I overheard a telephone poll on a local news broadcast at work today.
The question was "What should we do if Iraq uses chemical weapons?"
Answers were almost all variations of "Nuke 'em!"
I know this is not a scientifically selected sample, but still...

Mr. Meece wrote---But bubba, "those we are fighting" are not really our enemies; that's the point. So winning or losing has no relevance. The "crisis" is that this war is occuring, when it should not occur. That is the only "crisis" that exists. The Democrats are complicit in this error, so you're right, party labels make little difference. If the president who started this war was a Democrat (just like LBJ was), it would be just as wrong. And I also demonstrated against Clinton's bombing campaign in 1998.

Mr. Meece, two weeks ago whether they were or were not our enemies is a debatable point, however, wouldn’t you agree that at this point they are. I really don’t think that you can unleash the dogs of war on someone and then without finishing it say opps sorry bad idea lets just return to the status quo ante and all sit around and sing Kum Ba Ya. Think about it this way Mr. Meece, if you get in a fight you had better not let your opponent get up while he has any fight left in him or you are running the risk of being in for a real beating. At this point the fight is on.

My point about Democrats and Republicans was this to Americans that may mean a great deal, but to much of the rest of the world it does not. For example when Bush I went out of office and Clinton came in to office many in the Middle East simply switched to burning Clinton in effigy in rather short order. I would think that if the chads had swung differently in Florida (by the way this statement was made by the cabinet minister who resigned over Blair’s policy not Chirac) most of the people who hate the United States would still hate the United States. After all if you can force yourself to be objective about it you will see no real difference existed between Bush I and Clinton’s policy on Iraq.

Furthermore to be a fourth turning it is not required that every single person get behind a policy, simply enough to effectively implement that policy. Whether you support the war simply does not matter what does matter is whether a large enough group does support to fight it effectively. I would say in our country 70% is enough. Even during World War II many objected to Roosevelt’s Europe first policy. I would be willing to bet the institutionalizing the right to protest and a greater degree of tolerance for ethnic, religious, and racial diversity are a couple of the things from the unraveling that are now settled. By the way I never said protests were not happening I never said they should not I simply believe that if you can sell around 70% on the idea that we should invade a country and turn a viper pit like the Middle East into a liberal democracy you are into a fourth turning as that is a damned ambitious undertaking that if it can be done will be one hell of an undertaking of which this is only the start. I would suggest that you take a look at the following pole
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5146. It states that a majority of highschool students 67% support the war and have some notions you may find suprising.

Mr. Meece why do you imply that individuals have said things they have not said with such consistency?

The fact that Moore was booed in front of a left leaning crowd demonstrates to me that the mood has changed. Many who may have agreed with his premise probably disagreed with his tone. You will note that much more subdued and differently stated calls for peace were differently received. If you don’t think that being booed in front of a very left leaning crowd showed something you are in denial.

Furthermore a move from one turning to another will be gradual. Think about one we all remember from the awakening to the unraveling. It did not occur on a particular date it wasn’t a change where one can point to a date certain such as June 8, as the point when all the hippies shaved and got haircuts and became yuppie stockbrokers. We just noticed that one day we looked around and yes things were different. It will be the same for the fourth turning as well, one day it will be different but we will probably never be able to point to a particular date and say yes this is it. Remember a catalyst begins a reaction it is not the entire reaction.

As to the protests I would like to make one point, if you want it to be successful I would suggest a change of tactics. You will have to garner greater middle class support to succeed. Snarling up rush hour traffic is not a real good way to do that.

As to winning it is rather like the old joke where a man says
“In 1964 I voted for Lyndon Johnson because I did not want war in South East Asia, if I had it to do all over again I would vote for Barry Goldwater because then at least we would have won.”

You may have found the 3t a bore but personally I enjoyed a raging bull market, cheap international travel, and a feeling that all real issues could be deferred. I did not find it to be a bore at all, sorry you did. I am sure you were out protesting the WTO or worrying about the rain forest or checking to see if Jupiter was up Uranus and what this meant about global warming, but frankly most of us did not.

Finally why would this fourth turning have to be like the last? After all we only have to face a crisis that calls for a great test of national will not a replay of WWII and the depression. Remaking the Middle East into something other than the mess it is could certainly be that sort of undertaking.

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece, two weeks ago whether they were or were not our enemies is a debatable point, however, wouldn?t you agree that at this point they are. I really don?t think that you can unleash the dogs of war on someone and then without finishing it say opps sorry bad idea lets just return to the status quo ante and all sit around and sing Kum Ba Ya. Think about it this way Mr. Meece, if you get in a fight you had better not let your opponent get up while he has any fight left in him or you are running the risk of being in for a real beating. At this point the fight is on.

The fight is on, but no, there is no reason we cannot pull out and leave if we decide to do so. You just offer an armistice to the other side like we did in 1991, or 1918. Bush and Co. won't do this, but just because they tell me the Iraqis are my enemies, does not make them my enemies. If the war was wrong to begin, it is wrong to continue. Therefore, the "enemy" of the war is an incorrect enemy, because we should not be fighting them.

My point about Democrats and Republicans was this to Americans that may mean a great deal, but to much of the rest of the world it does not. For example when Bush I went out of office and Clinton came in to office many in the Middle East simply switched to burning Clinton in effigy in rather short order. I would think that if the chads had swung differently in Florida (by the way this statement was made by the cabinet minister who resigned over Blair?s policy not Chirac) most of the people who hate the United States would still hate the United States. After all if you can force yourself to be objective about it you will see no real difference existed between Bush I and Clinton?s policy on Iraq.

Thanks for the correction.

If YOU force yourself to be objective, you can see that launching a preemptive war with the aim of conquest is quite different from just launching air strikes. This war could well mean that the USA will be hated even more than it was. What we do matters, and what we have done has caused people to hate us. Some of this hate is irrational, but none of it is simply prejudice. It has a cause, and that cause is our behavior. #1 on the list of that behavior, is our support for the repression in Palestine. But now Bush has added a close #2.

Furthermore to be a fourth turning it is not required that every single person get behind a policy, simply enough to effectively implement that policy. Whether you support the war simply does not matter; what does matter is whether a large enough group does support to fight it effectively. I would say in our country 70% is enough.

But this depends on what kind of war it is. It is not clear yet that Bush will be able to make this short war the second in a long series. If he can, or if the problems it causes are severe, it will be part of a 4T. The issue we disagree on is what a 4T consists in. You apparently think it consists of getting behind a war policy. I say it could also consist of a controversy over that policy, if it is enough to throw our nation into a possibly-fatal division. If Bush succeeds in launching a series of wars and occupations, this will surely happen.

70% or more supported the Vietnam War, both in the early years of the war under Johnson, and all during Nixon's term. It was less than 70% only in 1968. THAT was not enough!

Before this war, a majority opposed it unless it was backed by the UN. You watch how quickly the polls change if it lasts longer than a few weeks.

Even during World War II many objected to Roosevelt?s Europe first policy. I would be willing to bet the institutionalizing the right to protest and a greater degree of tolerance for ethnic, religious, and racial diversity are a couple of the things from the unraveling that are now settled. By the way I never said protests were not happening I never said they should not I simply believe that if you can sell around 70% on the idea that we should invade a country and turn a viper pit like the Middle East into a liberal democracy you are into a fourth turning as that is a damned ambitious undertaking that if it can be done will be one hell of an undertaking of which this is only the start. ...

Mr. Meece why do you imply that individuals have said things they have not said with such consistency?

Because in your description of our early 4T phase, you did not mention the peace movement as a part of it. You ignored it, implying that it could not be a part of this 4T mood. Yes, if Bush's goal continues to be pursued, it is a 4T policy. Whatever happens because of it, yes it has likely plunged us into 4T-- even if the larger goal is quickly abandoned, because of the problems it will cause. But the Iraq War by itself is not a 4T war; it will be over quickly and demands little of the nation.

The fact that Moore was booed in front of a left leaning crowd demonstrates to me that the mood has changed. Many who may have agreed with his premise probably disagreed with his tone. You will note that much more subdued and differently stated calls for peace were differently received. If you don?t think that being booed in front of a very left leaning crowd showed something you are in denial.

How do you know it is a left-leaning crowd? Did you take a poll? This is a conservative myth. Hollywood has many people on both sides.

He was cheered AND booed. The fact that he made the statement, and that it was controversial, is what counts here. The controversy is and will be the major part of whatever 4T happens. That you and your friends on the right want to make this a controversy over our tactics, does not change our determination to oppose Bush's wars. We will not stop.

As to winning it is rather like the old joke where a man says
?In 1964 I voted for Lyndon Johnson because I did not want war in South East Asia, if I had it to do all over again I would vote for Barry Goldwater because then at least we would have won.?

I prefer the one that says, "They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, there would be a war. Well, I voted for Goldwater, and there was a war."

You may have found the 3t a bore but personally I enjoyed a raging bull market, cheap international travel, and a feeling that all real issues could be deferred. I did not find it to be a bore at all, sorry you did. I am sure you were out protesting the WTO or worrying about the rain forest or checking to see if Jupiter was up Uranus and what this meant about global warming, but frankly most of us did not.

And most of you are boring.

Finally why would this fourth turning have to be like the last? After all we only have to face a crisis that calls for a great test of national will not a replay of WWII and the depression. Remaking the Middle East into something other than the mess it is could certainly be that sort of undertaking.

You are the one saying that the mood has changed into a 4T mood, and you described your reasons. Those reasons don't gell very well with past 4Ts, though they do in part.

The last "preventive war" was launched in 1914 by Kaiser Wilhelm. That was still 3T. The real test of national will will be, will we learn that it is not our business to unilaterally and preemptively invade and "remake" other nations? Violating international law is not a noble national undertaking. War is good only for the undertaker. Uncle Sam needs to have his claws clipped. We will clip them ourselves, or others will do it for us. I'm sure that's a big part of what this emerging 4T will be about. You watch!

Kaiser Bush will fail too.

Why are you so hung up on Democrats and Republicans
I give the Republicans the credit for making those of us that think evolution should be taught in schools feel like shit.
But who cares about political parties.

You still fail to address why the whiny Pentagon is crying now about losing forces in Iraq and about how the Iraqis are fighting illegally and abusing POWs.

It is the greatest sense of hypocrisy, next to the grounds of the war, that I have seen in a long time.

Well, people, it's been a fun ride, but it's now time for me to move on. If I do come back, it will be either as a lurker, or under a new screen name. Bye-ybe, Y'all.

CNN gives Connie Chung the boot.

Definitely a sign of 4T.

With the Clintons still running the Democratic Party, I guess this story makes sense. It looks like these folks have, um, rediscovered their Gray Champion:

Gore Leading Contender Against Bush in New Zogby Poll
The Draft Gore 2004 Committee (DraftGore.com) commissioned Zogby International to add Gore's name to the list of contenders for the match-ups against Bush.

A Zogby International poll released today shows that in spite of his three-months absence from the national political scene, former Vice President Al Gore is still the strongest Democratic challenger to President Bush. If the election for president were held today, Bush would be the winner by 51%, with Gore at 42%. All other Democrats lag behind Bush by 12 points or more. The poll of 1,129 likely voters was conducted March 14-16. The margin of error is +/- 3%.

Respondents were asked to indicate a preference between George Bush and each of several likely Democratic contenders. Gore was preferred over Bush by 42% of respondents, followed by Hillary Clinton (39%), Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman (both at 38%), John Kerry (36%), and John Edwards (32%).

Gore also enjoys the greatest support among Democratic voters (74%), followed by Clinton (70%), Gephardt (70%), and Kerry (65%).

In other news... I can think of no greater "evidence" that strongly suggests we have entered a -- federal government expanding and strengthening -- fourth turn, than the following story:

Survey Finds Federal Workers Are Restless
At Least a Third Are Considering Leaving Jobs

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 26, 2003; Page A15

More than one-third of federal employees who took part in a government-wide survey released yesterday said they were considering leaving their jobs, a finding that Bush administration officials call troubling.

A little less than half of the 34.6 percent who are considering leaving said they were planning to retire within three years, according to the Federal Human Capital Survey. That means the much-reported impending wave of federal retirements is only part of the challenge officials face in attracting and keeping talented workers.

"Now we've had our attention drawn to a whole other set of people -- not an insignificant proportion -- who are saying, 'I'm getting out of Dodge,' " said Doris Hausser, assistant director of the Office of Personnel Management. "And we've got to be concerned about that. . . . Retention is something we have to pay attention to."

Very, very 4Tish, wouldn't you agree? :wink:


p.s. I wonder if the Gray Champion is ready to ride with no troops?

Mr. Meece.

1. If you could force yourself to read my prior post I believe you will see that I said there was really no difference between Bush I (by which I meant the current President’s father) and Clinton’s policy on Iraq. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said no difference between Bush I’s post cease fire 1991 policy on Iraq and Clinton. Though I don’t think you argue that Gulf war I was really a war of conquest. Take a look at the facts both Bush I and Clinton supported sanctions which made life in Iraq difficult. They both bombed periodically. They both enforced the no fly zone restrictions in North and South. They would have both been happy to see Sadam go but neither was willing to do something like this. I think it is clear that Bush I and Clinton had basically the same policy on Iraq. I would guess that 12 years of economic sanctions, periodic bombing, and the humiliation of a no fly zone has stirred up plenty of hatred. This is why I believe that changes in administrations will do little to change their view of the United States.
2. To be perfectly honest with you unlike most on this board I am not clairvoyant and can not see the future so I have no idea how this will play out. However, I do believe that we had better finish this for what I believe to be some fairly sound reasons. Basically if we just had a cease fire and walked out leaving Saddam in power my best guess would be that Saddam, who I am sure even you will admit is a brutal dictator, would be mad as hell. If he wasn’t pursuing the acquisition of WMD he would be soon. He would believe that he had driven the United States out of Iraq and perceive himself as ten feet tall and bullet proof. I would be very sure that he would want some payback, and we would be a target. Prior to the beginning of the invasion I believe that one of two possible scenarios existed. First Bush and Blair had it right and Saddam presented a threat that needed to be eliminated, or second his intentions had be misinterpreted he was contained and posed no real threat. Lacking the clairvoyant powers that you apparently have I don’t really know which is correct, but I also no longer believe that it really matters. Because you see if he was not a threat he will be if we leave him in power. So either he was a threat and we were right to remove him, or he wasn’t and we have turned him into one and now have to remove him. How we got here will matter latter because if he we were wrong we have to learn how not to make the mistake again and if we were right then we did the correct thing all along. So I am not saying that we should not evaluate our decision afterwards I am simply saying we have started something we have to finish. (By the way go ahead, protest and wave your sign believe what ever you want and tell anyone you want.)
3. As far as the whiny pentagon comments are concerned what do you expect them to about the enemy. Accusing your enemy of being barbaric unfair fighters is part of war. I can not think of a war in which this has not occurred.
4. Mr. Meece if I am so boring then why do you keep responding to me?

Originally Posted by bubba

The fact that Moore was booed in front of a left leaning crowd demonstrates to me that the mood has changed. Many who may have agreed with his premise probably disagreed with his tone. You will note that much more subdued and differently stated calls for peace were differently received. If you don?t think that being booed in front of a very left leaning crowd showed something you are in denial.

I think it was more an expression of self-preservation, myself.

These people maybe lefties, but, sheesh, they ain't dumb about who buys tickets to their movies (at least most of them do). My bet is that many of them knew Moore would spout off and that they had decided beforehand how they would respond.

Conclusion: This could be very 3T.

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece.

1. If you could force yourself to read my prior post I believe you will see that I said there was really no difference between Bush I (by which I meant the current President?s father) and Clinton?s policy on Iraq. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said no difference between Bush I?s post cease fire 1991 policy on Iraq and Clinton...

Yes I thought you meant Bush II.
There is one critical difference. Bush I launched the war without adequate time for sanctions or negotiation. Clinton said he saw both sides of the argument in the Senate before the war. Thus, he might not have launched the war in the first place.

2. To be perfectly honest with you unlike most on this board I am not clairvoyant and can not see the future so I have no idea how this will play out. However, I do believe that we had better finish this for what I believe to be some fairly sound reasons. Basically if we just had a cease fire and walked out leaving Saddam in power my best guess would be that Saddam, who I am sure even you will admit is a brutal dictator, would be mad as hell. If he wasn?t pursuing the acquisition of WMD he would be soon. He would believe that he had driven the United States out of Iraq and perceive himself as ten feet tall and bullet proof. I would be very sure that he would want some payback, and we would be a target. Prior to the beginning of the invasion I believe that one of two possible scenarios existed. First Bush and Blair had it right and Saddam presented a threat that needed to be eliminated, or second his intentions had be misinterpreted he was contained and posed no real threat. Lacking the clairvoyant powers that you apparently have I don?t really know which is correct, but I also no longer believe that it really matters. Because you see if he was not a threat he will be if we leave him in power. So either he was a threat and we were right to remove him, or he wasn?t and we have turned him into one and now have to remove him. How we got here will matter latter because if he we were wrong we have to learn how not to make the mistake again and if we were right then we did the correct thing all along. So I am not saying that we should not evaluate our decision afterwards I am simply saying we have started something we have to finish. (By the way go ahead, protest and wave your sign believe what ever you want and tell anyone you want.)

Thanks for your permission.
It's kind of an academic question, because Bush ain't gonna stop his war, which he was so determined to wage in the face of all reason and world opinion to begin with. But we still have to protest and say it's wrong.

Maybe a portion of that 70% approval are those who are saying that since we started the war, we have to finish it.

Saddam would not be in any different position if we stopped the war now. He still would have to watch out for us, not hit us, and follow the UN requirements, or there still might be another invasion; this time with support of the UN. He wouldn't know that another invasion might not come. He would still be deterred and contained, which he was anyway, against any action against us. I don't know why he would not perceive these facts. We already thought he "hates" us, although he has never threatened us. We don't even know if he has WMD, yet we invaded his country anyway. The issue could still be resolved through inspections as to whether he does. If he doesn't, where's the threat? Minimal as it was in any case?

4. Mr. Meece if I am so boring then why do you keep responding to me?

What a boring question :wink:
Being boring does not mean you can't make good and well-written points which, however, are full of holes that need to be answered in a public forum.
Some people call me boring too. That doesn't mean I can't write well.

The 3T culture which you find fun, I find boring. The 4T you describe misses the real crisis issues we face. But then, you are a conservative. American Conservatives generally don't have a clue. :wink:

The Iraqi military strategy is premised on the belief that the U.S. lacks the national will to sustain a prolonged conflict resulting in substantial casualties. That is, it assumes we are still 3T. It also probably assumes Bush II will act more like a GI/Silent cusper like his dad rather than a Boomer. We'll see how generationally challenged SH is soon enough.

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

The Iraqi military strategy is premised on the belief that the U.S. lacks the national will to sustain a prolonged conflict resulting in substantial casualties. That is, it assumes we are still 3T. It also probably assumes Bush II will act more like a GI/Silent cusper like his dad rather than a Boomer. We'll see how generationally challenged SH is soon enough.

Excuse me? The U.S. defeated Spain during a second turn, and the Allies defeated Germany in 1918. It was the rotten peace they subjected Germany to that they lost. Even that need not be the case this go around. It certainly isn't the case with the Taliban ousted in Afgahnistan. That country is really beginning to thrive by all reports I reading.

It is quite possible that we will lose the peace in Iraq. But that isn't even a very good sign, imho.

No, the best sign possible, we've entered a fourth, is when liberalism gets it real heartfelt and honest to goodness opportunity to make William Jefferson Clinton's prophecy come true: "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."

That will never, ever happen on a conservative Republican's watch.

Mr. Meece can you read? I never really said what I thought the fourth turning issues would be, I said remaking the Middle East could be a big enough task for a fourth turning issue but I never said it would be. I don't know what the true crisis will be what I am very sure of is that the national mood has changed since 9-11 causing us to behave differently.

Just another reason I question whether you can read I compared Bush I's post 1991 policy on Iraq to Clinton's policy on Iraq. You may not know this but the first war in the gulf was over post 1991 so your issue about whether Clinton would have launched the first Gulf war is totally off point.

Let me suggest that you read a post and count to 10 before you respond so you avoid making yourself look silly.

Remember if the authors are correct these turnings ( an all too mystical phrase in my opinion) last about 20 years. In no way could we even be approaching the climax, that would lie ahead. What this war does indicate I believe is a change in mood and evidence of where we may be headed.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

The Iraqi military strategy is premised on the belief that the U.S. lacks the national will to sustain a prolonged conflict resulting in substantial casualties. That is, it assumes we are still 3T. It also probably assumes Bush II will act more like a GI/Silent cusper like his dad rather than a Boomer. We'll see how generationally challenged SH is soon enough.

Excuse me? The U.S. defeated Spain during a second turn, and the Allies defeated Germany in 1918. It was the rotten peace they subjected Germany to that they lost. Even that need not be the case this go around. It certainly isn't the case with the Taliban ousted in Afgahnistan. That country is really beginning to thrive by all reports I reading.

It is quite possible that we will lose the peace in Iraq. But that isn't even a very good sign, imho.

No, the best sign possible, we've entered a fourth, is when liberalism gets it real heartfelt and honest to goodness opportunity to make William Jefferson Clinton's prophecy come true: "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."

That will never, ever happen on a conservative Republican's watch.

I was asserting that national will is higher in a 4T than in a 3T and that Prophet leaders are more likely to fight to a definite conclusion than either Civics or Adaptives. SH's strategy is inconsistent with either of these assertions. Yes, the peace is important too.

I believe we're in a 4T in part because Bush has finally adopted the neocon policy of exporting liberal democracy and extinguishing the threat of militant Islam. His other policies are being subordinated or wrapped up in this overarching goal - he's basing his entire Presidency on it. I think SH is hoping otherwise, but I'm sure he's wrong.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Readthebooknowwhat

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.

That's pretty much inevitable. The divide between the liberals and the conservatives is real, and each side wants things the other side loathes the thought of. There's probably no way to discuss world events without that divide surfacing and generating anger.

Not to mention the fact that Republicans are hard-working patriots while Democrats lie in bed all day receiving their welfare checks and spitting on the flag of the nation that gives them everything they have. I hope this 4T ends with massive executions. Certainly that was what the Clinton years were like for us and for our children.

You say the darndest things, Flandry.
In the real world it's your kind of talk that gets people arrested and executed
Here's hoping you're never in charge. .

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Well, people, it's been a fun ride, but it's now time for me to move on. If I do come back, it will be either as a lurker, or under a new screen name. Bye-ybe, Y'all.

Why are you leaving? I hope you change your mind.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Bubba, having a discussion with Eric is like nothing else you have ever experienced. Good luck, and enjoy the ride!

It's a mind-altering experience.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

I hope this 4T ends with massive executions. Certainly that was what the Clinton years were like for us and for our children.

Honestly, Dominic, you hope?

This kind of sickie crap I have come to accept from sickie people like "Justino," or "Stonewall," or Brian Rush. But I have defended you, dude. Even while over looking your occasional outburst such as this.

No more. You are off the charts here, buddy. You are not with the conservative team, you are with the enemy of our team. You lie when you say that the "Clinton years were like" that of "massive executions" for anybody, let alone "our children."

Lying never works, Mr. Flandry. And niether do gross exagerations. Except of course to make those who engage in such to look like utter buffoons at the end of the day.

I would strongly encourage you renounce this stupid and pathetic posture before it eats you like E2K has eaten so many liberals. You are delusional with such observation about "our children," and you do them no favor by hoping for this kind of hideous nightmare.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

I hope this 4T ends with massive executions. Certainly that was what the Clinton years were like for us and for our children.

Honestly, Dominic, you hope?

This kind of sickie crap I have come to accept from sickie people like "Justino," or "Stonewall," or Brian Rush. But I have defended you, dude. Even while over looking your occasional outburst such as this.

A challenge for you, Marc. What exactly have these people said that sounds even remotely similar to what Dominic is saying? Why do you find them "sick"? It seems to me they are all peaceloving folks who would do everything in their power to prevent such a horrible outcome.

Originally Posted by eameece

The fight is on, but no, there is no reason we cannot pull out and leave if we decide to do so. You just offer an armistice to the other side like we did in 1991, or 1918. Bush and Co. won't do this, but just because they tell me the Iraqis are my enemies, does not make them my enemies. If the war was wrong to begin, it is wrong to continue. Therefore, the "enemy" of the war is an incorrect enemy, because we should not be fighting them.

Pull out and leave? You've got to be kidding.

I had grave concerns about this war before we started and I have other concerns about our president and his policies, too.

But pull out and leave?

What would Saddam do to the Kurds who are helping us fight in the north?
And the Shi'ites in the south? If nothing else, now that we've started, we must stay the course or be responsible for another bloodbath in which the victims trusted us (as they did in '91) and then got slaughtered because we did not have the political will to finish what we started.

And that would only be the beginning. Saddam would undoubted find a way for payback time--and that would have to be some kind of very nasty terrorist attack--probably with the chemical or biological weapons that the French and Germans say Saddam does not have. You know, the ones that Saddam's Republican Guard have gas masks to protect against?

Then there would be the demoralizing effect that such an action would have on our military. They have just recently recovered from the Clinton years and to do such a thing to them would be dangerous in the post 9/11 world.

Then there would be the weak signal sent to others of Saddam's ilk. What conclusions would Kim Jon Il draw from such an action?
The peace movement seems worried about what France and Russia think of the US, but that matters much less than what other middle east and world despots armed to the teeth thing of the US.

There is no way now to send Saddam a "Sorry for the Incovenience" note and go on like before.

Finally, Bush II is not telling you that the Iraqi's are your enemy. He is telling you that Saddam and his regime are your enemy. He was our enemy before this war started and he is certainly our enemy now.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

A challenge for you, Marc. What exactly have these people said that sounds even remotely similar to what Dominic is saying? Why do you find them "sick"? It seems to me they are all peaceloving folks who would do everything in their power to prevent such a horrible outcome.

Forgive me, but I find the question a bit absurd. On the other hand, I am all too familar with how belief systems work so I guess I can understand.

While I don't hold out much hope of disabusing you of you beliefs, Justino recently expressed his "hope," too. "I hope it goes on for a long time and turns into a tremendous quagmire for Bush." This sort of "hope" differs very little from what Dominic hopes for, imho. That it was dittoed so eagerly by your friends in the Big Orgy came as no surprise to me. Which, concerning the hopes of Mr. Rush, was the whole purpose of why I began this thread. (Believe it or not.)

But again, one's belief system often prevents one from looking at things objectively, and with honest intentions. I know, I have mine own to overcome as well.

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece can you read? I never really said what I thought the fourth turning issues would be, I said remaking the Middle East could be a big enough task for a fourth turning issue but I never said it would be. I don't know what the true crisis will be what I am very sure of is that the national mood has changed since 9-11 causing us to behave differently.

But you did not just describe a mood, but described what kind of events are causing it, and what kind of behavior it is causing. You described a condition in which all the favored conservative goals are being met. Maybe I can't read, but I definitely got the sense from your original post that you indeed think we are in 4T because we have gone to war in Iraq and the people "support" it.

If anything, there is more opposition to this war than any other in history, even here in America. How has 9-11 caused this? No, 9-11 did not cause this war, and no change of mood caused this war, or the peace movement either. This war is simply an ambitious plan by greedy, aggressive militarists who dominate an incompetent and illegitimate president. This is not our country's war, it is Bush's war. That's my opinion on what's happening, not just partisan prejudice (I'm not even a Democrat).

Just another reason I question whether you can read I compared Bush I's post 1991 policy on Iraq to Clinton's policy on Iraq. You may not know this but the first war in the gulf was over post 1991 so your issue about whether Clinton would have launched the first Gulf war is totally off point.

But I don't see the point of comparing the post 1991 policies of Bush I and Clinton. What difference does it make? What's the point of comparing them?

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by eameece

The fight is on, but no, there is no reason we cannot pull out and leave if we decide to do so. You just offer an armistice to the other side like we did in 1991, or 1918. Bush and Co. won't do this, but just because they tell me the Iraqis are my enemies, does not make them my enemies. If the war was wrong to begin, it is wrong to continue. Therefore, the "enemy" of the war is an incorrect enemy, because we should not be fighting them.

Pull out and leave? You've got to be kidding.

I had grave concerns about this war before we started and I have other concerns about our president and his policies, too.

But pull out and leave?

What would Saddam do to the Kurds who are helping us fight in the north?
And the Shi'ites in the south? If nothing else, now that we've started, we must stay the course or be responsible for another bloodbath in which the victims trusted us (as they did in '91) and then got slaughtered because we did not have the political will to finish what we started.

And that would only be the beginning. Saddam would undoubted find a way for payback time--and that would have to be some kind of very nasty terrorist attack--probably with the chemical or biological weapons that the French and Germans say Saddam does not have. You know, the ones that Saddam's Republican Guard have gas masks to protect against?

Then there would be the demoralizing effect that such an action would have on our military. They have just recently recovered from the Clinton years and to do such a thing to them would be dangerous in the post 9/11 world.

Then there would be the weak signal sent to others of Saddam's ilk. What conclusions would Kim Jon Il draw from such an action?
The peace movement seems worried about what France and Russia think of the US, but that matters much less than what other middle east and world despots armed to the teeth thing of the US.

There is no way now to send Saddam a "Sorry for the Incovenience" note and go on like before.

Finally, Bush II is not telling you that the Iraqi's are your enemy. He is telling you that Saddam and his regime are your enemy. He was our enemy before this war started and he is certainly our enemy now.

I have no hope Bush will pull out, so like I said to bubba, it is an academic question. If the war becomes a quagmire, then we might pull out. But that is not likely to happen. It wouldn't be right to "hope" it happens, as Marc pointed out. But seriously, Iraq does not have the resources or supply lines to continue for very long. Saddam's only hope is that we give up pretty quickly as casualties mount.

If the war was wrong to start, it is wrong to continue.

You can't assume anything at all about what Saddam might do if we admitted our mistake, and pulled out or negotiated an agreement to leave now. We still would have the power to deter and contain him, as we were already doing. He would never dare to use WMD, except under the current circumstances (if he has them). With the sanctions on him and weak military, he has no power to invade his neighbors. He had no power to attack the Kurds or Shiites. He was not a threat, and wouldn't become one if we pulled out. If we negotiated a settlement, I'm sure it would include provisions that Saddam not attack anyone.

I have no illusions any of this will happen. But I still oppose the war, and am still going to hold up signs saying "Stop the War Now." I will not be holding up signs saying "Support Our Troops" or waving flags or yellow ribbons, because I don't support what our troops are doing. We can support our troops by bringing them home.

Saddam is not our friend (although he used to be). But the term enemy refers to the opposition in a war. We should not have started the war, therefore Iraq or its government is not a legitimate enemy. Continuing the war will make the Middle East region hate us even more than it does, and will create many more recruits for Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad.

I understand your point that we might be perceived as weak if we turned and ran because of casualties. But people who are opposing this war, oppose it because it is wrong, not out of fear or weakness. Many people who oppose this war, support the war against Al Qaeda.

The conclusion Kim Il Jong and others are drawing, is that they'd better get WMD fast, or the US will attack while it still can, and it's only a matter of time before the US attacks.

Your assumptions about the military's morale in the Clinton years makes no sense at all. What, the military has no morale if it is not fighting dangerous illegal and immoral wars, instead of useful peace-keeping actions with no casualties? Bush even wants to cut funding for veterans benefits. The military is strained to the limit, and its equipment is still substandard (witness the frequent crashes that still continue).