Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But are you saying that the GIs in World War II were not willing to bear any burden, pay any price? The unity phrase "Politics stops at the water's edge" originated in a 1944 Republican speech.

This is a case of "have to". The nation was at war in 1944. Both the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany had declared war on us. So yes we unified in the face of a common enemy.

The phrase bear any burden, pay any price has to do with elective wars, ones we opt to fight, like Vietnam and the Iraq war. In 1939 when Canada went to Britain's aid in WW II, the US stayed neutral. We were not willing to bear any burden to go to Britain's aid in 1939 and wouldn't have in 1941 had not Japan attacked us and Germany declared war upon us.

Is this "towards the end of the High?"

Yes, the bear any burden speech was toward the end of the High. And it was then that the US undertook the elective Vietnam War.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... I see the various progress paradigms as extensions of one another.

Yes, in retrospect. And the new paradigm will also be seen as an extension of previous ones--afterward.

While I might be as radical an advocate of these values as anyone active on this board, even I don't see much of a need to extend things further than the Four Freedoms and the Dream Speech.

Rather than extended, how about redefined? One can interpret creeping secularism as an attack on Freedom of Religion. One can interpret freedom of speech as an end to PC and hate speech laws, elimination of campaign finance laws and restrictions on advertising. One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But are you saying that the GIs in World War II were not willing to bear any burden, pay any price? The unity phrase "Politics stops at the water's edge" originated in a 1944 Republican speech.

This is a case of "have to". The nation was at war in 1944. Both the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany had declared war on us. So yes we unified in the face of a common enemy.

The phrase bear any burden, pay any price has to do with elective wars, ones we opt to fight, like Vietnam and the Iraq war. In 1939 when Canada went to Britain's aid in WW II, the US stayed neutral. We were not willing to bear any burden to go to Britain's aid in 1939 and wouldn't have in 1941 had not Japan attacked us and Germany declared war upon us.

Is this "towards the end of the High?"

Yes, the bear any burden speech was toward the end of the High. And it was then that the US undertook the elective Vietnam War.

I would say the phrase "Bear any burden, pay any price" could apply nearly equally well in Fourth and First turnings. In all out conflicts such as the Civil War and World War Two, the phrase definitely applies. During a First Turning, the culture is locked in place. From my perspective the hero generation will fiercely cling to the lessons learned from the crisis, but will shy away from addressing new problems not addressed during the conflict of their youth. Heroes that they may be, they are not be ready to walk their nation into hell again, not that soon. Thus, there is a tension between a readiness to defend what they gave so much to achieve, and a reluctance to go all out again. Thus, careful limitations on wars like Korea and Vietnam, to prevent the situation from blowing up entirely. Thus, the phrase "Bear any burden, pay any price" applies less well in the First Turning. Yes, JFK made the bold statement, but he also took a close look at the options in Vietnam and did not commit us. LBJ was not willing to bear any burden or pay any price in Vietnam. LBJ asked what would be needed, and was not pleased when the answers provided by the Pentagon proved wrong. However, domestic programs such as the moon missions, civil rights and the war on poverty were still in vogue during the heyday of GI big government liberalism. If not any burden and any price, we were willing to pay a lot in attempting much.

But big government liberalism faded with the awakening and unravelling. We went into Vietnam carefully counting the number of troops that would be necessary, and got out to a great degree because the price was too high. The post crisis unity was gone by that time, with new prophets proclaiming new values and questioning much. No one could pretend that the politics of Vietnam ended at the water's edge.

We could argue indefinitely about how much each phrase might apply to each turning, but the core of it is that big government democratic liberalism was at its prime from FDR through LBJ, and faded with Watergate, the fall of Saigon, stagflation, the Oil Crisis and Hostage Crisis. The phrases are handy in evoking the thoughts, policies and emotions of times gone by. We might never agree on exact dates when this or that phrase rings truest. I remain dubious about your abuse of them.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Hmm... I see the various progress paradigms as extensions of one another.

Yes, in retrospect. And the new paradigm will also be seen as an extension of previous ones--afterward.

Not in retrospect. A primary purpose of an epoch defining speech is to bind the culture to a set of values. A key method is to quote prior epoch defining speeches, already bound to the nation's heart and soul. Lincoln quoted the Declaration of Independence at Gettysburg, and opened his speech with the four score and seven year time gap since the last rebirth of freedom. FDR opened with the familiar freedoms of speech and religion, before extending to the newer freedoms from want and fear. King opened his speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with "Five score years ago..." No way could this be considered an after the fact linking. It was explicit and deliberate. If one is making a great leap forward, one jumps from the shoulders of giants.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

While I might be as radical an advocate of these values as anyone active on this board, even I don't see much of a need to extend things further than the Four Freedoms and the Dream Speech.

Rather than extended, how about redefined? One can interpret creeping secularism as an attack on Freedom of Religion. One can interpret freedom of speech as an end to PC and hate speech laws, elimination of campaign finance laws and restrictions on advertising. One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

You might redefine such things. I wouldn't. I see creeping secularism and political correctness as Third Turning squabbles, the Red and Blue cultures rubbing together in an irritating way, but not likely to flare up into a full scale Fourth Turning conflict. A squabble on whether labor unions or corporations are allowed to contribute more to campaign finances is a 3T nothing. A serious attempt to stop campaign contributions as a form of legalized bribery would be something else, but that isn't happening yet.

I do hear pale echoes of the Four Freedoms in Bush's speeches. I do see Freedom from Fear as the objective in the War on Terror. The words 'fear' and 'terror' are more than a little related. As you may know, I wouldn't expect Bush to achieve Freedom from Fear while he ignores the other three. After running his first campaign on a platform of no nation building, I credit Bush with learning. One might almost describe the nation building efforts in Iraq as attempts to achieve Freedom from Fear by establishing Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Want.

But Bush has thus far stopped short of explicitly invoking the Four Freedoms, or trumpeting FDR's four times repeated phrase 'everywhere in the world.' The ideas FDR expressed are too large. They would ignite an engine with no governor, induce the unready to step hard on the breaks, or both. We aren't ready. The words would be too dangerous. Thus, Bush is tiptoeing around the America that once was, trying to carefully tap greatness in small controllable amounts.

It's only crazy folk like me who like to play with matches near the ashes of a dead phoenix.

Originally Posted by FDR

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

To that high concept there can be no end save victory.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

War on Terra? You think Bush is going to invade the Earth? I didn't catch that. Were you trying to be clever, or did your spell checker decide to make a political statement?

Bob, the point I am trying to make is the burdens and prices paid in a 4T are not chosen. People aren't willing to bear the burden and pay the price in a 4T, they only do so because they believe they have no choice.

The burdens and prices paid in a 1T are chosen. America was willing to go to war in Vietnam even though nobody had declared war upon us or had otherwise forced our hand. America was NOT willing to go to war with the Axis powers until they forced the issue by declaring war upon us.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

War on Terra? You think Bush is going to invade the Earth? I didn't catch that. Were you trying to be clever, or did your spell checker decide to make a political statement?

I was just kidding, although I chose the word for a purpose. Bush seems to want to project the image that he is a loose cannon bent on invading nations willy nilly, hence the war on Terra thingy.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

War on Terra? You think Bush is going to invade the Earth? I didn't catch that. Were you trying to be clever, or did your spell checker decide to make a political statement?

I was just kidding, although I chose the word for a purpose. Bush seems to want to project the image that he is a loose cannon bent on invading nations willy nilly, hence the war on Terra thingy.

But don't we have a sacred obligation to do that very thing?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Bob, the point I am trying to make is the burdens and prices paid in a 4T are not chosen. People aren't willing to bear the burden and pay the price in a 4T, they only do so because they believe they have no choice.

The burdens and prices paid in a 1T are chosen. America was willing to go to war in Vietnam even though nobody had declared war upon us or had otherwise forced our hand. America was NOT willing to go to war with the Axis powers until they forced the issue by declaring war upon us.

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say there are more choices in a First Turning than a Fourth. I would say there are more apt to be radical choices, changes made in a Fourth Turning than a First.

A First Turning is a time of dogma. The hero generation has its lessons learned. Second Turnings are a time of new values, as the young prophets point out the flaws in the old culture. Unravelings are a time of squabbling stagnation, as neither the old nor new value sets have solid enough control of the culture to manage a profound transformation.

Thus, by the time the Fourth Turning comes around, the culture has undergone three generations worth of stagnation. Much of the culture would be three score and five years out of date. Technology has moved on. The culture in general has not moved with it.

Thus, there is a great urgency. Problems have gone unsolved for too long. That, and the prophets with their new values finally age into power. Thus, a Fourth Turning is a time of great cultural upheaval, as the major problems which for so long not been addressed finally do get addressed.

This does not mean there are no choices. There are lots of choices. Early on, no one knows how the crisis must be solved, what the new culture is going to look like. What does become clear is that business as usual is not a choice. Problems must be addressed. New things must be attempted. Continued laissez faire capitalism was not an option in the 1930s. That didn't mean it was obvious what form of government intervention was required. Hitler was another problem. Chamberlain tried appeasement before the doctrine that democracies must stand up to dictators became common wisdom.

Lots of choices. Old problems long not addressed must be addressed. Old policies that are not working -- such as isolationism and government noninterference with the economy -- must be abandoned. When the world is falling apart, one can make amazing choices that can be made at no other time.

But if it is easy to chose change in a Fourth Turning, it is much harder to choose change in a First Turning. The major lesson of World War II, that the major democracies must stand up to autocratic militarist nations -- turned into the Domino Theory. LBJ did not believe he could allow South Vietnam to fall. In reviewing the White House tapes of the era, it is clear that LBJ knew the war would be nigh on unwinnable. He anticipated that Vietnam would destroy his presidency. He chose to stick with the Domino Theory -- with the doctrine growing out of the lessons of World War II -- rather than his gut understanding of what his military could and could not do, and how the people of the United States would respond.

In a First Turning, and even into the Second, it is very hard to break with the lessons learned in the prior Fourth. One generally must wait all the way until the next Fourth, when the old patterns are clearly no longer working.

With 20 20 hindsight, it might seem that the giants of prior Fourth Turnings had no choices to make. The solutions were obvious. The answers adopted seem inevitable. It might even be true to some extent. There are only a limited number of solutions to these great problems. Even the most bumbling of politicians might keep trying different things until they find one of the few solutions that work. Thing is, there is a lot of trial and error early in a Fourth Turning, a lot of bad choices along with the good.

As you know, I'm not the biggest fan of Bush 43, but I find it important to seek out lessons learned. The Red partisans might claim Bush makes no mistakes. The Blue partisans might claim he does nothing right. A Fourth Turning advocate ought to be looking for lessons learned. Problems encountered early in a Fourth Turning are apt to be encountered again later on a larger scale. We can't afford to repeat the same mistakes. If the crisis lasts long enough, enough mistakes will inevitably be made, enough lessons will be learned from these mistakes, that a doctrine can be written up which everyone can agree on. Once enough lessons learned are in hand, people will bear any burden, pay any price, to implement the lessons, and politics ends at the water's edge.

And it might take three score and five years before that doctrine gets dated enough that leaders dare deviate from the doctrine. Thus, to a great degree, during the First Turning especially, leaders have few choices. They must follow the doctrines developed in the crisis.

Well, that is an exaggeration. Strong enough leaders might try. On can attempt to fight the turnings. Early Fourth Turning leaders can play Hoover, stick with the old patterns, refuse to change. First Turning leaders might fight the doctrines, and attempt their own courses. It just isn't easy for someone who refuses to adapt to challenges to retain power in a Fourth, or for a person attempting change to retain power in a First. There are always choices, but there are also always currents. It would be wise to understand these currents and move with them, rather than fight them.

In a sense, you are correct. When a Fourth Turning rolls around, one has no choice but to do something. At the very least, those who stick with the old patterns are apt to be steamrolled by history and forgotten. The problems encountered in a First Turning are less urgent. With hindsight, it seems LBJ might well have made a different choice regarding Vietnam.

But do not underestimate the power of the lessons learned in a crisis. In many ways, the lessons learned of World War II doomed LBJ. He didn't feel he had a choice.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

This does not mean there are no choices. There are lots of choices. Early on, no one knows how the crisis must be solved, what the new culture is going to look like. What does become clear is that business as usual is not a choice. Problems must be addressed. New things must be attempted. Continued laissez faire capitalism was not an option in the 1930s. That didn't mean it was obvious what form of government intervention was required. Hitler was another problem. Chamberlain tried appeasement before the doctrine that democracies must stand up to dictators became common wisdom.

Lots of choices. Old problems long not addressed must be addressed. Old policies that are not working -- such as isolationism and government noninterference with the economy -- must be abandoned. When the world is falling apart, one can make amazing choices that can be made at no other time.

What I meant was in a 4T there is no longer the choice to do nothing. In a 1T and 3T doing nothing is an option. In the 3T that option is taken, in a 1T it is not. This is what I mean by "national will" the ability to act when one has the option of not acting.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

In many ways, the lessons learned of World War II doomed LBJ. He didn't feel he had a choice.

Well Eisenhower was the first to deal with Vietnam and he was prepared to let them go. Had Nixon won in 1960 he likely would have opted for the same, just as Reagan did in Lebanon. Elective wars like Vietnam, Korea and Iraq are are heavily influenced by domestic politics. Traditionally Republicans did not like war because it grows the government. The did like military spending because it could crowd out non-military spending, which generally benefitted Democratic constituencies. Thus the GOP were always willing to outspend the Democrats on the military and always willing to magnify any perceived threat to justify spending more. They then could accuse Democrats who want to spend on domestic programs instead of the military as being soft on Communism. Hence Democratic presidents were under tremendous political pressure to be warmongers as proof that they too were "serious" about national defense, whereas Republicans could be peaceniks, because the Republicans were strong on defense by default.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What I meant was in a 4T there is no longer the choice to do nothing. In a 1T and 3T doing nothing is an option. In the 3T that option is taken, in a 1T it is not. This is what I mean by "national will" the ability to act when one has the option of not acting.

Part of our disconnect here might be my looking for changes in policy, while you are looking more at action or inaction. For me, the Domino Theory and containment are outgrowths of World War II. The US was not going to repeat Chamberlain's mistake in appeasing Hitler. Autocratic government would not be allowed to gain territory lightly. This policy of containment pretty much held all the way through to the fall of the Berlin Wall. While Ike and JFK didn't commit the US to active fighting in Vietnam, in the end Saigon didn't fall without a fight.

Thus, Korea and Vietnam to me are continuations of the Great Power doctrine. Committing our forces was not a change. From Churchill's Iron Curtain speech through to the fall of the Berlin Wall, containment of communism was consistently practiced, with varying amounts of intensity and controversy. To you, this doctrine is taken less seriously. Each president is credited with the option of following or abandoning containment.

I am reminded of Newton's Laws of Motion. Once a Fourth Turning set of doctrines is in place, following that doctrine is not news. It is when the doctrine is changed that one should take notice.

From this perspective, I guess Reagan stands out. Reagan reemphasized containment, strengthened the pressure on the Soviet Union, while at the same time dismantling the excesses of the War on Poverty, an outgrowth of FDR's system of New Deal safety nets and Big Government doing Big Things. Again, I would put the core period of big government Democratic liberalism from FDR through LBJ. Our confidence in Big Government doing Great Things was crushed during the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations, with Watergate, the Fall of Saigon, stagflation, the Oil Crisis, and the Hostage Crisis. This was Carter's 'national malaise,' an accurate reflection of the mood of the country, even if it was a bad PR move and poor leadership. Reagan declared victory and surrendered on the domestic front. His Morning in America backed us away from the New Deal / Great Society domestic attempts a Big Government solving Big Problems, while he followed through on the international front with containment.

Anyway, I don't see not containing communism as being a real choice. I would agree that Democrats were put on the defensive by Republicans. They might have had to do more to avoid being perceived as being weak. Still, the doctrine itself held all the way through the cycle.

But the threat is no longer the Soviet Union and China exporting revolution from behind a massive military. The Middle East, southern Asia and Africa are not threatening us with conventional armies that might invade our allies. The 'military' threat is suicide bombings, with the potential for terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction lurking. The lessons learned in World War II, the doctrines adequate to stopping expansionist major powers, no longer match to the weapons and opponents of current times. Thus, a new period of trial and error, with hopefully a new set of worthy doctrines being developed the hard way.

Preemptive unilateral invasion based on partisan intelligence and an assumption of a welcome as liberators has been tried. While I don't believe the shift to full 4T mode is there yet, in some respect the process of building a new set of doctrines is already underway. We are collecting lessons learned. Arguably, Afghanistan and especially Iraq were choices. It is not clear that inaction was not a choice, especially in Iraq. Still, we are collecting valuable lessons learned. The process of building the new doctrine for the new millennium is underway. If we do find a pattern that works, future leaders will not have a 'choice' of abandoning this pattern lightly.

The lessons learned will fit a 2T Iraq, but some parts of the Middle East are on the verge of Crisis wars.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

One can interpret Freedom from Fear as the goal of Bush's global war on Terra.

War on Terra? You think Bush is going to invade the Earth? I didn't catch that. Were you trying to be clever, or did your spell checker decide to make a political statement?

I was just kidding, although I chose the word for a purpose. Bush seems to want to project the image that he is a loose cannon bent on invading nations willy nilly, hence the war on Terra thingy.

Willy nilly? No, that would defeat the purpose.

The goal (or more precisely one goal of many) is that America's enemies perceive that America will act to destroy them if they push us too far, even if the rest of the world does not approve of the action.

It isn't meant to be perceived as random, and the perception that it would be done for trivial reasons would defeat the purpose. The goal is to make it clear that attacking America or her vital interests, then trying to use 'international law' or other fictions as a shield, won't work anymore.

The notion that the 'world community' (a fictive concept) must approve action in order for it to be legitimate is very useful to America's enemies, because the 'world community' in practice means a handful of specific national governments who in practice are driven (like all nations) by self-interest, and whose self-interest does not necessarily coincide with our own.

But 'willy nilly' is just the opposite of the goal.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A First Turning is a time of dogma. The hero generation has its lessons learned. Second Turnings are a time of new values, as the young prophets point out the flaws in the old culture.

I would actually disagree on a nit-pick: the young Idealists are mostly foot soldiers for early mid-life Adaptives who point out the real or perceived flaws in the old dispensation, flaws that many of them have perceived for a long time prior to the 2T. The young Idealists probably do a large share of that too, but I suspect tha the real intellectual force is derived from the Adaptives at that stage.

What neither one successfully does, at that stage, is produce a superior replacement, that comes far later. They begin the process of tearing down, but leave nothing new in the rubble for some time, and the tearing down continues for a long time, moving up the ladder with the advancing age of the Adaptives and Idealists.

But if it is easy to chose change in a Fourth Turning, it is much harder to choose change in a First Turning. The major lesson of World War II, that the major democracies must stand up to autocratic militarist nations -- turned into the Domino Theory. LBJ did not believe he could allow South Vietnam to fall. In reviewing the White House tapes of the era, it is clear that LBJ knew the war would be nigh on unwinnable. He anticipated that Vietnam would destroy his presidency. He chose to stick with the Domino Theory -- with the doctrine growing out of the lessons of World War II -- rather than his gut understanding of what his military could and could not do, and how the people of the United States would respond.

I regard LBJ as one of the tragic figures of American Presidential history. If he had followed his own instincts more, and disregarded the legacy personnel of the Kennedy years more, he might well have gone down in history as a great President.

Regarding the nature of a Crisis, it should be remembered that the nature of the Crisis isn't always clear, or even set at the start of the 4T. The last Crisis started out as a global economic disaster, Hitler was a minor thug of no consequence in 1929 and Germany was militarily weak. The German threat, and its associated Holocaust, emerged during the Fourth Turning, as a result of events that occured after the Crisis had begun. It was not written in stone that the Crisis had to take the late-stage form it did, even in 1929-1935 (or thereabouts).

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The goal (or more precisely one goal of many) is that America's enemies perceive that America will act to destroy them if they push us too far, even if the rest of the world does not approve of the action. (snip) The goal is to make it clear that attacking America or her vital interests, then trying to use 'international law' or other fictions as a shield, won't work anymore.

Needless to say, said goals will be abandoned the very second the Democrats regain control of Capitol Hill and the White House in 2009, in favor of a much more indulgent and even appeasing attitude towards said enemies. (If they push us far enough, we'll cave in to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or outrageous those demands may be - with no guarantee whatsoever that they'll stop attacking us in return for our doing so.)

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The goal (or more precisely one goal of many) is that America's enemies perceive that America will act to destroy them if they push us too far, even if the rest of the world does not approve of the action. (snip) The goal is to make it clear that attacking America or her vital interests, then trying to use 'international law' or other fictions as a shield, won't work anymore.

Needless to say, said goals will be abandoned the very second the Democrats regain control of Capitol Hill and the White House in 2009, in favor of a much more indulgent and even appeasing attitude towards said enemies. (If they push us far enough, we'll cave in to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or outrageous those demands may be - with no guarantee whatsoever that they'll stop attacking us in return for our doing so.)

Appeasement is the modus operandi of the current administration. It lacks the moral courage and will to confront those who are financing and directing the Islamic Fundamentalist insurgency.

Ex: 1 - it seems that everybody in the world, include CIA chief Porter Goss, knows that Osama bin Ladin is in northern Pakistan. Yet the administration is content to let Pakistani police not catch him for the risk that Musharraf, a military dictator, may become more vulnerable.

VERDICT: the US is unwilling to capture its arch foe and the architect of an act that killed 3,000 Americans to appease Musharraf.

Ex: 2 - the administration is not willing to crack down on the wealthy Saudis that are financing the insurgency in Iraq, and financing the global Islamic fundamentalist insurgency. It does not have the moral courage to level with the Saudi princes. Instead it tip toes around the deep cleavages of what is the hornet's nest of Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations.

VERDICT: the US is unwilling to engage its Saudi counterparts to broker a real and lasting peace in order to appease the Kings of Petroleum output.

Its actions to date have been quite "willy nilly." You have two nations that are always teetering close to complete failure without big American bodyguards (some 200,000 personnel total I believe).

In other news, I can see how someone living in Cairo, Ill. could call the world community "fictive." I mean, if you can ignore Darwin from the middle of the continent, maybe the rest of the world can be airbrushed out too! :lol:

Blue Stater, assuming your assertions are true, then I guess that we'd have to give the Democrats due credit for being more open and above board with their appeasement of, and capitulation to, terrorists and their sponsors (as being America's moral obligation, of course!). Some distinction, huh? :evil:

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Blue Stater, assuming your assertions are true, then I guess that we'd have to give the Democrats due credit for being more open and above board with their appeasement of, and capitulation to, terrorists and their sponsors (as being America's moral obligation, of course!). Some distinction, huh? :evil:

Name one elected Democrat that has publicly called for appeasing Al-Qaeda.

Originally Posted by blue stater

In other news, I can see how someone living in Cairo, Ill. could call the world community "fictive."

The world is real. It's the 'community' part that is fictional, since community implies a meaningful sense of 'we'. When the chips are down, the nations still follow self-interest, whether making alliances, voting in international bodies, or taking sides in conflicts.

The day may, and indeed almost certainly will, come when the phrase 'world community' really means something. But that will require that a single language become dominant, probably that a single religion become the dominant one, and that all the other features of a functioning, viable community spread to the global level. That time is at least decades away, maybe centuries.

Even many so-called sovereign nations are not really national communities, merely territorial governments. Africa is haunted by this problem, it's one reason why suppressing the steady violence in places like Rawanda or the Sudan is so horribly difficult. For a recently deceased example, the USSR was never truly a nation, and it could be argued that much of the Russian Federation does not really think of themselves as part of the 'Russian nation'.

Even some Western nation-states have large groups within them that see themselves are part of a different community, and it can cause serious tensions and even violence, such as in Spain to this day.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The goal (or more precisely one goal of many) is that America's enemies perceive that America will act to destroy them if they push us too far, even if the rest of the world does not approve of the action. (snip) The goal is to make it clear that attacking America or her vital interests, then trying to use 'international law' or other fictions as a shield, won't work anymore.

Needless to say, said goals will be abandoned the very second the Democrats regain control of Capitol Hill and the White House in 2009, in favor of a much more indulgent and even appeasing attitude towards said enemies. (If they push us far enough, we'll cave in to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or outrageous those demands may be - with no guarantee whatsoever that they'll stop attacking us in return for our doing so.)

To be fair, when Democrats claim they don't want to appease the enemy, I do believe them. A few fringer academics and the like might choose that, but not most of the elected officials.

The problem is that the Democrats' preferred solution of multilateralism and operating through international institutions won't work, and will be perceived by the enemy as a sign of fear or the desire to appease, even though it isn't meant that way.

In practice, I have little doubt that a Democratic administration would find itself more or less forced by circumstances down a road not too different than that the Bush Administration has taken.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The problem is that the Democrats' preferred solution of multilateralism and operating through international institutions won't work, and will be perceived by the enemy as a sign of fear or the desire to appease, even though it isn't meant that way.

Isn't that how Bush I operated for the first Gulf War? It pretty much worked, for the goals that were stated. And we kicked Saddam's butt.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Isn't that how Bush I operated for the first Gulf War? It pretty much worked, for the goals that were stated. And we kicked Saddam's butt.

Right... and we all sat down and sang Kum-by-yah afterwards.

• Celine Dion: There, you had to take a stand, In someone else`s land, Life can be so strange.
  
  Peter Cetera: I wish we never had to choose. To either win or lose, We could find a way.
  
  Bobby Brown: We could find a way.
  
  Brenda Russell: But I won`t turn my back again.
  
  Bobby Brown: turn my back again.
  
  Brenda Russell: Your honor I`ll defend.
  
  Jani Lane: So hurry home till then.
  
  Luther Vandross: Till Then.
  
  Chorus: Stand Tall! Stand Proud!
  Voices that care are crying out loud.
  And when you close your eyes tonight,
  Feel in your heart how our love burns bright.

Of course the Shiites were encouraged to join the sing-a-long, but were somehow unable to bask in afterglow of Saddam's butt-kicking. :?

Ah, you liberals just kill me sometimes. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Ah, you liberals just kill me sometimes. :wink:

I've never heard George H.W. Bush called a liberal before, but the way things are trending, that old blue blood certainly does seem blue.

Originally Posted by blue stater

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Blue Stater, assuming your assertions are true, then I guess that we'd have to give the Democrats due credit for being more open and above board with their appeasement of, and capitulation to, terrorists and their sponsors (as being America's moral obligation, of course!). Some distinction, huh? :evil:

Name one elected Democrat that has publicly called for appeasing Al-Qaeda.

When seen in the context of the following statement, attributed to Spengler, what else can Kucinich's calls for at least partial unilateral disarmament be called but advising appeasement, if not necessarily appeasement of al-Qaeda specifically? And when the enemy was the Soviet Union, he was far from alone.

"For world peace ... involves the private renunciation of war on the part of the immense majority, but along with it involves an unavowed readiness to submit to being the booty of others who do not renounce it."

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The problem is that the Democrats' preferred solution of multilateralism and operating through international institutions won't work, and will be perceived by the enemy as a sign of fear or the desire to appease, even though it isn't meant that way.

Isn't that how Bush I operated for the first Gulf War? It pretty much worked, for the goals that were stated. And we kicked Saddam's butt.

I would still like to hear an answer from HC on this. Was Gulf War I not a model for how a multilateral, UN-sanctioned action could work successfully?