Originally Posted by elilevin

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.

Well, we disagree then, don't we? The war was wrong to start, so it's wrong to continue. If I believed the war was right, I might agree that it would be better to fight it to win.

But we should all be clear about one thing: this is not America's war; it is Bush's war. Noone else had virtually any say. It is his decision, and he does not represent well the United States. He is an incompetent and illegitimate president. With any luck he'll be gone soon, and the silver lining is that the presidency will be restored to sanity, and we'll have no reason to fight or argue with our allies, or they with us. It will be seen as a temporary madness on our part.

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.

You are quite incorrect here. It is exactly like Vietnam. We have decided to invade another country because we don't like its government, and we are fighting to impose one that is more to our liking.

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?).

I don't know where you get that the Israelis were ever looked upon as "liberators." That was a conquest, and they had to retreat because it was too hard to maintain.

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.

So international law is of no concern to you. America has the right to act as dictator of the world order? Our own interests are all that count?

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.

Relevance? We did not, in 1991, force Saddam to agree not to suppress revolutions in his own country. After the rebellions, we established the no-fly zones. This has succeeded in giving the Kurds autonomy in the north.

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.

Pure nonsense. Saddam attacked noone since 1991. If that's not containment, I don't know what is. He hasn't even attacked the Kurds in his own country since then. Saddam did not kick out the inspectors; they left because they weren't getting enough support from the UN and USA. Clinton was not magnanimous, nor did he think he was. Where did you hear this? He simply continued containing him.

I imagine if we pull out, Saddam will continue to repress the people he represses now. So what? Are you suggesting we attack China too, because it represses its people? How about Cuba? Vietnam? Burma? Pakistan? North Korea? Sudan? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Syria? Iran? Israel? Several African countries? (Perhaps the above comment was part of your overly "florid" statements, as you say below??)

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.

Right. So therefore we attack all the darkness we see? We then become the purveyors of darkness. And we Americans have not the monopoly on right that you seem to think we do. Never did and never will. (I'm glad jds is gone; he would just complain that I hate Americans and want to see them dead).

Your assumptions about the military's morale in the Clinton years makes no sense at all. ....

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.

Yes, and that was President Bush I's war. In Kosovo we had zero casualties; ditto in Bosnia. That was extraordinary given the hatred in that part of the world. If this is not recognized by the military, it is because they are blind. Clinton also did well in Haiti.

....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.

Seems to me I remember there being raises in those years. If so many left, why do we still have so many soldiers? Clinton showed visionary correctness in his use of the military. He did not use it to attack other nations, as all previous presidents since Truman (except Carter), and many others before, had done. He used it for peace-keeping. A genocide was stopped. That should be the military's purpose. I was even gaining quite a respect for it in those years.

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.

Bush I and Clinton both reduced the size of the military because the Cold War was over. If anything it could have been reduced more than it was. The peace-keeping missions were worthwhile though, and if the military was strained by them, then I agree they needed more support. They have very poor equipment, as is shown by the hundreds of unnecessary crashes that keep happening; it is an outrage. This problem seems an ongoing one, and is not related to who is in power.

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.

Well why should I care if they disagree with me? What, I should support an immoral and illegal war, because that would be good for troop morale? Your reasoning and priorities escape me completely.

There is no reason to expect there would be a slaughter, besides the usual repression he visits on those people he legally controls anyway. Saddam is not genocidal and is merely a run-of-the-mill tyrant. He would not be allowed to repress the Kurds or Shiites any more than he is allowed to today. Even if we went home with the "job" unfinished, he would know that he can't overpower us. He was left in power in 1991, and he did not do anything except repress the rebellions which we started. This time, he could not do anything at all except sit there in Baghdad. We will have reduced his power still further, and we could resume containing him. He will not have reduced the power of the USA.

I don't know if staying with this war now will result in a better situation for the USA and Iraq, or not. It might, though I don't think so. But pulling out would just lead to a resumption of the status quo, which in the case of Iraq I thought was acceptable, at least from the point of view of international relations.

This is all hypothetical, because I think Bush will not pull out, and that the USA will win. The only variable about the war itself is how costly it will prove to be for all concerned.

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.

Your concerns should be about him. He has foolishly put our nation at war for no reason, at a time when we can't afford it.

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 agree with Brian's and Justin's responses to you in this regard.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

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. ...

Probably true. You make good points. Was Hoover an idealist in that sense? I don't know if sticking to a traditional philosophy of "self-reliance" for the little guy and aid to corporations was idealistic in that time. He stuck to his philosophy, regardless of circumstance, and to his belief that reliance on and relief to corporations would trickle down. I don't know if that is idealism, though. He was just sticking to the status quo. Coolidge and Harding were Prophet Gen too; same thing applies to them. Not very idealistic, but very given to stick to what they believe in. Anyway, the point is that idealism is too broad a term, while prophet describes the archetype perfectly.

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).

Well, Reagan and Goldwater were also corporate boosters, though I see the difference. But that's beside the point. "Idealism" is usually taken to mean liberalism, politically, whatever it means at any given time. It isn't really, but that's it's usual connotation.

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.

That's probably what the authors mean. I don't think I agree this applies entirely. Gen Xers and Lost, etc., are enterpreneurs. They don't just react when imposed upon. They don't impose big schemes. But they jump in and do things on their own initiative. Besides, though T4Ters might understand this definition of "reactive," to most people the word means flying off the handle over things, and not being creative. If nomad is not perfect, surely there is a better term than "reactive." Improvisational might be closer, but it's too long

Originally Posted by elilevin

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.

Uhh, Franklin was portrayed in T4T as the Gray Champion of his time; the archetypal Prophet.

No, the military did not grant you that right or any other--but rights not defended will be usurped....

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

But as Brian pointed out, most US wars were not fought for this purpose. The great wars of 4Ts were fought in part for this purpose, but I would also argue that it is questionable that the first two at least of these great US wars, ever had to be fought at all. Our rights and freedoms possibly or arguably could have been better secured without war. Too bad Gandhi was not our revolutionary leader.

And if people have died to secure my right to free speech, then it is incumbent upon me to exercize it. We also lose rights if we don't use them. Nor does your point imply that we need to support soldiers fighting a war that has nothing whatever to do with securing our rights. When they are doing so, then I will be behind them. Unquestioned loyalty is not the behavior of a free people.

Eli, the discussion was about war as a defender of the right of free speech. Take a look at the causes of rebellion stated in the Declaration of Independence. We find allegations that H.M.G. had disrupted or rendered inconvenient the self-government of the colonies, together with more lurid accusations such as the plundering of the coasts and the encouragement of Indian raids. But there is no word about clamping down on free speech or a free press. Nor do I know of an instance of the British government doing that.

I do agree that the British were perceived as infringing the rights of Americans (whether or not that was the actual cause of rebellion). Just not that particular right.

More to the point, it bothers me when people look at any war being fought by U.S. forces regardless of the circumstances, and call it "defense of our freedom." It usually isn't, and in this saeculum it has never been.

Originally Posted by elilevin

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

As I believe the people on Flight 93 died, and they weren't acting in a military capacity. But they sure as hell were defending our country, and I'm damn proud of all of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Originally Posted by takascar2

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

The appropriate response from Syria:

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by takascar2

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Here we go, get ready for a 4T war everyone.

I fear you're right. I see cracks in the wall. Nasty ones. Trillion-dollar cracks. Many lives lost. Wheels beginning to fall off. BREAKING NEWS about more civilian casualties. This is how a 4T happens. I'm waiting for Powell to resign. Meanwhile, I may go over to Green Lake this weekend and add my croak of dissent.

Originally Posted by elilevin

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?

I think Nomad makes more sense than Reactive... but the others sound too much like job descriptions :-P

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.

Yes, the right is inherent, but the ability to use it with a modicum of safety and practicality derive from the efforts and use/threat of military force.

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.

If you judge from the whole of human history, perhaps. The history of the modern West and esp. the USA is marked by a military that has done much more good than evil.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Justin '77

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.

If you judge from the whole of human history, perhaps. The history of the modern West and esp. the USA is marked by a military that has done much more good than evil.

Human Rights are to a great degree inventions of the Enlightenment. Since that time, the US has seen the Revolution, Civil War and World War II. All three major crises had an element of human rights, but there were also economic thrusts; fighting colonial imperialism in the Revolution, the Agricultural Age / Industrial Age economic side of the Civil War, and the rebirth of the Military Industrial Complex in WW II. So, yes, the US military has fought for human rights, but it also fights for Industrial Age capitalist values against Agricultural Age priviledge and class.

I am just not sure the traditional alliance between capitalists with visions and human rights activists will continue. There may be a need to check the 'special interests,' which could result in the human rights crowd and the capitalists being on opposite sides.

Human rights are used in the post Cold War world to justify military actions and to drum up support. We cite human rights violations to get our people in line behind the action, which has much more to do with global economics and power broking than citizens rights.

So sayeth my ultra conservative Professor Thornton from George Washington University.

Originally Posted by Justino

Human rights are used in the post Cold War world to justify military actions and to drum up support. We cite human rights violations to get our people in line behind the action, which has much more to do with global economics and power broking than citizens rights.

And so has it ever been. The leaders of the American Revolution were wealthy, very much concerned about economic issues that would in time come to be called colonial imperialism. As soon as the south seceded, Congress started passing laws for western expansion, railroad right of ways and developing industrial infrastructure. Nazi domination would have been bad for buisiness.

But you don't ask people to die for economic advantage. You don't blatantly, openly pay blood for oil. Western crises feature an alliance between capitalists and human rights advocates. To some extent, the capitalists use rights to gain economic advantage. Still, the human rights gained are real. After enough people have died, supposedly for abstract rights and principles, The People take these rights and principles very seriously indeed. The government loses the ability to infringe upon them.

But this time around the People and the capitalists might not end up allied against a priviledge agricultural age elite. The capitalists might be the primary adverary. It might be necessary to distribute the wealth more evenly. It would be much easier to change world culture if a large clique of wealthy influential people started conspiring for change. To date, such a vision is slow in coming.

I thought after 9-11 that at least the new Bush administration had enough of his father's cohorts that they could at least wage an effective war, since they did it in 1991. (effective, though unnecessarily destructive, probably).

But the war in Afghanistan was waged incompetently, resulting in many friendly-fire incidents and accidents, thousands of covered-up civilian casualties, and the escape of the culprits we were after.

Now it appears, not only is Bush a totally-incomptent diplomat, and a totally-incompetent steward of our domestic economy and environment, and a stooge for his corporate masters, but an incompetent war leader as well-- making classic mistakes of military strategy. Shock and Awe has become Stop and Pause.

And now, if Iraq can succeed in gaining some supplies from Syria, Iran or Russia, motor-mouth Rumsfeld may succeed in making this war World War Three and the Clash of Civilizations. 4T time indeed.

I can't help thinking, if the "tyrannical" ruling authorities in Syria and Iran begin to get the idea of what the Bush folks have in store for them (that they are next-- as apparently revealed on the web for all to see in the New American Century documents), why would they NOT join the fight now and stop the US while it is tied-down in Iraq with more and more soldiers? And I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop in North Korea-- a preemptive attack on the South....

Uranus has moved into Pisces. Pisces is the worst possible sign; a classic symbol of quagmires; historically verifiable. Bush waited too long; he should have struck in mid-February, and gotten it over with in a week or two--- if he could have done so (which I doubt). In any case, now it is too late. It's going to be a mess, it looks like!

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.21/fast1.html


Sheltered No More, A Generation Wakes Up
By LISA KEYS

Jennifer Thorpe, a 20-year-old psychology student at Columbia University, is hard-pressed to describe the nature of her political involvement prior to September 11. "There wasn't much of any," she said, giggling. "I read the newspaper a little bit. It didn't concern me. I didn't think there was anything that required my attention, I guess."

Flash forward 18 months and Thorpe, the cherubic president and founder of Columbia Students United for America, is organizing debates, lobbying for the return of ROTC on campus and creating a broad coalition of political groups that support the war. September 11, she said, "made me realize that now was the time to be involved. This was something that couldn't wait."

Call it a rude awakening. For the (in)famously apathetic generations of baby-boom offspring, the tragic trifecta of the intifada, the September 11 terrorist attacks and, most recently, the conflict with Iraq has spawned a new wave of political activism and interest not seen since the Vietnam War era. Involvement spans the political spectrum: "pro-American" (and "nonpartisan") groups such as Thorpe's are on the rise at campuses from Brandeis to Yale, while, in the anti-war camp, students at some 300 to 400 high schools and college campuses across the nation staged a March 5 "Books Not Bombs" walkout, allegedly the largest day of student protest since the early 1970s. The protest's organizers, the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, estimated that some 30,000 to 50,000 young adults participated nationwide.

It's as if a huge neon sign lit up the sky: Turn off the TV, Tune out the iPod and Drop on in to the Real World.

Over the past few years, Ben Waxman, 17, felt he led a dual life: By day he was a student at Springfield Township High School in suburban Philadelphia, by night he was a political activist, rallying against the death penalty and, following September 11, protesting the "strategy of using violence as a solution to violence," as he put it. "I hung out with my friends, and then I did my politics thing," he said. Now, "more and more, my friends want to talk politics with me; more and more young people want to take action."

Waxman was an organizer of the local Books Not Bombs student rally held in downtown Philadelphia. "We expected 500 people," he said. "There were, like, 1,500. It was totally insane." (The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition estimated a crowd of 700.)

According to a recent poll conducted by MTV, the threat of war is a top concern among young Americans. In a survey of nearly 600 14- to-24-year-olds, 30% said that "going to war, war with Iraq" was the most important issue facing young people ? tying with drug-related issues for first place and eclipsing other traditionally teenage issues such as safe sex (15%) and peer pressure (6%). As such, amid bleep-worthy programming such as "Jackass" and "The Osbournes," the network is broadcasting a variety of war-related programs, from MTV News special reports (featuring dispatches from anchor Gideon Yago in Kuwait) to covering the pro- and anti-war movements.

"It's very much on the minds of the young people," Dave Sirulnick, MTV's vice president of news and production, told the Associated Press. "It's become more than just a political issue, it's a life issue."

On the left, "people getting involved with the movement are people who haven't been political before," said Eli Pariser, the 22-year-old international campaigns director at MoveOn.org, an activist and antiwar Web site that has had more than 600,000 sign up. "They haven't been involved in environmental campaigns, protests. They're just so worried about the path that the country appears to be on that they have to do something."

Prior to September 11, Pariser had focused solely on domestic issues. Following the terrorist attacks, he created 9-11peace.org, "a Web site for friends," he said. Within two weeks, half a million people had signed on, prompting him to partner with MoveOn. "What we're seeing is a whole group of people drawn into being politically active," he told the Forward.

Of the 70 members of Columbia Students United for America, "we've got a lot of freshmen," Thorpe said. "I'd say half to three-fourths are first-time activists."

Of course, apathy still plagues tail-end Gen Xers and their younger siblings in Gen Y, many of whom came of age in a time of laissez-faire leisure and unprecedented wealth. According to a recent survey of Jewish freshmen conducted by Hillel ? based upon responses to a nationwide 1999 survey sponsored by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at UCLA ? interest in politics among American college students has declined dramatically over the past 30 years.

Nationwide, according to the study, political interest peaked in 1972, when just over 50% of students polled said that keeping up to date with political affairs was "very important or essential." That number has since dropped to 25%. Jewish college freshmen have consistently been more politically active than their non-Jewish peers (more than 60% in 1972 agreed with the statement above), yet interest among young Jews has taken a similar dive: In 1999, just over 40% considered political involvement to be crucial.

Since then, however, renewed interest appears to be the norm, and for many young Jews, the embattled state of Israel is a crucial rallying point. Prior to September 2000, "I wasn't passionate about world affairs ? it wasn't anything that got me angry or upset," said Darin Lazarus, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of California at Los Angeles. "I really started following the news when the intifada happened. I picked up the newspaper everyday; I really cared.

"I was interested in finding out the truth in that region ? there's been so much controversy, so many lies perpetuated," Lazarus continued. "I was also interested in the ancient history ? where all the conflict comes from. Before, I was never that passionate about it. It was Israel, a place where I went when I was 12, and it was nice. It wasn't close to my heart, but my soul was stirred when it was under such attack."

Now the biology major marches in pro-Israel rallies, works with campus groups such as AIPAC, participates in anti-war counter-protests and writes about politics for UCLA's Daily Bruin as well as the Jewish student magazine Ha'am. "More than anything, September 11 brought it home," Lazarus said. "It made me realize this is the type of fear Israel lives under every day. It further connected my ties to Israel."

Of course, we are still far from the times in the 1960s and 1970s when mobilizations worldwide drew millions out into the streets. Political activism appears far from "hip" on many of today's campuses. Nonetheless, as war looms ? one that, unlike Vietnam, is unlikely to draft young Americans ? something has painfully smacked many young people over the head.

"It's definitely made me more active," Thorpe said of recent world events. "It made me realize that when it comes to things I care about, I can't just sit back and hope they happen. I have to actively make it happen."

Waxman added: "It's our future at stake."

This blizzard just keeps getting stronger.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/...al/ST001.shtml


Youthful naivete lost among today's generation

U.S. memories of childhood colored by war, terrorism

Jenny LaCoste
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com

The last two years of high school are supposed to be about making memories.

Proms, pep rallies, homecoming games and graduation parties.

But for the class of 2003, two monumental events overshadow those crucial years. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq will forever color their high school memories. Seniors say the threat of terrorism and the reality of America at war has changed them - they're no longer naive; they've lost the blind fearlessness of youth; they are forever watchful.

"We saw that we are really vulnerable," said Sarah Biggs, a senior at Pine Forest High School. "It changed us forever. We're more ..." Sarah paused, searching for the word. "Cautious."

Sarah's classmates agree with her. They're worried about many things: Friends they saw graduate last year are fighting a war today; the threat of another terrorist attack; the destabilization of the Middle East.

"It's just odd," said Justin Larsen, 17. "War is something we read about in history books. You don't think something like this will happen, not in my lifetime."

Sarah and Justin are in an advanced government class at Pine Forest. Government teacher Tim Barbon said students want to discuss the war and international events, and teachers, particularly social studies teachers, should make time for it in their lessons.

"Yes, we should be watching the war and talking about it, in the classroom, and we will," he said. "You have to address it."

Barbon said he'll allow five to 10 minutes at the beginning of every class to talk about what's going on in Iraq. He still has lesson plans to get through and homework to assign, but it's important to let students ask questions and voice opinions.

"That's the healthy way," he said. "As a teacher, you can sense when students have had enough of something and it's time to move on."

But Monday, Barbon's government students spent the entire hour talking about the war, 9-11 and how both have changed them.

Natasha Garcia-Alonso, 18, works as a sales clerk at the Navy Exchange at Pensacola Naval Air Station.

"Everybody there has someone they know over there. They're scared to death about it," she said. "A lady came through my line the other day, and both her husband and her son are over there fighting."

Natasha said seeing the faces of the sailors who come through her line remind her of how young many of the troops are.

"They're just like us and they're over there battling for our country," she said. "It's just sad. It makes we want to cry every time I watch the war coverage."

Teresa Lehman feels the same way.

"This doesn't seem real to me. There are people I know over there, and they're not much older than me," said Teresa, 17. "I know people who graduated last year and enlisted, and now they're there. They're 18 and 19 years old."

Despite their uncertainty, many of these students are convinced war in Iraq is the right thing. They're impressively well-informed and definitely opinionated.

"I don't think Saddam Hussein should be in this world at all," said Nolan Intermoia, 17. "The things he has done, even to his own people, are just evil."

Taren Walton said she doesn't appreciate those protesting the war.

"The time to protest is over," said Taren, 17. "United we stand, divided we fall. Now is the time to stand behind our president and our military."

But Ieeshia Reed isn't so sure.

"I'm just afraid of what's going to happen to us," said Ieeshia, 18. "There could be another 9-11. I worry that the world will see America as the big bully."

Darren Casper, a senior at Pace High School, has the same concern.

"This war has nothing to do with 9-11, and they keep trying to tie the two together. That's why I was kind of opposed to war at first," said Darren, 17. "I realize Saddam is a psycho, but I don't think now is the right time. We should've worked more through diplomacy. President Bush said this war would be quick, and now he's saying no one knows how long it's going to last. I think, in a way, they've deceived the American people."

Despite global unrest, today's seniors have immediate concerns: final exams, graduation and what to do with their future. But it can be difficult to focus on those things when your country is at war.

"We're going to be at war on graduation. There are kids that graduated last year, and they're fighting now," said senior Ashley Barnett. "Where will we be? What will happen to us?"

Sarah Biggs just hopes for a time when she can exhale and watch TV without seeing images of war.

"How long is it going to go on?" she asked. "When can we relax?"

What they're saying

Escambia and Santa Rosa high school students speak out about the war in Iraq:

"War is an ugly thing, but if we don't take action, another 9-11 is going to take place. That's why we have to support the military and our president." - Nolan Intermoia, 17, senior, Pine Forest High School

"What does this mean for U.S. foreign policy? Are we just going to go to war anytime we feel like it?" - Ieeshia Reed, 18, senior, Pine Forest High

"My brother is stationed over
there. I'm worried about the war and what might happen. It's everywhere at home. We watch it on TV and listen to the radio. We're desperate for any news we can get." - Jessica Leslie, 18, senior, Pace High School

"The war hasn't changed mymind. I've signed on the dotted line. If they want me, I'll go." - Casey Tharp, 19, senior, Pace High senior who plans to join the Army after graduation

"Are we fighting a war on terrorism? Are we fighting against Iraq? Are we fighting for Iraq to free the people? I'm confused." - Justin Heath, 18, senior, Pace High

Mr Meece wrote:

Uranus has moved into Pisces. Pisces is the worst possible sign; a classic symbol of quagmires; historically verifiable. Bush waited too long; he should have struck in mid-February, and gotten it over with in a week or two--- if he could have done so (which I doubt). In any case, now it is too late. It's going to be a mess, it looks like!

My God what type of foolishness is this? How could anyone with even a modicum of intelligence believe this drivel? We could have ended it quickly in February when we had even less combat power but because Venus has moved up Uranus now it will be a Quagmire. Boomers are truly prone to spiritual foolishness.

I would like you to also notice how Mr. Meece moves so quickly into looking for drastic and foolish solutions. If you will look at his previous posts you will note that he has correctly surmised that I live in a red state and he informs me that the fourth turning will be about separating the red states from the blue states as the red states are holding the blue states back. Only one who has truly abandoned all reason could believe that the difference between the policies of Al Gore and George Bush are worth a civil war. I freely admit that as a general rule I prefer the policies of Republicans to Democrats but being able to vote periodically is satisfactory and I don’t think a conflict between the center left and the center right is worth breaking up the country over.

Furthermore Mr. Meece, I would prefer a smaller rather than a larger role for the state and I believe that it is extremely presumptuous of you to claim to know what is in my mind when we have never met. But I suppose a boomer believes that he has the right to tell me what I think. I wonder of unmitigated arrogance should not be added as another trait of idealist generations.

I would also like all of you to note the vehemence with which Mr. Meece reacted when I informed him that utopia’s and golden ages do not exist, and suggested that it was time for anyone who believed in them to grow up. Mr. Meece I am right you are wrong the world is a hard place governed by calculations of self interest you can accept it or reject it but it is the truth.

No, Mr. Meece I am not ducking your opposition to my position that the we are committed and had best win the war now. I simply don’t believe any further discussion of the point is warranted as you can’t debate with someone whose mind is made up. We could defeat Saddam whilst I am typing this and find conclusive proof that Saddam had plans to destroy all life on earth and the means to carry out said plan and you would still think the war was wrong and we should withdraw now. And no I don’t think Saddam has such a plan or the means to carry out such a plan I am merely stating that I believe no conceivable fact situation would change your mind.

I believe that Mr. Meece is one of those members of an idealist generation for which the fourth turning will fall exceptionally hard on because he will refuse in the author’s words to “behave seasonally”.

Oh well Mr. Meece carry your sign and study Uranus, the world will pass you by as you become increasingly irrelevant.

Croaker wrote

I fear you're right. I see cracks in the wall. Nasty ones. Trillion-dollar cracks. Many lives lost. Wheels beginning to fall off. BREAKING NEWS about more civilian casualties. This is how a 4T happens. I'm waiting for Powell to resign. Meanwhile, I may go over to Green Lake this weekend and add my croak of dissent.

Rather than resigning I would look for Powell to do his best to help the administration meet his goals. If Powell is a dove he is a pretty aggressive one especially if you look at the speech he made tonight where he warned Syria they had a choice to make implying get on board with us or else. Isn't one of the main features of an adaptive generation the way they use their considerable skills and abilities to help implement the polices of more dominant generations. Normally members of adaptive generations help to implement the polices of civic generations but since it Powell works for a boomer wouldn’t it make since for him to play that role in Bush’s administration.

This strikes me as evidence of a fourth turning

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=177

as does this

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=178

Here is what I also belive to be pretty good evidence of a 4t, Gerald Riverra has become a propagandist for the war. I just saw him on Fox tonight, (not my normal source of news) and his report was very pro military fire up the home front. Now if I remember correctly isn't he now or diddn't he used to be pretty left wing?

Originally Posted by eameece

Uranus has moved into Pisces. Pisces is the worst possible sign; a classic symbol of quagmires; historically verifiable. Bush waited too long; he should have struck in mid-February, and gotten it over with in a week or two--- if he could have done so (which I doubt). In any case, now it is too late. It's going to be a mess, it looks like!

:lol: :lol: :lol: God I love this place! It's like having Nostradamus at the friggin' table!

Hey, Eric! Next time, write this sh*t in quatrain form, will you? :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ will take you to Al Ahram, which has been my source for the Arab perspective on things. I've seen numerous posts on the T4T forum advocating the US liberal and US conservative positions. I figure once in a while, a pointer to the Arab perspective might be appropriate.

One of my major concerns has been a historical tendency, come the crisis, for the establishment power to attempt to use force to maintain the status quo without addressing the basic underlying forces forcing the change. Thus, the US has been looking hard at security issues, without looking at the ethnic, religious, economic and ecological problems that make the troubled areas of the world so unstable. Al Ahram, until the war started, was to me a moderate voice that was addressing these concerns. The editorial writers were very concerned about the future of their countries, and were earnestly attempting to find new and progressive paths. Alas, the autocratic governments of the Middle East were no where near ready to follow Al Ahram's progressive moderate lead.

This week's issue of Al Ahram has me thinking far more about spirals of violence than establishment powers reluctant to address change. Oh, the reluctance to address fundamental issues is still here. Al Ahram a few weeks ago was about preventing the war. This week is more about the justice of Saddam Hussain's cause. That might be a bit too strong. No one outside of Iraq is promoting Saddam as leading a just government. Still, Al Ahram is reflecting the US invasion as quite wrong.

Anyway, this might reflect in abstract the difference in how people view the war, how spirals of violence escalate, how two cultures can each believe their cause just. I don't expect most contributers to agree with what Al Ahram is saying. Reaching outside one's home culture is hard. Still, if one wishes to understand the war, one should try to understand the cultural forces driving the other side.

There is no real sunshine in the Iraqi desert. Peter Arnett is repudiated for saying what is really true: America didn?t expect the Iraqis to fight back. And now we?re in one hell of a mess, and we can?t stand reporters telling us that. My God, we are so self-righteous! It?s very hard to find a good argument that we are not cruising right into a 4T crisis.

Originally Posted by Croaker'39

There is no real sunshine in the Iraqi desert. Peter Arnett is repudiated for saying what is really true: America didn?t expect the Iraqis to fight back. And now we?re in one hell of a mess, and we can?t stand reporters telling us that. My God, we are so self-righteous! It?s very hard to find a good argument that we are not cruising right into a 4T crisis.

So can we close this thread, now? Any 3T advocates still out there?

Peter Arnett and Geraldo. Both reported on Gulf War I. Arnett gets canned for doing what got him a Pulitzer in Gulf War I. Geraldo switches sides (but gets thrown out of the war for disclosing information). Seems almost a controlled experiment on the 3T v. 4T issue.

By the way, Arnett crossed the line when he told Iraqi TV that W was losing popular support in the US because of the "failed war plan." Was he referring to the dwindling protests, the 70% polls for Bush, or what? And how was he "reporting" on that from Baghdad? Unlike the Baby Milk factory incident where he reported the position of the Baathists, this time Arnett became Tokyo Rose.