Originally Posted by Our World-Historical Gamble

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Re: 3T vs 4T: Our World-Historical Gamble

Thanks for the lead, John Wayne. I found this article to be one of the more interesting pieces I have read recently about Iraq. I do indeed see the language of 4T in it.

"Our World-Historical Gamble" is a worthy read, and accurately portrays the need for a new alternative to the sovereign state as the core element of politics.

The liberal world system has collapsed internally: there is no longer a set of rules that govern all the players.

This collapse of the well-ordered liberal system has come about exclusively from the side of the Islamic world. No other party has contributed to it. And the cause of this disruption is the lack of a sense of the realistic on the part of certain elements in the Islamic world.

It appears to me that the writer of Our World-Historical Gamble clearly equates "liberal" with "well ordered" and "a set of rules that governs."

How does this square with notions of "freedom and liberty," which are clearly rooted in anarchism and individualism?

I thot conservatives were the Nazi Party, and conservatism the ideology hell-bent of destroying the glorious triumph of individual liberty, hence "liberalism."

It would appear the writer of Our World-Historical Gamble, views the triumph of liberalism as a society "well ordered" and governed by "a set of rules." Does liberalism respect the authority of, say, the U.S. Constitution as a "set of rules"?

It would appear that we have a "failure to communicate" properly as to just what this word "liberal" means. Do, in sheer reality, liberals get the advantage, the affluence, the liberty, the gall to wily nily pick and choose what they mean when they say "liberal"?

It would appear that this is the real life case to this writer. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

It would appear that we have a "failure to communicate" properly as to just what this word "liberal" means. Do, in sheer reality, liberals get the advantage, the affluence, the liberty, the gall to wily nily pick and choose what they mean when they say "liberal"?

It would appear that this is the real life case to this writer.

Holy cow, Marc. Surely you must know that the term "liberal" used to mean something different, and still does in the context of certain academic articles such as "Our World-Historical Gamble".

The author uses erudite historical terminology throughout, such as in the title. Surely the inclusion of references to Hegelian theory is a tip-off that the context is different than a contemporary pundit show.

The term "magnitude" means different things in different contexts. (Take it's meaning in astronomy, for example.)

This is not a trick; it just typical of the complexity of human languages. The author of "Our World-Historical Gamble" is using the term "liberal" in the OLD sense, obviously, what some have called "capital-L" Liberalism, the "liberalism" of America's Founding Fathers. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh knows that the term "liberal" used to have different conotations.

I'll be very surprised the day a liberal-leaning article (in the contemporary sense) is ever published on TechCentralStation.com. I guess you're not familiar with the site. Trust me, Marc, you're not likely to see pro-socialist writings there.

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Holy cow, Marc. Surely you must know that the term "liberal" used to mean something different, and still does in the context of certain academic articles such as "Our World-Historical Gamble".

Various persons here have been arguing that point to Marc since I first started lurking here in late '01. I think most of us have given it up as a lost cause.
More power to you if you want to try, though.

Hello everyone - great board,

From an op-ed piece written by George Will yesterday,

France, by attempting to lasso the American locomotive with the cobwebs of U.N. procedures, has emboldened Iraq and made war inevitable, much as the Dred Scott decision lit the fuse of war.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

Originally Posted by Readthebooknowwhat

Hello everyone - great board,

From an op-ed piece written by George Will yesterday,

France, by attempting to lasso the American locomotive with the cobwebs of U.N. procedures, has emboldened Iraq and made war inevitable, much as the Dred Scott decision lit the fuse of war.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

Wellllll....I agree, but in my own way. I view the future with a fair degree of pessimism. I'm unenthusiastic about this "war" (let's remember that as of March 14, 2003, it has not actually ocurred yet). But my unenthusiasm is much like my reaction would be if my dentist informed me that an unpleasant and expensive procedure was necessary in order to prevent a much more unpleasant and expensive procedure at a later time. I would decide (unenthusiastically) to do it now and forestall the greater problem later.
Leaving all the issues of world diplomacy, dead babies, and illegitimate presidents aside, I believe that we can deal with SH now or deal with him or one of his allegedly psychotic sons at a later time. It would be easiest to do it now, in terms of American blood and treasure. And, to be unpopular, I am far more concerned about American lives than I am about others. I make no claim to be a "citizen of the world".
My pessimistic opinion of what will actually happen is that there will not be a war at this time. Perhaps by next week I will be proven wrong, but as of Friday afternoon I don't think so. How GWB might back down or back away is unknown to me, I'm not very psychic and have little interest in speculating on scenarios.
I do believe that those in the U.N. who wish to hinder Bush's attempt to get rid of Saddam will have their way, as will the various anti-war forces. They will celebrate and clap their hands and pat themselves on the back. American forces will leave the region (I believe that the Saudis have told us to get out after this thing is over. And I say "Good."), the U.N. will triumphantly lift the sanctions, and Saddam will really start getting ready to do some nasty things as soon as he believes that he can get away with it.
In a year or two or five, could an American president successfully do another Iraq war redeployment? I really doubt that the Congress and the public would go along with it. I believe that we're going to go into 5 or 10 years of an isolationist mode which will not be very receptive to shedding American blood for Europeans or Middle Easterners.
The threat which will be posed for Europe in the next decade will be far more serious than any now, probably will include nuclear weapons from Iraq and Iran (no more build ups in the Gulf, then). I wonder if the incredibly powerful military of the European Union will be able to deal with it? The most pessimistic part of my thinking is that people in the future will believe that if only the people in 2003 had dealt with these monsters then the great bloodbath that happened later could have been averted. Lately all this has started to seem like fate or God's will or destiny to me. And...I really really hope that I'm so completely dead wrong that what I've written will be incredibly amusing in light of the fabulous future of enlightenment which is just ahead. But I don't think so.

alan:

Leaving all the issues of world diplomacy, dead babies, and illegitimate presidents aside, I believe that we can deal with SH now or deal with him or one of his allegedly psychotic sons at a later time. It would be easiest to do it now

That's only true if you do leave the issue of world diplomacy aside, which you can't.

The whole problem with the proposed war in Iraq is that there are more nations in the world than the U.S. and Iraq. And what we are doing there, on top of all the other things Dubyah has done to piss off the world, is placing us in a serious bind.

Bush's preferred outcome is that U.S. forces quickly overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime and build an Arab democracy in Iraq. This provides an inspiration to other Arab nations and begins a process whereby the various military dictatorships, monarchies, and fundamentalist autocracies that rule the Muslim world are replaced by modern democracies.

It sounds great, but it's a pipe dream. Overthrowing Saddam may be harder than Dubyah expects, the situation in Iraq is not all that amenable to building democracy even after Saddam is overthrown, there is no particular reason to believe that the Bush administration would spend the massive necessary funds to do it even if it were possible, and there is also no reason to believe the rest of the world would cooperate in the effort, the way the world looks on us nowadays.

Like it or not, we can't browbeat the rest of the planet into doing what we want it to. We can only lead where the world wants to follow. And it doesn't want to follow where Bush wants to take it. If, despite this, he insists on throwing our weight around and bullying those weak enough to be bullied, our leadership in the world will decline.

Choosing only from the possible, the best-case scenario assuming Bush does get his war, is that Saddam is overthrown, and when the repercussions we experience deny Bush reelection, the world blames him and not us -- leaving the next administration some ability to try to rebuild.

The worst-case scenario involves massive damage to the U.S. from terrorist attacks, U.S. troops bogged down in house-to-house fighting and taking heavy casualties, and the world descending into leaderless chaos with a high chance of global nuclear catastrophe.

We could avoid all of this by choosing to deal with Saddam later -- when the world is ready to follow us in doing so.

A question surfaced in my mind since I got some of my anxieties off my chest: Is it possible that part of the disconnect between Bushian reality and, say, the reality of those in the U.N. who aren't going along is that Bush is being "pre-seasonal"? If this were unmistakably the 4T with all of the characteristics that S and H talk about, I would think that there would be far less dissent about going to war to stop the evil dictator, both at home and abroad. This once again makes me question the assumption that "we be 4T". This whole mess we're currently living in seems more like the extreme Unraveling...as if every yarn in the sweater must be pulled out until all that remains is a mess of yarn on the floor.
Just a thot. :o

Originally Posted by alan

A question surfaced in my mind since I got some of my anxieties off my chest: Is it possible that part of the disconnect between Bushian reality and, say, the reality of those in the U.N. who aren't going along is that Bush is being "pre-seasonal"? If this were unmistakably the 4T with all of the characteristics that S and H talk about, I would think that there would be far less dissent about going to war to stop the evil dictator, both at home and abroad. This once again makes me question the assumption that "we be 4T". This whole mess we're currently living in seems more like the extreme Unraveling...as if every yarn in the sweater must be pulled out until all that remains is a mess of yarn on the floor.
Just a thot. :o

Or maybe it is 4T, but it isn't time for the regeneracy yet.

These are a couple of articles, I have read by Robert Reich, secretary for Labor during the Clinton Administration. I was really surprised by the clear 4T thinking of these articles and understanding of what the big 4T issues will be about namely environmental sustainability and the globalisation of political institutions. Unfortunately at this time he is not running for president in 2004, if he does not, it would be a great shame.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...h-1-11-10.html

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...h-2-11-10.html

If this were unmistakably the 4T with all of the characteristics that S and H talk about, I would think that there would be far less dissent about going to war to stop the evil dictator, both at home and abroad.

Britain in the late 1930s under Neville Chamberlain. Clearly a 4T and had been for years. Plenty of dissent about going to war, or even taking much less drastic steps, to stop the evil dictator.

America in 1940. Clearly a 4T and had been for years. Plenty of dissent about going to war to stop the evil dictator. In the end, the evil dictator had to declare war on us first.

4T is one thing, war another. There's always dissent in a Crisis but it's usually about serious things, not frivolous ones.

And a contrast note. Poland 1941. German troops line up along the border prepared for a surprise assault on Stalin's Soviet Union.

No visible dissent whatsoever in the homeland about going to war to stop the evil dictator (Stalin, that is).

Is this the 4T course and outcome we want?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We could avoid all of this by choosing to deal with Saddam later -- when the world is ready to follow us in doing so.

A cursory check of recent posts offered by our Mr. Rush -- our chief liberal, among the many liberals here at the fourthturning.com -- will prove quite revealing, if you care to check. Our chief liberal, it appears, has spent a massive amount of time, the last two weeks, in the Big Orgy thread, navel gazing and probing such deep questions as to whether or not "Buddha was a nincompoop."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. But in the midst of such navel examination, to then raise his head, survey the present-world conflict, and offer this dearth of intestinal fortitude has exceeded the ridiculous boundaries even I had previously thought possible. It brings to mind the old adage, "Those whom God intends to destroy, He first drives mad."

Laying aside the supposed typical baby boomer, I want it and I want it now!, approach to life, for a moment: That Mr. Rush would seek to give the Butcher of Baghdad another twelve years, should not be surprising, given the present condition of his hedonistic soul. Thus I would strongly council our chief liberal to return whence he came: namely the orgy of navel gazing he is presently consumed with.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Holy cow, Marc. Surely you must know that the term "liberal" used to mean something different, and still does in the context of certain academic articles such as "Our World-Historical Gamble".

Various persons here have been arguing that point to Marc since I first started lurking here in late '01. I think most of us have given it up as a lost cause. More power to you if you want to try, though.

Judging from the behaviour of our chief liberal, Mr. Brian Rush, here at the fourthturning.com, and other like-minded liberals everywhere circa 2003: Yes, I do see now. Liberalism has changed quite a bit over the years.

Thank you very much for helping me to see that. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We could avoid all of this by choosing to deal with Saddam later -- when the world is ready to follow us in doing so.

A cursory check of recent posts offered by our Mr. Rush -- our chief liberal, among the many liberals here at the fourthturning.com -- will prove quite revealing, if you care to check. Our chief liberal, it appears, has spent a massive amount of time, the last two weeks, in the Big Orgy thread, navel gazing and probing such deep questions as to whether or not "Buddha was a nincompoop."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. But in the midst of such navel examination, to then raise his head, survey the present-world conflict, and offer this dearth of intestinal fortitude has exceeded the ridiculous boundaries even I had previously thought possible. It brings to mind the old adage, "Those whom God intends to destroy, He first drives mad."

Laying aside the supposed typical baby boomer, I want it and I want it now!, approach to life, for a moment: That Mr. Rush would seek to give the Butcher of Baghdad another twelve years, should not be surprising, given the present condition of his hedonistic soul. Thus I would strongly council our chief liberal to return whence he came: namely the orgy of navel gazing he is presently consumed with.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by John Wayne

Holy cow, Marc. Surely you must know that the term "liberal" used to mean something different, and still does in the context of certain academic articles such as "Our World-Historical Gamble".

Various persons here have been arguing that point to Marc since I first started lurking here in late '01. I think most of us have given it up as a lost cause. More power to you if you want to try, though.

Judging from the behaviour of our chief liberal, Mr. Brian Rush, here at the fourthturning.com, and other like-minded liberals everywhere circa 2003: Yes, I do see now. Liberalism has changed quite a bit over the years.

Thank you very much for helping me to see that. :wink:

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc, will you never learn? It's clear to everyone by now that you have the hots for Brian, and the more he ignores you, the more that makes you want him.

But, as I've told you before, he's mine.

Now, maybe you could convince him to go both ways, but you're going to have to be a lot more subtle than this. Why not try playing hard to get? You might have more luck that way.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
You go, girl.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc, will you never learn? It's clear to everyone by now that you have the hots for Brian, and the more he ignores you, the more that makes you want him.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
You go, girl.

So what's ya'll's take on the big question: Was Buddha a "nincompoop," or not? :wink:

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

"Ya'll's"? I thought you were a Midwesterner!

Being a yankee from Ohio, as you can see, I still have fond memories, and a few bad habits, I picked up from Mr. Rush's former home state.

Yes, we go waaaay back, Mr. Rush and I. :wink:

From the Drudge Report:
Word is made flesh as God reveals himself...as a fish...
A Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb fish (a carp) that was heard shouting in Hebrew, in what many Jews worldwide are hailing as a modern miracle!
According to two fish-cutters at the New Square Fish Market, the carp was about to be slaughtered and made into gefilte fish for Sabbath dinner when it suddenlly began shouting apocalyptic warnings in Hebrew.
(Go over to Drudge for the rest...the story is in the observer UK. observer.co.uk )
Now this is my kind of story. I also heard on the radio news Saturday nite that Saddam is dividing the country into autonomous military districts. Bagdad is to be commanded by his son , who also is known as "The Eye of Saddam". (A great eye, lidless, wreathed in fire)
It's looking more like 4T tonight than it did last night. :lol:

This is probably just a blip...
But it might just beat out AIDS...
"Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" is spreading from Asia,
and is called by the World Health Organization a "worldwide health threat".

Originally Posted by alan

Now this is my kind of story. I also heard on the radio news Saturday nite that Saddam is dividing the country into autonomous military districts. Bagdad is to be commanded by his son , who also is known as "The Eye of Saddam". (A great eye, lidless, wreathed in fire)
It's looking more like 4T tonight than it did last night. :lol:

I think (as I try to decipher the captions on Tony Blair - long story) that we have ourselves a Regeneracy. We won't have war tomorrow, maybe not this week, but we will before the end of the month. But once this conflict is over - we still won't have a Climax. We're not even close.

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Note that Osama's name, NOT Saddam's, is mentioned in that song

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Senate bans partial birth abortions

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-103841-1681r


Isn't it lovely how in this time of impending war with Iraq the government still has time to do what really matters? :-;

I vote 3T

Wrongo.

What is far more telling is that the Senate passed a ban on PBA the other day--- and no one cares! The left-wing feminists aren't howling foul, the RR isn't dancing in the street, and the ban didn't even warrant a front-page article in the Columbus Dispatch. You can bet the public reaction would have been far, far different had such a law been passed in 1999. People have far more pressing concerns, it seems, nowadays.

It doesn't get more 4T than that, Joe.

I was just perusing over a post I wrote on this topic on March 28, 2002, and it just occurred to me how silly this should sound to just about every American with a pulse and without real estate in the form of a rock today. Wither the trust in government that was one of the few solid 4T indicators by the time a few months post September eleventh had elapsed, as Strauss and Howe have talked about a few times in their articles? This one of the biggest key statistics has fallen to a mere thirty-eight percent to trust the government to do what is right all or most of the time combined, while sixty-four percent of respondents to a September 2002 anniversary poll said they were concerned about civil liberties.

Originally Posted by Jensen B. '78

Excerpted from a post on 03/28/2002
Christopher Hitchens was clearly swept up emotionally by September eleventh, as were so many Boomers, because Boomers' emotions are so keen. These Boomerish traits cause him to attach a symbolic significance and dogmatic report of the significance of that day in September, even when he doesn't get all his facts right. For instance, Hitchens writes that "the few [sic] voices dissenting against the U.S. invasion of Iraq have been stilled", yet not even Bush and Ashcroft's most repressive dreams have been able to effectively carry off a speech code censoring dissenters. Not even the press has been "stilled" or punished when any of its constitutents wanted to advocate saying "when" when it came to Iraq. Even among those in politics the support for extending a war into Hussein territory was far from unanimous. Polls show support for the war flagging when the question comes to whether to extend it into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Jensen B. '78

I was just perusing over a post I wrote on this topic on March 28, 2002, and it just occurred to me how silly this should sound to just about every American with a pulse and without real estate in the form of a rock today. Wither the trust in government that was one of the few solid 4T indicators by the time a few months post September eleventh had elapsed, as Strauss and Howe have talked about a few times in their articles? This one of the biggest key statistics has fallen to a mere thirty-eight percent to trust the government to do what is right all or most of the time combined, while sixty-four percent of respondents to a September 2002 anniversary poll said they were concerned about civil liberties.

Do you really think that people "trusted government to do what's right" back in 1931? Absolutely not-- not then, and not in 2003 either. But I have a feeling that most people will by 2005....either a Bush victory in Iraq and elsewhere will cause people to rally around and reelect him handily, or GWB be voted out on his duff and a new GC will be elected next November.

There is still another, far more frightening possibility-- that there either will be NO Grey Champion this time around, or he/she won't appear until very late in the Crisis. If Bush's Middle Eastern adventure goes horribly wrong, the Democrats continue to fiddle as Rome burns, and no Independent GC appears....we could easily end up with a "Parable of The Sower" type situation, with a collapsed central government, anarchy in the streets and subdivisions becoming walled enclaves http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...607982-5895919

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Jensen B. '78

I was just perusing over a post I wrote on this topic on March 28, 2002, and it just occurred to me how silly this should sound...

Do you really think that people "trusted government to do what's right" back in 1931? Absolutely not...

Absolutely not...