Mr. Meece the point of comparing Bush I’s post 1991 policy on Iraq and Clinton is that in one of your earlier posts you had intimated that a change in administration would lead to a change of attitude in the Middle East towards us. I disagree and cited the similarity of the policies of Bush I and Clinton to show why it would be quite rational for Saddam to despise the elected representatives from both parties with equal vigor. That is the relevance. A simple demonstration that one of your prior statements is incorrect, go back through the thread of our discussion and you will see where you originally intimated that.

Where in the world do you get the idea that what is going on here is meeting conservative goals? War invariable brings about bigger government, which I assure is not a goal of this conservative. I believe that the war on terror and the war on Iraq and all of the aftermath will cause the domestic agenda I would like to see pushed forward forgotten. I assure this does not meet my goals. I would really prefer lower taxes less government involvement in both my personal and economic life and to be able to avoid dangerous Byzantine situations overseas. I don’t think what we are doing is really furthering that agenda.

As far as simply being able to back off and say opps sorry. Just for the sake of argument assume that I am much bigger and stronger than you and we both know where each other lives. Now suppose I came to your home and tore it up, almost killed you and then said sorry I am going home now. Wouldn’t I have to watch my back around you for the rest of my life?

Furthermore as far as just or not, don’t you believe that the world would be a much nicer place without Saddam, and that whatever form of government we set up will be better than what Saddam has created? I felt queasy about getting into this not because I thought the war would be unjust, toppling people like Saddam is probably very just. I simply felt uneasy about getting so involved in a viper pit like the Middle East. However we have crossed that Rubicon and we must attempt to obtain a positive result and walking out in the middle will not accomplish that.

Mr. Meece, how old are you? I will assure you that when you grow up you will see all that there is no Utopia there are no golden ages just a rough brutish world that one has to make the best of and winning beats loosing. I agree the time will come that the United States is no longer the big dog on the block and at that time there will be hell to pay. But the hell we have to pay will not be because of our past policies it will be because others are not in a position to exploit us, and they will do it no matter how we behave now. Nations push one another around because they can not because they were good or bad in the past.

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.

Translation: This SN is boring; I'm going to change names real soon.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

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...

Ditto. Whenever the subject comes up among my coworkers, etc, (and it has more than once lately), the Boomers almost invariably either hint at or say aloud that maybe atomics should be considered. They're more and more cheerful and eager sounding when they say it, too. I just don't hear that from other age-groups.

I don't think the 4T is on us yet, but it's a-coming.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

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.

Dominic! That sort of hyperbole does NOT help. I'd expect that of the SDS, or some the ultra-hard-core Left, but you know better. Think carefully about the above statement, and what it says!

Originally Posted by bubba

Remember if the authors are correct these turnings ( an all too mystical phrase in my opinion)

There we agree, though 'turning' is not too bad. Fourth Phase or Fourth Stage might be better.

I strongly prefer the original four terms from Generations to the versions from The Fourth Turning. Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive are both more descriptive and less emotionally 'loaded' than Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

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.

Dominic! That sort of hyperbole does NOT help. I'd expect that of the SDS, or some the ultra-hard-core Left, but you know better. Think carefully about the above statement, and what it says!

First Marc, then you... I've suspected for a while that Dominic was a little more troll/flameish than anyone else on the board but your combined refutations of him made it confirm what I've thought for a while:

that many of Dominic's latest rantings read more like parody than anything else

SDS are the best.

Democrats and Republicans aren't that different.
I see Republicans as kind of strange aliens. They say we want "less government" but they always get more government. They want "less intervention" and then they overextend our troops.
Plus the economy always goes in the shithole every time a Republican is elected, but that's Kennedy or LBJs fault.
There are your dickhead, "fuck everybody else except for me" Republicans, also known sometimes as Libertarians, and then your "My child said Bill Clinton is a bad man" Republicans who probably make their children watch animated Bible stories on TV.
So there are our two types, Alex P Keaton, and Flanders from the Simpsons.

Then you have your right leaning Independents that vote Republican because they are into the whole waving the flag Saving Private Ryan stuff and they want to be part of the "patriotic experience."
many of them are working class and join the military and get sent overseas and die for "democracy" while their fearless leaders spent their active service years snorting coke and dodging the draft with Daddy's help.

Democrats. They are seen by me as weak willed because they are so afraid of being called liberal. It seems that there are few real left wing Democrats these days. They are so intimidated.
I heard paul Wellstone speak once and I thought he was great. The other Dems were scared. They called him a "Communist."
Dems will disown their left leaning partners because theyre afraid of losing elections over this "liberal" connotation.
It is really terrible because since the early 80s things have become more and more right wing.

This is a shame because in France (shameful France) you can have neo-Nazis in government, socialists, communists. Even in Chile they had ademocratically elected Marxist leader, until the US backed his assasination in 1973.
I heard his ear was floating in his coffee.

Anyway if we had a parliamentary democracy, with wider views, maybe we could get rid of this crappy two party system, and more people would be involved in the process. You wouldn't even vote for candidates based on their wives. You'd vote on ideas.

Wow...that sounds like a good idea to me.
Then instead of having to big corporations, Dems and republicans, you'd have many small franchises.

There wouldn't be a monopoly anymore. You'd have small businesses competing against each other. Which is what you Capitalists want, right?

Justino--I think you're one of us...amphibian, that is.

Originally Posted by bubba

Furthermore as far as just or not, don?t you believe that the world would be a much nicer place without Saddam, and that whatever form of government we set up will be better than what Saddam has created? I felt queasy about getting into this not because I thought the war would be unjust, toppling people like Saddam is probably very just. I simply felt uneasy about getting so involved in a viper pit like the Middle East. However we have crossed that Rubicon and we must attempt to obtain a positive result and walking out in the middle will not accomplish that.

I'm not sure the world will be a better place without Saddam, if that means explicitly Islamist extremists governments taking over Iraq and possibly Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. I'm not saying that it will happen, just that it might and the prospect gives me the creeps. Especially Pakistan, which has the Bomb. :o

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece, how old are you?

Bubba, Eric Meece was born in 1947, so he would be about 55 or 56 now, depending on when his birthday is.

Okay, gotta get back to my memorandum to the Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, USDA, about studies on legal immigrants receiving food stamps.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

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...

Ditto. Whenever the subject comes up among my coworkers, etc, (and it has more than once lately), the Boomers almost invariably either hint at or say aloud that maybe atomics should be considered. They're more and more cheerful and eager sounding when they say it, too. I just don't hear that from other age-groups.

You don't hear it from other age-groups? Whenever the topic of this war comes up at school, at least 5 people say "why don't we just nuke them already?". Personally, I know darn well why we shouldn't and won't nuke 'em, but this is a bit scary coming from my age group.

Marc and HC:

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

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. 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.

I think this might be a positive confirmation that I was pretty much on the mark:

DREAMWORKS EXECS TO ROCK: NO BUSH BASHING
Comedian Chris Rock has been strongly advised not to engage in any Bush-bashing during the promotion of his new film HEAD OF STATE, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned...


:wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by bubba

Remember if the authors are correct these turnings ( an all too mystical phrase in my opinion)

There we agree, though 'turning' is not too bad. Fourth Phase or Fourth Stage might be better.

I strongly prefer the original four terms from Generations to the versions from The Fourth Turning. Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive are both more descriptive and less emotionally 'loaded' than Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.

It's a mixed bag. I think prophet is a good name; "idealist" doesn't really describe the archetype very well. What kind of idealist? Was Hoover an idealist? They certainly are not all liberals, but that's what idealist often means. Prophet captures the spirituality, vision, righteousness and passion of the archetype.

Nomad is much better than Reactive. That's a pejorative term, and I don't think they just react to things. But they are certainly wanderers and warriors.

Civic though, is better than Hero. They are only heroes for a few years when they are cannon fodder. Their interest in institutions and teamwork is really the essence of the archetype. I prefer to call them civic heroes, if we use the word hero at all. Civic vs. Prophet captures the conflict between the two dominant archetypes; in other words, Caesar vs. Christ.

Adaptive is more correct than Artist. The archetype is really more of a social worker than an artist, especially in America where we have so few artists, especially these days. At a time when we need more artists, not less, it also doesn't make much sense that the artists are supposed to be dissappearing now. But maybe that's more of a judgement on my part. Certainly though, they are very adaptive, although that vague term doesn't tell us as much as "social worker" would tell us.

I like the 4T labels slightly better myself, because they are similar to other four-fold archetypes I am studying and writing about. But then, I'm a visionary prophet, not a down-to-earth, scientific-oriented nomad or civic hero. Something with a mythological feel seems to me to get to the heart and the whole picture of what's going on in human beings, better than dry and vague technical terms.

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece the point of comparing Bush I?s post 1991 policy on Iraq and Clinton is that in one of your earlier posts you had intimated that a change in administration would lead to a change of attitude in the Middle East towards us. I disagree and cited the similarity of the policies of Bush I and Clinton to show why it would be quite rational for Saddam to despise the elected representatives from both parties with equal vigor. That is the relevance. A simple demonstration that one of your prior statements is incorrect, go back through the thread of our discussion and you will see where you originally intimated that.

I'm sorry to pick on you so much bubba, but it just seems to me you are making incorrect statements clothed in the mantle of "non-partisanship" when you are no less partisan than anyone else.

A change in adminstrations could make all the difference. I didn't say positively that it would; we would need a leader who understands the importance of the Palestinian cause to the Arabs, and who is willing to put enough pressure on Israel. A democrat might not necessarily do that. But Bush not only will continue to do the opposite (back Sharon to the hilt), but Bush is simply an incompetent and aggressive president. That he is a Republican might have something to do with it, but he is far worse even than recent Republicans such as his father. It is not rational for Saddam to hate an administration that tries to solve the problems, rather than one which preemptively attacks him.

Where in the world do you get the idea that what is going on here is meeting conservative goals? War invariably brings about bigger government, which I assure is not a goal of this conservative.

Everyone knows that is baloney. Conservatives want big government just as much as liberals. It is just a different set of priorities. To think otherwise is just to be deceived by Reagan's propaganda. Republicans are not Libertarians.

I believe that the war on terror and the war on Iraq and all of the aftermath will cause the domestic agenda I would like to see pushed forward forgotten. I assure this does not meet my goals. I would really prefer lower taxes less government involvement in both my personal and economic life and to be able to avoid dangerous Byzantine situations overseas. I don?t think what we are doing is really furthering that agenda.

But you described a 4T mood where people don't question authority, and I was suggesting that's not entirely what a 4T is about.

As far as simply being able to back off and say opps sorry. Just for the sake of argument assume that I am much bigger and stronger than you and we both know where each other lives. Now suppose I came to your home and tore it up, almost killed you and then said sorry I am going home now. Wouldn?t I have to watch my back around you for the rest of my life?

Sure, but with Saddam we already did that. We devastated his country and went home, and yet made sure it stayed devastated. If anything, things were improving before Bush came in and ruined things with his stupid and unnecessary war.

Furthermore as far as just or not, don?t you believe that the world would be a much nicer place without Saddam, and that whatever form of government we set up will be better than what Saddam has created? I felt queasy about getting into this not because I thought the war would be unjust, toppling people like Saddam is probably very just. I simply felt uneasy about getting so involved in a viper pit like the Middle East. However we have crossed that Rubicon and we must attempt to obtain a positive result and walking out in the middle will not accomplish that.

I don't know if Iraq will be better without Saddam. Many commentators have pointed out the problems; where have you been? The danger of civil war will be greater; also war between Kurds and Turks, or war between Iraq and Iran. We can't guarantee what happens after we leave, unless we stay there for decades. Iraq is not Japan. There could be another coup, or a fundamentalist revolution similar to what happened when we interfered in Iran. Making Iraq more like America could mean that Iraq just becomes a base for American interests, with little interest showed in the peoples' needs. Bush-America represents corporate power and support for Israel. This is likely to inflame passions in the area, not calm them. So though there's a chance things might be better, I see so many potential ways it could fall apart that I don't think it's worth the cost.

People have made the point that it is justified to go to war to remove tyrants who commit genocide. Perhaps so, but I just don't think that Saddam is that bad. He is a tyrant who tortures people. But we have never gone to war to remove such tyrants, and it is against international law to do so. There is no genocidal ethnic cleansing going on. Saddam's government, though tyrannical, is tolerant of diversity. Attacks on his people have come as a result of him putting down rebellions against him, some of which we encouraged but didn't support. This is no different than any tyrant would do, or even many democracies. What did we do to the South? It wasn't pretty. Whatever WMD Saddam ever used, we supplied him and encouraged him to use.

Mr. Meece, how old are you? I will assure you that when you grow up you will see all that there is no Utopia there are no golden ages just a rough brutish world that one has to make the best of and winning beats loosing. I agree the time will come that the United States is no longer the big dog on the block and at that time there will be hell to pay. But the hell we have to pay will not be because of our past policies it will be because others are not in a position to exploit us, and they will do it no matter how we behave now. Nations push one another around because they can not because they were good or bad in the past.

If taking your view of the world is "growing up," then I don't want to grow up. It is time to really reach maturity, and take a higher view of human beings. It is time for us to rise above jungle attitudes, and we can. Your winning is the only thing ideology is what is immature, and really very pathetic. If we want the best behavior from our fellow humans, we have to believe and expect that the best is possible. Cynicism and belief in brutishness is not the way to achieve peace and security. Fear is not mature; it is the opposite of maturity. Fear only brings on what we fear, and causes more aggression. It is always the reason for and excuse for aggression. What is mature is to look for the root of problems. The root of aggression is fear.

If whatever nation can push others around, will do so, what will happen when we are no longer #1? Would you like to live in such a world? Why not observe the golden rule instead, and treat other nations like we would wish to be treated if we were not #1? We will never have a world of law and mutual respect if we continue to hold to stupid brutish philosophies like yours. Grow up, bubba. The golden rule is not naive or immature. Your view is incredibly immature. And you certainly can't see the world without prejudice, if you are as consumed with fear as you have demonstrated with your statements above.

It is indeed our actions that have caused the problems we face, at least in part. We can't be responsible for the actions of insane fanatics like Osama bin Laden, or aggressive tyrants like Saddam. But if we ourselves behaved better, like not imposing our interests on others or repressing others, I have no doubt there would be less anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and consequently less terrorism and war there.

I am 53 (1949 cohort), but I do act and feel younger than that.

With a name like "bubba," I'm sure you are from the red zone. You just demonstrate again how much ignorance and fear there is in traditionalist America. Your zone is holding us back unnecessarily and tragically. We have fallen behind other countries in innumerable ways as a result. I believe the 4T could revolve around the possibility that the zones will part company. As long as you guys remain so mired in the past of ignorance, there will be no getting along, and no progress so long as you continue to be hung around our necks.

This is the same sort of mood that infected the American landscape in the early 1930s. I have to agree with this person's assessment of how many of us feel about entertainment.

'Bush R Us' is Entertainment for Catastrophe
These days thinking Americans carry with them at all times a sadness. It is a grieving process that is taking place at large. There is no trace of this process in the corporate media. I have not seen much more in the media fantasy world than cheerleading, pep talking and ga-ga hyperbole about how wonderful it all is. So people grieve alone, at least they think they are alone.

In the corporate media environment there is no affirmation of that grieving, barely an acknowledgment of it. That would run counter to the corporate agenda, so we can't have that. To acknowledge the grieving process would be to legitimize the reasons behind it, and that could get into shaky territory, things the regime doesn't like us talking about. It might venture into that area of thinking about your government as a perpetrator of war crimes, and thinking about that in America today is thoughtcrime.

It's astonishing how thoroughly the nation has let itself be silenced. I am hearing that teachers in schools don't really talk about the war that much. In their current events studies, they normally discuss the controversies in the news. But here we are plunged into events of the greatest magnitude in human affairs, war and killing, and people are afraid to talk about it.

Fortunately for me, I have WBAI 99.5 FM in New York, which I cherish more every day. As things continue to get crazier, the chance to tap into a sane, humane community at any time of day or night becomes increasingly important. This is a time when holding on to one's sanity becomes a real challenge.

On Sunday night I attended Mark Crispin Miller's "Bush R Us" at the Cherry Lane Theater in Greenwich Village. In part it was an attempt to get out among people who feel like I do about all this insanity.

Watching TV is not an option for me right now, certainly not TV news. I literally cannot tolerate more than a few minutes of it. It's physically sickening. I know that a large number of Americans -- I would venture to say a large majority -- feel very much the way I do about the destruction being unleashed upon innocent civilians by our government. The majorities in polls who supposedly favor Bush's war and Bush himself are mostly just not yet aware of the barbarity and the dishonesty of what the Bush administration is doing. For that lack of understanding, we have the media to thank in large part. It is the corporate media that have successfully taken people in, gotten their trust, and used it to manipulate them into being passive about the administration's murderous agenda.

Mark Crispin Miller, the NYU professor of media ecology, writes and researches extensively about the media and its failures and the corruption of the political system. He's the author of The Bush Dyslexicon, which recently came out in an updated paperback edition. But these days things are happening so fast, that books don't come nearly quick enough. A new edition may come out in six months -- God knows what will be left of our democracy, our economy, our world in six months.

In response to the massive overload of bad news issuing forth from the White House and spreading poison throughout the world, Miller has taken to holding these Bush R Us sessions on a regular basis. He told one reporter he did it partly "for company." It's extremely important now to get together with friends who feel the way you do about Bush and company.

"Bush R Us" doesn't fit neatly into any categories. "Performance" seems closest. It's sort of a stand-up performance. But it's not comedy. It is funny sometimes. Many times during the performance the audience erupted in laughter, and that was quite a thing itself the way people are feeling these days and the fact that the very grim subject that was bumming everyone out was exactly what was being discussed.

It's not just the war. That's just the current culmination of the ongoing disaster that took America by the throat a couple of years ago and yanked the country full tilt into a rapid descent into madness. We are in trouble and people are really beginning to get it. Hence Bush R Us.

If you watch television you will think you are losing your mind, or you will lose your mind (or "not to have a mind," as Dan Quayle put it). Bush R Us is primarily to create a refuge from that madness, an island of sanity in a world dominated by the mad corporate conquest agenda and a popular culture that is indifferent, if not outright hostile to the human needs of real people.

That was more or less where Miller began. Do you feel like you are going insane? Well you are not alone. Acknowledging that is a big step.

It is a little bit performance, a little bit of a lecture or a talk, a little bit of a group therapy or support group session. "Everything is up-ended," he said. "You don't know what kind of a system you live in anymore. Maybe there should be a show for people who feel demented. And that's kind of what this is. Hopefully we can have a good time though the times are grim. Maybe we can laugh and maybe learn something too. First of all I want to apologize to France. Is there anyone here tonight from France? Is there anyone who would like to be a representative? I would like to apologize for my country..."

Why France? he asked. Why is so much of this bile and fury directed at the French, not Germany, not Russia or China? Miller said after thinking about it he concluded it was because to Americans the French represent sex ... and thinking "both of which are offensive to some Americans."

Our heroic congress, Miller pointed out, in this time of grave danger, voted to have the name "French Fries" changed to "Freedom Fries" in their cafeteria. And the media never challenges any of this insanity. In fact, they are its main driving force.

At a time like this -- and there never has been a time quite like this -- but at a time of massive upheaval, everything must be redefined. "Normal life" is gone forever. Nothing means what it used to. That includes the word "entertainment," which has come to mean something packaged by the corporate culture. But sitting and watching sitcoms on TV at a time when the country is raging out of control, attacking other countries, making economic, political and environmental crises greatly worse than they already are, sitting around watching corporate programming, is madness. The whole idea of "consuming entertainment" seems vile at a time when children are being bombed.

While we sat in the theater together the bombs were falling outside, perhaps not in the streets of New York (not this time), but in our collective consciousness in that room, the bombs were as near as if we had been in a basement in Baghdad. To the people in that theater, the distance of Iraq was not enough to allow us to put them out of mind. That is part of what can help keep you sane. To acknowledge that reality, not to suppress that grief and the sense of responsibility but to share it with others helps to maintain a balance.

The theater, speaking in the broadest terms, is a very ancient form of communal experience of the kind that is crucial at a time when our very humanity is under attack. As the US has slid into fascism I have often thought of the German playwright Bertold Brecht as an example of what kind of activity is valid and authentic for subjects of a fascist state. Now that we are that, I find an experience like Bush R Us increasingly valuable. As sources of uncensored information dwindle, as freedom of speech is impaired, the opportunity to discuss the truth underlying the Great Fraud becomes increasingly precious.

Robert, thank you for posting that. Well timed, and dead on.

Originally Posted by eameece

It's a mixed bag. I think prophet is a good name; "idealist" doesn't really describe the archetype very well. What kind of idealist? Was Hoover an idealist?

I think you would have to say that, yes, Hoover was an idealist. He idealized that his corporatist scheme would solve all of society's problems. Call him misguided but he was still an idealist, wasn't he? Where this gets absurd is when it is asserted that only Prophets can be idealistic and that those of other archetypes who were born with temperaments given to idealism must somehow be Prophets in disguise. Theoretically, each archetype should have about the same proportion of idealists if the percentage of each temperament type holds constant through each generation. The difference lies in the nature or orientation of each archetype's idealism, not in the presence of idealism itself.

They certainly are not all liberals, but that's what idealist often means.

Objective idealists tend to be classical liberals while subjective idealists tend to be modern liberals (or perhaps even post-modern liberals? :lol. But it should be noted that classical liberals were allied with conservatives through most of this saeculum. Alienation from conservatives came with the 3T and the end of the Cold War when mainstream conservativism became unambiguously corporatist as opposed to capitalist (Rockefeller-Bush conservatism supplanted Goldwater-Reagan conservatism).

Prophet captures the spirituality, vision, righteousness and passion of the archetype.

Righteousness??? You hubristic piece of.... :lol: :lol: :lol: Damn, you are a Boomer, Eric! :grin:

Nomad is much better than Reactive. That's a pejorative term, and I don't think they just react to things. But they are certainly wanderers and warriors.

Actually, it strikes me that Reactive applies more broadly than Nomad to the archetype. Nomads seem almost universally alienated such that they do not wish to be proactive in imposing any scheme on others. They only join the fight once someone has imposed some scheme on them (i.e. they react). "Don't tread on me." On the other hand, I am not sure that Nomads universally relate to the wanderer/warrior bit. I do and I'll bet that Justin '79 does, for example. But I am not sure that as many Nomads would accept this description as would agree that they are all Reactive, and not pro-active or active, across the board.

Originally Posted by eameece

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.

Eric, I think I did not make myself clear. I had grave concerns about this war but I do not think the war itself is wrong. My concerns had to with how we got to this coalition of the willing and how our president managed to create a rift with some of our allies.

I have also some grave concerns about what we will inherit when the war is over and we have to establish some sort of government. I do not think this is like Vietnam, by the way. It is a different situation entirely. But the middle east is a complicated place--our situation might be more akin to the Israeli presense in southern Lebanon. They were welcomed at first because they kicked out the PLO (who were not loved there) but they overstayed their welcome and they assumed that what appeared to be government and police were really that. In the middle east being a liberator does not guarantee cooperation--especially since it takes time to re-establish order and what existed before, bad as it was, may seem better than the present chaos to the local residents. (Remember the "Were there not enough graves in Egypt" syndrome of the book of Numbers?).


Anyway, these were my concerns. I do not think it is wrong to remove a dictator. I only worry about the implications to our national interests.

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.

Pure fantasy. When we did what you are suggesting in '91, we did establish the rule that Saddam not attack anyone. Then Saddam proceded the slaughter the Shi'ites in the south. Saddam has already used WMD's against the Kurds. This is why the no-fly zones were established. Those zones only affected Saddams ability to bully the Kurds and Shi'ites a little. He was still able to oppress them even so.

The containment was not working at all. Saddam did enough acquiescing to keep the bickering in the Security Council at a level that let him continue to rule. When Clinton did not press him in 1998, Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. Clinton thought he was being magnanimous. Saddam saw it as weakness and promptly took advantage of it.
If we quit and walk out now, Saddam will take it as a sign that he has won and he will brutally repress the Iraqi peoples even more so.

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.

Maybe, but they play under the same "protect your turkey" rules that Saddam does. If they see weakness they will exploit it. It would be taken as a sign of weakness if we leave now--and it would be seen that way all over the world.

Eric, these despots don't play by the rules--not any rules at all. They do whatever they deem necessary to maintain their power. Period. They understand that if they lose, they die.

The world is not all sweetness and light.

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).

Under the Clintons the "peace-keeping" and "nation-building" activities were not supported properly and there were casualties. Remember "Blackhawk Down"? That was only one example.

There was extensive mission creep and at home, military pay was frozen so that our servicemen and women often had to resort to food stamps to feed their families. Clinton showed either ignorance of the purpose of the military or contempt for it--I am not sure which. That resulted in much lower morale--as many people did not re-enlist and many valuable people left for other jobs.

The military is strained because of the Clinton policy to dismantle large portions of it. They actually have very good equipment and excellent training. Being military is inherently dangerous under the best of circumstances, however, and even the best equipment and the best training are not perfect.

To withdraw from the war now, when it could be won and then have to sit on the sidelines and watch the ensuing slaughter would create a huge drop in morale of the military. Most members of the military disagree with your assessment that this war is immoral and illegal.

As I said in my first post, I disagree with our president on many issues--including cuts to Veterans benefits. My concerns are not about him. They are concerns about what would follow such a foolish move as pulling out.

Finally, remember that your right to protest this war and any other, your right to speak out at will is a right that was paid for in blood before you were even born by members of the military that you refuse to support.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Finally, remember that your right to protest this war and any other, your right to speak out at will is a right that was paid for in blood before you were even born by members of the military that you refuse to support.

I hate to pick nits (well, actually, I guess I must not hate it that much :-? ...)

One's right to protet inheres in ones self as a thinking, acting, volitional being. Armies grant nothing -- death and destruction (or threats thereof) is their sole purview.

And, on balance, I'd say that "members of the military" have done more historically to deny the rights of human beings than to realize them. Maybe it's a wash... I don't know.

Eli:

Finally, remember that your right to protest this war and any other, your right to speak out at will is a right that was paid for in blood before you were even born by members of the military that you refuse to support.

I really can't stand this argument. Even if we don't want to agree with Justin about inherent rights separate from society's will to recognize them, all wars and all military actions aren't identical. The truth is, very few of America's wars were fought to protect freedom of speech. World War II was, arguably, but I can't think of a single other example, not even the Revolutionary War, since free speech and a free press existed in the colonies under British rule as well.

What else? The War of 1812? No, it was fought either to protect American trade rights, to capture and annex Canada, or to stop British arming of the Indians we were trying to overrun, whichever version you believe. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech, regardless.

The Mexican War? No, it was a naked land-grab, pure and simple.

The Civil War? No, because both the Union and the Confederacy had a free press and free speech.

The Spanish-American War? Spain was no threat to American liberties.

World War I? Ditto with Germany.

The equation of war with freedom is completely backwards anyway. In war, we sacrifice freedom for the sake of security against danger. Even in peacetime, soldiers in service are clamped into an authoritarian system that is the very antithesis of freedom. War is the enemy of liberty, not its safeguard.

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by bubba

Remember if the authors are correct these turnings ( an all too mystical phrase in my opinion)

There we agree, though 'turning' is not too bad. Fourth Phase or Fourth Stage might be better.

I strongly prefer the original four terms from Generations to the versions from The Fourth Turning. Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive are both more descriptive and less emotionally 'loaded' than Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.

It's a mixed bag. I think prophet is a good name; "idealist" doesn't really describe the archetype very well. What kind of idealist? Was Hoover an idealist? They certainly are not all liberals, but that's what idealist often means. Prophet captures the spirituality, vision, righteousness and passion of the archetype.

Nomad is much better than Reactive. That's a pejorative term, and I don't think they just react to things. But they are certainly wanderers and warriors.

Civic though, is better than Hero. They are only heroes for a few years when they are cannon fodder. Their interest in institutions and teamwork is really the essence of the archetype. I prefer to call them civic heroes, if we use the word hero at all. Civic vs. Prophet captures the conflict between the two dominant archetypes; in other words, Caesar vs. Christ.

Adaptive is more correct than Artist. The archetype is really more of a social worker than an artist, especially in America where we have so few artists, especially these days. At a time when we need more artists, not less, it also doesn't make much sense that the artists are supposed to be dissappearing now. But maybe that's more of a judgement on my part. Certainly though, they are very adaptive, although that vague term doesn't tell us as much as "social worker" would tell us.

I like the 4T labels slightly better myself, because they are similar to other four-fold archetypes I am studying and writing about. But then, I'm a visionary prophet, not a down-to-earth, scientific-oriented nomad or civic hero. Something with a mythological feel seems to me to get to the heart and the whole picture of what's going on in human beings, better than dry and vague technical terms.

I agree with Eric about the labels, and for the same reasons.

I tended to prefer the terms in the first book I found the The Fourth Turning Interesting but a bit too mystical for my tastes. By the way I don't think the idealism is supposed to be a uniquely boomer trate, I believe the point is that prophet idealists will react differently thatn say nomad idealists. A nomad idealist might be much quicker to compromise figuring this is better than nothing though far less than I want where a boomer would take an all or nothing attitude. Could be wrong but that is how I take it.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by bubba

Furthermore as far as just or not, don?t you believe that the world would be a much nicer place without Saddam, and that whatever form of government we set up will be better than what Saddam has created? I felt queasy about getting into this not because I thought the war would be unjust, toppling people like Saddam is probably very just. I simply felt uneasy about getting so involved in a viper pit like the Middle East. However we have crossed that Rubicon and we must attempt to obtain a positive result and walking out in the middle will not accomplish that.

I'm not sure the world will be a better place without Saddam, if that means explicitly Islamist extremists governments taking over Iraq and possibly Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. I'm not saying that it will happen, just that it might and the prospect gives me the creeps. Especially Pakistan, which has the Bomb. :o

Originally Posted by bubba

Mr. Meece, how old are you?

Bubba, Eric Meece was born in 1947, so he would be about 55 or 56 now, depending on when his birthday is.

Actually... Libra + 1949 = 53

Okay, gotta get back to my memorandum to the Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, USDA, about studies on legal immigrants receiving food stamps.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by elilevin

Finally, remember that your right to protest this war and any other, your right to speak out at will is a right that was paid for in blood before you were even born by members of the military that you refuse to support.

I hate to pick nits (well, actually, I guess I must not hate it that much :-? ...)

One's right to protet inheres in ones self as a thinking, acting, volitional being. Armies grant nothing -- death and destruction (or threats thereof) is their sole purview.

And, on balance, I'd say that "members of the military" have done more historically to deny the rights of human beings than to realize them. Maybe it's a wash... I don't know.

Well I was working myself into a fine patriot fervor there rather than being sensible. Thank goodness I don't do that too often. :-?

However, I did say that your right was paid for in blood by people before you were ever even born. Note the verb used--paid for, not granted. Ben Franklin did say that the tree of liberty must be watered every so often with the blood of patriots. My guess, since Franklin was a Nomad, too, is that he was also working himself up into a patriotic fervor rather than being practical with that statement.

No, the military did not grant you that right or any other--but rights not defended will be usurped. Ask my grandmother what happened when a Jew talked back to a Nazi. She certainly thought the sun rose and set on the American soldiers who liberated her--even though the Hershey bar almost killed her.

What I was suggesting, albeit too floridly, is that people have died to secure the rights that we take for granted.

To Brian: See what happens when an X-er works herself up into a fine patriotic fettle?

However, I disagree about the Revolutionary War. That war was fought to preserve the rights of Englishmen. It is true that the revolution did not begin those rights but it was fought to "secure these rights for ourselves and our posterity."

People in the military have the rights that we have as citizens but they forgo the right to act on some of them while serving.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

There we agree, though 'turning' is not too bad. Fourth Phase or Fourth Stage might be better.

I strongly prefer the original four terms from Generations to the versions from The Fourth Turning. Idealist, Reactive, Civic, and Adaptive are both more descriptive and less emotionally 'loaded' than Prophet, Nomad, Hero, and Artist.

I agree with you here, Hopeful! Artist, in particular does not describe the group at all. One Adaptive I know was confused by it since she believes that she is not at all artistic.

Civic is a better term than Hero, too. Remember in the last chapter of Millenials rising when they talk about how such a generation could react to a crisis badly with too much groupthink? That would certainly not be heroic.

I wonder why S&H changed the names? Were they trying to match Jungian Archetypes?