then paste it back here and add the quote
> tags? It seems like so much more work!

This is a whole nother subject, but briefly: I do use BBCode tags,
not HTML. (In fact, I've tried using HTML, but couldn't get it to
work. I didn't think it was enabled.)

I'm an online old-timer (since 1984), and I've been in online
discussions using dozens of different interfaces, and like all
old-timers, I'm stuck in my ways. I use cut and paste of ascii text
for pretty much everything. The problem with this particular user
interface is that, although the quoting feature is very nice, when
you copy and paste the text, you can't tell which lines are quotes
and which are responses. So when I post my own messages, I put
">" at the beginning of each quoted line (which is kind of an
industry standard), and use other artifices (like the ">>>" above), so
that quotes can be distinguished from responses in copied text at
least in my own messages.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> Much to the disappointment of Freud.

> I own a book called "The Modern Mind" about the history of thought
> during the 20th Century. In it, the author opines that the three
> most important 19th Century influences on 20th Century thought
> were Marx, Freud, and Darwin. He then said it was a shame that two
> of them were wrong.

Yes, I'm sure Freud would have had a different take. I know you know
this, but I should mention this for emphasis: There are always
individuals who'll kill their parents or whoever's around, but
generational dynamics is about large masses of people. You can't
ever predict what one person will do, or what a small group of
politicians will do, but you can predict what large
populations will do, based on generational changes. And despite
Freud, as you indicate, large masses of people don't want to kill
their parents, even if they want to rebel against them.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> Are you still trying to win that point with Mike Alexander? The
> English Civil War was a civil war fought across what you call a
> vertical divide. It happened at the end of a period that Strauss
> and Howe identify as an Awakening. I have news for you. If it did
> happen, it can happen!

> On the other hand, I agree with you that a successful civil war
> across a generational gap, which is more likely to be attempted
> during an Awakening, is a complete non-starter. In fact, I rather
> like the example you give below [Les Mis], as I've seen the
> musical.

I've been saying this with respect to Iraq long, long before this
particular aspect in the discussion with Mike occurred. But you're
right that there is a connection: Just as Iraq can't have a civil war
during an awakening, the English Civil War could not have been an
awakening event in England. It was across a vertical divide in
England, but it was an awakening period in the colonies, which is all
the S&H talk about. The whole point is that within the colonies,
they viewed the entire ECW as the craziness of the old folks they had
left behind, so for them the ECW was a generational event. S&H do not
provide any judgment whatsoever on whether the ECW period was an
awakening or a crisis period in England.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

> And what is your evidence that Iraq is in an Awakening? You might
> be right; I just want to read your reasoning one more time.

Just that it's clear that the Iran/Iraq war was a crisis war, and
we're now at about 15 years after the end of the war. I have a
lengthy discussion of this on my web site at
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/....sixties040501

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Miles,

Originally Posted by miles51

> Thanks for your thoughts. I hope you are right about the older
> generation of Iraqis. I am concerned that the Bush administration
> made a mistake from the moment they decided to declare a war on
> terror instead of a war specifically on al qaeda; for while we
> might be able to punish al qaeda and thereby show other terrorists
> that we mean business without having to attack all of them, in
> trying to take on every terrorist at once we may have needlessly
> expanded the fight to include, for example, Iraq (and next perhaps
> Iran) before we have finished taking care of al qaeda; it puts us
> in danger of going to war with too many terrorists and troublesome
> Arabs or Muslims simultaneously.

Just out of curiousity, and ignoring politics, what would your
recommended policy be if we got to the point where intelligence
agencies told us that Iran was very close to completing development of
a nuclear weapon, and was considering the option of using it on
Israel? If you, Miles, were President, then what action would you take
under those circumstances?

As for Iraq, I hold steadfastly to the belief that maybe it was a
mistake, maybe it wasn't, but we won't know for at least ten years
whether it was or not. We are headed for a 4T "clash of
civilizations" world war, no matter who's elected President or what he
does. It may turn out that the Iraqi war got us involved in the clash
too quickly, and we'll be hurt for that reason. Or, it may turn out
that Iraqi war helped because it let us pre-position our forces, and
because eliminating Saddam made things better. I just don't believe
we have any idea yet which of those will turn out to be correct.

Originally Posted by miles51

> At this rate, we might not need to do anything specific to do
> something horrendous enough to anger the older generation in the
> Arab and Muslim worlds. If people throughout the Middle East
> merely get the perception that the US is making war on every Arab
> or Muslim, we could find out that we have bitten off more than we
> can chew. If your confidence that older Iraqis don't think this
> and are not likely to think this is based on opinion polls, those
> might not be reliable. Or, even if the polls are right, they might
> not be relevant since the danger of the Arab world coming to
> believe that the US is making war on all Arabs is not whether
> older Iraqis believe it but whether older Arabs from numerous
> other Arab countries believe it.

Keep in mind that while Iraq is in an awakening period, other Mideast
regions are in a generational crisis period (4T). This includes the
Israel/Palestine issue, the Kashmir region, and the Caucasus region
(Chechnya et al). The Iraqi (and Iranian) people have no desire for
another war, because they're still fresh from the Iran/Iraq war, but
other regions are pumped up and ready to eliminate the infidels for
Allah and restore the Caliphate. So American policy in Iraq would not
have the same effect in other places.

Originally Posted by miles51

> On one hand, I don't think that most Americans on the eve of World
> War II were paying attention to Japan, just as most were not
> thinking about Arab extremists on 9/10/01. However, just as some
> people were paying attention to Japan, some of us remembered when
> the attempt was made on the World Trade Center back in 1993; we
> also remember that when the federal building in Oklahoma City was
> bombed, a lot of people immediately wondered whether it was
> another attack by Arab terrorists.

It's the generational change that makes the difference. The Silents
were running things in the 90s, and they took terrorist acts in
stride, having grown up during WW II. Today, it's the narcissistic
Boomers who are in charge, and we're infuriated that anyone would
dare try to hurt us. The same sort of attitude would have held on
Pearl Harbor day.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

If this war started just after the Awakening in England than what we have is a very early winter. (Perhaps the mentioned spirituality was simply an afterglow of the Awakening?) In terms of timing the ECW would be comparable to the American Civil War, but more so.

Dear Tim,

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

> If this war started just after the Awakening in England
> than what we have is a very early winter. (Perhaps the mentioned
> spirituality was simply an afterglow of the Awakening?) In terms
> of timing the ECW would be comparable to the American Civil War,
> but more so.

The "spirituality" in S&H refers to the Puritan spirituality in the
colonies. The Armada war climaxed in 1588, which would put the
England awakening period roughly at 1603-1623.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This is the classic mistake that the rebels make in any awakening.
They expect the people to rise up the way the did in the preceding
crisis war, but they never do. The fact that the kids feel contempt
for their parents doesn't mean that kids want a civil war. Remember
that a generation gap is a horizontalsplit, while a civil war
(or any crisis war) is a vertical split across a fault line.

As the above diagram shows, there is absolutely no relationship
between the two. Having a war across a fault line is a "natural"
thing to do, for "survival of the fittest" tribes, societies and
nations. Human beings are programmed for that kind of genocide. But
human beings are not programmed to kill their fathers, which is what
a civil war during an awakening would be. So a civil war during an
awakening is impossible. And I mean literally impossible. It simply
can't happen.

Are you still trying to win that point with Mike Alexander? The English Civil War was a civil war fought across what you call a vertical divide. It happened at the end of a period that Strauss and Howe identify as an Awakening. I have news for you. If it did happen, it can happen!

On the other hand, I agree with you that a successful civil war across a generational gap, which is more likely to be attempted during an Awakening, is a complete non-starter. In fact, I rather like the example you give below, as I've seen the musical.

Vince, John Xenakis believes that the English Civil War was a Crisis War, not an Awakening event. I have no idea who is right.

However, given that English society was extremely stratified during that time, and given that the Roundheads tended to be middle-class Calvinist Protestant craftsmen and yeoman in Eastern England whereas the Cavaliers were the nobility plus Catholics, from other parts of England, it is extremely unlikely that either side of beligerants would have been fighting their fathers. Along side their fathers is more like it.

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

> However, given that English society was extremely
> stratified during that time, and given that the Roundheads tended
> to be middle-class Calvinist Protestant craftsmen and yeoman in
> Eastern England whereas the Cavaliers were the nobility plus
> Catholics, from other parts of England, it is extremely unlikely
> that either side of beligerants would have been fighting their
> fathers. Along side their fathers is more like
> it.

This is very interesting material, worth developing, and it makes
sense to me.

John

Originally Posted by William Jennings Bryan

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No one who has any understanding of what S&H mean by an awakening
could possibly think that the English Civil War in England was an
awakening type event. I even showed that by comparing it to S&H's
description of the Vietnam War, and also to the American Great
Awakening. I don't think you believe it either. There is no way that
S&H said that it's an awakening event . . .

Why don't you e-mail Neil Howe to find out?

I sent an email to Neil and got his response:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

Hello,

I've been having a discussion on the T4T site about the English Civil War. I maintain that you put it as part of the Puritan Awakening in England. He maintains that the Puritan awakening is for America only and you make no claims for the English Civil War. He believes the English Civil War was a Crisis for England. Could you shed some light on this?

Thanks,

Mike Alexander

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Mike:

I hate to be quoted here as a sort of "ipse dixit," but I would have to say that yes the Puritan Awakening is an awakening for England (and, looking at the Thirty Years War, Richelieu, the Fronde, etc.) was probably synchronous with an awakening on the continent as well. The era was marked by passionate not to say hysterical efforts to reshape religion and the culture--and the civic, institutional outcomes were nearly all destructive and undesired. No one wanted the end to Tudor rule; the only reason Cromwell's rump took the final step is that Charles I was more interested in preserving the absolutist prerogatives of his kids than in any cooperation whatsoever with Parliament. Most of England regarded the outcome of the civil war as a huge tragedy; and England's reputation on continent sank to unprecedented lows.

One sign of a real 4T is that the fundamental issues are secular/material, the era is characterized by large-scale group cohesion, and the outcome is an enduring political and social "settlement" that everyone has to abide by. By this last criterion, especially, the English Civil War lacks the attributes of a 4T, since the entire Tudor absolutism was "restored" with Charles II (more than restored, since Charles II was probably a closet Catholic; with Charles I, at least only his *wife* was Catholic!). So the whole thing had to be re-fought, this time for good, in the next real 4T, which is the Glorious Revolution and the Wars of Spanish Succession. It's worth noting that nearly all of the big-picture historians of geopolitics (e.g., Modelski-Thompson) put the empire-shifting crises at around the ends of centuries from 1600 to 1800.

As you noted, wars, even big wars, can take place during any turning. The key is the role they serve in history--that is, how politically *definitive* or lasting is the war's outcome. Another good example is WWI in Western Europe. Horribly destructive. But not politically definitive.

Hope this helps.

--Neil

John asked:
Just out of curiousity, and ignoring politics, what would your
recommended policy be if we got to the point where intelligence
agencies told us that Iran was very close to completing development of
a nuclear weapon, and was considering the option of using it on
Israel? If you, Miles, were President, then what action would you take
under those circumstances?

Your curiosity is puzzlingly specific. In your hypothetical case, I am President of the United States, which is an awesome responsibility. I would hope that, since we are speaking hypothetically, I had already taken care of some important matters before arriving at such a crisis: 1) cleaned up our intelligence services or otherwise determined whether they and the spy services of other countries who are feeding us this kind of intelligence are reliable; 2) kept open the channels I understand we have with Iran; 3) have adequate relations with some trustworthy world leaders with whom I can consult on such questions. Having done these things, and being assured that this intelligence is true, I would contact the Iranians and let them know very politely that 1) I have no objection to their having nuclear weapons, on principle, but I do object to their using them in unprovoked attacks on any of their neighbors; 2) I generally do not consider the U.S. to be the world?s policeman, but I am willing to make an exception if nuclear weapons are used; 3) I would hope to be able to further convey that I have consulted with other nuclear powers that feel much the same way. I would try to underline as diplomatically but clearly as possible that the US and/or other members of the nuclear club might retaliate on behalf of the victim of an unprovoked attack if nuclear weapons are used. Since this is a hypothetical, I would hope, of course, that I would be aware of any other relevant factors or options. I believe in using sufficient and necessary measures but avoiding the blunder of making threats or taking steps where I cannot win. I would want to know, to the extent I could learn from dependable advisors, the likelihood of the threat posed by Iran and their likely reception to my communication--not only by them but by any other players--so as to anticipate results as much as possible, knowing that, ultimately, it is all a matter of calculated risk.

P.S.: While puzzled at being presented with this exercise, I must say that I appreciated the specification of nuclear weapons; it has gone relatively unnoted over the past couple of years that the usual discussion of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has introduced an Orwellian buzz word that has served mainly to allow politicians to speak seriously about serious matters without anyone--possibly including the speakers themselves--knowing precisely what is being discussed.

Dear Mike,

I'm unable to respond to your last posting at this time, but will do
so in a few days.

John

Dear Miles,

Originally Posted by miles51

> Your curiosity is puzzlingly specific. In your hypothetical case,
> I am President of the United States, which is an awesome
> responsibility.

The case I described is specific for two reasons:

(1) It parallels very closely the decision that the President had to
make with respect to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

(2) It's a scenario that the President may well be faced with next
year, not only in Iran but also in North Korea.

Every day on TV news interview programs, I hear the question asked,
"Would we have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today?" This is an
extremely bizarre question. If we had some sort of magic screen that
allowed us to see the future, we could have prevented the 9/11
attack, the Pearl Harbor attack, etc., and we could win any war with
ease.

So I think that anyone who passes judgment on whether we should have
invaded Iraq should not be allowed to get off so easily by taking
advantage of knowledge that was not available at the time the
decision was made.

That brings us to the question about Iran, where we're in a situation
very similar to one we were facing in Iraq. There is some
intelligence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and that they'd
like to use it on Israel, and Iran has stated its intention to do
further research in that direction. So now suppose you had to make
the life or death decision about handling Iran, without the benefit
of knowing what will have happened.

So now let's take a look at the decision you would make, and what
it's consequences would be.

Originally Posted by miles51

> I would hope that, since we are speaking hypothetically, I had
> already taken care of some important matters before arriving at
> such a crisis: 1) cleaned up our intelligence services or
> otherwise determined whether they and the spy services of other
> countries who are feeding us this kind of intelligence are
> reliable;

Of course, but this is an easy call since it involves no decision
making. Whenever you get life or death intelligence, you always do
what you can to make sure that the intelligence is valid. However,
information gained from intelligence is never certain, and as a
practical matter, the President has to make decisions based on
partial or uncertain knowledge.

Originally Posted by miles51

> 2) kept open the channels I understand we have with Iran; 3) have
> adequate relations with some trustworthy world leaders with whom I
> can consult on such questions.

Once again, these are easy calls, since they involve no decision
making.

Originally Posted by miles51

> Having done these things, and being assured that this intelligence
> is true,

Well, I would hope that you would be more skeptical than this.
Intelligence can never be absolutely "true." Let's assume, for this
exercise, that the intelligence is true with 80% probability, and
false with 20% probability.

Originally Posted by miles51

> I would contact the Iranians and let them know very politely that
> 1) I have no objection to their having nuclear weapons, on
> principle, but I do object to their using them in unprovoked
> attacks on any of their neighbors;

Once you give Iran the green light to develop nuclear weapons, then
you can never take it back. They will say, "Thanks, President Miles.
We're just going to build a dozen or two nuclear weapons, but we
promise, cross our heart and hope to die, that we'll never actually
use them on anybody. We'll just keep them around for decorative
purposes."

Originally Posted by miles51

> 2) I generally do not consider the U.S. to be the world?s
> policeman, but I am willing to make an exception if nuclear
> weapons are used;

What ever does this mean? Do you mean that if Iran drops a nuclear
weapon on Israel, then you'll drop a nuclear weapon on Iran? That's
what this sounds like.

Originally Posted by miles51

> 3) I would hope to be able to further convey that I have consulted
> with other nuclear powers that feel much the same way.

"Certainement, mon ami," says Jacques Chirac. We all feel the same
way. It makes all of us feel good to reach this agreement. Let's
just tell Iran that we'll all be real unhappy if they destroy Israel
with a nuclear weapon, and that we may even scold them.

Originally Posted by miles51

> I would try to underline as diplomatically but clearly as possible
> that the US and/or other members of the nuclear club might
> retaliate on behalf of the victim of an unprovoked attack if
> nuclear weapons are used.

Once again, wouldn't it be better to prevent the unprovoked attack in
the first place?

Originally Posted by miles51

> Since this is a hypothetical, I would hope, of course, that I
> would be aware of any other relevant factors or options. I believe
> in using sufficient and necessary measures but avoiding the
> blunder of making threats or taking steps where I cannot win. I
> would want to know, to the extent I could learn from dependable
> advisors, the likelihood of the threat posed by Iran and their
> likely reception to my communication--not only by them but by any
> other players--so as to anticipate results as much as possible,
> knowing that, ultimately, it is all a matter of calculated risk.

Once again, this is an obvious call. Anything that involves talking,
schmoozing, evaluating, wondering, chattering, proclaiming,
discussing, estimating, appraising, studying, or procrastinating is
always an easy call, because you don't have to make a decision.

So basically your solution is to do nothing and to allow, with 80%
probability, the destruction of Israel with a nuclear weapon, and
thereby trigger a nuclear war in the region. Good going, President
Miles!!!!

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So basically your solution is to do nothing and to allow, with 80%
probability, the destruction of Israel with a nuclear weapon, and
thereby trigger a nuclear war in the region. Good going, President
Miles!!!!

Why would not Iran be detered by MAD vis-a-vis the State of Israel? If this MAD standoff is not the will of the people of Iran and of Israel and they wish mutual destruction so needfully, why is it in President Miles interest to stop either from their self determined course of action?

Is it the lack of a great number of Xian casualties that gives one pause? Must a cathedral be destroyed before nukes are appropriate?

Dear Virgil,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> Why would not Iran be detered by MAD vis-a-vis the State of
> Israel? If this MAD standoff is not the will of the people of Iran
> and of Israel and they wish mutual destruction so needfully, why
> is it in President Miles interest to stop either from their self
> determined course of action?

> Is it the lack of a great number of Xian casualties that gives one
> pause? Must a cathedral be destroyed before nukes are
> appropriate?

This is a fair question (suggested, as I recall, by a recent West
Wing episode), but I think there's a good, competent answer.

The area of Israel is 20,770 sq km, and the area of Iran is 1.648
million sq km.

If just one nuclear weapon exploded on the heart of Israel, then it's
reasonable to believe that Israel would be completely destroyed.
Palestinian people could rush in to overrun the entire region. Even
if Israel's army retaliated, Israel would be gone for good, and after
the nuclear waste was cleaned up, the Muslims could achieve their
dream of restoring the Caliphate, this time in Jerusalem.

Iran might be willing to risk a nuclear weapon or two on its own
soil, if it means getting rid of Israel. A nuclear weapon would harm
a small part of Iran, but that's all.

You might argue, "Well, Israel could survive a nuclear weapon," or
"Iran might be hurt more than you think." That may or may not be
true, but I don't that's what the Iranian Mullah's would believe.
They'd happily take that chance, in my opinion, if it meant they
could be rid of Israel once and for all.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Virgil,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> Why would not Iran be detered by MAD vis-a-vis the State of
> Israel? If this MAD standoff is not the will of the people of Iran
> and of Israel and they wish mutual destruction so needfully, why
> is it in President Miles interest to stop either from their self
> determined course of action?

> Is it the lack of a great number of Xian casualties that gives one
> pause? Must a cathedral be destroyed before nukes are
> appropriate?

This is a fair question (suggested, as I recall, by a recent West
Wing episode), but I think there's a good, competent answer.

The area of Israel is 20,770 sq km, and the area of Iran is 1.648
million sq km.

If just one nuclear weapon exploded on the heart of Israel, then it's
reasonable to believe that Israel would be completely destroyed.
Palestinian people could rush in to overrun the entire region. Even
if Israel's army retaliated, Israel would be gone for good, and after
the nuclear waste was cleaned up, the Muslims could achieve their
dream of restoring the Caliphate, this time in Jerusalem.

Iran might be willing to risk a nuclear weapon or two on its own
soil, if it means getting rid of Israel. A nuclear weapon would harm
a small part of Iran, but that's all.

You might argue, "Well, Israel could survive a nuclear weapon," or
"Iran might be hurt more than you think." That may or may not be
true, but I don't that's what the Iranian Mullah's would believe.
They'd happily take that chance, in my opinion, if it meant they
could be rid of Israel once and for all.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Are the Agents of Progress always scolding Islamic Nations for living in some century not the Progressives own? Now Iran wants to abandon Lord Cecil's advice, Delay is life., and reform its State into a WMD holding power. Isn't this a sign of Progress? How can a Whiggish America say them nay?

If they would build a McDonald's on every corner and have a Holiday Inn in Qum would we cavil at nuclear tipped Progress in the Zagros?

You say, A nuclear weapon would harm
a small part of Iran, but that's all. Why should Israel be limited to a single weapon? Let them build or buy or steal as many as they need to exterminate every last enemy of Israel as long as they do it on their own coin. Would a thousand suffice? Two thousand? Would they attack the Mecca, Medina, the Dome of the Rock? Let Islam worry about Islamic behavior. Let Israel worry about Israeli behavior. Then we could start minding Canada's incursions into America.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Are the Agents of Progress always scolding Islamic Nations for living in some century not the Progressives own? Now Iran wants to abandon Lord Cecil's advice, Delay is life., and reform its State into a WMD holding power. Isn't this a sign of Progress?

If one equates progress with change, sure. If one equates progress with an advancement in technology, absolutely. If one equates progress with a change for the better, no, not from America's perspective. Now, maybe Iran thinks it's a change from the better from it's perspective, but I'm not sure you're keen on an argument in favor of relativism.

How can a Whiggish America say them nay?

Who says America is aware enough of its Whiggish heritage to be aware of the contradiction/paradox?

If they would build a McDonald's on every corner and have a Holiday Inn in Qum would we cavil at nuclear tipped Progress in the Zagros?

Because the US won't make any money off of it, that's why!

You say, A nuclear weapon would harm
a small part of Iran, but that's all. Why should Israel be limited to a single weapon? Let them build or buy or steal as many as they need to exterminate every last enemy of Israel as long as they do it on their own coin. Would a thousand suffice? Two thousand? Would they attack the Mecca, Medina, the Dome of the Rock? Let Islam worry about Islamic behavior. Let Israel worry about Israeli behavior. Then we could start minding Canada's incursions into America.

As the honorary Canadian here (and the real Canadians seem to have departed from these forums), as I spend every other weekend there, what ever are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Are the Agents of Progress always scolding Islamic Nations for living in some century not the Progressives own? Now Iran wants to abandon Lord Cecil's advice, Delay is life., and reform its State into a WMD holding power. Isn't this a sign of Progress?

If one equates progress with change, sure. If one equates progress with an advancement in technology, absolutely. If one equates progress with a change for the better, no, not from America's perspective. Now, maybe Iran thinks it's a change from the better from it's perspective, but I'm not sure you're keen on an argument in favor of relativism.

How can a Whiggish America say them nay?

Who says America is aware enough of its Whiggish heritage to be aware of the contradiction/paradox?

If they would build a McDonald's on every corner and have a Holiday Inn in Qum would we cavil at nuclear tipped Progress in the Zagros?

Because the US won't make any money off of it, that's why!

You say, A nuclear weapon would harm
a small part of Iran, but that's all. Why should Israel be limited to a single weapon? Let them build or buy or steal as many as they need to exterminate every last enemy of Israel as long as they do it on their own coin. Would a thousand suffice? Two thousand? Would they attack the Mecca, Medina, the Dome of the Rock? Let Islam worry about Islamic behavior. Let Israel worry about Israeli behavior. Then we could start minding Canada's incursions into America.

As the honorary Canadian here (and the real Canadians seem to have departed from these forums), as I spend every other weekend there, what ever are you talking about?

My dear other Mr. Lamb, just how is your last word posted pronounced? Does it evoke high-topped footwear--which is what I hear on Minnesota Public Radio more and more often? I fear the invasion is right on " 'shed jul" (shedule). :shock: :shock: :shock:

Do you think Lord Stanely's Cup resides in Tampa, Florida by accident? I think not. NHL values, Canadian values are finding a foothold in the Southland and the Desert Southwest.

Tampa residents once gazed upon the friendly confines of the Fronton; now they speak knowingly of red lines and blue lines. Where rodeo once ruled, the arid regions glimmer with ice; the gored bullrider has lost his place of honor to an Ontario defenseman with few front teeth (or even a Eastern European with a name devoid of the proper portion of vowels).

In a Dallas airport bar, the Texan regales his Coloradan business partner, That was the hattrick goal of the season, eh? His partner replies, The goalie was in hospital after the next period.

Yet, Mr. Lamb is still oblivious. :cry: Winter is coming. It will come from the Great White North as it always has. :|

:lol: :lol:

Mr. Saari, what about the invasion of European football onto the shores of the New World? The spread of American football to Europe? The failure of America's pastime, as currently played by Americans, to make it to the Athens Olympics? The probable relocation of the Montreal Expo '67's to Latin America in 2005? :shock: