Firemind:

Er, you left out some, like Syria, but anyway

We do support Syria.

During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy largely revolved around containing Russia, and, yes, a lot of tyrants were backed by the U.S. This is nothing to be proud of, but the past cannot be changed.

I'm not talking about the past and I'm not talking about the Cold War. The tyrants we support in the Middle East are not our clients primarily for Cold War purposes, but because they sell us cheap oil. Other clients elsewhere provide cheap labor and high profits for American corporations. The Cold War was only one reason we supported tyrants. The other reasons are still with us, and we still do.

Perhaps it is time for those who make a career out of pointing out that the U.S. has among its "allies" abject tryannies to note that, omigosh, the regimes they are complaining about are now FORMER allies.

That is certainly not an observation one can reasonably make across the board. Saudi Arabia is still an ally. If it becomes otherwise, it will either be because it is overthrown by its own people or because it ceases to be an ally in order to avoid that fate. As long as we depend on oil, and as long as Saudi Arabia is willing to sell us lots of oil at a low price, we are not going to terminate the relationship.


There are some tyrannies that are actually hostile to the U.S. (There were more of them during the Cold War when an alternative source of support was readily available.) Several of those made Bush's list, ostensibly because they support terrorism. I am suspicious of this declared motive not only because some of our allies also support terrorism but also because it is not clear to me that either Iran or North Korea does.


I suspect, instead, a motive of overthrowing regimes which refuse to cooperate with U.S. corporate interests, choosing one or two that excite little sympathy in order to make an example, and sending the appropriate message to the others.

On 2002-04-28 18:25, Brian Rush wrote:
As long as we depend on oil, and as long as Saudi Arabia is willing to sell us lots of oil at a low price, we are not going to terminate the relationship.

Do you disagree with, or are you simply unaware of, the argument that Saudi Arabia has no choice but to sell its oil on the world oil market, at which point the oil becomes a commodity to be bought and sold, and will find its way to America (at a slight mark-up) despite any effort by the Saudi's to prevent it.

This is what ultimately happened during the oil embargo of the '70's, and it would happen again.

Unlike the 1970's, the Saudi's no longer have enough spare capital to survive for long without their oil revenues. Their per-capita earnings are way down (since their population is much higher now). They are living hand-to-mouth. They NEED to sell their oil as much as we need to buy oil.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-28 19:51 ]</font>

This was a very interesting article in an online service I receive called the Government Executive. Here is the link, but I am also reproducing it in its entireity: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0402/042902ff.htm

April 29, 2002
War issues

By Tish Durkin, National Journal


This just in from the Democratic National Committee: If seniors don't get a prescription drug benefit, the terrorists have won.

If you don't quite follow this logic, you are not in tune with the national mood. Seven months out from September 11, the national mood has cooled down and loosened up, at least somewhat. Americans are less obsessed with Al Qaeda, and are more worried about El Retiremento.


This is why the Democrats now feel they can safely steer the agenda away from the war on terrorism--while seeming, they hope, merely to strengthen the definition of the war on terrorism. As ever in politics, this sleight is to be achieved simplistically and semantically, by the pouring of the language of national security over issues of personal security. As The New York Times of April 22 has it: "Acknowledging the new national mood, the Democrats are packaging their agenda under the rubric of `securing America's future for all our families.'... But they plan to argue that security goes beyond fighting terrorism, and also means a safe retirement benefit, access to affordable prescription drugs, and a reassuring sense that children will be well educated and that the environment will be protected."

Isn't that nice? Just typing the phrase "affordable prescription drugs," as I did so many times before the twin towers fell, makes me feel snuggly and safe, like before.

Affordableprescriptiondrugsaffordableprescriptiond rugsaffordableprescripti ondrugs

Isn't it nice to entertain the notion that fighting terrorism isn't mostly--heck, well nigh entirely--about awful, bloody, wrenching, foreign things; about blowing up the most possible bad guys in conjunction with the fewest possible non-bad guys; about confronting Islamic extremism; about balancing--or catching hell for choosing not to balance--America's relationships with Israel and with the Arab countries who loathe Israel.


Isn't it great to know that the war on terrorism needn't involve boring, sometimes sensitive things, such as racial profiling or apprehension of illegal aliens? Isn't it comforting to realize that the war on terrorism is about the crowd pleasers, too? It's about our life at home. It's about our schools and our neighborhoods. It's about our retirement savings. In the end, let's face it: The war on terrorism is really all about working families.

Of course, entertaining this notion would be even nicer if it weren't necessary to crumple it up and toss it in the trash after about 30 seconds because it is so patently ridiculous--but hey, in today's world, 30 seconds of nice are nothing to sneeze at.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing untoward, let alone unpatriotic, about Democrats attacking the Republicans on whatever policies they care to; the president is not an emperor, and war or no war, the country's internal battles do need to be fought. Moreover, whatever criticism one makes of the Democratic approach is, in all likelihood, criticism that one would be making of the Republicans, if the opposition shoe were on the other foot. If a Democratic president were running this war to passable reviews, Republicans would have no political choice but to try to turn the national gaze homeward.

So whether or not this turns out to be a successful pitch, it is certainly an understandable one. But it is also extremely worrisome, for two reasons. First, it cedes to the administration most of the debate about matters foreign at a time when those are the debates that most need to be had. Second, it is a strategy based on the collective self-delusion that the concerns confronting American leaders are more the same after September 11 than they are different. The more complacent we are, the less threatened we feel, and the better it all works. The more the memory of September 11 fades, the more the concerns raised by September 11 are relegated to the back burner. And the more resonant is the reasoning that hey, the real topic for `02 is ... vouchers. That is dangerous.

To be sure, granting the administration a long foreign-policy leash is politically wise-indeed, probably politically required. But it is substantively regrettable. For it is the foreign-policy debates--about Iraq, about Afghanistan, about non-ANWR-related energy policy--that desperately need to be had, and had now. (Of course, no one is ceding Israel to the administration, but most politicians are just painting that debate by the numbers, so that's no more useful.)

For that matter, it is the domestic policies that are related to terrorism that most bear watching. Frankly, I am not terribly worried that the administration is going to destroy the Social Security system behind our backs. I am more worried--because advocates tell me to be--that the administration is going to take too many of its air-safety cues from the airlines. "It seems that the further we get from September 11, the more relaxed and therefore dangerous it becomes," says Dawn Deeks, spokesperson for the 50,000-member Association of Flight Attendants. Gail Dunham, president of the National Air Disaster Alliance Foundation, is a bit more emphatic. "Whatever changes there are, are marginal at best," she charges. "Three thousand people are dead, and that wasn't enough body bags to wake Washington, D.C., up."

Immigration policy, too, needs to stay at the forefront. The Enhanced Border Security Act, which just passed the Senate, has a number of features that many advocates view as laudable, if long overdue. But as its title indicates, the legislation leaves out a crucial, if boring, point of intersection between immigration and terrorism, and that is immigration enforcement within the country. There are fewer than 2,000 special agents to deal with the estimated 8 million illegal immigrants. That's part of the reason why the United States remains a paradise for "sleepers," who slip in to the country and blend in for long periods of time before striking from within.

Since September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been taking a beating, and deservedly so. For bureaucratic disaster in a nutshell, it is hard to surpass the posthumous granting of student visas to two of the September 11 hijackers. The foul-up was the predictable result of the INS having dozens upon dozens of mutually isolated databases within the agency that make it routine for naturalization and deportation processes to be under way for the same person at the same time--and make it premature to consider "accomplished" any time soon the mission of integrating the databases of the INS, the State Department, and the FBI. "The first crucial step is to make sure that when an INS officer types in a name or an alien number or a fingerprint, all the information that the INS has on that person has to pop up," says Rosemary Jenks, of the immigration-watchdog group NumbersUSA.com.

As for the mental fading of September 11, that natural and saving process is already happening, with or without the Democrats' help. The threat of terrorism has not been forgotten, of course, but it has been tossed into the blender of American life with remarkable efficiency.

John D. Ashcroft's high alerts, and Tom Ridge's color-coded ones, whir around with Robert Blake's arrest and Liza Minnelli's wedding. Revelations of lax airport security fold into the fights over the Pickering nomination. The defiant utterances of Al Qaeda prisoners bounce off catty meows about all those ugly dresses at the Oscars, or what is really sending presidential counselor Karen Hughes back to Texas. The Federal Aviation Administration has announced that the comparatively quiet flight path over the Potomac will soon be restored. The upper reaches of The New York Times best-seller list have been reclaimed by the stories of Michael J. Fox and Bobby Knight. What was that powdery stuff that had people opening their mail with gloves on again? Oh, yeah: anthrax.

Look, I'm not pining for those panicked days of early autumn. I would like to kid myself that the skies are safe, and the cleanup of Afghanistan isn't costing a fortune, and Saddam isn't laughing out loud at the sight of his dream come true, as the countries of the Middle East line up against us. As of September 11, I became a sucker for normality. But normality is not reality.

Now, domestic policy, including domestic policy that has not a thing to do with the war on terrorism, is reality. I am by no means arguing that so long as the war is on, the schools ought to be left to crumble, or that the thought of old people having to choose between medicine and food should not be considered frightening. It's the portrayal of such issues as war issues that is dishonest and destructive. Social Security, while important, is not national security. An effort to reassure parents about public education is an effort to reassure parents about public education, not public safety. A healthy environment is a healthy environment. For voters to make top priorities of such matters is to make lesser priorities of other, war-related matters. That is a perfectly fair choice. But it is a choice.

Leaders worthy of this time would do their best to make that choice more clear. Not less.

"This just in from the Democratic National Committee: If seniors don't get a prescription drug benefit, the terrorists have won."

Wow, man, that's like cool, man. Like, we don't want the terrorist to win, do we, man? Like, I think is the Demopublicans can help the seniors, man, and defeat the terrorist, like they should do that, man. Like, it's a win win, you know, man. Go for it, man. :smile:


p.s. I don't suppose there's anything in the little bag of entitlements for me, is there? Maybe a couple of months paid leave so I can be with my kids, or something. I mean, it's for the children, man. :

I'm not sure if this is quite 4th Turning.
It seems more like 1995 when the FBI averted a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel.

The IDF averted a plan to bomb the 400 foot tall Azrieli Towers, among the tallest in Israel and the Middle East.
http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1020052577314


The plot was being hatched in the West Bank and the IDF went in and foiled the plot. They found a car booby trapped with explosive the terrorists had planned to explode near the Towers in order to topple them. If the plot had succeeded the Middle East would have just entered the Fourth Turning (I'm not sure they aren't there now but the Middle East is always in the Fourth Turning if you know what I mean).

One of these days Palestinian freedom fighters might succeed in toppling some towers in downtown Tel Aviv and then we'll have Fourth Turning hyperdrive in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the UN must send with its human rights commission for Jenin while four settlers, including a five year old, were gunned down in their houses over the weekend. The 5 year old girl who was killed tried to flee the freedom fighter who broke into her home and was shot hiding under bed.

Official reports indicated the 5 year old was unarmed but the Palestinians had to defend themselves from her. Anongst the other dead was a 22 year old and two middle aged people. All were unarmed and are considered dangerous by the Palestinian authority. Please let the UN Human Rights Commission know that 5 year olds may be a threat to thier well being so the Palestinian Authority had to do a preemptive strike against these agressors. Also, please note that the UN considers casualties of suicide bombings to be terrorists and therefore not worthy of any attention from this venerable institution. As pregnant women and young waitresses serving food to guests on Passover are considered armed and dangerous there can be no negotiation with these people. The only response to militants who commit the crime of eating motzah on a Passover holiday is to maim and blow as many to bits as possible with military grade explosives and nails. Please note that the Palestinian Authority an Hamas leadership do not consider all Jews to be terrorists, only those who reside in Israel and are therefore living on thier occuppied territory. They are not, repeat NOT, anti-Semitic. After all, Arabs are Semites also. It's just Jews who should die.

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...=1019983749908

Apr. 28, 2002
IDF: Kalkilya arrests foiled 'Satanic' terror attacks
The Jerusalem Post Internet Staff
Two of the Palestinians arrested during an operation on Friday in Kalkilya and other villages in Samaria were planning to perpetrate suicide bomb attacks inside Israel, the army said.
Army sources termed the planned attacks, "Satanic."
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told Army Radio that the army's operation thwarted a grave terror attack in the last few days.
The Palestinians were planning to detonate powerful explosives beneath skyscrapers in the center of the country, according to the source.
IDF spokesmen refused to provide any exact details about the nature of the foiled attacks.
To read more, click here.

Previous article

Just a plea to JayN and everybody; please don't post long URLs. It makes all the posts on the same page too difficult to read. Thanks.

There are a number of civilizations that can be traced to the Fertile Crescent coalescence: today's West, Orthodoxy, Islam, and India all come from that source. But that doesn't mean no valid distinctions can be drawn among the four of them.

Agreed, but I'm not so sure about India. Certainly some influence
stems from the Middle East, but there are indications that
Indian Civilization may go back over 10,000 years.

You could argue that the West and Orthodoxy should be classified together;
certainly they are related. But the question is whether there is a useful distinction to be drawn between them. I think there is, and that our tangled relations with Russia demonstrate that.

Agreed.

I Also forgot to mention Austrailia and New Zealand as "Western" societies.

I also liked your post Bob Butler '54 :wink:
Good points to keep in mind.

Tyranny goes with terrorism, perhaps.

Terrorists are usually enemies of a tyranny who feel they have
no other recourse against it. That includes the Palestinian terrorists.

But certainly Saudi Arabia is still our ally.
So are a lot of other tyrannies, like Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar
(can you spell O-I-L??).
And our alliance with past tyrannies is certainly very instructive
if anyone ever claims that "democracies are our natural allies." BOSH.
And Israel is certainly a tyranny respective of those it controls in Palestine.
It won't even let UN fact-finders in, it is so afraid of the truth.
It is behaving exactly like Iraq.
Maybe we should add Israel to the "axis of evil."

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-29 13:49 ]</font>

JDS writes...

I think Sbarro suggested a 4T outcome you might consider reasonable and desirable in a new thread of his, in which he postulated China becoming the new hegemonic superpower by the end of this 4T. One can only assume in such a scenario that the Western World in general, and America in particular, would be slated to suffer the fate of those parts of Nazi Germany that were overrun by the Soviets - at the very least.

I don't see this, for a couple of reasons. First, China's cycles are more or less in synch with ours. I see the Tiananmen Square incident as the tail end of the Four Modernization Awakening protests, the cusp event marking the start of their unraveling. For the last few decades, their reform movement has been suppressed by their elderly conservative leadership. I would anticipate China is going to have to deal with an internal crisis. Their Red Guard and Four Modernization era youthful idealists are due to take over. While we have liberals and conservatives, they have "Reds" and "Experts," those who cling to Marxist theory, and those who know how to make the economy work. I don't see China becoming a major power while the 'Reds' dominate. I don't see 'Red' domination continuing forever. While I don't see China copying Western Civilization wholesale, China is due for a true great leap forward.

Second, during the Agricultural and Industrial Ages, military conquest was profitable. Weapons of mass destruction changed this. Heck, the machine gun and massed artillery changed this. No one truly won either World War. It was just that the Central / Axis powers got pummeled worse than their opponents. The major western powers and many of Huntington's core states are starting to appreciate this. There is a cultural struggle between a habit of major powers attempting to use force to gain economic advantage, and an awareness that overt use of military force is becoming less and less worth it.

China can't play with us on the open seas. We can't play with them on the ground in Asia. Neither of us see much advantage in exchanging nukes. Thus, I don't see a repeat of the last crisis' major conventional war between groups of major powers. This isn't the Industrial Age any more. While many contributors to this forum are still thinking in terms of industrial age conventional wars, thus are looking for another bipolar alignment to replace prior industrial age bipolar alignments, I'm dubious. We either achieve global consensus on peacekeeping, or die.

My concern is far more minor powers using weapons of mass destruction through proxy terrorist groups. China, Russia and the United States have all trespassed on Islamic Civilization territories. All have been trespassing so long as to consider this trespass an inherent right. China thinks it has provinces with Islamic majorities, core provinces, integral parts of China, where they have a right to suppress terror and institute their traditional police powers. Russia isn't much different. The US support of Israel and the Oil Royalties puts us in a similar position, though the distances involved are greater.

In an all out conventional war, the combined Western, Orthodox and Oriental civilizations could suppress the Islamic Civilization. They could then continue controlling and exploiting lands long considered Islamic. This is a long way from happening. I don't advocate it. I am just concerned that the Islamic civilization is extremely unsettled, with royal, military, democratic and theocratic governments, with enough wealth, knowledge, technology and will to fight a terrorist war of mass destruction if they so chose. To the extent that the Western, Orthodox and Oriental civilizations are not willing to return what was once Islamic, they seem perilously close to so choosing.

Heck, they couldn't win a hardball terrorist war either. No one wins a hardball terrorist war. Could you imagine trying to prevent fake pilgrims from smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the Haj?

I can daydream about giving back most of what was once theirs, about solemn oaths that they will not try to reclaim more. It's just a daydream. Are the negotiations on Palestine getting anywhere? Could the American Revolution be stopped after the Port of Boston had been closed? Was the Civil War inevitable after Harper's Ferry? Could Chamberlain have achieved "peace in our time" at Munich? I suspect the spiral of violence has gone too far. All factions believe they have a 'right' to contested assets, and sufficient moral and military superiority for a successful resolution. At that point, daydreams and good intentions have little worth.

I am not interested in breaking America's pride in itself, in destroying the American dream. It's just that yesterday's dreams might no longer be sufficient, or perhaps Americans shouldn't have the sole right to dream.

Taxation without representation is tyranny. A house, divided against itself, cannot stand. Four essential human freedoms, everywhere in the world...

Cling not so tightly to old paradigms. I can't seem to adequately express a new one yet, or the need for a new one. Still, if it is early December 1941, I'm not celebrating that the Japanese fleet has sailed, I'm trying to wake up America before the bombs fall.

Big bombs, this time.

_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2002-04-29 15:10 ]</font>

I wonder if Eric Meece is endorsing W's regime change policy with Israel. Eric a war hawk. Wow!
:lol:
Sorry, Eric. Just being sarcastic.

No offence intended.

Why not include Yasir Arafat in the Axis of Evil? Blowing up buses and Passover is quite an achievement. Arafat is so brave he's even willing to sacrifice his nonexistent son for Jihad. His daughter and wife can stay in Paris. They're shopping trips are safe.

http://www.newsmax.com

Now this is real 4th Turning. I hope that none of these turn up on our doorstep.


With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...







Click Here


Click Here
Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:18 p.m. EDT
Russian Gen. Lebed Warned of Suitcase Nukes, Dies in Crash

Former top Russian security official Gen. Aleksandr Lebed, who warned the U.S. Congress five years ago that at least 80 suitcase-sized nukes from the old Soviet Union's weapons arsenal had gone missing, was killed Sunday in a helicopter crash.

At the time of his death, Lebed was governor of the huge Krasnoyarsk region of Russia, and was considered a key regional leader, the Associated Press said.

A national hero, Lebed was a battalion commander in 1981 during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, where he won top military honors. But his popularity went far beyond military circles, with a career that had earned him a national reputation as someone who was willing to confront the Russian establishment.

For the U.S., however, Lebed's most significant legacy may turn out to be the information he imparted to Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., during a 1997 fact-finding trip to Russia.

Weldon recounted Lebed's bombshell revelation during a March appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes":

"This goes back to May of 1997 when I took one of my delegations to meet with General Lebed, who had just stepped down as Yeltsin's top security adviser.

"He was talking about the state of the Russian military and how generals and admirals were selling off technology they used to control because they felt betrayed by the motherland.

"It was then that he related a story to myself and six of my colleagues that he was assigned by Yeltsin to account for 132 small atomic demolition munitions. These are commonly referred to as suitcase nukes."

Weldon continued:

"He said, 'Congressman, I used all the leverage I have as the president's adviser. We could only locate 48.' Which meant that there were over 80 small atomic demolition devices with the capacity of one to 10 kilotons that they just could not locate.

"I came back and briefed the CIA and they said, 'Basically, we have no way of knowing [if that's true],'" Weldon recalled.

Russian officials subsequently denied Lebed's claim. But U.S. government officials remain concerned that rogue elements in the Mideast - terrorists Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein - may have gotten their hands on some of the missing Russian suitcase nukes.

In September, Rep. Chris Shays, R-Ct., chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, said "We don't really have a straight answer from our own government" on whether Lebed's report was accurate.

In 1992, former senior KGB intelligence officer Stanislav Lunev defected to the U.S. and revealed KGB plans to plant dozens of suitcase-sized nukes throughout the U.S. He documented his account in his 1992 book, "Through the Eyes of the Enemy."

Lunev is now a contributing writer for NewsMax.com.

In 1999, a second KGB intelligence officer, Vasili Mitrokhin, defected to Great Britain and corroborated many of Lunev's claims.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

I don't support invading Iraq.
Just wanted to let you know.

On 2002-04-28 19:48, firemind wrote:
Do you disagree with, or are you simply unaware of, the argument that Saudi Arabia has no choice but to sell its oil on the world oil market, at which point the oil becomes a commodity to be bought and sold, and will find its way to America (at a slight mark-up) despite any effort by the Saudi's to prevent it.

Brian does not have a understanding of how the world oil market works, producers sell their oil into a common market and oil referines buy the oil. The oil in your car comes from all over the world.

On 2002-04-29 22:56, God wrote:
I don't support invading Iraq.
Just wanted to let you know.

Point noted, Mr. G.

(I'd rather not call you God,but that's my monothiestic sensibilities.)

Frankly, while I may support action against terrorism you have to admit that this war is being waged the greed of those in the same income bracket as W. I personally would rather see military action against Iran which is going nuclear and which supports terrorism around the world. Iraq has no nuclear deterent and is locked up in a box. They may have some connection to 911 through some of their intelligence agaents. But this may be more in terms of assistance than masterminding. I think Iran had something to do with masterminding 911 since it is reported that the head of Iranian-assisted Hezbollah's foreign "operations", Imad Mugniyah, is a Shiite who is in cahoots with Al Qaeada. After 911, the Israelis said that an operation of that type definitely had Imad Mugniyeh's signature on it. An article was even written up in Jane's supporting this theory. The Iranians say they oppose Al Qaeda. But it is reported that they may have taken in many high-ranking Al Qaeda operatives since last September and given them refuge. They also have a demonstrated history of terrorism through proxies such as Hizbollah and Hamas(Blowing up Marine barracks in Lebanon, Taking Americans hostage there, Pan Am 103, bombing the
Israeli embassy in Argentina, the Khobar towers bombing, training of Al Qaeda soldiers in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon, and the recent shipment of arms to the Palestinians). They support reactionary Muslim governments all over the place like Sudan and groups that challenge moderate Arab governments. I often wonder why Bush doesn't talk this up in public.

Eric writes...

I also liked your post Bob Butler '54 <http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif>
Good points to keep in mind.

Tis good to know that a couple of aging hippies might occasionally agree on something. :wink:

I don't see this, for a couple of reasons. First, China's cycles are more or less in synch with ours. I see the Tiananmen Square incident as the tail end of the Four Modernization Awakening protests, the cusp event marking the start of their unraveling. For the last few decades, their reform movement has been suppressed by their elderly conservative leadership. I would anticipate China is going to have to deal with an internal crisis. Their Red Guard and Four Modernization era youthful idealists are due to take over. While we have liberals and conservatives, they have "Reds" and "Experts," those who cling to Marxist theory, and those who know how to make the economy work. I don't see China becoming a major power while the 'Reds' dominate. I don't see 'Red' domination continuing forever. While I don't see China copying Western Civilization wholesale, China is due for a true great leap forward.

Second, during the Agricultural and Industrial Ages, military conquest was profitable. Weapons of mass destruction changed this. Heck, the machine gun and massed artillery changed this. No one truly won either World War. It was just that the Central / Axis powers got pummeled worse than their opponents. The major western powers and many of Huntington's core states are starting to appreciate this. There is a cultural struggle between a habit of major powers attempting to use force to gain economic advantage, and an awareness that overt use of military force is becoming less and less worth it.

China can't play with us on the open seas. We can't play with them on the ground in Asia. Neither of us see much advantage in exchanging nukes. Thus, I don't see a repeat of the last crisis' major conventional war between groups of major powers. This isn't the Industrial Age any more. While many contributors to this forum are still thinking in terms of industrial age conventional wars, thus are looking for another bipolar alignment to replace prior industrial age bipolar alignments, I'm dubious. We either achieve global consensus on peacekeeping, or die.

My concern is far more minor powers using weapons of mass destruction through proxy terrorist groups. China, Russia and the United States have all trespassed on Islamic Civilization territories. All have been trespassing so long as to consider this trespass an inherent right. China thinks it has provinces with Islamic majorities, core provinces, integral parts of China, where they have a right to suppress terror and institute their traditional police powers. Russia isn't much different. The US support of Israel and the Oil Royalties puts us in a similar position, though the distances involved are greater.

In an all out conventional war, the combined Western, Orthodox and Oriental civilizations could suppress the Islamic Civilization. They could then continue controlling and exploiting lands long considered Islamic. This is a long way from happening. I don't advocate it. I am just concerned that the Islamic civilization is extremely unsettled, with royal, military, democratic and theocratic governments, with enough wealth, knowledge, technology and will to fight a terrorist war of mass destruction if they so chose. To the extent that the Western, Orthodox and Oriental civilizations are not willing to return what was once Islamic, they seem perilously close to so choosing.

Heck, they couldn't win a hardball terrorist war either. No one wins a hardball terrorist war. Could you imagine trying to prevent fake pilgrims from smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the Haj?

I can daydream about giving back most of what was once theirs, about solemn oaths that they will not try to reclaim more. It's just a daydream. Are the negotiations on Palestine getting anywhere? Could the American Revolution be stopped after the Port of Boston had been closed? Was the Civil War inevitable after Harper's Ferry? Could Chamberlain have achieved "peace in our time" at Munich? I suspect the spiral of violence has gone too far. All factions believe they have a 'right' to contested assets, and sufficient moral and military superiority for a successful resolution. At that point, daydreams and good intentions have little worth.

I am not interested in breaking America's pride in itself, in destroying the American dream. It's just that yesterday's dreams might no longer be sufficient, or perhaps Americans shouldn't have the sole right to dream.

Taxation without representation is tyranny. A house, divided against itself, cannot stand. Four essential human freedoms, everywhere in the world...

Cling not so tightly to old paradigms. I can't seem to adequately express a new one yet, or the need for a new one. Still, if it is early December 1941, I'm not celebrating that the Japanese fleet has sailed, I'm trying to wake up America before the bombs fall.

Big bombs, this time.

_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2002-04-29 15:10 ]</font>

Thanks for addressing my post at such length, and clarifying some points. As a reply, I'll give my impressions of each point you raised, in something like the order you raised them.

First off, some could claim that China actually has three factions now. The ones who pulled the Tiananmen Square Incident would actually be the 'Experts', who don't cling to Marxist theory, but do cling to dictatorship. Currently backing them, with conditions, are their old opponents, the 'Reds'. Said conditions give the 'Reds' the power they now have within the Chinese system. Against both factions since 1989 are the (mostly younger) people who want more democracy, who could be called the 'Reformers'. I, too, would like to see the 'Reds' displaced, though, like you, I don't see that resulting in a wholesale Westernization of China. More likely, I would expect a revival of Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist teaching, combined with a Taiwanese - South Korean style of increased democracy.

Second, as for Great Power wars being obsolete, I personally fear that, humans being what they are (slow learners all too much of the time), it may well take one more very bloody object lesson to finally drive the point home. In any case, leaving the nukes out of the equation (let's hope!), you're probably right about a Sino-American war (or a Sino-Japanese war) adding up to both sides being essentially limited to mutually obnoxious, tedious behavior off the Chinese coast, along with a cyberwar of viruses and counterviruses. The same would somewhat apply for China vs. India, due to the Himalayas blocking the way. China vs. Russia might still *appear* doable, though. Though not nearly as likely as Islam against all of the above.

Your concern about the Islamic World fighting a war of terrorism against not only us, but Russia and China (and Europe and India, too, for that matter) I see as all too valid. As you may have guessed, I'm an amateur student of history. As such, I can't forget that 'lost Islamic lands' also include Portugal, Spain, parts of France and Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Moldova, Ukraine, and a big hunk of Russia. Not to mention that an Islamic power once claimed the right to levy tribute on the rest of Russia. Also, all of India was once under Islamic rule. Not only that, but the Islamic areas that China holds, while presently of Islamic population now, have been traditionally claimed by China for over 2100 years, and were actually Buddhist for over a millennium before being forcibly converted to Islam in the 1300's. There's not a chance in (bleep!) that China would give that up. Especially since now there's also archaeological evidence that, prior to c. 2000 BCE, the base population was culturally related to the Chinese of the Huanghe basin.

Likewise, I don't see Russia or Ukraine ceding over half their territory to Kazakhstan, much less paying tribute to Kazakhstan. Or the European countries I listed above signing themselves over to the nearest Islamic nation (Morocco, Tunisia, or Turkey). So, when the stakes are described in such terms, you're probably right about the spiral of violence having gone too far to resolve, short of war. Compared to those problems, , and leaving aside their ingrained hatred of us, any disputes that Islam has with us would be remarkable for how easily they could be settled - at least in the short term. Until they start trying to reclaim the European areas I listed, that is. Or demand that we resume tribute payments for the privilege of overseas commerce, which we once payed to the Barbary States (now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya). Factor in that ingrained hatred, and the Islamo-American situation is also rendered well-nigh insoluble. Again, the spiral of violence has gone too far for reason to reassert itself. Just as it had in 1774, in 1860, and in 1938.

Finally, at least you're clarifying that you don't want to see the US destroyed. For a while there, I came to think of you as looking at America almost the way the 2nd Cent. BCE Roman Senator Cato the Elder looked at Carthage. Every speech he delivered for over a third of a century, no matter what the topic, he would end with, 'And I am also of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed.' In 146 BCE, he got his wish.

In any case, I fully expect the big bombs (.5 to 10 kilotons, according to what the late Gen. Lebed said was missing and unaccounted for from Russia's nuclear arsenal some years ago. 80 satchel nukes, according to him.). The fact that we'd be likely to reply in kind (as would Israel) I seriously doubt would faze people who's deep fanaticism and heartfelt hatred of us are both well documented. However, as you said, as internally divided as they are, they'd probably end up losing more than us in the end. Though we'd end up losing a lot, too. Enough to ensure that our hatred of them would be as heartfelt afterwards as theirs is for us now. A bad situation all around, I'm sure you would agree, but in all likelihood unavoidable now. :sad:

Are we returning to the 1930s? http://www.msnbc.com/news/743668.asp?0dm=N14MO

Chris Matthews is annoying.

On 2002-04-30 10:48, madscientist wrote:
Are we returning to the 1930s? http://www.msnbc.com/news/743668.asp?0dm=N14MO

Could be we are, with France leading the way this time, rather than Germany. But then, political analyst Conor Cruise O'Brien predicted some years ago that this time around, Germany would only go fascist *if* all of it's neighbors do so first. Thus, presumably, proving they had learned their lesson from World War II, but had been left no other choice in the matter by their neighbors.

... and God wrote:

Chris Matthews is annoying.

H-m-m-m, I thought Chris Matthews was PAID to be annoying.

Silly me.

... and God wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Matthews is annoying.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H-m-m-m, I thought Chris Matthews was PAID to be annoying.

Silly me.

The guests on Hardball can be very good. I especially like Howard Feynman. Chris can get very annoying sometimes, and I hardly ever agree with what he is saying.

Has there been anything published regarding a generational breakdown of Le Pen's supporters in France? What's the attitude of all those baby-boomers who tried to overthrow De Gaulle in 1968 now? Are French X-ers and millies involved in all this in a significant way?
All the coverage that I've seen is so superficial and seems based on an assumption that this is just an ugly little aberration that will go away if the Left marches in the streets and makes sufficient noise while at the same time European newspapers and leaders "condemn" and say "shame!".

I just heard on CNN that Robert Love, the co-founder of iRolling Stone, is stepping down because the magazine is going to target a younger audience.


Rolling Stone was one of the last bastions of Boomerdom. Of course, its present format and content is barely recogizable from what it was back in 1968. Still...makes you think the 4T may be upon us, or is damn close.

On 2002-04-30 16:07, Susan Brombacher wrote:
I just heard on CNN that Robert Love, the co-founder of Rolling Stone, is stepping down because the magazine is going to target a younger audience.


Rolling Stone was one of the last bastions of Boomerdom. Of course, its present format and content is barely recogizable from what it was back in 1968. Still...makes you think the 4T may be upon us, or is damn close.

JDS wrote at length, raising many points...

I would expect (in China) a revival of Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist teaching, combined with a Taiwanese - South Korean style of increased democracy... I personally fear that, humans being what they are (slow learners all too much of the time), it may well take one more very bloody object lesson to finally drive the point home.... Not only that, but the Islamic areas that China holds, while presently of Islamic population now, have been traditionally claimed by China for over 2100 years, and were actually Buddhist for over a millennium before being forcibly converted to Islam in the 1300's....

Agreed all around.

I once played a fantasy role playing game, set in alternate modern times. The premise was that the Puritans, in the 1600s, hated and feared magic and witchcraft so much, they created a series of artifacts which destroyed all use of magic. When magic returned during the Dukakis administration, the many magic based cultures that had been overrun by the Industrial West attempted to restore their cultures to their former glory. The Game Master, a history major with too much time on his hands, created plot lines involving every minor culture ever oppressed by the industrial West seeking restoration and revenge.

Glenn died in the early 90s, but the Millennial Crisis is shaping up to echo many of his plot lines. The major lessons learned in his fantasy game was that you can't restore every culture to the full glory and territory of its Golden Age. You can't right every wrong committed during the era of the West's dominance. He was also very convincing in role playing members of numerous cultures. He taught that heroes of all cultures and ethics, given a chance to seek justice from the perspective of their culture, would attempt to do so.

No, I'm not worried about the Ghost Dance and the White Buffalo demanding a return of the Great Plains to Native American control. Magic isn't going to return. But I may be more ready than not to assume many cultures can create many conflicting forms of heroes. There might be many different perspectives on justice.

No, Spain isn't going to be returned to Islamic control. No, each Civilization cannot select a year where they were at their most powerful, and attempt to reset their border to that year. Still, to some extent, this may be what will be attempted.

On 2002-04-30 17:46, Bob Butler 54 wrote:


Agreed all around.

I once played a fantasy role playing game, set in alternate modern times. The premise was that the Puritans, in the 1600s, hated and feared magic and witchcraft so much, they created a series of artifacts which destroyed all use of magic. When magic returned during the Dukakis administration, the many magic based cultures that had been overrun by the Industrial West attempted to restore their cultures to their former glory. The Game Master, a history major with too much time on his hands, created plot lines involving every minor culture ever oppressed by the industrial West seeking restoration and revenge.

Glenn died in the early 90s, but the Millennial Crisis is shaping up to echo many of his plot lines. The major lessons learned in his fantasy game was that you can't restore every culture to the full glory and territory of its Golden Age. You can't right every wrong committed during the era of the West's dominance.

There might be many different perspectives on justice.

No, each Civilization cannot select a year where they were at their most powerful, and attempt to reset their border to that year. Still, to some extent, this may be what will be attempted.

It would be especially difficult to undo the Western conquests in cases where the previous populations have either been wiped out, or reduced to miniscule numbers. Any attempt to do so would only represent a change of masters for the relevant peoples, as some other set of outsiders seek to oust the Westerners. Also, considering how many other civilizations' 'Golden Age' boundaries overlap, any attempt to restore those borders to their full glorious extent could only lead to more wars, many, if not most, of which would not really involve vital Western interests.

Interesting view on different perspectives on justice. Some peoples would most likely be satisfied just to kick the Westerners out of their homelands (Africa and India come to mind here). Others, like the Islamic World, would not be satisfied until they not only did that, but then turn the tables on us, conquer us, and then try to erase every remaining vestige of our civilization. The latter, however, in their pursuit of their version of justice, could frighten the other non-Western Civilizations enough to make common cause with a West thus placed strictly on the defensive - lest they be next.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-30 20:03 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-05-01 12:01 ]</font>