Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by eameece

Nonsense. Noone can separate their views from their analysis.....

M. Troll King might wish to marginalize my views by claiming I am as partisan as Mr. Lamb, but that ad hominum is only a means of not facing the truth of what I am saying instead of having to deal with it.....

so which is it, eric? can you separate your (quite lefty) views from your analysis, or are you partisan to the left?


TK

Eric's stuck in his views. He thinks it's "nonsense" to separate the two.

Marc, OTOH, I guess I haven't been reading his posts with that thought in mind. I have to judge going forward.

For Eric: sure you can separate the two. Pretend you're a conservative! It's not hard. Give their points of view and why. Strategize their best course of action. Analyze their viewpoints of not only liberals, but their view of moderates and other flavors of conservatives.

All it takes to dissociate yourself from your views is a little bit of imagination.

A simple homework assignment: describe the motivations in unbiased terms of various political views, w.r.t. the conflict in Iraq. Don't judge them as right or wrong, just tell why THEY think they are right.

I totally agree with Hopeful Cynic's assessment of the situation. I think we are still very much in a third turning. The national mood has not shifted into a crisis mentality yet. If we were truly in a 4th Turning right now, the entire country would be behind the war on Iraq. This leads me to think that perhaps another unwarranted attack on the US (from North Korea perhaps) would be enough to do it, and I hope that doesn't happen.

Hopeful Cynic brought up another interesting point about the United States being farther into the Fourth Turning than Europe. I wonder if we could postulate that Europe entered the Unraveling later than we did. If so, we could even make the claim that Europe entered the Awakening later than we did. After all, JFK was our President, not theirs.

Here's what I think

1945 - US enters High. Does Europe, which is still in ruins from WW2 also enter the High, or is it still in crisis until 1948 or 1950?

1963 - US enters Awakening when JFK is shot. Arrival of the Beatles in America helps cement the transition. Does this make Britain enter Awakening at same time or in 1964? Is Europe still in the High?

1968 - US in throes of Awakening. Europe enters the Awakening with Prague Spring and Paris Riots?

If Europe enters the Awakening in 1968, rather than 1963, that would mean that they are 4 years behind us in the Saeculum.

1984 - America enters Unraveling when Ronald Reagan is reelected. Does Britain enter later, or earlier? Possible catalysts for Britain entering Unraveling early might be Falklands Crisis (1982) or even Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister (1979).

1985 - America in Unraveling, Europe protests deployment of Pershing Missiles in Germany (still in Awakening?)

1989 - Wall comes down, Eastern Europe freed from Communism. Does Europe's Unraveling begin here? If so, they would still be four years behind US based on the divergence at Kennedy's assassination.

Now, if all this is true, that would place Europe still comfortably in the Unraveling, about where the US was in 1998-1999. What do y'all think?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Folks, let me say to begin with that one reason I rarely join the debate about the 'regeneracy' is that I don't believe we've even reached the real beginning of the Crisis yet, which appears to put me in the minority on the board. I think we (meaning the United States) are still in very late 3T.

Minority, maybe. But you sure ain't alone. Frankly, not enough people (on eithr side of the debate) seem to be taking things seriously enough for a full 4T attitude to be declared.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process.

There haven't been any real compliances, Justin. ALL of them were for show, in the hope that public opinion would rally around him. It did, everywhere except where it mattered.

Look over my list again, HC:

• Instructed to provide documentation -- done(before the deadline).
• Instructed to let inspectors in -- done.
• Instructed to let inspectors have complete freedom of movement and total access -- done.
• Instructed to allow U2 overflights -- done.
• Instructed to destroy Al Samouds (though he disputes whether they actually pass the prohibited limit) -- done / in process.

How can you possibly say that all of his compliances were false. Particularly those made to the latest demands -- which are the most pertinent to my hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Jason C Carnevale

I totally agree with Hopeful Cynic's assessment of the situation. I think we are still very much in a third turning. The national mood has not shifted into a crisis mentality yet. If we were truly in a 4th Turning right now, the entire country would be behind the war on Iraq. This leads me to think that perhaps another unwarranted attack on the US (from North Korea perhaps) would be enough to do it, and I hope that doesn't happen.

Hopeful Cynic brought up another interesting point about the United States being farther into the Fourth Turning than Europe. I wonder if we could postulate that Europe entered the Unraveling later than we did. If so, we could even make the claim that Europe entered the Awakening later than we did. After all, JFK was our President, not theirs.

Here's what I think

1945 - US enters High. Does Europe, which is still in ruins from WW2 also enter the High, or is it still in crisis until 1948 or 1950?

1963 - US enters Awakening when JFK is shot. Arrival of the Beatles in America helps cement the transition. Does this make Britain enter Awakening at same time or in 1964? Is Europe still in the High?

1968 - US in throes of Awakening. Europe enters the Awakening with Prague Spring and Paris Riots?

If Europe enters the Awakening in 1968, rather than 1963, that would mean that they are 4 years behind us in the Saeculum.

1984 - America enters Unraveling when Ronald Reagan is reelected. Does Britain enter later, or earlier? Possible catalysts for Britain entering Unraveling early might be Falklands Crisis (1982) or even Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister (1979).

1985 - America in Unraveling, Europe protests deployment of Pershing Missiles in Germany (still in Awakening?)

1989 - Wall comes down, Eastern Europe freed from Communism. Does Europe's Unraveling begin here? If so, they would still be four years behind US based on the divergence at Kennedy's assassination.

Now, if all this is true, that would place Europe still comfortably in the Unraveling, about where the US was in 1998-1999. What do y'all think?

I'll pretty much go with your assessment, except that I see us as very early 4T -- the mood has shifted but not quite jelled yet. Europe is still in late 3T.

Originally Posted by Jason C Carnevale

I totally agree with Hopeful Cynic's assessment of the situation. I think we are still very much in a third turning. The national mood has not shifted into a crisis mentality yet. If we were truly in a 4th Turning right now, the entire country would be behind the war on Iraq.

I disagree, Jason. There were plenty of "subversives" and Communists during the last Crisis. The reason why they are for the most part forgotten is not because they did not exist, but because they were largely ignored and had little influence. It is just not possible for a large group of humans, or everyone in a country, to all think the same way. Feelings are always going to differ and this leads to opposition. Unlike those who stood behind the peace movement during the Vietnam era., I don't think the antiwar demonstrations going on now are going to have much impact, and will be largely ignored. Just because there are those who oppose US involvement in Iraq, does not mean we are not in a 4T.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process.

There haven't been any real compliances, Justin. ALL of them were for show, in the hope that public opinion would rally around him. It did, everywhere except where it mattered.

Look over my list again, HC:

• Instructed to provide documentation -- done(before the deadline).
  

• Yes, ONE DAY before the deadline, he produced a huge document, thousands of pages of print or multiple optical disks, your choice of media. The trouble is, this is the latest of a long sequence of 'complete and final' declarations. To understand what Hussein has been doing, you have to look back over the past ten years and note the pattern to his tactics.
  
  Further note that the Iraqi claims were promptly disproven weapons inspectors, who rapidly discovered that they were still being interfered with, shadowed, etc.
  
  
• Instructed to let inspectors in -- done.
  

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

That you would compare [eric] with Marc is unbelievable to me, TK.

simmer down now, xoe....

the only comparison i made was that they were "probably the two most classic examples of partisanship on the forum". i stand by that statement, except that i should have included that i meant from each side (left and right).


TK

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc is a classic example of an asshole.

Loses goodwill with every post -- and makes up for it in volume. 8)

On the other hand, I'd say Hopefulcynic makes a good conservative counterpoint to Eric's leftie.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

On the other hand, I'd say Hopefulcynic makes a good conservative counterpoint to Eric's leftie.

i guess i should be clearer. i'm saying what eric freely admits.... that he is automatically prejudiced to his "side" or "cause". and i'm saying that he is that way more so than any others on the left here.

it's not a matter of being an "equal" counterpoint to marc. at least, that's not what i meant.

anyway, thank christ there's not an "equal" counterpoint to marc on the left here. that might be more than i could bear (and i'm sure marc takes that as a compliment).


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Justin '77

On the other hand, I'd say Hopefulcynic makes a good conservative counterpoint to Eric's leftie.

i guess i should be clearer. i'm saying what eric freely admits.... that he is automatically prejudiced to his "side" or "cause". and i'm saying that he is that way more so than any others on the left here.



TK

I'm curious as to how you measure this prejudice.

Calling what I or anyone else says "prejudice," is just a neat way of evading the points I or anyone else make. I'm not sure it works, though.

I think you're right about HC. Justin. And thanks, XoE. 8)

Originally Posted by AAA1969

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by eameece

Nonsense. Noone can separate their views from their analysis.....

M. Troll King might wish to marginalize my views by claiming I am as partisan as Mr. Lamb, but that ad hominum is only a means of not facing the truth of what I am saying instead of having to deal with it.....

so which is it, eric? can you separate your (quite lefty) views from your analysis, or are you partisan to the left?


TK

Eric's stuck in his views. He thinks it's "nonsense" to separate the two.

Marc, OTOH, I guess I haven't been reading his posts with that thought in mind. I have to judge going forward.

For Eric: sure you can separate the two. Pretend you're a conservative! It's not hard. Give their points of view and why. Strategize their best course of action. Analyze their viewpoints of not only liberals, but their view of moderates and other flavors of conservatives.

All it takes to dissociate yourself from your views is a little bit of imagination.

A simple homework assignment: describe the motivations in unbiased terms of various political views, w.r.t. the conflict in Iraq. Don't judge them as right or wrong, just tell why THEY think they are right.

Sure, I am capable of such an exercise of imagination. I don't see much point in it; I'd rather express my opinions about what I think is going on. To be deliberately "non-partisan" as Troll and bubba put it, just means not to express those opinions. A true "analysis" of the situation is always going to contain opinions on what is really going on, rather than just an exercise in imagination.

I think about what all sides are saying, and I have my own information, values and opinions, and decide what to say based on what I know and think I know, to the best of my ability. Sometimes too passionately perhaps, but at least it stimulates discussion.

I don't deny that my views tend to be strongly left-wing, and am proud to be a leftie. To be so is IMO to be in the vanguard. Such a label does not confine me in any way; it's just a general category that tends to describe my views, but may not always; and does not wholly define who I am (I am a person, not a label). However, to be a leftie in America doesn't mean a whole lot, when you consider that the "center" in our corporate-dominated and complacent/uninformed society is considerably to the right compared to other countries.

I can only surmise that all this Marc and Eric chatter has arisen on account that the Marc and Brian rumble has fumbled, of late. :wink:

Mr. Meece and I don't clash very often. To me he seems quite harmless and benign, especially when standing next to the overbearing Rush. To him I probably appear as a hopeless example of everything wrong with Christianity today.

We once had a very interesting conversation, though. I had read Eric's bio of his G.I. father, and was quite thrilled to see him respond to my "Utopia" post. Just for the hell of it I'm going to repost it here. Please forgive the length, or just ignore:

Note: Chris Loyd is a architecture student.

Posted by: Marc Lamb
Date posted: Wed Jan 10 11:05:01 EST 2001
Subject: On Utopia
Message:
Concerning your post, Mr. Burgeron, I wish to allow David Gelernter, to speak my reply on all things utopian and the coming fourth turn. Exerpt from 1939, The Lost World of the Fair Published in 1995 (Reprinted here for education purposes only):

II. RELIGION
Nineteen thirty nine's optimism is surprising and profoundly moving. But when I argue that we tend nowadays to be pessimistic about the future, there is nothing surprising about that. Our pessimism is well-known, and as a society we have discussed it at length. We associate our deep change in national mood with the late sixties. I started well before then, it seems to me, and yet in the late sixties something *did* change, dramatically. It was the Vietnam War, we say, also rock music and drugs and things like that. Or maybe it was the Great Society (Neil Howe calls this the "Tower of Babel."). But a change as deep as the one we experienced ought not to happen merely on the basis of external events. The "asteroid theory"--Vietnam, rock music et al. just cropped up and smashed into us--is too shallow and easy. One has to be prepared internally for changes as big as the ones we experienced.

We forget that the late sixties was also the period in which we entered utopia. As 1939 saw it; a world in which, for vast numbers of people, life all in all was pretty good.

The fair predicted that Americans would move out of the cities into suburbs, and we did. It claimed that the automobile would remake the landscape and it did. It foresaw working and middle classes that were rich enough to live "the good life," and in the fair's terms that is exactly what we have done. We have vigorously addressed the social aspects of the fair's vision, its desire that we understand and do justice to "American citizens of different racial backrounds." And all sorts of gadgets and wonder-stuff the fair ballyhooed or introduced, from the TV to Lucite, fax macines to fuel-efficient cars and fluorescent lighting and robots and rockets and nylon stockings--they have all taken root and are flourishing.

...But when you foretell an eventual entry into the promise land and you are right--the consequences are profound. We have achieved utopia, *our* utopia, a utopia not of perfection but of comfort; and so the future disappeared. It simply vanished. It *had* to.

Of course there has been real degradation since the late sixties in our quality of life. Frighteningly real. Doesn't that make it absurd to claim that we live in utopia? And isn't it more logical to argue that all this real degradation, not post-utopian angst, is the cause of our dumb pessimism? *But why did the degradation happen?* Where did it come from? Liberals are at a loss, and conservatives who point to the triumph of the "counter-culture" still havene't answered the question. If these were in diseases, we'd fended off lots of other diseases before. Why did we catch these? The thirties were bumber years for crackpots, dangerous or plain silly mass movements. You could be an unrepentant Prohibitionist or a Townsendite. You could be a follower of Coughlin or Father Divine or Huey Long or communism or fascism. Lots of people were. But the social fabric held fast, and life overall continued to get better. What happened at the end of the sixties to change all that?

I can't accept the asteroid theory that makes us hapless, passive victims. I am more disposed to believe the truism that there is almost noting dispiriting than getting exactly what you always longed for. It is commonplace--which doesn't make it false--that human beings are apt to measure happiness by progress toward a goal. Not having but hoping seems to be the big thing with us; not so much *being* well off as getting better. Once you have everything you have dreamt of, it's awfully hard to sustain the tautness of will to hold onto it--much less get more.

I have argued that our future is darker than 1939's but in a sense that statement is misleading. It is more accurate to say that for us, the future no longer exist.

Posted by:Chris Loyd '82
Date posted: Wed Jan 10 14:12:41 EST 2001
Subject: S
Message:
Speak for yourself. I think the best way to overcome any national pessimism is to not participate in it. And as for "living the good life", yes one might say that I do, even though many people are convinced that my life is misery solely because I don't have XYZ product.
As for not having a national goals or whatnot, I frankly don't care. I have goals for myself and perhaps my region, and that is all I can do. I don't see any benefit to standing around wondering why everyone is just sad. DO something!


Posted by: Marc Lamb
Date posted: Wed Jan 10 15:06:56 EST 2001
Subject: Not surprised, Mr. Loyd
Message:
that Mr. Gelernter had nothing to say to you, seeing how you weren't around in the late sixties. I only wish that I were as smart as you when I was your age, though I can remember well my own father saying that very thing to me when I was your age.
Nice that you should take the time to read it though.



Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Thu Jan 11 15:04:54 EST 2001
Subject: lost utopia?
Message:
The exchange between Marc and Chris was more interesting than this technical speculationabout interest rates, which looks bogus to me....
Not that anyone will find it interesting, but I have some thoughts on this lost utopia thing too.

Of course, since Marc is a conservative, my perspective is different from his, especially on the sixties (yes chris, I have pigeonholed another one). Most of all I wonder, if we achieved the utopia that was envisioned in 1939, why did we not achieve the utopia that was envisioned in 1969?

First of all the utopia envisioned in 1939 was less radical than the one envisioned and so far unachieved in 1969 (after the same length of time). It was a continuation of dreams which had been harbored since the mid-19th century and the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1851. It was about material advance, almost to the exclusion of anything else (though better relations among different people was also imagined in 1939, according to Marc). It was about limitless growth. Thus when the utopia arrived, we discovered that it was NOT utopia after all, but the realization of a dream that had been flawed all along. It just meant sprawl, pollution, impersonalization, cultural uniformity and blandness, etc.

Thus, in the sixties a NEW dream was conceived. although it too had its antecedents, such as those of the early 19th century romantics and transcendentalists, for the most part they had been limited to a few people and had little impact. The new dream was not to conquer nature and make life more comfortable (as Marc aptly called it), but to restore and appreciate nature and learn to live naturally within it. The new dream was to design live according to the dictates of quality rather than quantity; cultural vitality rather than standard of living. The new dream was to live life from within outward rather than without inward; from creativity rather than conformity. It was to bring the inward experiences of personal revelation to bear on how we live our lives in society. The new dream was not just that all people's were equal, but that they could live in peace and move beyond war altogether. Since the 1969 dream was more radical, therefore, it could not be expected to be fulfilled in 30 years. Whereas the 1939 dream had just taken up where previous dreamers had left off, the 1969 dream was largely a new departure for America. Moreover, since that was the case, it was more inchoate. The late silent and Boomer dreamers of 1969 had a less clear vision of the dream, and less clear plans about how to realize it.

The 1939 dream was, of course, the expression of the Crisis and High mentality, whereas some of the more inward dreams had leaked through during the 1890s awakening (but not much; it was mostly social and material oriented in the USA). The 1969 dream, enshrined at Woodstock, was the expression of the Awakening mentality. So one could argue that the fulfillment of the 1939 dream was unfulfilling to the awakening young generation of 1969.

But one could also argue that, to some extent, the 1969 dream has indeed been realised, and, to some extent therefore, the year 2000 is utopia compared to how things were in 1969. We are freer in expression, not only in fashion; but our very way of being in the world is less stiff and more honest. Just compare the way our news commentators come across today with the old newsreels and old footage. Everywhere in society people are more authentic and colorful. Furthermore, there is definitely more peace and freedom in the world. Despite reversals in a few places, the whole world is not today on the brink of annhilation as it was in the 1960s, and is not aligned in a global struggle full of wars in many places. The dictatorships supported by the two sides of the Cold War have mostly been toppled. Even if there has been no improvement in our government at home since Nixon's election in 1969, there has been great strides toward democracy abroad. Economically things are in general better in the third world as well, except where there has been catastrophic famine as in Africa.

Furthermore, the tools exist today for personal growth and creativity that didn't exist in 1969. Technical tools; we all know them. We have continued to learn more about the past and other cultures too, and this generation has more access to awareness of our past and world cultures than any before it. Personal growth techniques and awareness of alternative religion and spirituality has spread, which should allow us to expand our liberation and unleash our creativity. Women and minorities have much greater opportunity than they had before 1969. Some progress was made toward protecting consumers and the environment for the first time in history.

So why isn't this utopia? Is it, like the 1969 utopia, found and discovered to not be what it promised to be? The utopia today is just unfulfilling to today's young generations? There is some of that. The right wing thinks so. Personal liberation meant higher crime rates, higher divorce and family breakdown, and disrespect for values. Greater authenticity has meant greater stridency, meanness and blatant expression. Greater diversity and opportunity have meant less opportunity for whites, and advancement for those poorly qualified, say critics.

Of course, there has also been resistance. There was not consensus for the 1969 dream, as there had been for that of 1939. Crisis brings consensus; awakening brings controversy. Since the 1939 dream had been around for a while, and only concerned material things, it was less controversial. The 1969 dream is about more important things. Thus, the resistance is more impassioned, no less than the dreams of the dreamers and utopians. The Christian Right embodies this resistance; so does the corporate structure that wants to keep the old dream going at no matter what cost to our future.

And, as I said, the dreamers themselves were unclear in their dreams. So they were easily discouraged and gave up. Thus we have all these new revelations and new tools lying around that could truly liberate us, but they are just mostly lying around untapped.

With the dreamers mostly having left the field, it was left to the resisters. Thus, they have control. Thus, our government does not work for us, but for them. Thus, nothing has been accomplished in our government for 30 years, and recent events ensure nothing will be done for at least 4 more. The clever ideology of the resisters, the idolizing of the free market, combined with the idolizing of traditional values, is mostly unchallenged, because the dreamers lost their nerve. Without either the government to move us along, or strong enough movements among the people who dream, what is done in society has been left to the corporate powers that be. Thus, lousy media, lousy culture, more material things, money controls Wahsington, and a continuation of the 1969 utopia that doesn't work and is leading us to disaster.

It remains for the dream to be rediscovered and acted upon in the years ahead. If "there is no longer a future," it is only because the dreams of 1969 are not being clarified and acted upon. It is for us to rediscover the future; then it will return. Perhaps not now in our lifetimes; with the selection and foisting of Bush upon us, a severe crisis is now assured before the dream can be moved forward again. But it need not die if it live on in our hearts and minds.
Eric Meece

Posted by: Marc Lamb
Date posted: Thu Jan 11 15:44:02 EST 2001
Subject: A Dream within a Dream?
Message:
After having read your post, Mr. Meece, I cannot help but think about your own father. I read your, obviously heartfelt tribute to him yet, it escapes me as to why your having such a problem with recognizing the causes in the stark differences between 1939 & 1969.
Remember, Mr. Meece, your own father came to quite the opposition conclusion that you, yourself did when he came of age in the thirties. Unlike you, his conflict as he came of age was not one of inner questioning of how the universe works. It was just the opposite; it was an outer conflict that raged about him, and hence drew his attention away from inner conflict. In short, Mr. Meece, solving inner conflict is a luxury your father, like his generation, could not afford to contemplate.

The key word is luxury, Mr. Meece. That is why, in Mr. Gelernter missive, I tossed in notions of the "green and dry tree." The word "green" in any language connotes luxury, and the word "tree" in any language connotes seasonal cycles of growth, grown, decay, death and, hopefully back to growth etc...

So what happened, Mr. Meece, back in 1969 in the "green" or "grown" tree leads to the next natural step...decay.

That is why, Jules Whitcover(Silent liberal), called his excellent book on that period, "1968, The Year the Dream Died"

Posted by: Marc Lamb
Date posted: Thu Jan 11 16:10:02 EST 2001
Subject: Post interrupted...
Message:
Now as far as the future is concerned, Mr. Meece, that is the whole purpose of the 4t.
No doubt, that soon every "quack with a plan" will be stepping forward to solve the world's ill and claim the right to the next New Deal, not to mention the next "World of Tomorrow." That is, if Capitalism and it's kissing cousin, Free Market survive to carry it fourth.

Such remains to be seen, though as a conservative, I remain ever positive, upbeat and full of compassion for the most *fortunate* in our society on whose back the world and the future of it rests(ie., the rest of us just follow).


Posted by:Chris Loyd '82
Date posted: Thu Jan 11 23:43:57 EST 2001
Subject: T
Message:
Thanks for reading our conversation, Eric. I do have some replies to what you and Marc have said.
Eric:

Most of all I wonder, if we achieved the utopia that was envisioned in 1939, why did we not achieve the utopia that was envisioned in 1969?

Well, based on what you said earlier, it is a matter of time and effort. I think (and you perhaps agree) that the vision of 1939 was a much more hi-tech and a bit more community-oriented version of the mega-industrial dreams of the then cutting-edge industrialists of the 1850s. I guess being an industrialist in 1850 was like being a 1940s computer programmer, yes? Anyway, I think one of the things that makes the 1969 dream hard to recognize is that, well, a whole generation (Gen X) lives that dream, in a way (the least racist adult generation in history, and perhaps less pollution/capita than the Boomers), and yet they are not the idealized people that we wish the Millennials to be.

Both of you have made statements without actually writing them down, which is an achievement in thesis-creation.

I think that the Millennials will not realize the 1969 dream anymore than the Boomers realized the 1939 dream. For us, the end-results o of the 1969 dream are taken for granted. We live in a trashy Temptation Island culture, but we watch stuff like that anyway (not I, for I chose the Progressive Silent Sheen presidenting in The West Wing), realize that it is at bestt overhyped and at worst just plain bad. It is irrelevant, and we might not give a great big hoot about what's on TV in 2010 as long as it's not distracting us from building our Loydian cities.

Rest assured that we'll live with the earth, but we'll all know who's boss, and we'll make sure that everyone loves the Great Idea that solves all our problems.

I think both of you will have mixed feelings about the Dream of 2019, but after 18 years of non-action (I'm still 18), I will find probably find that Dream more applicable, as long as it is no Final Solution.


Posted by: Eric Meece
Date posted: Fri Jan 12 1:11:43 EST 2001
Subject: 1969 dream
Message:
"For us, the end-results o of the 1969 dream are taken for granted. We live in a trashy Temptation Island culture, ..."
I think though, that my point (whether you agree or not) was that 1939 was a worn over dream, while 1969 was a mostly new one. Thus, the "results" of that dream have not materialized; it may take a saeculum or two yet. The trashy culture was already there (just read the 1950s criticisms by Vance Parkard and others); it has just changed its style. That is not so important; what's important is the substance of the dream, and will it ever become real? What in it is real already? Certainly not the excesses of the 3T. what's real in the dream is mostly still beneath the surface of our culture. A seed only beginning to germinate; a young plant that could still die, and is certainly not noticed by many people.

My father was certainly a typical GI Generation type all the way; a hero, though not a military one. And I am typically Boomer; if anything, atypical in the degree of my typicalness. I think I know the difference between us, and where we stood and why.
Eric

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Marc is a classic example of an asshole.

Loses goodwill with every post -- and makes up for it in volume. 8)

On the other hand, I'd say Hopefulcynic makes a good conservative counterpoint to Eric's leftie.

Thanks.

But I have to agree with Eric to a point: part of what makes someone a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, whatever, is a set of basic assumptions, 'givens' that seem as obvious and definite to the person in question as water being wet. One can partly step outside them, but not entirely.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...749991917.html

People in the USA seem to be disinterested about the war generally.

3T or 4T sign.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/22/1047749991917.html

People in the USA seem to be disinterested about the war generally.

3T or 4T sign.

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

Joe Millioniare reigns, GWB is scum, here in America.

Yeah, I'd pretty much say that Saddam, the vison of totalitarianism is winning this "war." Folks here in America have just "had enough" of freedom and liberty. We're ready to cash in the chips. It's over, folks, this "liberal" notion, the Jeffersonian dream of "for the people."

The "people" have proved themselves quite incapable of "self governance." The "people" have decided, folks, "Hell no, we won't go!"

So, yes, your take is right on the marc here.

Tristan, this is Dubya's war, not ours.

Here's an interesting article relating the current geopolitical situation to our nation's economic outlook:

MARKET WATCH
War Rally Loses Sight of Deeper Risks
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/bu...ey/23WATC.html

"He said he was mystified that investors seemed to think that success in Iraq could remove geopolitical risks from the investment equation. "We think we're entering a 10- to 15-year period of substantial change in geopolitics, similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the demise of the Soviet Union," he said. "But this time we're in the middle of it. We are the target, and we are viewed by much of the world as the instigator. What a change in geopolitics that is." And one that carries very long-term risk."

I came to this site hoping for intellectual discourse regarding the book and possible events in progress, but instead, there's just endless bickering between Democrats and Republicans.

If you guys really want to argue, try this British talkboard:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@international@.464


I wonder how many can hold their own there?

Originally Posted by Readthebooknowwhat

I came to this site hoping for intellectual discourse....

Yeah, right.

CounterPunch

March 21, 2003

Peres: "Iraq Is Just the Beginning"
Could the US be at War for Years?
By BRADLEY BURSTON

A Pentagon-dubbed 'decapitation' mission, a pre-dawn air assault with Saddam Hussein as its reputed target, may have been President George Bush's best chance to stave off a protracted war, which could spell ultimate defeat even if American troops score strings of tactical victories.

But even if the Iraqi president is killed or captured, could the American people still be facing years of war, in Iraq or elsewhere?

The issue was raised in Israel well before the assault began, prompted by remarks earlier this week by former prime minister Shimon Peres.

"The war in Iraq is just the beginning," Peres told Israel Channel One Television. "Problems of the first magnitude can be expected therafter, as well: Iran, North Korea, and Libya.

"The problem is, can you simply abandon the world to dictators, to weapons of mass destruction?"

Asked if that meant America might then be facing as many as five or six years of war at this point, Peres replied, "That is very possible. I don't know how long it will take, but the problem is a global one, and it will not end in Iraq, even if a new regime is instituted - say a regime like Jordan's, not a democracy, but orderly and responsible rule."

Taking a narrower view, former army chief, cabinet minister and peace negotiator Amnon Lipkin-Shahak said the American campaign in Iraq could be relatively brief.

"There is a good chance that there will be a collapse of the Iraqi will to fight. Part of this will depend on how the Iraqis perceive the American offensive," Lipkin-Shahak said hours before the attack began.

"The Iraqis already understand American determination, American psychological warfare will add to that perception of determination, and the moment that the Iraqis understand that the Americans mean to go all the way this time - and not to stop somewhere in the middle as they did the last time [in the 1991 Gulf war], the collapse will be that much faster." Other Israeli officials have speculated that even if the United States can achieve a relatively swift military triumph in Iraq, the subsequent occupation of a nation the size of California could prove a tar baby of major proportions, and an uncomfortable, perhaps dangerous echo of the Israel's military experience in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. The killing or capture of the Iraqi leader might help shorten the war's timespan, but it is overly simplistic to believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein or his sons would spell a swift conclusion, said Haaretz intelligence analyst Yossi Melman. "One must give Iraq's generals, its leadership, and the [ruling] Ba'ath Party due credit," Melman observes. "It is not just a regime ruled through tyranny and terror. There is that, to a great degree, but these people are also guided by ideology, that of the Ba'ath, the common cause, the notion of the Iraqi nation.

"Some of them are certainly Iraqi patriots. It's not that they blindly obey Saddam Hussein just because they fear him. True, he has sewn the seeds of fear and terror in the 30 years he's ruled there, but there is more than that, and that's why it will not be so easy." One particular problem for the campaign against Saddam Hussein is his intensely loyal inner circle, including a core of some 10 top generals, key players in his rule, many of them members of Saddam's family clan.

Now that the apparent 'liquidation' bid has apparently failed, the Americans can be expected "to concentrate on breaking lines of communication, targeting the regime's command and control centers, in a 'divide and rule' strategy, to isolate Saddam Hussein and his central command from the other, more peripheral areas of Iraq - in sum, to push him into losing control of the situation."

The question of whether the Bush administration will follow an Iraqi campaign with threats of military force against other nations on the White House blacklist may in the end be decided by domestic considerations, rather than the desire to bring about changes in regimes that, in terms of nuclear potential alone, are potentially far more dangerous than that of Saddam.

"If he is still at war when he runs again, even if he is winning that war, I don't believe he will be re-elected, if only because of the economy," says Melman. Perhaps the greatest single failure of the American military and intelligence effort occured long before the overnight Tomahawk Cruise missile attack was launched, Melman concludes. "Had U.S. intelligence services succeeded previously in an operation against Saddam Hussein, the war might well have been prevented entirely."

Analysis: After Iraq, what's next?
By Claude Salhani
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL


LONDON, March 22 (UPI) -- The inner circle of extremely influential people within the upper echelons of the Bush administration known as "the Neocons" are by now back-slapping one another and congratulating themselves that the war on Iraq has finally become a reality. Top Stories
? Troops advance on Baghdad
? Officers hurt in grenade attack
? Allied troops skirt cities to limit casualties
? Saddam's image lingers despite raids
? Scientists ID killer virus


This tightly-knit group of neo-conservatives includes, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the highly influential Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. You can rest assured that this same group is now actively planning "Phase Two" of their multi-layered and far-reaching Middle East strategy.
Indeed, their Machiavellian stratagem calls for nothing short of redrawing the current map of the Levant and the re-shaping of its current borders.
Their belief is that the time has come to re-think global policies, to re-visit the entire geo-political situation and to be brazen and courageous enough so as to "address troublesome states" in ways never imagined before. As the popular saying in the American boardroom goes, it's time to think outside the box.
Under that heading, of course, comes Iraq, which is presently being addressed in the form of an American-led invasion meant to enforce regime change. The "Coalition of the Willing," as President George W. Bush calls his 35-nation alliance, is meant to remove Saddam Hussein and his ruling Baath Party from power, and to find and neutralize potential weapons of mass destruction. That plan is now well underway.
But Iraq is far from figuring alone in that league of potentially "rogue states." It is only the first of many steps. Remember the "axis of evil" speech given by Bush in his State of the Union address shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Well, this is what this is all about.
While the president's short list comprised only three nations -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- the Neocons' list of potentially troublesome countries is a much more ambitious one. Syria, and even Saudi Arabia figure prominently on the list of nations requiring "special attention."
In recent months there has been much talk in Washington of going as far as "breaking up" Saudi Arabia into several smaller, and thus more manageable entities. But these discussions passed by almost unnoticed while the main focus centered around the political debate raging over the Iraq issue.
Far-fetched? Hardly. Their view of the Middle East is, in fact, quite simple. It revolves around the belief that the region is so unstable, that unless the United States actively and aggressively takes matters into its own hands, the region will forever continue to stew in political and economic instability for decades to come. As a result, unless the problem is addressed, it will likely drag the rest of the world into socio-economic chaos along with it, ultimately resulting in more catastrophic September 11s.
As Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair told his nation on the day British troops entered into battle against Iraq, "to deal with future threats peacefully is to deal with present threats with resolve."
They cite as examples the post 9/11 financial downturn in global economies and the devastating impact it had on world markets; massive loss of revenue calculated in the trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of lost jobs and scores of bankruptcies.
In today's "village economy" what transpires in one part of the world has direct economic impact in other parts of the globe. As the sole remaining super power, the United States wants to ensure economic stability, if for no other reason than to guarantee its own economic well-being and stability.
Furthermore, the current Islamist threats posed by the likes of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network are believed to be the direct result of continuing political, religious, ethnic and economic instability plaguing the Middle East.
That is compounded by the unwillingness of the current crop of Mideast leaders to address their own burning issues. A good example is the deteriorating socio-economic situation in the Desert Kingdom, from where 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers originated, and Saudi Arabia's continued refusal to address those social issues and enact much needed changes.
The cataclysm of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, acted as a rude wake-up call to America. The attacks by 19 Arab terrorists pushed home the belief that immediate action was paramount in order to insure that such attacks on America and its allies were not repeated in the future. This offered the Neocons all the more incentive to pursue their plans.
That thinking partially explains President Bush's obsession in eliminating Iraq as a potential threat to America's security, an America still economically staggering from the drastic economic repercussions of 9/11.
This policy -- of preemptively eliminating potential threats -- was made clear by the president in his televised Oval Office address to the world the night hostilities by the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq commenced in the early hours of March 20. Said a somber-looking Bush: "We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."
Blair's statement closely mirrored President Bush's. It was not possible to make a clearer statement and a clearer warning to the rest of the region that the time for change has now come.
-0-
(Claude Salhani is a senior editor with United Press International in Washington, DC.)

Woops?the Jesus rappers on Pat Robertson?s Christian channel are doing the dirty crotch-grab. Must be 4T here at home where the buffalos roam?or where they used to.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Right. Dubya did this, not us.

Hussein did this, not Dubya. War with Hussein was inevitable sooner or later, since Gulf I was left in the state it was left (and yes, that was more Bush Senior's fault than Clinton's, though Clinton didn't help any). The only thing W. affected was the specific timing.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Tristan, this is Dubya's war, not ours.

This is your war since it's being fought by American forces, under orders from the American president, and the world will count it as yours.

The reason people aren't much interested is the same reason they weren't much interested in the Clinton impeachment, or the disintegration of the shuttle Columbia, or any number of other issues: it's hard to get the public very excited about anything in a Third Turning.