Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

The Boom generation, as a whole, has yet to show any potiental for generating effective leaders (though Gulliani may be a promising alternative for some).

Ahem....Al Gore....ahem....

Originally Posted by zilch

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Obama's gonna have to nuke somebody. so as to prove he's a really likable nomad.

Perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of the new generation of tactical nukes I described earlier. Since they are more suited for 4th generation warfare, I rather doubt the meme of a likeable nomad is the case. I , myself can think of scenerios where they are a valid choice.
The real interesting thing is that a number of 3rd turning decsions has made their use more likely due to stirring the pot and not getting off that damn oil. Next, if we're consiering Obama, then yeah, sure, I'd agree that the first wave of X and in particular cuspers are prime suspects.

I would assume it'll be a few places in flyover country U.S.A. that'll witness his charm. Or maybe Texas. That would make Obama a bunch of friends in NYC, France and all over the world.

Sure, it could come to that. Texas is a border state and the possibility of say Al Quada setting up a cell here exists. Thusly, something along the lines of a tantalum salted bomb may come to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing : Now this is weird. Thus far, 1962 sticks out like a sore thumb as to the number of above ground nuke tests. I wonder if I'll be setting those new fangled radiation scanners at airports.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Gulliani might be respected as championish around the country, but in New York he is considered something of a polarizing divider.

Funny you should mention this, given today's piece in Salon -

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...udy/print.html

How to Swift-boat Rudy Giuliani
Forget his messy personal life. Democrats should go right at his supposed strength -- 9/11 -- the same way Republicans attacked John Kerry's Vietnam service.
By Robert Polner

Here's just a little from this stew -

And on Sept. 11, the faulty radios were just part of a tableau of dysfunction. Fire Department officials couldn't communicate with police officials, whose helicopters had bird's-eye views of the unstable towers poised to fall. Police and fire communications weren't linked, and no one bothered to set up a unified police-fire command post on the street near the towers, which is Emergency Management 101. Meanwhile, the city's emergency dispatchers fielded a flood of 911 calls from panicked World Trade Center workers and gave out the wrong advice, or just threw up their hands -- "Do whatever you have to do, Sir."

Where was Rudy? He didn't know what to do or where to go because he had put his emergency command center in exactly the wrong place. Against the advice of experts, he had built the emergency command center in the area most likely to be attacked, an area that had already been attacked, the 23rd floor of No. 7 World Trade Center. It was off-limits on the only day it was ever needed.

Giuliani's supporters believe it would be impossible to undermine the ingrained perception of their candidate as a national icon, Rudy the Rock. But imagine what a talented and aggressive Democratic media consultant could do with Giuliani's real 9/11 record. Imagine Rosaleen Tallon and a Greek chorus of angry, bereaved New Yorkers in a spate of heart-tugging commercials. The ads could include not only the family members of men and women killed on 9/11, but also hard hats sickened by prolonged exposure to the toxic ground zero air that Giuliani declared safe to inhale within days of the attack. And the chorus could include the mayor's downtown constituents, who were left to rid their homes of chemical dust without city assistance, risking their own well-being. The New York City government now estimates that 43,000 people have significant 9/11-related health problems. Many, no doubt, would gladly go on camera.

Giuliani's vulnerability can be detected, in part, in his shifting accounts of his actions. He has said, for example, that technology for police-fire interoperability didn't exist at the time the planes slammed into the towers. A fawning 9/11 Commission swallowed that line, but the U.S. Conference of Mayors found shortly before Giuliani's testimony to the commission that of 192 cities it evaluated, three-quarters had radios interoperable across police and fire departments.

Giuliani has also said that firefighters remained in doomed towers because they, as a breed, are wired to their bones and sinews to stand their ground. But firefighters are also part of a quasi-military chain of command and are wired to obey orders during a crisis -- if they can hear them. Tellingly, Giuliani's Republican successor, Michael Bloomberg, who took office in January 2002, had little difficulty outfitting the FDNY with reliable radios, which they now carry with them into harm's way.

"He tells filthy lies, shamelessly parlaying his failures into a multinational empire and national campaign," said Sally Regenhard, the mother of a fallen firefighter. He cut and ran, she says. "All the heroes of 9/11 are dead or wounded, spiritually, emotionally or physically."

"He has alienated pretty much everybody in the 8,000-member fire department -- by and large, we all resent him," said New York City Fire Capt. Michael Gala, citing the city's response on 9/11, the very day upon which Giuliani's presidential hopes will rise or fall. "We don't forget. That's the big thing -- we don't forget."

Come 2008, will Democrats?

'08 is going to be a whole lot of disgusting fun, no?

Originally Posted by salsabob

'08 is going to be a whole lot of disgusting fun, no?

Disgusting fun is no fun at all. I see 50 sides of the same coin. Just no whackjobs, please.

Originally Posted by zilch

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. Obama's gonna have to nuke somebody. so as to prove he's a really likable nomad.

You MAY have this partially right. It may likely be a liberal or progressive that pushes-the-button (or something equivalent to it) but it won't be about making friends.

As I have presented to you on more that one occasion, there is the phenomenon of the "indignant liberal(or, progressive) (IL) as observed in Pentagon nuclear war-game table exercises. When the IL's world belief of mankind's inherent rationality and goodness is shattered by evil or events, the resulting pure and absolute indignation leads the IL to be the first to push-the-button. The conservatives in the room, with their basic belief in mankind's inherent badness, are barely phased and certainly not surprised by the evil or events, they experience no gut indignation.

It is difficult to point to the early years of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln or FDR and see unmitigated hawkish beliefs or behaviors. However, it is rather easy to suggest their latter and absolute gut indignations from the challenges to their world beliefs in man's nature posed by colonialism/monarchy, slavery and fascism of their days.

But as important as their indignation, may be the willingness of the country to follow ILs. Somewhat like the last 2T's 'only-Nixon-could-go-to-China,' perhaps only in a true 4T can a IL lead an entire unified country into battle. Certainly in the last three 4Ts there was considerable resistance to taking on each of those eras' evils, but somehow the ILs of those days did so.

It is unlikely that GWB or a similar successor would be able to gain the trust of today's Left or even most independents to support a crisis war. On the other hand, a potential IL like Obama or Hillary will not have to convince the Right to go to battle; rather, they will, in fact, be constantly taken to task by the Right for not being tough enough. They will still have to convince the Left and the moderates, but they at least won't be doing it from deep deep down in a well of distrust dug by Bush and the Right.

With the likely handover of power to the liberals in '08, the perfect 4T storm approaches. All it will take is the appropriate indignation.

... I was trying to be funny. Sheesh, if being liked like Ike is some sort seasonal cycle thing, then why was Truman, Nixon and LBJ so unlikable? Well, one thing is for sure, whoever might be "liked" after a fourth turning it's more than likely due to the fact that he/she/it killed most every one of the folks who didn't like 'em!

Gee whiz, I come to this forum for my daily chuckle, and am never disappointed with my visit.

For those who support the existence of Generation Jones, perhaps Obama is simply a "Practical Idealist."

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...2&postcount=11

This is why Pontell describes Generation Jones as ''practical idealists.''

''Where the Boomers naively tried to change the system and the Xers in a sense walked away from the system, my generation used the system to get what we wanted. It's like the boomers never realized they were playing the game, the Xers folded their cards, and my generation was wise to the game but said deal the cards anyway.''

If, indeed, there is a Generation Jones, and if it's really different, so what? What's th e effect culturally and politically?

It could be significant if demographers, and politicians, recognize it. Maybe this is the next bloc of voters to shape the nation's agenda in years ahead.

While idealistic Baby Boomers are concerned with issues like ''family values'' and whether to put the Ten Commandments on school walls, says Pontell, Jonesers are focused on practical solutions.

''They don't care so much about the Ten Commandments. Ask them what they see as a solution to school violence, and they'll cite flex time that gives them more time with their kids. Jonesers are very pressed for time during arguably the busiest era this country has ever had.''

Originally Posted by salsabob

You MAY have this partially right. It may likely be a liberal or progressive that pushes-the-button (or something equivalent to it) but it won't be about making friends.

As I have presented to you on more that one occasion, there is the phenomenon of the "indignant liberal(or, progressive) (IL) as observed in Pentagon nuclear war-game table exercises. When the IL's world belief of mankind's inherent rationality and goodness is shattered by evil or events, the resulting pure and absolute indignation leads the IL to be the first to push-the-button. The conservatives in the room, with their basic belief in mankind's inherent badness, are barely phased and certainly not surprised by the evil or events, they experience no gut indignation.

It is difficult to point to the early years of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln or FDR and see unmitigated hawkish beliefs or behaviors. However, it is rather easy to suggest their latter and absolute gut indignations from the challenges to their world beliefs in man's nature posed by colonialism/monarchy, slavery and fascism of their days.

But as important as their indignation, may be the willingness of the country to follow ILs. Somewhat like the last 2T's 'only-Nixon-could-go-to-China,' perhaps only in a true 4T can a IL lead an entire unified country into battle. Certainly in the last three 4Ts there was considerable resistance to taking on each of those eras' evils, but somehow the ILs of those days did so.

It is unlikely that GWB or a similar successor would be able to gain the trust of today's Left or even most independents to support a crisis war. On the other hand, a potential IL like Obama or Hillary will not have to convince the Right to go to battle; rather, they will, in fact, be constantly taken to task by the Right for not being tough enough. They will still have to convince the Left and the moderates, but they at least won't be doing it from deep deep down in a well of distrust dug by Bush and the Right.

With the likely handover of power to the liberals in '08, the perfect 4T storm approaches. All it will take is the appropriate indignation.

This is interesting. I've long been of the belief that if Al Gore had become President in '00, he would not have gone into Iraq. Rather, he'd have wiped the floor with Afghanistan... nuked or daisy-cuttered them right off the fu*king globe. He'd have then turned his sights on Pakistan, demanded that they hand over Bin Laden immediately or meet the same fate. Perhaps he'd have even gotten OBL for his effort.

This he would have done partially out of the same indignation felt by nearly all Americans after September 11, 2001 (remember, even our own uber-liberal Eric Meece was ready to "nuke 'em till they glow" back then). More importantly, Gore wouldn't have had the luxury of either nation-building in Afghanistan or constructive engagement with Pakistan... besieged as he'd have been by conservative attempts to paint him as "soft on terrorism".

All of which may very well have ignited World War III. In an ironic way, perhaps it's best that we ended up with Bush after all. While he's surely made a mess of things in Iraq, if W'd had a truly Fourth Turning reaction to The Events Of September 11th, as I believe Gore would have, he might have ignited a brief but devastating global Crisis along the lines of the American Civil War. The devastating part may yet happen, however at least enough time has been bought for pragmatic Xers to temper the Boomers' fateful lightning and terrible swift sword.

Road man, that's a great post. And a totally interesting perspective.

Originally Posted by zilch

if being liked like Ike is some sort seasonal cycle thing, then why was Truman, Nixon and LBJ so unlikable?

They liked Ike

The presidential year will soon be drawing near
The people soon will choose their fav'rite son
I wonder what they'll do in nineteen fifty-two
I wonder who they'll send to Washington

They like Ike
And Ike is good on a mike
They like Ike
-But Ike says he don't wanna

That makes Ike
The kind of feller they like
And what's more
They seem to think he's gonna

-But Harry won't get out
-They're in for plenty of fights
-Harry won't get out
-He's got squatter's rights

But there's Ike
And Ike is good on a mike
And they know
The votes that he can carry
-But don't forget there's Harry
But they like Ike

For nearly twenty years we've had the people's cheers
The Democrats continue to advance
Of course, they could arrange to make a sudden change
But none's around who seems to have a chance

Ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta
They like Ike
And Ike is good on a mike
They like Ike
-But Ike says he's not bidding

That makes Ike
The kind of feller they like
And what's more
They seem to think he's kidding

-But Harry won't consent
-They'll get a sock on the jaw
-Republican President?
-That's against the law

If it's Ike
Your Chief can go on a hike
And we boys
Will see he doesn't tarry
-Please don't do that to Harry!
But they like Ike

[3]
They won't take Saltonstall and Sasscer's chance is small
The same would go for Vandenburg and Taft
And Dewey's right in line with William Jennings Bryan
There isn't anyone that they can draft

Except for the fact that
They like Ike
And Ike is good on a mike
They like Ike
-But Ike says he won't take it

That makes Ike
The kind of feller they like
And what's more
They seem to think he'll make it

-But Harry's on the ground
-And should Republicans win
-When they come around
-He won't let them in

If it's Ike
Your Chief can get on his bike
And his things
A moving van will carry
-They can't do that to Harry!
But they like Ike

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

This is interesting. I've long been of the belief that if Al Gore had become President in '00, he would not have gone into Iraq. Rather, he'd have wiped the floor with Afghanistan... nuked or daisy-cuttered them right off the fu*king globe. He'd have then turned his sights on Pakistan, demanded that they hand over Bin Laden immediately or meet the same fate. Perhaps he'd have even gotten OBL for his effort.

Or a Gore administration would have been more alert to OBL in the first place and may have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening at all.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or a Gore administration would have been more alert to OBL in the first place and may have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening at all.

Good one, Kiff!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or a Gore administration would have been more alert to OBL in the first place and may have stopped the 9/11 attacks from happening at all.

And if by chance he failed, Gore would've been the first one on the scene to catch the falling bodies while holding up the two towers until everyone was safely out.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Good one, Kiff!

I wasn't trying to be funny there, but whatever.

I don't think Gore would have nuked Afghanistan, either. That's not his style.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I wasn't trying to be funny there, but whatever.

I don't think Gore would have nuked Afghanistan, either. That's not his style.

Everything would be PERFECT if Al Gore were President.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Everything would be PERFECT if Al Gore were President.

Meow to you, too.

None of us knows with "100% certainty" what a Gore Adminstration would have done since January 20, 2001.

I would offer a few educated guesses:

We wouldn't have seen the dumbing-down of science (Intelligent Design taken seriously as "science," Bush's splitting of hairs on stem cell research, government officials altering scientific reports on global warming, to name just a few) under a Gore Administration.

We probably would not have had tax cuts that favored the wealthiest among us, or Big Oil writing energy legislation.

We would most likely not have Samuel Alito or John Roberts on the Supreme Court right now.

We would probably not have invaded Iraq, but continued the containment policies of the Clinton Administration.

I'll invite others to add to these speculations as they like, as I am a bit short of time.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Meow to you, too.

None of us knows with "100% certainty" what a Gore Adminstration would have done since January 20, 2001.

I would offer a few educated guesses:

We wouldn't have seen the dumbing-down of science (Intelligent Design taken seriously as "science," Bush's splitting of hairs on stem cell research, government officials altering scientific reports on global warming, to name just a few) under a Gore Administration.

We probably would not have had tax cuts that favored the wealthiest among us, or Big Oil writing energy legislation.

We would most likely not have Samuel Alito or John Roberts on the Supreme Court right now.

We would probably not have invaded Iraq, but continued the containment policies of the Clinton Administration.

I'll invite others to add to these speculations as they like, as I am a bit short of time.

Arctic explorerette, Ms. A. Bancroft and her Norwegian tentmate would have been successful in their expedition due to warmer temperatures found in a Gore Administration. The cold that drove them home (due to Global Warmth) would have been much lessened as Mr. Gore's home could be allowed to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer while he dined in the White House & Camp David. The ladies on ice would not have frozen their toes in a warmer weather Arctic because of the cooler environment in a Gore regime.

Also, Ms. Spear's pudendum and skull would not have been on display during the Gore years. And, Ms. Smith would still be with us, and she would be searching the Forbe's lists for a suitor.

Originally Posted by salsabob

You MAY have this partially right. It may likely be a liberal or progressive that pushes-the-button (or something equivalent to it) but it won't be about making friends.

As I have presented to you on more that one occasion, there is the phenomenon of the "indignant liberal(or, progressive) (IL) as observed in Pentagon nuclear war-game table exercises. When the IL's world belief of mankind's inherent rationality and goodness is shattered by evil or events, the resulting pure and absolute indignation leads the IL to be the first to push-the-button. The conservatives in the room, with their basic belief in mankind's inherent badness, are barely phased and certainly not surprised by the evil or events, they experience no gut indignation.

Effective politicians are two-faced. They must express hope yet prepare for the worst. FDR might have hoped that by cutting off oil shipments to militarist Japan that he would force the Japanese militarists to seek peace. Had FDR succeeded he would have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack and the Bataan Death March. With Japan checked he might have given unexpected aid to Britain by allowing the UK to draw upon its military resources in Asia for use where they would be more valuable -- like the Russian Front. FDR rightly thought of militarist Japan as a lesser Satan and nazi Germany as the Great Satan... What alternative did FDR have? Selling even more petroleum to Japan that might have been hoarded for other attacks?

Optimism on the surface and pessimism underneath -- that is at times the mark of the effective politician.

It is difficult to point to the early years of the Founding Fathers, Lincoln or FDR and see unmitigated hawkish beliefs or behaviors. However, it is rather easy to suggest their latter and absolute gut indignations from the challenges to their world beliefs in man's nature posed by colonialism/monarchy, slavery and fascism of their days.

Whatever optimism one may have had in humanity as a whole, George III, William Quantrill, and the fascists (now including al-Qaeda) betrayed it.

But as important as their indignation, may be the willingness of the country to follow ILs. Somewhat like the last 2T's 'only-Nixon-could-go-to-China,' perhaps only in a true 4T can a IL lead an entire unified country into battle. Certainly in the last three 4Ts there was considerable resistance to taking on each of those eras' evils, but somehow the ILs of those days did so.

The indignant liberal reminds me of some Jewish teenager who retorted some neo-nazi with this statement:

What have WE ever done which makes you think that we deserve to be beaten, robbed, enslaved, and killed?

It is unlikely that GWB or a similar successor would be able to gain the trust of today's Left or even most independents to support a crisis war. On the other hand, a potential IL like Obama or Hillary will not have to convince the Right to go to battle; rather, they will, in fact, be constantly taken to task by the Right for not being tough enough. They will still have to convince the Left and the moderates, but they at least won't be doing it from deep deep down in a well of distrust dug by Bush and the Right.

By lying to get America into an unjustifiable war, Dubya has created consternation among millions of Americans who recognize more danger in our megalomaniac leadership than in the likes of Saddam Hussein. Many liberals were snookered into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMDs... now they aren't. This isn't a left-right issue; it's an issue of right and wrong. After 9/11 almost all Americans wanted decisive action against any enemy complicit in the mass murder.

With the likely handover of power to the liberals in '08, the perfect 4T storm approaches. All it will take is the appropriate indignation.

In fact the Perfect Storm of the Depression/WWII Crisis didn't happen until about ten years into the Crisis. FDR gave the fascists every chance to change their ways... and the fascists chose to attack America.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

This is interesting. I've long been of the belief that if Al Gore had become President in '00, he would not have gone into Iraq. Rather, he'd have wiped the floor with Afghanistan... nuked or daisy-cuttered them right off the fu*king globe. He'd have then turned his sights on Pakistan, demanded that they hand over Bin Laden immediately or meet the same fate. Perhaps he'd have even gotten OBL for his effort.

This he would have done partially out of the same indignation felt by nearly all Americans after September 11, 2001 (remember, even our own uber-liberal Eric Meece was ready to "nuke 'em till they glow" back then). More importantly, Gore wouldn't have had the luxury of either nation-building in Afghanistan or constructive engagement with Pakistan... besieged as he'd have been by conservative attempts to paint him as "soft on terrorism".

All of which may very well have ignited World War III. In an ironic way, perhaps it's best that we ended up with Bush after all. While he's surely made a mess of things in Iraq, if W'd had a truly Fourth Turning reaction to The Events Of September 11th, as I believe Gore would have, he might have ignited a brief but devastating global Crisis along the lines of the American Civil War. The devastating part may yet happen, however at least enough time has been bought for pragmatic Xers to temper the Boomers' fateful lightning and terrible swift sword.

Another possible Gore scenario would have been to do exactly the same thing in Afghanistan, but just not do Iraq. Imagine where we would be today.

In the closing days of Tora Bora, we intercepted OBL radio transmissions apologizing to his men for what he had brought about. At the time, OBL was nearly completely repudiated in Jihad-world for his strategy of attacking the "far enemy" and bringing about the destruction of what al Qaeda believe was the only true Sharia Law nation in the world. He and his chief operatives were completely discredited; it really didn't matter if we 'missed' him and he was holed up somewhere. It was only a matter of time before some northern Pak tribe dropped the dime on him. He was finished.

Then came the Iraq fiasco. In OBL's own words, a Godsend for him and al Qaeda.

For a tremendously different outcome than where we find ourselves today, all Gore had to be was smart enough not to do Iraq. Or, if he believed something needed to change in Iraq, he could have followed the Intell Community's suggestion of changing those 'no-fly zones' to 'no-go zones' effectively confining Saddam and his army in central Iraq and cut off from the oil. How long would he have last? What kind of government apparatus might have quickly come in to replace him? Possible keeping the lid on the sectarian violence?

Maybe it would have even forestalled a full-bore 4T. We'll never know.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Effective politicians are two-faced. They must express hope yet prepare for the worst. FDR might have hoped that by cutting off oil shipments to militarist Japan that he would force the Japanese militarists to seek peace. Had FDR succeeded he would have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack and the Bataan Death March. With Japan checked he might have given unexpected aid to Britain by allowing the UK to draw upon its military resources in Asia for use where they would be more valuable -- like the Russian Front. FDR rightly thought of militarist Japan as a lesser Satan and nazi Germany as the Great Satan... What alternative did FDR have? Selling even more petroleum to Japan that might have been hoarded for other attacks?

Optimism on the surface and pessimism underneath -- that is at times the mark of the effective politician.




Whatever optimism one may have had in humanity as a whole, George III, William Quantrill, and the fascists (now including al-Qaeda) betrayed it.



The indignant liberal reminds me of some Jewish teenager who retorted some neo-nazi with this statement:

What have WE ever done which makes you think that we deserve to be beaten, robbed, enslaved, and killed?



By lying to get America into an unjustifiable war, Dubya has created consternation among millions of Americans who recognize more danger in our megalomaniac leadership than in the likes of Saddam Hussein. Many liberals were snookered into believing that Saddam Hussein had WMDs... now they aren't. This isn't a left-right issue; it's an issue of right and wrong. After 9/11 almost all Americans wanted decisive action against any enemy complicit in the mass murder.



In fact the Perfect Storm of the Depression/WWII Crisis didn't happen until about ten years into the Crisis. FDR gave the fascists every chance to change their ways... and the fascists chose to attack America.

Yes, the IL will bend over backwards, and it is not because of cowardness , its because of that basic world belief in the goodness and rationality of mankind. When that world belief is shattered, its as if a light switch goes from 'full off' to 'full on,' there ain't no in-betweens no-more.

And the other aspect is the ability to sustain an all-out, in-this-together at-war effort. Sure, after an event like 9/11, most our thirsty for blood, but how long can it be sustained when it begins to really bite with real impacts on everyone such as the lost of individual freedoms. It takes a hell of a lot of trust to do that. No one from the Right is going to sustain that for long from the Left, the opposite of a Leftee trying to sustain the Right's support is much less of a problem in a true 4T (the opposite is true in a 2T; can you imagine "only McGovern could go to China?").

You are right, this is not a "left-right issue," but only in the sense that it is not the usual 3T culture war bickering crap. Rather, it goes to the basic underlying philosophical differences in how the Left and Right presumes the fundamental make-up of mankind - the world can be a better place if we all better understand and work with each other versus the world is a dangerous place and we need to be cautious and on guard. This is not a value judgement -- some days, you need a wrench; other days, a hammer. It is what it is.

My scenario? We roll out of Iraq with the glass of respect (or humiliation) half full and half empty. We become very reluctant to interfere in the ME. However, the neoKhawarij are greatly heartened and embolden by events. They increasingly expand their 5GW across the region and perhaps even some regimes fall. The first ever REAL oil crisis occurs making the 70s gas lines seem like a walk in the park. World economies tank. China and India join us in desperation, not in partnership but as teetering-on-the-edge-of-violence competitors. Russia throws its oil-weight around but soon the global economic chaos makes them as desperate as anyone. Our IL tries hard to get everyone to the table to negotiate, including the neoKhawarij, for surely no one could want the chaos and starvation that is growing across the globe. The IL takes an incredible amount of heat from the Right and the Hawks for negotiating if not attempting to appease the neoKhawarij, but our IL keeps trying -- even after the Right takes control of Congress in 2010 in reaction to public's growing disdain for the IL wimpiness. Then the neoKhawarij shove the offered olive branch up the IL's ass in the form of several 9/11's. The IL and the Nation flips the 4T switch to 'full on.'

Originally Posted by zilch

And if by chance he failed, Gore would've been the first one on the scene to catch the falling bodies while holding up the two towers until everyone was safely out.

Times like these you remind me why I agitate to keep you around.

Originally Posted by salsabob

Yes, the IL will bend over backwards, and it is not because of cowardness , its because of that basic world belief in the goodness and rationality of mankind. When that world belief is shattered, its as if a light switch goes from 'full off' to 'full on,' there ain't no in-betweens no-more.

And the other aspect is the ability to sustain an all-out, in-this-together at-war effort. Sure, after an event like 9/11, most our thirsty for blood, but how long can it be sustained when it begins to really bite with real impacts on everyone such as the lost of individual freedoms. It takes a hell of a lot of trust to do that. No one from the Right is going to sustain that for long from the Left, the opposite of a Leftee trying to sustain the Right's support is much less of a problem in a true 4T (the opposite is true in a 2T; can you imagine "only McGovern could go to China?").

You are right, this is not a "left-right issue," but only in the sense that it is not the usual 3T culture war bickering crap. Rather, it goes to the basic underlying philosophical differences in how the Left and Right presumes the fundamental make-up of mankind - the world can be a better place if we all better understand and work with each other versus the world is a dangerous place and we need to be cautious and on guard. This is not a value judgement -- some days, you need a wrench; other days, a hammer. It is what it is.

My scenario? We roll out of Iraq with the glass of respect (or humiliation) half full and half empty. We become very reluctant to interfere in the ME. However, the neoKhawarij are greatly heartened and embolden by events. They increasingly expand their 5GW across the region and perhaps even some regimes fall. The first ever REAL oil crisis occurs making the 70s gas lines seem like a walk in the park. World economies tank. China and India join us in desperation, not in partnership but as teetering-on-the-edge-of-violence competitors. Russia throws its oil-weight around but soon the global economic chaos makes them as desperate as anyone. Our IL tries hard to get everyone to the table to negotiate, including the neoKhawarij, for surely no one could want the chaos and starvation that is growing across the globe. The IL takes an incredible amount of heat from the Right and the Hawks for negotiating if not attempting to appease the neoKhawarij, but our IL keeps trying -- even after the Right takes control of Congress in 2010 in reaction to public's growing disdain for the IL wimpiness. Then the neoKhawarij shove the offered olive branch up the IL's ass in the form of several 9/11's. The IL and the Nation flips the 4T switch to 'full on.'

Nice summary. This is the reason that 4T's get down to Pearl Harbors, and end in VJ Days.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Arctic explorerette, Ms. A. Bancroft and her Norwegian tentmate would have been successful in their expedition due to warmer temperatures found in a Gore Administration. The cold that drove them home (due to Global Warmth) would have been much lessened as Mr. Gore's home could be allowed to be cooler in winter and warmer in summer while he dined in the White House & Camp David. The ladies on ice would not have frozen their toes in a warmer weather Arctic because of the cooler environment in a Gore regime.

Also, Ms. Spear's pudendum and skull would not have been on display during the Gore years. And, Ms. Smith would still be with us, and she would be searching the Forbe's lists for a suitor.

"Explorerette"? As in "Explorer Lite?" As aforesaid suffix is understood to indicate these days.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"Explorerette"? As in "Explorer Lite?" As aforesaid suffix is understood to indicate these days.

I think -ette
is modernly Ms.-understood. Is a bachelorette party a fest for a "Lite" un-married man on his way to being institutionalized?

Originally Posted by salsabob

Yes, the IL will bend over backwards, and it is not because of cowardness , its because of that basic world belief in the goodness and rationality of mankind. When that world belief is shattered, its as if a light switch goes from 'full off' to 'full on,' there ain't no in-betweens no-more.

And the other aspect is the ability to sustain an all-out, in-this-together at-war effort. Sure, after an event like 9/11, most our thirsty for blood, but how long can it be sustained when it begins to really bite with real impacts on everyone such as the lost of individual freedoms.

It depends largely upon the credibility of the leadership. Dubya, Cheney, Rove, et al. thought that they had the pulse of America so firmly that they could exploit contempt for terrorists and thug regimes with impunity. They got away with it for a while, and as they prove far short of America at its best at a time that they chose to treat as one of maximal opportunity and danger, they created a danger that we could not afford -- the prospect of an uncompetitive political system and the imposition of crony capitalism. We Americans find both utterly alien and tend to forget what an evil man Saddam Hussein was because the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson or illegal wiretaps are done by people closer to home.

The 16th President of the United States wasn't known as "Honest Abe" without cause.

You are right, this is not a "left-right issue," but only in the sense that it is not the usual 3T culture war bickering crap. Rather, it goes to the basic underlying philosophical differences in how the Left and Right presumes the fundamental make-up of mankind - the world can be a better place if we all better understand and work with each other versus the world is a dangerous place and we need to be cautious and on guard. This is not a value judgement -- some days, you need a wrench; other days, a hammer. It is what it is.

We also know that as the divide between optimists and pessimists. Both optimists and pessimists have their merits. Only a fool has faith in the depraved.

My scenario? We roll out of Iraq with the glass of respect (or humiliation) half full and half empty. We become very reluctant to interfere in the ME. However, the neoKhawarij are greatly heartened and embolden by events. They increasingly expand their 5GW across the region and perhaps even some regimes fall. The first ever REAL oil crisis occurs making the 70s gas lines seem like a walk in the park. World economies tank. China and India join us in desperation, not in partnership but as teetering-on-the-edge-of-violence competitors. Russia throws its oil-weight around but soon the global economic chaos makes them as desperate as anyone. Our IL tries hard to get everyone to the table to negotiate, including the neoKhawarij, for surely no one could want the chaos and starvation that is growing across the globe. The IL takes an incredible amount of heat from the Right and the Hawks for negotiating if not attempting to appease the neoKhawarij, but our IL keeps trying -- even after the Right takes control of Congress in 2010 in reaction to public's growing disdain for the IL wimpiness. Then the neoKhawarij shove the offered olive branch up the IL's ass in the form of several 9/11's. The IL and the Nation flips the 4T switch to 'full on.'

A possible scenario. But we in the West have our own crackpots -- religious fundies as nasty as any in the Middle East, romantic believers in some Old Order of feudal inequities, and gutter racists. Let us hope that if there is any indignancy it comes from people of genuine morals.

The Indignant Liberal (IL) has merits as the sort who can bring out the best in the needed allies. Think of WWII -- even if everything rumored about Stalin's Hell-Frozen-Over Soviet Union was true, at least Stalin was able to express a desire for international brotherhood against a common enemy who treated everyone badly. Chiang Kai-Shek may have presided over a rotten system that demanded far too much from the common people and offered far too little because of its corruption, but at least it was fighting for us.

A shrewd leader, irrespective of the field, can deal with flawed people. Nobody can deal with absolute evil except to constrain, thwart, and hope to destroy it. To make a deal with someone of absolute evil is to be burned badly even if one operates in good faith because good faith means little more to someone thoroughly evil than an indication of a sucker. By dealing with Hitler for a few promises, Neville Chamberlain became complicit in some of the Fuhrer's criminality.

Ther destructive, despotic, and illiberal tendencies that we see in what Dubya saw as the "Axis of Evil" (I'd now replace Iraq under Saddam with the butchers in Sudan) demonstrate what we could face in an ally that goes bad.
Nobody could have reasonably expected in 1928 what would appear in Germany in 1933...

The indignant liberal is still a liberal and recognizes some appropriate restraints upon the drive for revenge. Let's remember that we chose quickly enough to recognize the Italians as victims of Mussolini... and of course that we chose to not visit upon the Germans and Japanese the horrors that they inflicted upon other nations. The liberal still has the capacity for pity... something that can make the difference between a lasting victory and an unending Apocalypse.