On 2002-08-10 20:45, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-08-10 20:11, Tristan Jones wrote:

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

The current political sutation Islamic world in general poses a barrier to the establishment of stable global government; if the Islamic World is democratized every other problem which faces the establishment of a viable global government is fairly easy to manage.

If it is one thing that we learned, democracy can only survive with the consent of the people. Democracy cannot be enforced. The reason why the US has existed for so long under a "democracy" is because it is embedded within our culture.

You have to make people WANT democracy. If they are opposed to it, then enforcing it will be useless. Democracy exists because of legitimacy. Without it, people can very easily vote for a dictatorship. If the US wages a very destructive war, and wins, then it is likely that these defeated nations will continue to resent the US because they will see it as anti-Islam. With that, there would have to be a much stronger US military presence to prevent to outbreak of violence and revolution. This is a VERY large feat, and the large military presence will be a large waste of societal resources.

very good points

Then there is the question of global governance. I am very much against the idea, as I believe that nations are, and should be sovereign. Wherever there is a single authority, there is totalitarianism.

i have no idea what to think about that... i've heard arguments about its inevitability and ones against it; i've suffered into a state of "informed confusion" :smile:

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

I could see supporting such a mass movement provided it was composed of draft aged men and parents of draft aged children only. I would not agree with it were it mainly a group of draft dodgers of the Viet Nam war on a moral high-horse now.

If the Boomers want a big war again, they will have to wait until the Millies are a few years older and comprise most of the military grunt soldiers. Right now there are too many Xers who are familiar with the hypocrisy to flood the desert with blood at the word of a bunch of 'Hell no, we won't go" chanters.

However, something S&H said made sense, in regard to the current bunch of Nomads. Unlike when the Lost fought WW1, we have the best trained standing military ever. Thus, if it was a limited conflict that involved using the volunteer services we have now, and no draft, then I can see some kind of military solution taking place. The guys who went in because they wanted to know how to do the job, and don't have a problem doing it.

Earthshine:

However, something S&H said made sense, in regard to the current bunch of Nomads. Unlike when the Lost fought WW1, we have the best trained standing military ever. Thus, if it was a limited conflict that involved using the volunteer services we have now, and no draft, then I can see some kind of military solution taking place. The guys who went in because they wanted to know how to do the job, and don't have a problem doing it.

We also have an all-volunteer military right now, a significant portion of which is composed of folks who were drawn in by the lure of decent, guaranteed pay (and other perks like GI bill, loan repayment, 'job skills training', etc) in a relatively low-risk environment. That will change if/when the US casualty count starts rising. I'd suspect that the military will suffer some of the same fate as did a host of companies who relied on the 'loyalty' of X'rs. We're notoriously good at cost-benefit analyses, and you don't get a much higher cost than death. Push the risk of that up beyond some tolerable threshold, and see what happens to retention in the all-volunteer force.

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

The current political sutation Islamic world in general poses a barrier to the establishment of stable global government; if the Islamic World is democratized every other problem which faces the establishment of a viable global government is fairly easy to manage.

Alas, too much of US policy is based on the oil. In an ideal world, we could encourage democracy without forcing it upon those not wanting it, or not ready for it. In an ideal world, we should put the economic, cultural and political well being of the people of Saudi Arabia up there in importance with the cost of oil. This is not an ideal world. US policy favors the House of Saud and cheap oil. The House of Saud is ever so aware of the unrest within their country, and makes sure its people are more angry at Israel and US support of Israel than angry at the House of Saud.

A true happy ending seems to require that some long standing relationship must be broken. Forming a mass movement that either abandons the oil or abandons Israel will be problematic. Dubya is not ready to do either. More significantly, I don't see any opposition ready for a significant break from past policy, either.

A Gray Champion might have less difficulty proposing new policies than breaking a nation away from the old. The old policy must be seen - perhaps through a series of catalyst events - to be clearly broken. How many people died in Vietnam while Nixon spent years saving face? The first step towards a new policy - or a mass movement - would be accepting that old policy is flawed. We haven't reached that point yet. Thus, the regeneracy, if it has started at all, if the core of the crisis is the Middle East, is no where near complete.

Mr. End of History in the Antipodes http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm

It seems has re-started everywhere but in Euro-land: the 19th John Bonython Lecture on 8 August 2002, "Has History Restarted Since September 11" by Mr. Francis Fukuyama.


http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm

We also have an all-volunteer military right now, a significant portion of which is composed of folks who were drawn in by the lure of decent, guaranteed pay (and other perks like GI bill, loan repayment, 'job skills training', etc) in a relatively low-risk environment. That will change if/when the US casualty count starts rising. I'd suspect that the military will suffer some of the same fate as did a host of companies who relied on the 'loyalty' of X'rs. We're notoriously good at cost-benefit analyses, and you don't get a much higher cost than death. Push the risk of that up beyond some tolerable threshold, and see what happens to retention in the all-volunteer force.

One thing the enemies the USA had to face in the last 3T and the current 4T are not the formable Japanese and Germans, however enemies who seem to be push-overs by comparison on the conventional battlefield. The Iraq campaign coming up will be like those colonial wars Western Powers fought in places like India and Africa. Basically a wog-bashing exercise so to speak.

In regard to Iraq once USA military might is shown on the battlefield the Iraq forces will literally melt away. Since Saddam has little support in Iraq everyone will be defecting to the US side in days of the offensive starting.

Against the sort of enemies that the United States will be facing its military is more than able to face up the job. Even countries like France, Britain, Germany or even Israel can defeat countries like Iraq; the enemies we face are so weak. The United States is the only country with the necessary political will and military power to carry out such a military exercise.

This is a far different 4T than the Great Power Crisis was, it is doubtful there will be a major war on the scale of WW2. It is also doubtful the millennial generation in the west will serve in the military in the numbers the GI?s did. The Millennials might see National Service, however in other non-military forms.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. End of History in the Antipodes http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm

It seems has re-started everywhere but in Euro-land: the 19th John Bonython Lecture on 8 August 2002, "Has History Restarted Since September 11" by Mr. Francis Fukuyama.

http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm

S&H did a good criticism of the works of Francis Fukuyama, History has not ended, not by a long shot. Indeed a new era is about to dawn for humanity, however history will never end.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

[

Alas, too much of US policy is based on the oil. In an ideal world, we could encourage democracy without forcing it upon those not wanting it, or not ready for it. In an ideal world, we should put the economic, cultural and political well being of the people of Saudi Arabia up there in importance with the cost of oil. This is not an ideal world. US policy favors the House of Saud and cheap oil. The House of Saud is ever so aware of the unrest within their country, and makes sure its people are more angry at Israel and US support of Israel than angry at the House of Saud.

A true happy ending seems to require that some long standing relationship must be broken. Forming a mass movement that either abandons the oil or abandons Israel will be problematic. Dubya is not ready to do either. More significantly, I don't see any opposition ready for a significant break from past policy, either.

A Gray Champion might have less difficulty proposing new policies than breaking a nation away from the old. The old policy must be seen - perhaps through a series of catalyst events - to be clearly broken. How many people died in Vietnam while Nixon spent years saving face? The first step towards a new policy - or a mass movement - would be accepting that old policy is flawed. We haven't reached that point yet. Thus, the regeneracy, if it has started at all, if the core of the crisis is the Middle East, is no where near complete.

Ending our depedency on oil is a necessary must, we can do now huge strides to ending it. Engineers at BMW have proven that Hydrogen fuel cell engines can be put into conventional automobiles. One government offical in government thinks it is possible to phase out petrol fuelled cars by 2020.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

On 2002-08-10 17:36, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-08-10 16:58, Stonewall Patton wrote:
The Inevitability of the War Against Iraq, and the Gospel of George W.

by Seth Farber

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/s-farber1.html

Ok, so how do you start a mass movement?

I would start a mass movement to support the invasion of Iraq, stopping of support to the House of Saudi and Opposition to the Islamist regime in Teheran. I am being deadly serious here; these goals should be part and parcel of any movement to establish a democratic global government. We need to whole world to be democratic before a viable lasting world government can be established.

In the near future (next several decades) a democratic world government is an oxymoron. If it's democratic, it won't function.

If the US wages a very destructive war, and wins, then it is likely that these defeated nations will continue to resent the US because they will see it as anti-Islam. With that, there would have to be a much stronger US military presence to prevent to outbreak of violence and revolution. This is a VERY large feat, and the large military presence will be a large waste of societal resources.
___________________________________

You may be right Robert, but Japan was a defeated nation which could have resented US. It is possible for US to lead a nation to greater democracy (of their own sort). Of course, WWII was a "real war", we had a "real" mandate for a military presence in those good old days. We are no where near there today. And it would certainly be a gigantic expenditure of our resources, whether it is worthwhile is another question.
The fact is that we have a world with an infinite need for a finite resource. That resource is very much located in an unstable part of the world. It will take the Arabs a very long time to sort out their problems. Look at Russia. They have been at is for a century, and they were in a much better place when they started out.
The men that blew up the Trade Center and Pentagon were rich Bedouin. They have the money, and certainly the commitment to try to maintain their ancient culture. The barbarians at the gate. And the developed world has a miserable choice to make. I will be very surprised if the US of A passes on this one. Let's face it, it is our destiny. Haven't we been playing Cowboys and Indians for centuries?
I do not think we will have a "WW III." I think this is just the beginning of our international Indian Wars. We were sitting by the campfire one day when, all of a sudden, the Apache swooped down on us and blew up the trade center. Those guys think their oil belongs to them. Can you believe it?
It is very important that we mobilize our allies to help us in these Indian wars. The fact is that even if we were energy self-sufficient, it would not help a bit. If France or Japan or India or Thailand do not have access to oil, then our economy is threatened anyway. That is what globalization is all about.
Don't misunderstand me. I know that NUMBER ONE is to find an alternative to oil, cleaner, cheaper and certainly more plentiful. As they say, "if we could put a man on the moon"... Unfortunately, we have to try to safeguard the oil supply until we can find that alternative. (And, of course, we have to get rid of those pesky little oil-men in the white house.) This is why we are moving towards the Caspian Sea. Isn't it funny that we must help Russian find that "warm" sea port they have wanted for so long. hahahahahaha
In the meantime, pray for an alternative to oil, cleaner, cheaper, more plentiful, and available to the world. Then, and only then, we might be able to let the Arabs fumble and stumble their way into the modern world without interference.

Tristan Jones is fond of quoting John 3:16 like all the other sheepish lemmings.

Tristan, PLEASE KEEP YOUR PROSELYLAZATION OFF THESE PAGES, or I will have to remind you once again what the so-called ?Son? said in Matthew 10:34-36: ?Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man?s foes shall be they of his own household.?

Feed your head, man, and blow your desiccated ignorance somewhere else!

On the other hand, we frogs have family values

Croaker,

I have just read your posting regarding Tristan's signature line. I don't know what Tristan will think, but your comments have offended me.

I am not particularly religious, but I know I don't care for Fundamentalism of any sort, even the kind you just demonstrated. So what if he has a cute little biblical blip at the end of each posting? Its not "proselylazation" but rather a harmless way to show us what he identifies with and believes in. Maybe Tristan has pushed Christianity in an intolerant way in the meat of his postings in the past and I am not aware of this. In that case, then I apologize.

But other than that, how about we stick to the issues at hand, like the S&H theory, and whether we see signs we are in a fourth turning or still just a third? Rude remarks about "lemmings" that boost some egos at the expense of others are not necessary.

Metanoos?

When we sing ?God Bless America,? demand pledges of allegiance ? under God,? hold up signs that say ?John 3:16,? declare Islam a ?false religion,? and proclaim exclusive access to Heaven, I think someone should stand up and point out the hypocrisy. If you are offended by my remarks, I?m sorry, but you?re not the first, and probably not the last.

Aren?t you worried about mass mental ablation? It?s worse than asphalt in paradise.

Croaker, I'm going to join Metanoos here. I'll pile on Tristan for some things, and already have, but that quote from John is pretty innocuous. There are expressions of bigotry embedded in Christian doctrine. That isn't one of them.

It seems to me that you react this way to any expressions of religious or spiritual sentiment, regardless of content or context. I am moved to ask why.

Croaker: I must add my 2 cents. I've said it before and I say it again, Lighten up. You can pick your battles better than that. You're starting to get on my nerves man.

Croaker:

Hey, dude, it's August! Time to kick back and have a few tasty dragonflies.

Relax, man. :-)

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Tristan Jones is fond of quoting John 3:16 like all the other sheepish lemmings.

Tristan, PLEASE KEEP YOUR PROSELYLAZATION OFF THESE PAGES, or I will have to remind you once again what the so-called ?Son? said in Matthew 10:34-36: ?Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man?s foes shall be they of his own household.?

Feed your head, man, and blow your desiccated ignorance somewhere else!

Actually I am fond of the quote because people at important events like a baseball game or a rockstar coming into a town or city hold up boards saying John 3:16.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Actually I am fond of the quote because people at important events like a baseball game or a rockstar coming into a town or city hold up boards saying John 3:16.

Brian--Does this quote help you understand why I question these things?

I'm thinking on a serious answer to your question to me, if you don't find it in my posts. I am not motivated by emotions or emoticons, but I am motivated by a deep concern that religious persuasion ablates peoples minds in the most seditious way. It gets to children before they can think for themselves, and it impairs their judgement and reasoning. That's what I think, but I'm clearling in the minority here.

Kiff, and the rest: I might ask what motivates any of you who spanked me for being irreverent. Are you all fishes of the holy sea? Ah, I know, it's an evolutionary thing?

I'm sorry for not being gentle and kind. That's no good either. I'm working on it!

Alas, too much of US policy is based on the oil. In an ideal world, we could encourage democracy without forcing it upon those not wanting it, or not ready for it. In an ideal world, we should put the economic, cultural and political well being of the people of Saudi Arabia up there in importance with the cost of oil.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are saying it is the fault of the US that the Saudi people are under the thumb of the ruling house.

It is not.

It is not our place, or responsibility, to win freedom for the people of that country. You can't just give freedom; it has to be earned.

If they don't like the house that is in charge, let them revolt and change their form of government.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Actually I am fond of the quote because people at important events like a baseball game or a rockstar coming into a town or city hold up boards saying John 3:16.

Brian--Does this quote help you understand why I question these things?

I'm thinking on a serious answer to your question to me, if you don't find it in my posts. I am not motivated by emotions or emoticons, but I am motivated by a deep concern that religious persuasion ablates peoples minds in the most seditious way. It gets to children before they can think for themselves, and it impairs their judgement and reasoning. That's what I think, but I'm clearling in the minority here.

Kiff, and the rest: I might ask what motivates any of you who spanked me for being irreverent. Are you all fishes of the holy sea? Ah, I know, it's an evolutionary thing?

I'm sorry for not being gentle and kind. That's no good either. I'm working on it!

I agree that Tristan's response above is rather cryptic. I'm not sure why he thinks that the John 3:16 posters are so cool. Maybe Tristan could elaborate a little more.

Croaker, you and I have had a couple of conversations about this subject previously. I hear where you're coming from. I'm in conflict with the authoritarian side of Christianity (and of any religion, for that matter) -- the side that is more interested in making rules and in gaining control over people than in spiritual growth.

I think it's unfortunate that people have a tendency to want to be ruled by others and not make the effort to question authority and think for themselves. I see it a lot, and it saddens me.

So I am a skeptic about organized religion. But I've found that sheer denial of anything spiritual doesn't work for me either. I need meaning in my life. So I'm not rejecting the teachings of Jesus (or the Buddha) out of hand.

I guess what it all boils down to, though, is that I'm defending Tristan's right to use a popular biblical passage as a signature line if he wants to.

The point is, a person's "signature" is a personal expression, and is outside the context of the body of the post. It's not like a sign at a baseball game; it's more like a sign on a the front door of a person's home.

Yes, that analogy is flawed, but it's sort of like that.

What Croaker seems to be saying is that religious sentiment in a person's signature is verboten. That seems rude and intrusive. What else is verboten? Philosophy? Movie quotes? Jokes?

What Croker said is "un-American" if you ask me, trying to shout down someone's free speech rights. Tristan's signature doesn't get in the way of this forum at all, so what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

I'm sorry for not being gentle and kind. That's no good either. I'm working on it!

Does this help our amphibian friend... Revelation of St. John the Divine 16:13-14 ?

Perhaps not.

Virgil--

"and I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon..." (Rev. 16:13).

Well, I guess that's the knock-out punch. What took you so long?

And Kiff--I never said I was not spiritual. I only said I wasn't religious. Does one need to be inflicted with a religion to qualify as spiritual?

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

Virgil--

"and I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon..." (Rev. 16:13).

Well, I guess that's the knock-out punch. What took you so long?

And Kiff--I never said I was not spiritual. I only said I wasn't religious. Does one need to be inflicted with a religion to qualify as spiritual?

Not at all.

Read the last sentence of my previous post. I think it made the point better than my other ramblings. :-)