Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Again, this is not important to anyone not directly involved or already interested enough to follow the activities a lot closer than a news story here and there. Understand: the 'people' don't care. They may care if you can reduce everything to the equivalent of 'box scores'. 'A' won, 'B' lost, and final score was <insert score>.

David, IIRC, didn't the American military win a lot of battles in Vietnam?

We never suffered a defeat, though the Au Shau Valley campaigns, including the infamous Hamburger Hill, could only be called a series of Pyrric victories.

We also had real, hard-fought victories that foreshadowed worse to follow, like the Ia Drang Valley campaign that was the basis of the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers

Originally Posted by continuing, Kiff

In the long run, it really didn't matter, because the policy behind the Vietnam War turned out to be so misguided. I happen to believe that the policy behind the Iraq invasion is also misguided.

There's not a direct correspondence between Vietnam and Iraq, but for many of us oldsters who remember the former, the memory is still fresh. I'll never forget the TV pictures of that helicopter plucking American personnel off that roof in Saigon.

The more you read about the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War, the more you realize that guerilla wars are very similar. They succeed if the local populoous wants them to, and fail when the locals don't support them. The court is still out on Iraq.

Originally Posted by continuing, Kiff

In any case, Chris, I pray that you come back from your tour safely.

Amen.

That NPR is poison. It actually presents more than one side to a story. :shock:

It allows both E.J. Dionne and David Brooks to provide commentary on the news. We hear stories about real soldiers in Iraq, real military families, real Iraqi voters, Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and secularists of all stripes.

And we get subjected to propaganda from every candidate under the sun who's running for Congress, Senate, or even the state school superintendent.

My head hurts after listening to so much of that pointy-headed crunchy granola stuff. There's simply too much diversity of opinion out there.

Thank God for Fox News. :lol:

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

That NPR is poison. It actually presents more than one side to a story. :shock:

It allows both E.J. Dionne and David Brooks to provide commentary on the news. We hear stories about real soldiers in Iraq, real military families, real Iraqi voters, Palestinians, Israelis, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and secularists of all stripes.

And we get subjected to propaganda from every candidate under the sun who's running for Congress, Senate, or even the state school superintendent.

My head hurts after listening to so much of that pointy-headed crunchy granola stuff. There's simply too much diversity of opinion out there.

Thank God for Fox News. :lol:

Kiff - you are right. I watched the MSM's response to Bush's state of the union speech and it was all seriously tilted right. Only Chris Matthews actually entertains liberal perspectives - and the lone liberal talking heads are Ron Reagan (who is pretty weak sometimes) and Alan Colmes (even weaker).
Bush just says he has a new plan - and they repeat it. It doesn't matter that the Republicans have been trying to do it for 70 years - it's new because the chief said so. The MSM is really, really disappointing.

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Maybe it's time for you two to head over to the orgy thread together. :wink:

Oooh - you winked at me. I think I just blushed :oops:

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Witchiepoo

Maybe it's time for you two to head over to the orgy thread together. :wink:

Oooh - you winked at me. I think I just blushed :oops:

"Blushed"? Is that what you call it?!? :lol:

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... If you remember, too much cheerleading from the Right-Wing Media helped to create the atmosphere that allowed the Iraq War to proceed without ANY critical review.

I don't remember cheerleading by the media during the march to war. I do remember Scott Ritter, for example, being trotted out in front of every camera and live studio audience in New York, even at least one of the morning talkshows. In most major newspapers and several national news magazines, the story of the month of January of 2003 --three months before the war started-- was the anti-war movement the anti-war movement, which in every case contained information about the reasons that they were protesting. National media outlets carried on a for and against debate right up until the war started. Then after that, the packaged news shows (like 60 Minutes) started running stories on the protests and the issues that ignited them.

It's tough to say that no opposition voice was heard in the news media.

I said the march to war was folowing the drum-beat of the Right Wing Media (RWM). The MSM, as it's come to be known, has lost it's way.

It's intersting that you mention Ritter, though, because he's been trashed by the RWM andtotally ignored by the MSM of late - and he was right. It's the old case of 'no good deed going unpunished'.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

Originally Posted by then, M & L

If you support repression, you'll soon find that only the 'official' version of the news is available. Ask a Russian what it was like when TASS was an arm of the government.

I'm on lunch right now, and I don't have the time to get into the implications of all of this. This is important enough that I want to get back to it later.

Fair enough.

I am of the opinion that the American public is basically centrist in orientation, and that the center that the people are aligned around now is actually a few notches to the right of where most liberal commentators claim it is. There are specific issues where the population trends towards the Left, though not necessarily with the Dems. (I.e.: 70% of so-called Blue Staters and 70% Of supposed Red Staters agree that corporations have too much power.) Culturally and politically, however, the population is basically center-right in orientation.

The American public is always centrist - by definition, but what constitutes the center tends to move around in time. That's the essence to S&H's theory. We've been trending right for nearly four decades. It's hard to appreciate that unless you've lived through it.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

Unfortunately, the public isn't against censorship, and in fact, large numbers would like to see the press, the entertainment industry, or both muzzled in some way, especially during times of war or national crisis. It has happened a number of times in the past, and it will happen again -- and I believe that it will be soon.

The public is fickle. Don't assume things will continue in the same direction forever, when that is clearly impossible. We are already the most conservative advanced nation on earth. The instant that stops working for us (collectively), we will start the move back toward the philosophical center. Later, we may (probably will) swing to the left.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

Why? It's simple: Even though partisan Liberals will claim that they're not, and radicals will claim that they're Right-wing in orientation, it's becoming increasingly obvious to centrists and moderates that the news media does tilt Left, and it tilts far enough to the Left that it's not quite in tune with the general population. In some quarters, in fact, it tilts far enough to the Left that it appears to be anti-American. For now, people seem willing to put up with this, but it won't stay that way forever, and it probably won't be that long.

The MSM tilts toward the position of the people in the MSM, who live in the Blue states. Even CNN is Blue now, since Atlanta is a Blue part of Georgia.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

I fully expect a much larger number of young Americans in uniform in the near future, and then then there will be increasing pressures for more positive news coverage, and if the news media isn't able to deliver --and I don't think that it is-- then there will be calls for censorship. About the same time, we'll start to see the first veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will make the move into the political realm as politicians, opinion makers, and so on. And they'll have a powerful card to play --they'll be war heroes, after all.

If we need more people in uniform, we'll have to draft them. I don't see a lot of volunteers beyond those already serving. Large mobilizations can't happen with volunteers alone, unless the homeland itself is under attack.

This isn't Britain in WW-II, and I doubt will ever be.

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

The fact of the matter is that younger soldiers believe that the news media is betraying them, and generally speaking, so do their parents and other family members. The more people who serve in the military, the more parents and families will "turn" and see media bias in a whole new light.

Why? What is the essense of betrayal? War reporting today is similar to war reporting in all wars - even WW-II. What do you expect?

Originally Posted by continuing, Chris

How the media conducts itself in the next few years will determine how hard the hammer will come down on it when it does happen.

Be careful what you wish for. If you are right, you will be living in a Fascist country. I will be too old to worry much about it, but you will find it gray and hard.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's intersting that you mention Ritter, though, because he's been trashed by the RWM andtotally ignored by the MSM of late - and he was right. It's the old case of 'no good deed going unpunished'.

You know how much I oppose the way this war was started and handled, but I have to say I gave, and give, little credence to Scott "I like little girls" Ritter. He's seems pretty unstable and the whole bribery allegation did indeed stink, to me.

He may have been "right", but I leaning toward that actually being a coincidence. Does the dude smoke crack?

What's the story on Ritter and "little girls?"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30587

Ritter's attorney confirms arrest
TV station claims tape shows ex-U.N. inspector caught in sex sting
Posted: January 20, 2003 6:52 p.m. Eastern

By Sherrie Gossett ? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

An attorney for Scott Ritter confirmed that the outspoken former U.N. weapons inspector, who says President Bush should be impeached for his Iraq policy, was arrested a year and a half ago.

Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

Norah Murphy said Ritter was arrested in the upstate New York town of Colonie in June 2001, but she would not respond to allegations that he was charged with soliciting an underage girl on the Internet. Ritter lives in the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Delmar.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News report Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The "girl," however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

WTEN-TV, the ABC affiliate in Albany, is reporting that Ritter contacted the "teen-age girl" twice within a three-month period in 2001, and that he underwent court-ordered sex-offender counseling from a psychologist in New York's capital.

Sources tell the Albany Times-Union that Ritter actually had two run-ins with police. The first occurred in April 2001, as the former Marine reportedly drove to a Colonie business to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl. He was reportedly questioned by officers, and released without a charge.

Two months later, the source told the paper, Ritter was caught in the same kind of online sex sting after he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to an area Burger King restaurant.

Colonie police Deputy Chief Steven Heider told WorldNetDaily that he cannot confirm the allegations, explaining that if they were true, the details would have been sealed by a court order.

"A sealing order is exactly what it says it is," he said. "We're not allowed to talk about anything under sealed court order, and I'm not saying that one exists."

However, WND has learned that NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany has video of a mug shot of Ritter after the arrest.

"If it's not him, it's either his clone or a twin," the station's news director, Paul Conti, told WND.

WorldNetDaily reported earlier that WNYT said it had footage of the arrest, but Conti clarified that the station has video of the scene, shot after the arrest.


Scott Ritter

The news director said the 16-year-old girl had been lured by Ritter to meet him at the Burger King in Menands, N.Y., in order "to have her watch him have sex with himself."

"Anyone who went to the Burger King that day could confirm the details of that event and report that a sting operation was underway that involved a decoy officer posing as a 16-year-old girl," Conti said.

Callers to today's Rush Limbaugh radio program brought up the issue of Ritter's arrest, to which the conservative talk host responded:

"If I were Scott Ritter, I would just come up with a 'Hey, I was just doing research here.' ... The Pete Townshend reply."

"You know we've all wondered," added Limbaugh, "why it is that Scott Ritter has done a 180 on what he originally saw as a weapons inspector and then the last couple years, it's like 'Nah, the Iraqis don't even have the capability to make a thumbtack, much less a chemical weapon.'"

Still, Limbaugh downplayed the incident.

"I'm surprised that this bothers anybody," he said. "I mean look at these reality TV shows out there, everything going on, 'Bachelorette,' 'Joe Millionaire' ... we had oral sex in the Oval Office ... I'm just surprised [at] the selective application of morality, that we seem to have certain things bother us and other things don't."

As WorldNetDaily reported Saturday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.

"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."

"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said via telephone as he drove from his upstate New York home to appear on Fox News. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."

Ritter's views against the conflict with Iraq could be in jeopardy depending on the amount of national media attention his arrest receives, said Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University.

"When you're a talking head, your whole reason for being has got to be the image of anything you represent," Thompson told the Times-Union. "If the story starts getting to be a big issue, there will be talking heads making their careers on the end of this talking head."

Scott would not have had a problem in "progressive" nations like Canada. Austria, Spain, Montenegro, etc. where the age of consent is 14 or less. Another example of them right-wing Christians devising a law specifically to smear those opposing the war in Iraq, no doubt.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

What's the story on Ritter and "little girls?"

Got this from a quick Googling:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595

And the Freepers have lot's of stuff on it, but they're easily titillated, being repressed and all. :lol:

But it seems the Lefties didn't consider it important. IWW. :wink: Neither side is immune to filtering news.

I wonder where Mr. Ritter is these days?

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

Another example of them right-wing Christians devising a law specifically to smear those opposing the war in Iraq, no doubt.

Laws are not written to smear people. Rumors are started to smear people. Maybe Mr. Ritter has some inappropriate predilections, maybe he doesn't -- but it wouldn't alter my opinion of the Iraq War one way or another.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

I think that it was worth explaining the assumptions that I'm working from, because several of the popular political theories these days suggest that the population is made up of two camps of political partisans with a small number of moderate or centrist swing voters somewhere in the middle. As I've made clear in these forums, I think that such theories are wrong.

Chris, even though our votes canceled each other last November, I always enjoy your posts. I particularly like your ability to be reasonable and apply logic to many issues under discussion. And I agree with you that most Americans are in the middle and frankly are not all that engaged in politics. They are busy raising their children, doing their jobs, paying their mortgages, and pursuing their hobbies (knitting, Bible study, Civil war reenactments, you name it).

I also admire anyone who is out on the front lines, defending our country, regardless of what my views on the Iraq war are (that it was a mistake).

My question to you is -- do you think we are in early 4T or late 3T right now? Why?

Thanks so much.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

I expect that the near future will be a bad time to be a journalist who's not willing to toe the line.

I'm not wishing for it, I simply think that's the way the country's heading. It'll be a bad time for the nation in many ways, but people will look back on it and remember it as a time when everybody pulled together for the greater good, and dissent was rare, and everybody was pretty much happy and things were good, though times were hard and the future was uncertain...

That's what 4th Turnings look like the morning after.

Where do you get this idea that 4T's are times when the nation pulls together? You must be using WW II as a model, which happened exactly once. It's an anomaly, just as 1929 was. 4T's are divisive times.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The American public is always centrist - by definition, but what constitutes the center tends to move around in time. That's the essence to S&H's theory.
We've been trending right for nearly four decades. It's hard to appreciate that unless you've lived through it.

... There's no doubt that we've moved significantly to the right in the last few decades --or, more accurately, we've moved away from a collectivist mode and towards an individualist one, a shift which favored the Republicans more than the ex-New Deal Liberal Democrats.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not interested so much in how we got here, I'm interested in where we're going to go from here... I fully expect that shift to be ugly for some segments of the population...

I don't remember it ever being 'collectivist'. Comminitarian, perhaps. The singel greatest difference was the success big business had in destroying unions, which ended any balancing power in the economy. I don't see that as 'individualistic', either. It is dramatically corporatist, though.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

The public is fickle. Don't assume things will continue in the same direction forever, when that is clearly impossible.

I'm not assuming that this trend will continue on forever, but I believe that culturally and politically, America will be where it's at now for at least the next decade or so, which is more than enough time for the events that I'm predicting to transpire.

What happens after that doesn't interest me all that much, because by then the cultural, political, and media landscape of the nation will have changed to the point that it will be almost unrecognizable.

I agree that things will change, but we can't go much further in the direction we have without creating a fascist society. Even the arch-conservatives are worried.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

We are already the most conservative advanced nation on earth. The instant that stops working for us (collectively), we will start the move back toward the philosophical center. Later, we may (probably will) swing to the left.

Left and Right, as we understand the terms today, are essentially meaningless when we're talking about the nation that far into the future. The population may shift Left, but by then a significant minority on the Left may be evangelical Christian and Catholic biotech Luddites who've been squeezed out of a pro-corporate Republican party and courted by Dems eager to inject a little ol' time religion back into their party.

(Note that I'm not saying that this will happen, just that shifts like that can and will happen.)

I don't see the religous right joining with the secular left, and that's about where things are now. Libertarians and the left may unite.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

The MSM tilts toward the position of the people in the MSM, who live in the Blue states. Even CNN is Blue now, since Atlanta is a Blue part of Georgia.

Regardless of how it came to be, there is definitely a perception out there that the mainstream news networks are politically and culturally out of step with the public. The question then is how long people will be willing to put up with it, and my answer is until their sons (and possibly their daughters) end up in uniform. And since I fully expect to see a lot more people in uniform in the near future...

Where are you from - originally? You have a very Red State orientation on this topic.

In most places, the MSM are ignored as a bunch of self-serving corporate lapdogs. Only in the Red Meat areas are they considered somehow anti-American.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

If we need more people in uniform, we'll have to draft them. I don't see a lot of volunteers beyond those already serving. Large mobilizations can't happen with volunteers alone, unless the homeland itself is under attack.

This isn't Britain in WW-II, and I doubt will ever be.

I think that we will see a draft relatively soon. Not in the next two or three years, but enough fires have been ignited around the world that we're going to get burned. After all, every hostile nation in the world knows that we can only fight one relatively minor land campaign at any given time, and that we can only do that with difficulty. It really is only a matter of time before someone tests us.

I see that as the end of the GOP warmongering. Americans will eventually awake the realization that war is costly - to them. Right now, we're still in 'praise the troops and keep on shopping' mode.

When the draft kicks-in in earnest, then the tide will turn. That's why Busha and the neocons deny it will ever happen.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

Why? What is the essense of betrayal? War reporting today is similar to war reporting in all wars - even WW-II.

I'm going to have to disagree there. The bodycount style of war reporting has no precedent in World War II or World War I -- when reporters were actually uniformed servicemen and news agencies were willing to put up with stifling censorship for the public good. Today's war reporting is a little closer to reporting during Vietnam, but the establishment news outlets still had a completely different outlook -- in part because they still did a lot of local reporting, and actually understood the people they were selling papers to and making broadcasts for.

These days, the big media outlets actually despise those same people, and those same people have turned to populist, Right-leaning, tabloidesque outlets -- whether it's FOX News or the New York Daily News.

The news was never the purview of the military. WW-II was reported by many still alive to tell about it, and they were NOT in the miltary.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

What do you expect?

I expect that the near future will be a bad time to be a journalist who's not willing to toe the line.

Then you expect Fascism. I hope ... sincerely hope ... you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

Be careful what you wish for. If you are right, you will be living in a Fascist country.

Probably no more or less fascist than the U.S. during World War II.

Some ugly things were done in WW-II, but we were far from Fascist. That that it excuses anything, but most of what happened was due to the magnitude of the war. At this point in time, I don't see us fighting a war against any enemy that can potentially defeat us.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by M&L

I will be too old to worry much about it, but you will find it gray and hard.

I'm not wishing for it, I simply think that's the way the country's heading. It'll be a bad time for the nation in many ways, but people will look back on it and remember it as a time when everybody pulled together for the greater good, and dissent was rare, and everybody was pretty much happy and things were good, though times were hard and the future was uncertain...

That's what 4th Turnings look like the morning after.

I doubt that your cvision will occur, but if it does, no one will look back on it fondly - you included.

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

I don't believe that they are. However, a new dominant order rises and Fourth Turnings are remembered as times when everybody pulled together.

The Civil War is remembered this way?

The Depression years were anything but unified. Popular culture homogenized fitfully, and was still fragmented into the late '30s. The backlash against the popular feminism of the late '20s was in full swing, driving thousands of women across the country out of the work force and into the home. Protests erupted on college campuses across the nation, and by some estimates were proportionally larger than those on campuses in the '60s. Resistance to President Roosevelt's New Deal reforms was great enough that many of the programs were basically neutered.

As the crisis deepened, a significant percentage of the population opposed entry into Europe's war, with America First packing crowds in across the country in anti-war demonstrations. More than one in twenty military personnel during World War II were deserters. Waste and criminality were rampant -- black markets flourished both on the homefront and in the armed forces, diverting important equipment and materials from their intended recipients. The leadership of certain radical unions threatened strikes that would hinder the war effort. As late as the release of Yankee Doodle Dandy (filming started on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked), there was a concerted effort by the government and Hollywood to marginalize opponents of the war and those who were insufficiently patriotic.

And of course, there were laws and social or cultural pressures that discouraged dissent.

I largely agree with this. We seem to see eye to eye on the nature of crises.

Fourth Turnings are anomalies, but they repeat themselves in the broad strokes, and in the broad strokes, a crisis will be met and those who rise to the challenge will dominate when it comes to creating a new social and political order, and when that happens, the history we're living through now will be rewritten to support the new social and political consensus.

You mentioned a need for a draft. Do you believe that the War on Terrorism is going to be the central crisis issue?

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=7302

Book Review by Jack Lessenberry

Gwynne Dyer isn?t exactly a wimp. Not many guys from Newfoundland are. Born during World War II, he has been fascinated by things military all his life, and has served in three navies ? ours, Canada?s and Great Britain?s. He has university degrees from all three countries too, and a Ph.D. in military and Middle Eastern history. During the 1980s, he produced and narrated the best documentary series about the nature of war that I?ve ever seen.

And here?s what he says about what we are doing:?The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.?

Those are the opening lines of his latest and perhaps most important book, Future Tense: The Coming World Order (paperback, McClelland and Stewart, $12.95). If you plan on reading only one book this year, make this the one. In perfectly clear prose, with arguments as well-researched as they are compelling, this military expert explains why what we?re doing is mad.

He explains how we haven?t grasped that the world has changed, that we aren?t living in our old superpower world anymore, one in which we?re the leader of the forces of light against the evil dark powers of communism. Nor are we, in fact, even a military superpower in the way we like to think we are; in reality, our military machine can only be used against very weak countries. As he notes, ?War with a serious opponent would lead to a level of American casualties that the U.S. public would not tolerate for long.?

What the world needs most in the long run (if there?s to be a long run), he reminds us, is a stable international order in which all nations gradually work on abandoning war as an acceptable way of settling any differences. Dyer isn?t starry-eyed about this; he thinks it will take a hundred years at least to get major countries to stop resorting to war, ?for it is trying to change international habits that had at least 5,000 years to take root.?

That, he reminds us, is the whole purpose of the United Nations, which we played the major role in starting exactly 60 years ago this spring. Yes, we?ve resorted to war before, as have other countries, but we always at least pretended that what we were doing was legally justified by international standards.

Now, however, the current administration is essentially spitting on this, and openly proclaiming our right to intervene unilaterally anywhere we want. Why is that so bad? Because others will do it too, and, eventually, it will break down even the ideal of an international order, causing a general return to ?the old world of alliances, arms races and all the other old baggage.?

Dyer writes, ?No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war ? but if the world?s greatest power becomes a rogue state, they won?t have much choice.? Some days, it appears we?ve already crossed the line.

Interestingly, if that happens, we may not be able to afford to be a rogue state for very long. In what?s surely the most telling and terrifying part of this book, the author takes on the most frightening topic of all ? the real condition of the American economy, which is now totally dependent on foreign investment. You?d scarcely know it from the ?mainstream media,? but we?re now the biggest debtor nation in history, owing far more to foreign countries than they do to us, and running up $500 billion more on our ?credit card? every year.

Why does this go on? Dyer argues what other economists have told me in whispers: ?The U.S. economy is a confidence trick based on everybody else?s perception that the United States is centrally important for the world?s security and that its economy is centrally important for the world economy.? That was absolutely true in 1945, and largely true even in 1985. But not anymore. If you look at only those foreign investments that could be liquidated fairly quickly, the total, he estimates, would come to about $8 trillion. If those investments started to move elsewhere, the value of the dollar could be cut in half, Dyer estimates, overnight.

That would mean not only no more Lincoln Navigators, it more than likely would lead to the end of democracy as we know it. Which would be especially unfortunate since, as he notes, ?global warming and other environmental problems are going to hit us very hard over the next 50 years. How fast they hit and how great the resulting upheavals will be cannot be known in advance, but very few people apart from the usual suspects in the United States any longer doubt that climate change is a reality.?

Incidentally, if you?re tempted to tell me why Gwynne Dyer is all wrong, I?ll be willing to listen ? but not if you haven?t read this book first.

From the Inside Flap| The foundations of World War III are being laid today.

American defeat in Iraq is only a matter of time, but how long it takes matters a lot. The fate of Iraq is a sideshow, the terrorist threat is a red herring, and the radical Islamists' dream of a worldwide jihad against the West is a fantasy, but the attempt to revive Pax Americana is real. No matter what the outcome of the election in November, 2004, the enterprise is likely to continue. It is bound to fail eventually, but we need it to fail soon.

American military power is not limitless, and the other big powers will not stand for US military domination of the world. They don't buy the cover story about the 'terrorist threat,' but they don't want a fight either. They are all on hold for the moment, hoping that America will remember its commitment to the United Nations, the rule of law and multilateralism. If it does not, then the drift back into alliances, balance-of-power politics and military confrontations will begin. Ten years from now, an American-led alliance that includes India and occupies much of the Middle East could be facing a European alliance led by France, Germany and Russia AND a hostile, heavily armed China.

In Future Tense, Gwynne Dyer's brilliant follow up to last year's bestselling Ignorant Armies, he analyzes how the world made its way to the brink of disaster, and describes how we may all slide over the edge. It was fringe groups of extremists - Islamist fanatics and American neo-conservatives - who set the process in motion, but it has gone well beyond that now. It is not too late, but the clock is running.

About the Author
Gwynne Dyer has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than twenty years. His twice-weekly column on international affairs is published by 175 papers in some forty-five countries and is translated into more than a dozen languages.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Chris Seamans '75

I don't believe that they are. However, a new dominant order rises and Fourth Turnings are remembered as times when everybody pulled together.

The Civil War is remembered this way?

The Depression years were anything but unified. Popular culture homogenized fitfully, and was still fragmented into the late '30s. The backlash against the popular feminism of the late '20s was in full swing, driving thousands of women across the country out of the work force and into the home. Protests erupted on college campuses across the nation, and by some estimates were proportionally larger than those on campuses in the '60s. Resistance to President Roosevelt's New Deal reforms was great enough that many of the programs were basically neutered.

As the crisis deepened, a significant percentage of the population opposed entry into Europe's war, with America First packing crowds in across the country in anti-war demonstrations. More than one in twenty military personnel during World War II were deserters. Waste and criminality were rampant -- black markets flourished both on the homefront and in the armed forces, diverting important equipment and materials from their intended recipients. The leadership of certain radical unions threatened strikes that would hinder the war effort. As late as the release of Yankee Doodle Dandy (filming started on the day Pearl Harbor was attacked), there was a concerted effort by the government and Hollywood to marginalize opponents of the war and those who were insufficiently patriotic.

And of course, there were laws and social or cultural pressures that discouraged dissent.

I largely agree with this. We seem to see eye to eye on the nature of crises.

Fourth Turnings are anomalies, but they repeat themselves in the broad strokes, and in the broad strokes, a crisis will be met and those who rise to the challenge will dominate when it comes to creating a new social and political order, and when that happens, the history we're living through now will be rewritten to support the new social and political consensus.

You mentioned a need for a draft. Do you believe that the War on Terrorism is going to be the central crisis issue?

You didn't ask me, but since I have a big mouth I'm going to answer your question. It seem obvious to me that 9/11 was the initial catalyst for this 4t, and that America will continue to aggressively promote democratization in the Arab and wider Muslim world, even if the end result is highly illiberal Muslim democracy.

It seems equally obvious to me though that just as the great depression wasn't the only central theme to the last 4t, there will be at least one other crucial issue during this 4t, if not two.

The so-called war on terror will likely continue in the 2010s if not into the 2020s, but the 2010s I suspect will also bring a major economic crisis that will spell the end of the second era of American-led globalization (ie the neo-liberal era...the first era, which lasted from the mid 40s to the early to mid 70s was the Bretton Woods era.)

There's been a lot of talk and concern about our Asian creditors pulling the plug on the dollar, but the fact is that our codependent relationship (they buy our treasuries, we buy their stuff) is likely to continue as long as consumer spending holds up, and while there be a few external shocks (a decline in the housing market, one or more further attacks on American soil) consumer spending is likely to hold up pretty well until the boomers begin to retire en masse.

When the 2010s roll around, the 77 to 100 million strong spendthrift boomer generation will be replaced by the 40-60 some million weak frugal and deeply in debt generation x in middle age (the peak spending years), and it will likely have a pretty dramatic effect on not only consumer spending but the broader economy. Add in the likely dramatic tax increases on generation x for boomer entitlements and it seems likely that that's when the Chinese and Japanese will finally pull the plug on the dollar, with the likely effect of plunging much of the globe into a deep and lasting recession, if not a depression.

The other possibility is that if Bush manages to privatize social security, and packs the courts with right-wing judges and justices who overturn roe v wade, Democrats will have little reason to support a strong federal government, and the ensuing crisis could ultimately lead to a much weaker federal government, and a return to a much looser federation of states and regions (not unlike the early republic, in which the federal government was charged fundamentally with protecting the country from foreign invasion and regulating interstate commerce.)

PS Your point about the civil war not being unifying either then or in retrospect is more than just obvious. We have tended to regard the depression and world war II era this way, but not either of the other two 4ts in American history, including the American revolution, wherein the consensus is that public opinion was really split three ways. Judging by history it would seen just as likely to go the other way.

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=7302

Book Review by Jack Lessenberry

Gwynne Dyer isn?t exactly a wimp. Not many guys from Newfoundland are. Born during World War II, he has been fascinated by things military all his life, and has served in three navies ? ours, Canada?s and Great Britain?s. He has university degrees from all three countries too, and a Ph.D. in military and Middle Eastern history. During the 1980s, he produced and narrated the best documentary series about the nature of war that I?ve ever seen.

And here?s what he says about what we are doing:?The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.?

Those are the opening lines of his latest and perhaps most important book, Future Tense: The Coming World Order (paperback, McClelland and Stewart, $12.95). If you plan on reading only one book this year, make this the one. In perfectly clear prose, with arguments as well-researched as they are compelling, this military expert explains why what we?re doing is mad.

He explains how we haven?t grasped that the world has changed, that we aren?t living in our old superpower world anymore, one in which we?re the leader of the forces of light against the evil dark powers of communism. Nor are we, in fact, even a military superpower in the way we like to think we are; in reality, our military machine can only be used against very weak countries. As he notes, ?War with a serious opponent would lead to a level of American casualties that the U.S. public would not tolerate for long.?

What the world needs most in the long run (if there?s to be a long run), he reminds us, is a stable international order in which all nations gradually work on abandoning war as an acceptable way of settling any differences. Dyer isn?t starry-eyed about this; he thinks it will take a hundred years at least to get major countries to stop resorting to war, ?for it is trying to change international habits that had at least 5,000 years to take root.?

That, he reminds us, is the whole purpose of the United Nations, which we played the major role in starting exactly 60 years ago this spring. Yes, we?ve resorted to war before, as have other countries, but we always at least pretended that what we were doing was legally justified by international standards.

Now, however, the current administration is essentially spitting on this, and openly proclaiming our right to intervene unilaterally anywhere we want. Why is that so bad? Because others will do it too, and, eventually, it will break down even the ideal of an international order, causing a general return to ?the old world of alliances, arms races and all the other old baggage.?

Dyer writes, ?No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war ? but if the world?s greatest power becomes a rogue state, they won?t have much choice.? Some days, it appears we?ve already crossed the line.

Interestingly, if that happens, we may not be able to afford to be a rogue state for very long. In what?s surely the most telling and terrifying part of this book, the author takes on the most frightening topic of all ? the real condition of the American economy, which is now totally dependent on foreign investment. You?d scarcely know it from the ?mainstream media,? but we?re now the biggest debtor nation in history, owing far more to foreign countries than they do to us, and running up $500 billion more on our ?credit card? every year.

Why does this go on? Dyer argues what other economists have told me in whispers: ?The U.S. economy is a confidence trick based on everybody else?s perception that the United States is centrally important for the world?s security and that its economy is centrally important for the world economy.? That was absolutely true in 1945, and largely true even in 1985. But not anymore. If you look at only those foreign investments that could be liquidated fairly quickly, the total, he estimates, would come to about $8 trillion. If those investments started to move elsewhere, the value of the dollar could be cut in half, Dyer estimates, overnight.

That would mean not only no more Lincoln Navigators, it more than likely would lead to the end of democracy as we know it. Which would be especially unfortunate since, as he notes, ?global warming and other environmental problems are going to hit us very hard over the next 50 years. How fast they hit and how great the resulting upheavals will be cannot be known in advance, but very few people apart from the usual suspects in the United States any longer doubt that climate change is a reality.?

Incidentally, if you?re tempted to tell me why Gwynne Dyer is all wrong, I?ll be willing to listen ? but not if you haven?t read this book first.

From the Inside Flap| The foundations of World War III are being laid today.

American defeat in Iraq is only a matter of time, but how long it takes matters a lot. The fate of Iraq is a sideshow, the terrorist threat is a red herring, and the radical Islamists' dream of a worldwide jihad against the West is a fantasy, but the attempt to revive Pax Americana is real. No matter what the outcome of the election in November, 2004, the enterprise is likely to continue. It is bound to fail eventually, but we need it to fail soon.

American military power is not limitless, and the other big powers will not stand for US military domination of the world. They don't buy the cover story about the 'terrorist threat,' but they don't want a fight either. They are all on hold for the moment, hoping that America will remember its commitment to the United Nations, the rule of law and multilateralism. If it does not, then the drift back into alliances, balance-of-power politics and military confrontations will begin. Ten years from now, an American-led alliance that includes India and occupies much of the Middle East could be facing a European alliance led by France, Germany and Russia AND a hostile, heavily armed China.

In Future Tense, Gwynne Dyer's brilliant follow up to last year's bestselling Ignorant Armies, he analyzes how the world made its way to the brink of disaster, and describes how we may all slide over the edge. It was fringe groups of extremists - Islamist fanatics and American neo-conservatives - who set the process in motion, but it has gone well beyond that now. It is not too late, but the clock is running.

About the Author
Gwynne Dyer has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than twenty years. His twice-weekly column on international affairs is published by 175 papers in some forty-five countries and is translated into more than a dozen languages.

Its a provocative argument for sure, and although it seems unlikely that say Russia will invade the former Soviet satellites and re-assert its hegemony in central Asia, etc (although it does continue to meddle in places like Georgia and of course Ukraine), I don't think the possibility of China acting unilaterally to recapture Taiwan is so far fetched, and would anyone really suggest that we go to war with China?

The trouble with the kind of international order the author suggests is that countries have been so far unwilling to give up enough of their sovereignty to give the UN real teeth on security matters. Robert Taft back in the 40s pushed the idea of a world court in which countries could be put on trial and punished for breaking international law, but everyone balked at the idea. Until we have universal liberal democracy, or countries (particularly major powers and autocracies) are willing to give up their sovereignty I don't think its realistic to expect this will happen, and the security council will mostly be a joke.

Originally Posted by kenof98112

Its a provocative argument for sure, and although it seems unlikely that say Russia will invade the former Soviet satellites and re-assert its hegemony in central Asia, etc (although it does continue to meddle in places like Georgia and of course Ukraine), I don't think the possibility of China acting unilaterally to recapture Taiwan is so far fetched, and would anyone really suggest that we go to war with China?

The CIS States (other than Georgia and Ukraine) are on the Russian payroll anyway. It probably makes more sense NOT to take them over because then the Russians can control them but don't have to be responsible to the people there.
The Taiwan issue is like our Cuban issue - an old political scare tactic that never gets old. Both are worth more in political capital than in reality.
Think about it - we went after Saddam for imaginery weapons. We left Castro in power after he threatened to deploy nukes off the coast of Florida - he is still there (!)
Neither scenario seems paricularly relevant.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by kenof98112

Its a provocative argument for sure, and although it seems unlikely that say Russia will invade the former Soviet satellites and re-assert its hegemony in central Asia, etc (although it does continue to meddle in places like Georgia and of course Ukraine), I don't think the possibility of China acting unilaterally to recapture Taiwan is so far fetched, and would anyone really suggest that we go to war with China?

The CIS States (other than Georgia and Ukraine) are on the Russian payroll anyway. It probably makes more sense NOT to take them over because then the Russians can control them but don't have to be responsible to the people there.
The Taiwan issue is like our Cuban issue - an old political scare tactic that never gets old. Both are worth more in political capital than in reality.
Think about it - we went after Saddam for imaginery weapons. We left Castro in power after he threatened to deploy nukes off the coast of Florida - he is still there (!)
Neither scenario seems paricularly relevant.

A good analogy that ultimately falls short. Cuba is a good whipping boy for GOP presidents and members of congress to flog, but its not a "breakaway province" of the US. Nationalist feelings about Taiwan run deep in China.

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

Scott would not have had a problem in "progressive" nations like Canada. Austria, Spain, Montenegro, etc. where the age of consent is 14 or less.

Or even...Ohio.

A portion of the franchise holders returned from the mainland to vote against the politicians who work for independence. They have large factories in the PRC.

Dawn Chen, the "foreign" quarter of Shanghai is now largely a Taiwanese outpost. The "Creed of Greed" is making the One China Policy a reality that the CP and the Kuomintang just blathered about for a half century.


Why the U.S. would want to wage a war across the Formosa Strait is beyond me. Perhaps the Celestials do not understand the importance of "losing face" on the shores of the Potomac. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

Scott would not have had a problem in "progressive" nations like Canada. Austria, Spain, Montenegro, etc. where the age of consent is 14 or less.

Or even...Ohio.

Doh!

Originally Posted by kenof98112

When the 2010s roll around, the 77 to 100 million strong spendthrift boomer generation will be replaced by the 40-60 some million weak frugal and deeply in debt generation x in middle age (the peak spending years), and it will likely have a pretty dramatic effect on not only consumer spending but the broader economy. Add in the likely dramatic tax increases on generation x for boomer entitlements and it seems likely that that's when the Chinese and Japanese will finally pull the plug on the dollar, with the likely effect of plunging much of the globe into a deep and lasting recession, if not a depression.

Just a nit, but last count, the Boomer gen (defined as 1943-1960) is smaller in number than Gen-X (1961-1981).

Of course if you compare the popular definition of Boom (1946-1964) with X (1965-1976), yeah, there are more "Boomers". But I think that most of us agree here that those born in 1963-1964 are really Xers, as are those born in the late 70s.