On 2001-10-25 11:52, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
We, the voters of the United States of America, have allowed our government to become what it has become. We are collectively as guilty as a people can be. We are responsible for the acts of our government, as are all people living in a democracy.

Amen. That's why I don't vote.

Another point to consider:

- The US has bombed and embargoed the Iraqi people for more than ten years now. Although it justification is his removal from power, this action has not been aimed at Saddam Hussein (he has not been bombed, personally; clearly he has the money and power to bypass the embargo for his own benefit). The US has been punishing the citizens of Iraq for allowing him to remain in power. Bluntly, we consider the citizens of a less-than-free country responsible for the actions taken by their leaders. How can we be surprised when others look at US citizens in the same light?
In America, our founding documents state that the government is the people. Whether this remains true or not is immaterial from the standpoint of international affairs.

Again from Bob:

Assume this will be a fourth turning all out war. Forget polite rules. Don?t object to the enemy?s tactics, because he is going all out to win, as will we, and he will scoff at your opinions of how polite wars ought to be fought. That is the way it is going to be.

This need not be the case. The doctrine of total war -- that is, a war in which civilians are systematically targeted -- is a relatively recent one. We can affect the way our 4T war (the actions against Afghanistan are not it) is conducted. The situation Bob describes is most likely if both warring cultures are in a 4T simultaneously. It is still not necessary -- unless no one does anything about it.

Rumsfeld does the soft-shoe backtrack. My question-- who's running the show? What if we DON'T get Bin Laden? What if in three years, super-hero Bin Laden, operating from a cave somewhere, is still taunting the U.S.? Does the coalition hold? Does Bush get re-elected? From MSNBC moments ago:

Rumsfeld: 'You bet we expect to get' bin Laden
October 25, 2001 Posted: 3:12 PM EDT (1912 GMT)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CNN) -- U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Taliban positions inside Afghanistan on Thursday a day after U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that finding suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden would be difficult.

In an interview with the editorial board of USA Today on Wednesday, Rumsfeld said that capturing bin Laden, the prime suspect in the September 11 attacks, will be a "very difficult thing to do." Bin Laden is in Afghanistan as a "guest" of the ruling Taliban. Asked about his comments at a Pentagon press briefing on Thursday, Rumsfeld said he thought the United States would capture bin Laden. The Saudi-born bin Laden is hiding out in the mountainous and rugged terrain of Afghanistan.

"Do we expect to get him?" You bet we expect to get him," he said.

Rumsfeld dismissed a reporter's suggestion on Thursday that the Pentagon needed to keep the American public engaged during a potentially long operation, saying people recognize there's no "easy fix."

"Don't underestimate the American people. They have a pretty good center of gravity and good judgment," he said.

In the USA Today interview, Rumsfeld was asked if he was confident that the United States would achieve the goal of President George W. Bush to capture bin Laden dead or alive.

"It's a big world. There are lots of countries. He's got a lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him, and I just don't know whether we'll be successful," Rumsfeld told the newspaper. "Clearly, it would be highly desirable to find him and stop him and his key people and there are a lot of them. We're not looking for one person. We're looking for a whole crowd. And that's our intent and our intention. How can anyone know what the outcome is going to be until you get there?"

He backed off somewhat from those comments on Thursday, saying that an impression that he believed the search might not turn up bind Laden was a result of miscommunication.

Rumsfeld also told the newspaper that he did think the Taliban would be toppled from power by the U.S.-led military campaign, which he also said would not be easy.

"These are very tough people who've been fighting the Soviet Union, they've been fighting each other, they've made careers out of fighting," he said in the interview. "They're not going to roll over. So it's going to take some real effort and it's going to take some time, and as I say, it won't be easy. But there will be a post-Taliban Afghanistan."

On 2001-10-25 13:29, Dave Updegrove wrote:
What if we DON'T get Bin Laden? What if in three years, super-hero Bin Laden, operating from a cave somewhere, is still taunting the U.S.?

Hmm, what if we ravage Afghanistan and the Afghan people, but leave their country otherwise intact. What if there exists, in their midst, a charismatic leader who can promise them an end to their suffering. Gee, that's never happened before...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2001-10-25 13:53 ]</font>

In 81' just before marriage, my Dad took me to Europe and I saw, among other things, Dachau. The experience was profound for me, 23 at the time. I returned to Dachau with my wife in 94' and wife and kids last year.

To this day, the German people live with the shame that while their government committed genocide, the german citizens did little to speak up. Their silence was fatal, and they are still, as a proud and intellegent people, judged by that silence.

I'm not just a boomer, I'm a prophet generation member, and the world isn't done with us yet. Watch out, for we will still rock this place, well into our old age. Amid the chorus that tells me to be silent, you will still hear the voice.

Richard Gere was booed off the stage recently for encouraging a course of action that didn't include killing. He spoke with the prophet voice.

Other will speak to you with that voice. Listen to them and draw your own conclusions about what they say, independent of peer and media pressure.

Do not act to silence the voice. For it will tell you that the world is a big enough place for all of us to live.

On 2001-10-25 12:33, Justin '77 wrote:
)with respect to bombing Iraq for 10 years),...
Bluntly, we consider the citizens of a less-than-free country responsible for the actions taken by their leaders (Saddam Hussein). How can we be surprised when others look at US citizens in the same light?
In America, our founding documents state that the government is the people.

Yep, very true, and we are responsible for the upcoming slaughter in Afghanistan.
With respect to Generations and the Fourth Turning, something happened in Europe while we suffered the great depression: Hitler came to power.

Perhaps we too will keep silent and allow evil men to rule the world.

On 2001-10-25 11:52, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

The American Revolution bred legends of how the Redcoats wanted the Minutemen to come out of the woods and stand in neat formations. Using cover and stealth was unfair and unsporting. Union opinions of Confederate militia irregulars and German opinions of the French Resistance were somewhat similar. Most any war, the establishment has an advantage in regular army formal battles. Not infrequently, the anti-establishment force resorts to irregular methods. If one feels strongly for one?s cause, if one is willing to take lives, one will do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the enemy with success.

Bob, I fully support the tactics used by the rebel forces in all the wars you list however I simply do not accept your comparison. John Paul Jones did not land on English beaches so as to unleash a band of brigands on the English countryside to terrorize, kill, and maim innocent English women and children. The American colonists declared their independence and fought foreign invaders on their own soil (and John Paul Jones attacked their supply lines, i.e. shipping). Confederate rebels, having declared their independence, were also fighting foreign invaders on their own soil. They did not sneak north to terrorize, kill, and maim innocent Northern women and children. The French resistance was also fighting foreign invaders on their own soil. They did not sneak into Germany to terrorize, kill, and maim innocent German women and children. These fanatical fundamentalist barbarians should not get a special dispensation such that they might take their war to innocent American women and children. Let them fight the foreign "American invaders" in their own land and disrupt American supply lines. And let us respond intelligently -- and morally -- to the situation (and no, I do not look for this administration to respond intelligently and morally to anything).

So, the Minutemen and French Resistance are heroes, while the September 11 hijackers are terrorists.

The Minutemen and French resistance did not specifically target innocent women and children in a foreign land. The 911 terrorists, because they did do this, are the scum of the earth. And there is absolutely no comparison here.

I would expect Dubya and company to state firmly that dropping bombs from 30,000 feet upon a Taliban barracks is ever so much more moral and just than parking a truck next to the Marine barracks in Lebanon or parking a boat next to the USS Cole.

Bob, I would be about the last guy here to defend the all-around fraudulence of this administration on any matter. But we simply have to respond to the 911 attack. Such actions must be prevented from occurring again. Accordingly any government which would house and/or support such terrorists must go down. That is the only way to combat it. This situation must be challenged on moral grounds so as to eliminate it and, no, I do not look for a morally-bankrupt administration such as the one we have to make a moral case for anything as they are absolutely unfit. After all, this administration is led and run by the same establishment types which have produced the problems over there in the first place. Their hands are perpetually dirty which is why they never deign to show them to us, their alleged bosses. And yet we allow them to stay in power in election after election.

This administration cares about two, and only two, things in this war: that oil pipeline, a joint US-Saudi venture, which is planned to run out of the Caspian, across Afghanistan, and down through Pakistan to the coast (as well as the Caspian oil itself); and the poppy crop in the region. This war is being prosecuted solely to safeguard this administration's interests in these two things. This is why bin Laden and the Taliban are being so ridiculously painted as the source of all the world's evil when in fact Saddam is the fulcrum for all Middle Eastern terrorism according to the rest of the world's intelligence services. This administration simply does not wish to confront Saddam for to do so would unite the Arab world in jihad at which point this administration and its masters would be booted out of Arab oil fields altogether. So they confine this war -- actually police action since they have made it clear that they do not want to follow the Constitution and declare war -- they confine this police action portrayed as a war to a bit player, bin Laden, and some irrelevants, the Taliban, so as to ensure that nothing stands in the way of their access to that oil and those poppy fields. And as a result, those terrorists and the governments which support them remain alive and kicking, ready to act upon innocent American women and children again and again and again.

This administration will accomplish nothing of value in this so-called war on terrorism. But still, something must be done. The 911 attacks simply cannot go unanswered. But God help us. Can we please get some people who are morally fit to deal with this situation in office in 2004? That would exclude anybody associated in any way with the establishment which has brought us this problem.

We, the voters of the United States of America, have allowed our government to become what it has become. We are collectively as guilty as a people can be. We are responsible for the acts of our government, as are all people living in a democracy. If this makes us targets, so let it be.

I fully agree that we are responsible for continuing to let this fraudulence rule us. Note that our government was established to serve us, not rule us, yet we continue to let it spit in our faces in election after election. That being said, women and children are still not legitimate military targets, nor should they be. And if we do not enforce this moral point, nobody else will, and it may even become a universally accepted tactic. I find that utterly unacceptable.

Assume this will be a fourth turning all out war. Forget polite rules. Don?t object to the enemy?s tactics, because he is going all out to win, as will we, and he will scoff at your opinions of how polite wars ought to be fought. That is the way it is going to be. Watch Mrs. Minerva. Decide if you are ready to fight on the front lines. Like it or not, you had best be ready, as the front lines are heading your way.

This problem will not be eradicated until we declare war on the fanatical variety of Muslim fundamentalism. It is morally wrong and we must make the case that it is. No man is born a master and no man is born a slave. It shall be left to every individual to find his own way to God and no other man's inherently arbitrary way shall be imposed upon him. It is not for the Taliban or anybody else to arbitrarily dictate that to which God objects and to enslave people within that web. When those who so arrogantly presume to speak for God are deprived of their power to enslave people under the force of their will, we will no longer have a terrorist problem. But again, this administration is unfit to make this argument and will never even try. The consequences would interfere with the all-important access to those oil and poppy fields.

You are perilously close to the idea that criticizing Dubya is unpatriotic.

That is an idea that I will attack until the day I die. Frankly I consider it unpatriotic not to criticize Junior as he destroys what little remains of our rights and our liberty with his Homeland Gestapo and whatever else is coming.

We are not in a Post Pearl Harbor mode. We should still be debating and building a consensus on what the new world order ought to be, and how to build it.

I agree. I favor confronting this fanatical Muslim fundamentalism on moral grounds and eliminating the terrorist problem. If no sufficient consensus shall arise to support this, then I can swallow the Pat Buchanan approach that we get the heck out of the region and leave them alone (although I do not believe that this will end the terrorist problem at this point which is the only reason why it is not my first choice now). What I cannot support is the ridiculous strategy the administration is using as it will do nothing to eliminate the terrorist threat and further mire us in difficulty. It is about time that oil and poppies quit dictating our Middle East policy. Could we please just return to energy self-sufficiency?

Dubya would like it to be held, as a self-evident truth, that the old world order is just fine. Any Democrat who hints otherwise gets flamed as being un-American, as breaking the Unity.

And though I have never once voted for a Democrat for federal office in my entire life, I will stand by any Democrat who wishes to assert his God-given or natural rights in the face of this fraudulence.

Voices of all sorts will be heard. Attempts to silence won?t work. No one can force anyone to listen. Somebody had better listen.

Bob, I defend everybody's right to speak freely even if this administration has a pathological aversion to it. But no one has a right to be heard, i.e. I am free to change the channel. That is the only point I was making.

From the beginning its been all talk and disconcertingly little action with the Bush administration.

Ordinary working stiffs, firefighters, police and emergency workers, and now postal workers (all members of that much maligned group "government employees") have been on the front lines of this war at home and have taken casualities. Overseas, the children of the poor and working class stand ready to do their duty. They have and will be expected to make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.

But what has Bush asked of the rest of us? Bush could ask Congress to pass a tax on gas to make sure that Islamic countries cannot strangle our war effort by another oil embargo. On the symbolic front Bush could at least ask Congress to formally *declare* this as a war. Affluent people like me could be asked to pay higher taxes to help pay for the war effort.

Instead Congress plans to cut taxes on corporations and affluent Americans (like me) who don't need it. Yet what have I or most others been asked to do? Spend money! And they're actually planning to give me some more cash to spend! We are told corporations need help because they are laying off workers. Isn't it the laid off workers that need help?

Just what kind of war effort is this, where government employees (all working stiffs) make all the sacrifices, nothing is asked of most of the rest of us, and the rich receive governmental largess? And now our Secretary of Defense is saying we might not get Bin Laden, but don't worry, we *will* continue to bomb Afghanistan.

After the third day of bombing we were told that we were "running out of targets". So what exactly have we been bombing since? Do you get the idea that *nobody* has a clue what we are doing?

I'm beginning to think Brian Rush had it right all along: "Bush is no GC, the thought is to puke for".

You've got it dead on, Mike.

Kiff '61

On 2001-10-25 14:15, sv81 wrote:
In 81' just before marriage, my Dad took me to Europe and I saw, among other things, Dachau. The experience was profound for me, 23 at the time. I returned to Dachau with my wife in 94' and wife and kids last year.

To this day, the German people live with the shame that while their government committed genocide, the german citizens did little to speak up. Their silence was fatal, and they are still, as a proud and intellegent people, judged by that silence.

I'm not just a boomer, I'm a prophet generation member, and the world isn't done with us yet. Watch out, for we will still rock this place, well into our old age. Amid the chorus that tells me to be silent, you will still hear the voice.

Richard Gere was booed off the stage recently for encouraging a course of action that didn't include killing. He spoke with the prophet voice.

Other will speak to you with that voice. Listen to them and draw your own conclusions about what they say, independent of peer and media pressure.

Do not act to silence the voice. For it will tell you that the world is a big enough place for all of us to live.

After one and a half months of reading these 4T Posts I was starting to lose hope. Not today.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cbailey on 2001-10-25 16:40 ]</font>

14th Century Muslim Sage has much to teach us writes Mr. Daniel Johnson in the 26 October 2001 number of the Telegraph (UK) via FreeRepublic.com.


Ibn Khaldun on history, cycles, etc. at Ibn Khaldun and Our Age by Mr. James Kalb.HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2001-10-25 18:24 ]</font>

Comments about recent posts:

I share Dave U.'s and Mike A.'s frustration with Bush et al. The Silents are still in control after all, so it seems. I agree with Bob B. that Bush's powerful speech on 9-18 was based on treating 9-11 as "Pearl Harbor" and confused the Crisis with the Catalyst. I think that was part of what seemed so unreal then -- that we could artificially be dropped into an all-out Crisis, without first having time as a nation to acclimatize to the 4T. We were (and still are) unprepared. I was proud of Bush (or his speechwriter) for being visionary, but it was too soon for such a speech to be translated into reality. As Bob says, this could be good, because it will stave off big Crisis events. But I will sure be disappointed if things continue as they are. The danger is still in our midst. The news is filled with "the U.S. struck Taliban strongholds" and "another Anthrax case", but no progress seems to accompany the news.

I think it's disgusting that Rumsfeld would publicly lower expectations of our ability to keep promises. And that the media would continue air the Taliban's arguments in the conflict. I don't CARE what the Taliban says, it doesn't MATTER what they say, we don't HAVE to listen to what they say, we are at WAR with them (at least we should be, if Bush would declare it). It is THEY who are supposed to listen to US, not the other way around.

And then there are those, who like Richard Gere and sv81, use mindless mantras which do little but expose the fraud of "United We Stand" for what it is: "Divided We Fall". "Increase the Peace", or to quote Gere, "we need compassion and understanding", not military action. I don't understand what that means. Compassion for whom? Understanding for whom? What action SHOULD we take in the face of a terrorist war on our nation's citizens? None? How is THIS being a prophet, when there is no message? The only message I hear is "do nothing", "love those who are plotting to end the lives of more of your fellow citizens". This is why he was booed loudly the other night -- because he has nothing to say, in effect, except that we are wrong to take action.

On 2001-10-25 15:48, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:





After the third day of bombing we were told that we were "running out of targets". So what exactly have we been bombing since? Do you get the idea that *nobody* has a clue what we are doing?

I'm beginning to think Brian Rush had it right all along: "Bush is no GC, the thought is to puke for".

The GC's of the previous cycles didn't have a clue what they were doing at first, either. I don't know if Bush is 'the' Gray Champion, but at this point in the previous cycles Roosevelt and Lincoln had no better grasp of their situations than Bush does now.

And no, I don't think any of the current major players really knows where this thing is going, or how to get there. Nobody knows, not Bush, not bin Laden, nobody.

Possible example of this:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20...deas_dc_1.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-10-25 20:12 ]</font>

On 2001-10-25 12:33, Justin '77 wrote:

On 2001-10-25 11:52, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
We, the voters of the United States of America, have allowed our government to become what it has become. We are collectively as guilty as a people can be. We are responsible for the acts of our government, as are all people living in a democracy.

Amen. That's why I don't vote.

Failure to vote is itself a vote.

Quoted for non-commercial purposes from the Washington Times (Oct 25 2001):

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle yesterday distanced himself from comments by the top Democratic foreign policy lawmaker that America risks looking like a "high-tech bully" in the bombing of Afghanistan.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, departed from the post-Sept. 11 spirit of bipartisanship in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan group of foreign policy experts.

On Monday, Mr. Biden told the group in New York he did not know how much longer President Bush's "honeymoon" or "unquestioning period of unabashed support for the president's policy will continue."

Mr. Daschle would not address Mr. Biden's comments directly yesterday, but praised how the Bush administration is handling the military campaign.

"I don't know that I've come to any conclusions about how long the bombing should take place. I think the president is doing exactly the right thing," said Mr. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.

"I support [Mr. Bush?s] effort. I think it is important for us to do as much as possible from the air to avoid casualties on the ground. I think he's doing that, for good reason," Mr. Daschle said. "I think we over a period of time will be able to determine and calculate the degree to which this has been effective. But it's far too early to come to any conclusions."

Asked by The Washington Times yesterday if his comments were misconstrued or taken out of context, Mr. Biden would only say "the speech speaks for itself."

Throughout most of the speech and questioning period Mr. Biden praised the administration's efforts, going so far as to predict Mr. Bush will "go down as a great president."

"I think he's done well. But now we're going to get into the tough calls," Mr. Biden told the CFR.

But he said a long U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan "plays into every stereotypical criticism of us [that] we're this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do, and it builds the case for those who want to make the case against us that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents, which is not the truth."

The White House seemed unfazed by Mr. Biden's comments and vowed to continue the bombing campaign until the mission is completed.

"The president is committed to winning the war against terrorism and our military will conduct this campaign to make sure the terrorists are brought to justice," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "The American people are united."
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert called Mr. Biden's comments "completely irresponsible."
"The last thing our country needs right now is Senator Joe Biden calling our armed forces 'a high-tech bully,'" said Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican.

"The American people expect their representatives and senators to support these operations and to support our men and women in uniform," Mr. Hastert said

"After losing close to 5,000 fellow citizens to terrorist attacks over the last month and a half, the American people want us to bring these terrorists to justice. They do not want comments that may bring comfort to our enemies," Mr. Hastert said.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called Mr. Biden's comments "outrageous and negligent."
Using high-tech bombs and specifically targeted ground assaults has spared the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Mr. Davis said.

"I believe we should take full advantage of every piece of the technology at our disposal in order to bring the al Qaeda network to justice, and it is irresponsible for the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to suggest to the world that our bipartisan resolve is waning," Mr. Davis said.

"The Taliban strategy has consistently been to hide out and outwait the U.S. and our allies, hoping that our resolve will dissipate and that partisan squabbling will lead America to fold up its tent," Mr. Davis said.

With Mr. Bush's public approval rating going as high as 90 percent since the attack, Republicans and Democrats have presented a mostly unified and nonpartisan front in support of the administration's military and domestic actions to fight terrorism.
But Mr. Biden also has been exerting his foreign policy expertise behind the scenes.

During a meeting last week Mr. Biden recommended to Mr. Bush that former President Bill Clinton be appointed as a special envoy to the Middle East.

The suggestion reportedly drew an incredulous response from others at the meeting.

Our unity is less than it has recently appeared.

Wow, what fertile minds we have watching the posts. We have CBAILEY, that applauds my contention that as a profit generation voice, our generation may rock the world.

STONEWALL PATTON on the other hand believes is a do-nothing pacifist voice.

We all see that Bush isn't leading either our current expectations, or the war effort itself; and finally, VIRGIL K. SAARI quotes this ancient writer, Ibn Khaldun. I read him and some of his material bears repeating:

Today's mixing of peoples, cultures and ideologies, whether resulting from world trade and immigration or improved
communication and social fission, is moving our world closer in important ways to the one Ibn Khaldun knew than the more
cohesive one with which we have long been familiar. Such changes will affect our politics profoundly in ways his writings can
illuminate for us.

"If there are no strong overarching loyalties, mixing of populations causes men to lose the social cohesion required for the
self-rule of a free society and to withdraw into small groups in which they can maintain a coherent and predictable way of life."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2002-01-01 00:03 ]</font>

[HopefulCynic] And no, I don't think any of the current major players really knows where this thing is going, or how to get there. Nobody knows, not Bush, not bin Laden, nobody.

[Mike A] What Bush faces is a nontrivial war, plain and simple. He desperately wishes to avoid a real war and instead wants to wage "war lite". The link you suggested was the military asking for ideas on how to wage war lite.

What Bush would like is for Bin Laden to be killed by one of our bombs or raids. Or maybe if we bomb Afghanistan enough the Taliban will "cough him up". Of course Bush realizes that neither of these things is likely, but they *could* happen. Bombing worked in Bosnia and it took much longer than we've been at it so far in Afghanistan, so bombing is going to continue. Not only that but the Pentagon is advertising for clever ideas on other things we can do short of waging war.

The reality of the situation is that US corporate elites will no longer be able to "do business" with the elites of poor countries and expect the US government to be able take care of any "side effects" without serious political consequences.

The core of the problem stems from the two basic mechanisms of economic growth. Think of the economy as a tree. To make the tree bigger one can either add more leaves to the branches or more branches (to which leaves can be added later). New branches are formed by "basic" innovations that lead to entirely new industries (ex radio, pre-war autos). The development of a branch requires the development of markets for the "new thing". It is hard to do and very risky. It is something best left to entrepreneurs who have little to lose and everything to gain. The growth of "leaves" refers to refining the basic innovation, reducing its cost through returns to scale and incremental improvements (e.g. automatic transmission for cars, TV as "radio with pictures") and extending it the entire population. This mode is easier to do for established businesses since the results are more predictable and one does not have to take as much risk.

Original growth of leaves on a fresh branch is very profitable and has low risk, for there is still vast untapped market for the rapidly-improving basic innovation. Growth is rapid and smooth while the demand is gradually met and the product refined to a "mature" product (this happy situation was the norm in the late 1940's into the early 1970's as leaves were grown on the branches laid in the 1880's-1920's entrepreneurial period). Later as the markets become saturated real growth increasingly required incremental improvements to the cost of production and growth slowed. The Japanese are particularly good at incremental production improvements and so the 1970's and 1980's saw one "old economy" industry after another being "taken over" by the Japanese.

The "solution" to declining returns from "leaf-type" growth is to move into "branch type" growth. Predictably, at the *same* time that the Japanese were starting to do "leaves" better than American companies, Bill Gates and others like him were busily doing "branches". The 1990's boom (like the 1920's) was driven by the "branch-making" activities of entrepreneurs, and not on "leaf-making", which the post-war boom was based on.

After the end of the cold war, US "old economy" executives found a way to make leaf-making more profitable and so maintain their relevance and power. By shipping high paid US manufacturing jobs overseas (globalization) US companies could obtain lower costs. Essentially what corporate management was doing was transfer wealth from US workers to their companies (and themselves). Japanese businessmen have a cultural inhibition against globalization and so cannot compete as well with Americans in this regard. The 1990's saw a renewal of American business vitality in the "old economy" arena as well as the "new economy".

In the old-economy oil business, access to a reliable, inexpensive, supply is all-important. American businesses, through their influence on the US government, can use the military power of the US (which is largely paid for by others) to ensure a more reliable flow of oil than would otherwise exist and so have an operational advantage over what they would have in an unfettered marketplace. Old economy businesses also rely on the post-war "pax Americana" to create the political stability that makes globalization work. (In the past developed-world businessmen preferred to invest at home or in their own nation?s colonies, where their investments would be safe from confiscation). New economy businesses benefit from globalization too, but it is even more critical for their old economy brethren.

Government-conferred stability in foreign oil-producing operations allows US energy corporations to continue doing "leaves" (continuation of the "oil paradigm") instead of "branches" (alternative energy). Leaders of US energy conglomerates fear that once "branches" start in the energy businesses, they will be taken to the cleaners by entrepreneurs just as were the "old economy" technology giants.

But this pax-Americana has now brought upon us the consequence of large-scale terrorist attacks on continental US targets. It cannot be ignored by any administration, and requires some sort of response. Thus, Bush launched the ill-defined War on Terrorism rather than declare "old-fashioned" war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden bet that the Americans would not wage war, and so far he seems to be right. In contrast the Japanese, making the same bet in 1941, were wrong.

The fact that *both* the president and vice president are old-economy oil men and the Republican party is filled with executives of old-economy firms that need globalization to maintain their positions as important people, there is enormous pressure to "keep doing things the old way". And THAT means "war lite" is all the administration can tolerate in their War on Terrorism.

A real declared war will almost certainly disrupt the economic landscape and increase the risk that the future "big players" in the energy business (and in the larger business and government world) won't be the current ones.

Hence President Bush would sooner cut off his own hand than wage war. The Gray Champion will *have* to do things that attack the old paradigm. That is, he will have to become an enemy of the old ruling class (the "old-economy" mass-market business elite) just as Lincoln did with the "old-economy" plantation elite and FDR did with the "old-economy" industrial business elite. Washington can be thought of as attacking the "old-polity" British imperialist elite.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2001-10-26 08:48 ]</font>

Amen. That's why I don't vote.

Do you not vote in order to skirt the issue of being responsible for your choices? I'm just curious.

I always vote, I tend to vote for the losers, but I do try very hard to vote. While I admit I have serious issues with many of the election processes in this country, I cannot sit by idly and say that I didn't at least try to get "my way" when it comes to our government.

I am, however, an NPA when it comes to political parties. I want to adhere to what I beleive is best for *me*, not what I beleive is best for a party's well-being.

Jen

Ordinary working stiffs, firefighters, police and emergency workers, and now postal workers (all members of that much maligned group "government employees") have been on the front lines of this war at home and have taken casualities. Overseas, the children of the poor and working class stand ready to do their duty. They have and will be expected to make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary.

One thing that you've missed, and it was pointed out by a friend of mine (IOW I missed it too), is that most of the 6000 people dead from the Setp 11th attacks were, by all means, affluent people.

This doesn't by any means lessen the impact of this upon the "working Joe," but for the most part, this is one of the few times in history where the affluent have taken a major hit in terms of loss of life.

Isn't it the laid off workers that need help?

Speaking as someone whose job is hanging by a thread right now, I can assure you that I'm not out stimulating the economy much. I admit I'm doing this because I have about a 70 percent chance of being unemployed at the end of next month.

I would sincerely hope that those of you that do have some sense of financial security would be out spending, because it means that jobs like mine won't get cut. But I say this only because I can't think of any other way to get the economy back on track. Most everyone I know has been laid off, or is under the threat of getting laid off right now, and other than Ramen noddles, we're not doing a lot of spending right now. :smile:

I'm beginning to think Brian Rush had it right all along: "Bush is no GC, the thought is to puke for".

I agree. It seems that in reguards to the future of this thing, the government seems to be flipping around like a fish out of water. I can almost picture meetings where people are standing up and declaring "hey maybe this will work!"

Sadly, if if it doesn't get better soon, it's going to get a whole lot worse. And for the most part, I don't see it getting better...

Jen

I don't CARE what the Taliban says, it doesn't MATTER what they say, we don't HAVE to listen to what they say, we are at WAR with them (at least we should be, if Bush would declare it). It is THEY who are supposed to listen to US, not the other way around.

Like father like son in this case. Bush Sr. made the same mistake with Iraq.

Speaking of, anyone else find this link between Iraq and the Anthrax letters completely unsuprising?

If Bush Sr. had had the gumption to finish off the Gulf War, I don't think we'd have these problems today.

The only message I hear is "do nothing", "love those who are plotting to end the lives of more of your fellow citizens". This is why he was booed loudly the other night -- because he has nothing to say, in effect, except that we are wrong to take action.

Lets bring the Taliban some cookies!

Good post, BTW.

Jen

5 ways to keep America safe

http://www.msnbc.com/news/SAFEAMERICA_Front.asp

Since Sep. 11
and the emergence of anthrax threats, many Americans are wondering what can be done to safeguard the United States. In a series of special reports Friday, NBC News reporters look at 5 Ways to Make America Safe. They include vaccinations against anthrax and smallpox, improved airline security, tightening our borders, protecting our water supplies and power plants, and making it more difficult to obtain false identities.

Status, 10/26/01, nearly 2 months... a pittance of time..

1. 
   A desire to describe the problem in maximalist rather than minimalist terms--in ways that would sweep other problems (fiscal, economic, cultural, moral) into this one big problem.
   <ul>
2. No
3. Caveat: many economic woes now being blamed on terrorist attack

[*]
A movement toward grand solutions that would permanently solve the problem rather than solutions that could be interpreted as delay or diversion.
<ul>[*]No[/list]
[*]
An impulse toward total reaction (total war, destruction of enemies) as opposed to calibrated action (legalistic enforcement of rules, "justice" for enemies).
<ul>[*]No[/list]
[*]
A distinct shift, in public life, away from individualism (civil liberties) and toward community purpose (survival).
<ul>[*]No[/list]
[*]
The end of the petty arguments of the Third Turning-the blue-zone / red-zone "culture wars," rooted in old Second Turning debates--that may begin to feel ridiculous, even dangerous.
<ul>[*]Yes[/list]
[*]
The increasing irrelevance of the celebrity culture. Will anyone care about Michael Jackson, or Michael Jordan, in the familiar Third Turning way? Recall how, once the last Fourth Turning started, the flagpole sitters came down, less because they themselves felt any great new purpose than because the public just stopped paying attention.
<ul>[*]Yes[/list]
[*]
A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.
<ul>[*]No[/list]
[*]
A movement by each generation toward a new archetypal role, in keeping with the phase of life it is about to enter. Are Boomers overcoming narcissism? Gen Xers circling the wagons around family? Are Millennials emerging as young heroes. (Keep an eye on media treatment of Millennials. Will the criticism give way? Will the pop culture change? Will youth fare be less gross, less violent?)
<ul>[*]Yes, beginning stages[/list]
[*]
A new willingness to pay a human price to achieve national purpose. Will military plans resemble Kosovo-or Iwo Jima? Will we try to rely on exquisite technologies to reduce the risk of military deaths, or will we rely on human courage to reduce the risk of technological failure?
<ul>[*]Yes, beginning stages[/list]
[*]
A shattering of consumer confidence. Is the economy still expected to veer up and avoid a recession, or will we soon see newly dark forecasts about a likely recession-or worse. What will happen to the Dow and Nasdaq? With every major global economy sinking even before Tuesday, will there be talk of a "perfect storm." As for the direct impact of the event itself, how should we assess the damage to the WTC towers, to the travel and entertainment industries, to America's global reputation for inviolability, and to the immediate household lurch toward consumer caution and liquidity? The longer the up-cycle-and it's been a long one-the graver the risk that the trip down could be vertiginous. [/list]
<ul>[*]Yes, beginning stages[/list]

On 2001-10-26 09:30, JustinLong wrote:
Status, 10/26/01, nearly 2 months... a pittance of time..[*]
A sharp negative turn in America's perception of immigration (and, in time, of potential immigrants' perceptions of America)--and of "globalism" more generally. Recall the old Wired magazine forecast that "open:good; closed:bad" was a permanent attitude. Will our society now move toward "closed:good; open:bad"? Will we see a move toward nativism in our culture and treatment of foreign-born Americans, and toward a sort of do-it-elsewhere-but-not-here isolationism in foreign policy? What will "Globalism"mean now? Will people begin fearing it, not merely as a possible threat to jobs, but for how it might make fanatics out of people halfway around the world? The nativist right could easily join the anachist (anti-IMF) left on this one.
<ul>[*]No[/list]

Justin, I would qualify the immigration issue a bit. Back in August, it really looked like Bush was going to sign-off on a large-scale amnesty of illegal aliens -- turn them into Legal Permanent Residents. Such talk is dead in the water. Instead, those who want to restrict immigration and tighten our boarders are in the ascendency.

People still want to eat Thai food and most of us are sympathetic to Muslim immigrants and condemn violence against them. However, many are more willing to condone "racial profiling" (flying while brown) in the name of national security. People also want the government to keep better track of who comes into the country, either as visitors or immigrants, and secure our borders better.

Here is a very good column by former Congressman John LeBoutillier (R-NY) where he ties together a number of elements discussed here. In particular he details how the CIA is going out of its way to keep the heat off Iraq and Saddam (perhaps so that access to those oil and poppy fields by the administration and its masters remains unobstructed). But more significantly, he shows how the CIA is deliberately burying any evidence that Iraq is in any way tied to the biological agents so as to place the blame specifically on domestic terrorists, i.e. militia and "ultra-right wing" types. In other words, they are trying to turn us back to this cycle's Palmer Raids (Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC) per Mike A.'s and Marc Lamb's discussion. Perhaps they have given up on fomenting the 4T to boost Junior's popularity and are determined to return to the 3T to salvage their interests?

(For info and education purposes only)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/190743.shtml

Cooking the Books?
John LeBoutillier
Thursday, Oct. 25, 2001

The United States is in trouble. Real trouble.

Not just because we are under attack but because we are relying on an 'Intelligence Monopoly' that is out of control - and perhaps incompetent, too.

Let me explain.

Our genius Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances to prevent any one man - or any one agency or department or branch of government - from becoming corrupt. Under their system, each and every post in our federal system has a 'check' and a 'balance.'

Congress 'checks' the Executive. The Judicial 'checks' the Executive. The Executive appoints the Judicial - and Congress confirms it.

A wonderful system - except for the mutating of our most secret 'branch' of government: our intel community, specifically the CIA.

The CIA has become a government unto itself - and, as such, is a threat to our very system and to our liberties. I know this is not fashionable to say these days, but we have to face facts:

1) They did a horrible job of predicting/preventing Sept. 11.

2) They have lashed out at Congress - the members of which are elected directly by the people - and tried to limit what information is shared with the 'people's representatives.' True, some congressmen are jerks and reveal top secret information. But CIA then uses that breach to justify keeping everyone in the dark.

3) They were just given an extra $1 billion by the president for the hunt for Osama bin Laden. And yet now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells USA Today that we "may never find Osama bin Laden." What, then, are we paying all that money to the CIA for?


4) Iraq: clearly the CIA - through leaks from "government intelligence sources" - is trying to ignore/dismiss Iraq's role in both Sept. 11 and the ongoing anthrax attacks. The CIA is deliberately trying to steer American public opinion away from Saddam. In other words, instead of a straight assessment of gathered facts, they are 'cooking the books' to result in a pre-ordained conclusion.

For example, the CIA very clearly leaked to Murray Weiss of the New York Post on Thursday's front page that "ultra right wing organizations have become the key focus of the massive federal investigation into the murderous anthrax attacks."

Furthermore, the CIA has carefully leaked that of the three nations that manufacture this particular form of anthrax - Russia, Iraq and the United States - the federal authorities have "ruled out Russia and Iraq as sources of this strain of anthrax."

Oh, really?

Why are they ignoring the fact that Israeli intelligence now knows that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta picked up Iraqi-produced anthrax spores in Prague when he met with Iraqi intelligence official Achmed Al'ami on June 2, 2000, in a Prague caf??

And that Atta was frequently known to have tried to learn all about cropdusting planes in Florida?

And that Atta once went to a Florida pharmacy for treatment of 'damaged hands'? Perhaps a case of cutaneous anthrax from handling the master supply he brought over with him from the Iraqis?

Is it because the CIA wants to give Bush/Powell/Cheney only the intelligence they want to hear?

5) The Pentagon's announcement that the Taliban seems to be weathering the bombing better than expected - and the fact that the Northern Alliance has never attacked Kabul - can only mean that the CIA's original assessment of the difficulty of this war was way, way off.

If our intelligence is bad, then all subsequent actions based on that information will be less than optimal. And this is unacceptable.

Until we remove the 'aura' surrounding this bloated, overrated, cocky - and incompetent - Intelligence Monopoly, the CIA, we are going to continue to suffer a string of devastating defeats.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-10-26 10:47 ]</font>

Mike Alexander, Is John McCain your GC?

This is his opinion on how we should wage war.

http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/...6326080240.htm

There Is No Substitute for Victory




By John McCain, a Republican senator from
Arizona.

War is a miserable business. The lives of a
nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent
people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted,
economies are damaged. Strategic interests shielded
by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the
exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. However
heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the
cause, we should still shed a tear for all that will be
lost when war claims its wages from us. Shed a tear,
and then get on with the business of killing our
enemies as quickly as we can, and as ruthlessly as we must.

Complete Destruction

There is no avoiding the war we are in today, any more than we could have avoided world war after
our fleet was bombed at Pearl Harbor. America is under attack by a depraved, malevolent force that
opposes our every interest and hates every value we hold dear. We must expect and prepare for our
enemies to strike us again. As in all wars we must endure before we prevail. Only the complete
destruction of international terrorism and the regimes that sponsor it will spare America from further
attack.

As the president has explained, this war will have many components. But American military power is
the most important part. When it is brought to bear in great and terrible measure it is a thing to strike
terror in the heart of anyone who opposes it. No mountain is big enough, no cave deep enough to hide
from the full fury of American power. Yet our enemies harbor doubts that America will use force with a
firm determination to achieve our ends, that we will use all force necessary to achieve unconditional
victory. We need to persuade them otherwise, immediately.

Fighting this war in half measures will only give our enemies
time and opportunity to strike us again. We must change
permanently the mindset of terrorists and those parts of
Islamic populations who believe the terrorist conceit that they
will prevail because America has not the stomach to wage a
relentless, long-term, and, at times, ruthless war to destroy
them. We cannot fight this war from the air alone. We cannot
fight it without casualties. And we cannot fight it without
risking unintended damage to humanitarian and political
interests.

The United States is not waging war against a religion or a race. For too long our enemies have been
allowed, even by America's purported friends in the region, to sow their hatred of us throughout the
Islamic world. Should the conduct of our war incidentally help inflame that hatred it may indeed
increase the threat to regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere whose stability is a strategic interest of
the United States. But that threat will be infinitely greater should we fail in our mission or delay victory
by one day longer than necessary.

We must reject appeals to suspend military operations to accommodate the religious practices of
affected populations. Fighting during Ramadan is no more a war against Islam than fighting during
Hanukkah and Christmas is a war against Judaism and Christianity. Nor should we agree to a
cease-fire to feed starving Afghans. It wouldn't work anyway. The Taliban have no interest in feeding
their people. Their only aim is to prevent our victory, and only our victory will alleviate the suffering of
innocent Afghans.

It is clear that to destroy bin Laden and his associates we will first need to destroy the regime that
protects them. To achieve that end, we cannot allow the Taliban safe refuge among the civilian
population. We must destroy them, wherever they hide. That will surely increase the terrible danger
facing noncombatants, a regrettable but necessary fact of war. But it will also shorten the days they
must suffer war's cruel reality.

Nor should we delay or shrink from helping those Afghans committed to the destruction of our enemies.
The Northern Alliance wants to destroy the Taliban regime. So do we. That is reason enough to give
them all the air support and other assistance they need to take Mazar-e-Sharif, Kabul and any other
Taliban territory they can conquer just as quickly as possible.

We have been sparing in the amount of ordnance we have dropped on the Taliban front lines. We have
not yet employed B-2s and B-52s, the most destructive weapons in our airborne arsenal, against them.
We shouldn't fight this war in increments. The Taliban and their terrorist allies are indeed tough fighters.
They'll need to experience a more impressive display of American firepower before they contemplate
surrender.

Munitions dumps and air defenses are necessary targets. But so are the Taliban soldiers. Those soldiers
and their commanders will not become dispirited, abandon the regime, and become intelligence assets
in our war against terrorists until a great many of their comrades have been killed by the United States
armed forces.

The president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has been our good and steadfast ally in a war that
would, if unsuccessful, threaten his regime. Pakistan has a legitimate interest in who rules its chronically
unstable eastern neighbor. But al Qaeda and time, not the violence of our campaign, nor the ups and
downs of Afghan politics, are the greater threats to our friend's interests and to ours. Keeping our
priorities straight will serve all our interests best.

We have a great many interests in the world that were, until September 11, of the first order of
magnitude, and the central occupation of American statesmen. No longer. Now we have only one
primary occupation, and that is to vanquish international terrorism. Not reduce it. Not change its
operations. Not temporarily subdue it. But vanquish it. It is a difficult and demanding task that will affect
many other important interests, favorably in the long run, but in short run, in some instances,
unfavorably. That cannot be helped, and we should not make victory on the battlefield more difficult to
achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.

Destroy Our Enemies

We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties
it occasions. They are to blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical
problems confronting our friends and us. We can help repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must
destroy the people who started it.

Veterans of war live forever with the memory of war's merciless nature, of the awful things that had to
be done by their hand. They did not recoil from their terrible duty because they knew that the freedom
they defended was worth dying and killing for.

War is a miserable business. Let's get on with it.

On 2001-10-26 15:06, Crispy '59 wrote:
Mike Alexander, Is John McCain your GC?


War is a miserable business. Let's get on with it.

If I were a supporter of the Senator from AZ, I would be getting a bit worried.
Like Brutus, he seems to do more injury to his allies than his enemies. Who will be visited with misery this time 'round? This is not the tradtional stuff of Gray Championism. HTH