Originally Posted by monoghan

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.

This is an interesting exercise in self-censoship. What Arnett reported is entirely within the common line of Al Ahram http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ reporting and I suspect the rest of the Arab press. There is a significant disconnect between how US/British reporters are echoing their national propaganda lines, and how the Arab press clings to an Arab agenda. I would quite expect an Iranian reporter to be fired for breaking the party line on the air, in the context of 'ready, aim, fire...' For the US to silence dissent is dissapointing.

I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two party lines. I anticipate the west will win the conventional war. I expect the casulties will be kept very low. I believe Bush was going for broke, going for a 'short victorious war,' and in doing so was taking some risks. Victorious reamains ever so likely. Short might be problematic. The question is not whether Saddam can stand in a conventional war. It is fairly clear he can't. Will a guirilla tradition develop? Will the US be able to create a regeme satisfactory to both Dubya and the Iraqi people?

The largest disconnect is in reporting on the loyalties of the Iraqi people. Allied sources report on every hint of the people siding with the coalition against the regeme. Iraqi and Arab media are reporting how the coalition is having grave difficulties securing populated areas, how the people are not welcoming invaders. There is a strong dissconect in the reporting here, and in the most key area, the battle for the local's hearts.

Saddam and Dubya are both trying to project victory as the likely outcome. A leader can't do otherwise without destroying morale. One of them is going to be wrong. They aren't both going to win. Neither of them seem eager to admit to mistakes. To me, the whole thing seems to be a mistake.

By the way gerraldo did not get kicked out turned out to be a rumor, just heard him give a live report from the 101st. Where he clearly said we are fighting evil. As to the thread we may as well close it this is the 4t.

What is disturbing about the Arab media that Mr. Butler posted is that is so far from reality, yes we are encountering unexpected resistance, but Saddam is not winning. When we do take Baghdad, and we will how will they react.

Whether we end up with anything governable afterwards is the real question. I don't know the Iraqi resistance could be driven by nationalism or by fear of Saddam. No way to really know from here.

It could come out ok it could be a mess at this point I see no choice but to see it through.

[quote]The largest disconnect is in reporting on the loyalties of the Iraqi people. Allied sources report on every hint of the people siding with the coalition against the regeme. Iraqi and Arab media are reporting how the coalition is having grave difficulties securing populated areas, how the people are not welcoming invaders. There is a strong dissconect in the reporting here, and in the most key area, the battle for the local's hearts.

You are right and unfortunately which is the truth is unknowable at this point plausible arguments can be made either way, I would also argue no real clear evidence exists.

Originally Posted by bubba

This strikes me as evidence of a fourth turning

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

Changes in overall confidence requires a change in many personal opinions. People don't easily admit error. I would be surprised if confidence fell this fast.

Score: awaiting a future tally. Check again in a week or two, if that soon.

Originally Posted by bubba

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?

Geraldo moved into the neocon camp, and the move isn't recent. Mark him a 9/11 convert - and converts are always the TRUE believers. He still has "liberal" views on many social issues, not that the opinion of a scandal-monger is very valuable to anyone.

Originally Posted by bubba

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

The largest disconnect is in reporting on the loyalties of the Iraqi people. Allied sources report on every hint of the people siding with the coalition against the regeme. Iraqi and Arab media are reporting how the coalition is having grave difficulties securing populated areas, how the people are not welcoming invaders. There is a strong dissconect in the reporting here, and in the most key area, the battle for the local's hearts.

You are right and unfortunately which is the truth is unknowable at this point plausible arguments can be made either way, I would also argue no real clear evidence exists.

^^^^ Reconstructed as a service for our readers ^^^^
I'll agree that the hearts-and-minds thing is problemmatic. If we had continued with the Gulf War in '91, I don't doubt that we could have rolled-over Saddam in a walk. Iraqi popular support would have been likely, too. Now, we're in a no-win, could-lose situation. As unfortunate as it sounds, we have little choice but carrying this forward.

But after the fact, we should hoist Mr. Bush and his entire cablal by the short hairs, and let the buzzards have them. :x

Originally Posted by monoghan

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?

I can see at least three... Marc Lamb, HopefulCynic68, and myself (not counting a few of the people who post occasionally, such as voltronx and Jesse Manoogian) - and there is at least one 'undecided' as well (Eric Meece)

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.

If winning is defined as being better off than you would have been if you had not done acted winning is possible. I did not say we would for sure but I said it is possible.

There is no doubt we are in a 4T now. 911 was certainly the catalyst, not because of the horror and tragedy of the event itself (horrible things can and do happen in all turnings), but because of Bush's subsequent obsession with avenging all terrorists to the point of eradicating terrorism where none actually existed (Saddam and Iraq).

If 911 had happened during the Clinton administration, eventually the dust would have settled (literally) and we would go back to our old 3T ways, chastened and a bit more cautious, but but really no different. This almost happened--but not quite. While many of us wondered if we had fallen back into the shallowness and banality of the 3T, King Bush and his conservative cronies were busy greasing the axles, just waiting for the opportunity to avenge Saddam's supposed threat to America and to all things American (which, to them, means oil and big business).

King Bush is an obsessive personality, and doesn't let go easily. He does not forgive easily (Saddam's threat on his father's life during the Gulf war), and he is extremely obstinate. He is the prototypical Boomer president, self-righteous and overconfident. He has grossly underestimated the power of the Iraqis, and overestimated America's infallibility--and now the sh*t has really hit the fan. There is no turning back now to 3T ways, as there may have been after 911 had he reacted differently. This is not the catalyst--it's the regeneracy. Rather than eradicate or keep us secure from terrorism, King Bush has opened up America to further acts of terrorism, and it's only a matter of time before we get what's coming to us, whether it be biological or chemical weapons, or nuclear attack.

Even if we are not attacked from the outside, the country is falling apart from within, and now it's only getting worse. The Red Zone (pro-Bush, pro-war) and Blue zones (anti-Bush, anti-war) are drawing ever farther apart, and the nation may not stay intact. It would not surprise me if the Blue Zone actually seceded from the nation. We are in for a serious depression eventually--a bleak, polluted, impoverished industrial wasteland similar to the one depicted in the Terminator movies. I am not joking about this.

Also, any nation that has been weakened from within is all the more prone to be attacked from the outside. We pose less of a threat.

All the generational pieces are in place: what Silents remain in governmental power have been rendered weak and ineffectual; they blindly follow Bush's conservative agenda. As for the liberals, they are just plain ignored.

Boomers are nearly at the height of their power, and they revel in that power--and in their righteousness. Not all Boomers are bad, of course; there are very good ones and very bad ones. Bush et al are the bad ones. Giuliani was one of the good ones. (Giuliani, to me, would be an excellent candidate for a Gray Champion; Hillary Clinton is another). Al Gore is a Boomer, and while he could not have completely avoided a 4T, it would have come later, and 911 may not have been the catalyst. He would have reacted only when absolutely necessary--not due to his own obstinacy and obsessive personality.

Xers everywhere are rounding up the wagons. Even the young ones in their 20s are settling down and having families now. Their young children are watched very closely in these difficult times. A few are entering the political arena, and are offering pragmatic solutions to the country's problems. Many are serving in the war itself, as officers and soldiers. Some, like Justin, oppose the war, and have become involved in anti-war activities. But their protests, unlike the Boomers who protested Vietnam, will go largely unheard and ignored. This is sad.
They are not saying "whatever" anymore. In a 4T, Nomads do care.

Many of the young soldiers in Iraq now are Millennials. So are many of the protesters. They are principled and believe in cooperative action, no matter whether they are for or against this war.

So while 911 didn't have to be the catalyst, it was, because of King Bush's reaction to it and to terrorism in general.

Calm down Helitrope, If this war is a mistake we made it together and we will get out of it together. Look at the facts

Liberal Democrats are the only ideological or demographic group in which a majority believes the United States made the wrong decision to use military force in Iraq. Most liberal Democrats (54%) think the United States made the wrong decision to attack Iraq, while 42% believe it was the right decision.
(Public Confidence In War Effort Falters
But Support for War Holds Steady
(http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=177)

While I grant you the war is probably generally more popular in red states than blue states a majority support it in both and a majority don't want to break up the United States. Just for your information a majority in both blue and red states support the war check the above.

You boomers are so excitable, and by the way Giuliani what you call one of the good boomers backs the war.

We can win don't worry even if it is going bad we have plenty more combat power we can send over. When it is over we will assess was it right or wrong, if we decide Bush was right he will probably be reelected if we decide he was wrong he wont be. Just calm down and remember Bush could not have done this if we did not back him. As a nation we collectively allowed this to happen, and at this time more think that was right than wrong latter on who knows.

The hard part is not winning but leaving something behind better than what was there, we may or may not accomplish that. Though I have to admit it would not take much to be better. But even if we turn Iraq into the Beriut of the 80's we wont really be much worse off. If they are focused on killing each other they wont bother us and if a Taliban like state emerges it will be so disorganized that we probably don't need to fear it.

What are all you Boomers who are talking about splitting up the country so affraid or?

Originally Posted by bubba

While I grant you the war is probably generally more popular in red states than blue states a majority support it in both and a majority don't want to break up the United States.

That may change. Opinion about the war could change in a heartbeat. That about the USA could take decades, and it only matters if the change occurs within states that might seceed.

Just calm down and remember Bush could not have done this if we did not back him. As a nation we collectively allowed this to happen, and at this time more think that was right than wrong latter on who knows.

Many Senators were cowed into supporting the war, thinking they had to back him in UN negotiations.

even if we turn Iraq into the Beriut of the 80's we wont really be much worse off. If they are focused on killing each other they wont bother us and if a Taliban like state emerges it will be so disorganized that we probably don't need to fear it.

Beirut was a terrorist nest. So what would result in that case was just what we supposedly went to war to prevent. So, we don't need to fear more 9-11s from a Taliban-like state, eh? If not, what the hell are we doing in Iraq?

What are all you Boomers who are talking about splitting up the country so affraid or?

I think she mentioned pollution and depression. Aren't those valid concerns?

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Bubba, a 4T global war right now could mean the end of civilization as we know it. You don't think that's something worth worrying about?

_________________
Just shut up and take your clothes off.

XoE

Disrobing seems a reasonable response to me.

Originally Posted by bubba

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.

Your words merely betray your close-mindedness, which you were at such pains to deny. It doesn't matter what you think of Uranus. T4T is about prophecy, and I am merely bringing in another flavor of it.

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.

Maybe not, bubba. But the zones are indicative of festering and growing conflict between areas of our country that are increasingly irreconcilable. Personally I don't think we can make any progress in this country, because the conservatives (who live predominately in red zones) go to any length to prevent it, and are open to none of it. Perhaps indeed you may be right and the divide will soften. I hope so. But the signs do not look promising.

By the way a split into smaller nations by the USA does not necessarily mean civil war, unless one side is foolish enough to try to prevent it happening by force. If the Soviet Union can break up, why not the USA? It is fundamentally too big and too unwieldy to rule, and subjugates local interests too much. Smaller is better.

Furthermore Mr. Meece, I would prefer a smaller rather than a larger role for the state

But not a smaller 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 (if) unmitigated arrogance should not be added as another trait of idealist generations.

I think it already is such a trait. :wink:
I don't know what presumption you are referring to, but I guess it doesn't matter. Whatever.

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.

You hold your narrow-minded and cynical belief far more strongly than I hold to what you allege is utopian (but isn't).

No, Mr. Meece I am not ducking your opposition to my position that we are committed and had best win the war now.

Not offering any reply except calling me arrogant, is not ducking??

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.

You are so clearly preoccupied with doing the very thing you criticize others (or at least me) for. You presume to tell me what I would think if Saddam had such a plan? I, who supported taking action against Al Qaida after 9-11?

You are typing out such dribble only because you are frustrated that you can't win your debate with me.

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?.

I will keep my own counsel, follow my heart, and take my lumps. I will march to the beat of a different drummer, and hold true to my Boomer idealism. That is being a true idealist; generations pass through time while still holding to their basic natures.

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

You just exhibited again the whole point of our debate. You assume that "people holding signs" are not part of this 4T. You are incorrect. The 4T will not just be about unanimous support for Bush's illegal war; it will be about the controversy over the war and the other unwise policies of the red zone and the Bush Republicans. Your own partisanship makes you unable to see that, so you call anyone who does see that, "partisan and unable to analyze turnings impartially." What are you smoking that makes you so adept at emitting smokescreens?

Originally Posted by bubba

Calm down Helitrope, If this war is a mistake we made it together and we will get out of it together.

There is no "we" about it. This White House, and this White House alone, pursued this absurd Weapon of Mass Distraction nonsense in Iraq. We now have Americans in uniform paying the ultimate price for the pride and avarice of these vile cretins in the White House. Logically, American civilians may soon follow. The blood is on the hands of the vile cretins in the White House and no one else. Justice needs to be served in order to deter similar arrogance in the future. The Constitution prescribes a proper punishment involving a rope. Do Americans give enough of a damn to ensure that justice is served? I doubt it.









Eric "Nostre-friggin-damus" Meece:

Please phrase your answer in the form of a quatrain. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[quote="bubba"]Calm down Helitrope, If this war is a mistake we made it together and we will get out of it together. Look at the facts

Liberal Democrats are the only ideological or demographic group in which a majority believes the United States made the wrong decision to use military force in Iraq. Most liberal Democrats (54%) think the United States made the wrong decision to attack Iraq, while 42% believe it was the right decision.
(Public Confidence In War Effort Falters
But Support for War Holds Steady
(http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=177)

And more facts:

"Americans broadly support the war with Iraq — but their views of its timing, and of George W. Bush's handling of the conflict, are considerably weaker than public views at the start of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. "

"Bush's approval rating for handling the situation with Iraq is 65 percent; his father's comparable rating at the start of the Gulf War was 80 percent. And Bush's overall job approval, 67 percent, is up just five points from early this month. His father's overall rating, by contrast, jumped 16 points after the 1991 war began, to 79 percent."

Okay, so if we have less support for this than for an analogous war obviously in the 3T, then how do we know this is a 4T? This COULD easily casue reprisal/terror attacks on a scope that may actually BE 4Tish in nature, or... it may not - and just be another 3T circus

While I grant you the war is probably generally more popular in red states than blue states a majority support it in both and a majority don't want to break up the United States. Just for your information a majority in both blue and red states support the war check the above.

You boomers are so excitable, and by the way Giuliani what you call one of the good boomers backs the war.

We can win don't worry even if it is going bad we have plenty more combat power we can send over. When it is over we will assess was it right or wrong, if we decide Bush was right he will probably be reelected if we decide he was wrong he wont be.

IIRC, in the last Persian Gulf War, Bush was said to have WON and while not too many people passed judgment on the war as 'wrong', a 1991 recession and H. Ross Perot caused him to not only lose, but get less than 40% of the vote!

Just calm down and remember Bush could not have done this if we did not back him. As a nation we collectively allowed this to happen, and at this time more think that was right than wrong latter on who knows.

The hard part is not winning but leaving something behind better than what was there, we may or may not accomplish that. Though I have to admit it would not take much to be better. But even if we turn Iraq into the Beriut of the 80's we wont really be much worse off. If they are focused on killing each other they wont bother us and if a Taliban like state emerges it will be so disorganized that we probably don't need to fear it.

What are all you Boomers who are talking about splitting up the country so affraid or?

Helio,

Cheer up buttercup, you sound like gloom has fallen upon you. Things are not exactly rosey now, but all is not lost.

You mentioned a literal split between blue and red zones, that may be possible, but maybe the cohesion associated with many 4Ts (Civil War not included), will be enough to deflect that.

As for the Gray Champion, I will agree with you that Rudy is a possibility, but I don't think Hillary can do the job. I can't see her as a rallying force behind the country, even if she does think she is FDR, and his wife, all in one. - For my money, no GC has shown him or herself yet.

Your observation that many of the forces in the gulf now are under 21 is right on the money. Gulf War 1 was a battle of containment, fought by Nomads lead by Boomer Captains and Sergeants, and mapped out by Silent Generals. Gulf war 2 is (apparently) an all-or-nothing war fought by Millies, lead by Xer Captains and Sergeants and being planned out by Boomers.

There can be little doubt we are now in 4T mode.

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Helio,

Cheer up buttercup, you sound like gloom has fallen upon you. Things are not exactly rosey now, but all is not lost.

Well, heck, Earthshine, I'm a Joneser, I'm a pessimistic idealist, I'm supposed to be like that! I 'm also depressed for a personal reason that anyone who is active on the Orgy thread is aware of.

But I still think there are logical and objective reasons to think this war may not turn out well. Of course, nothing is predetermined and utterly without hope, and it may all work out in the end (though this is very iffy, at best).. In the beginning of a 4T, morale is generally pretty low. If it were high or even average, we would not be in a 4T.

You mentioned a literal split between blue and red zones, that may be possible, but maybe the cohesion associated with many 4Ts (Civil War not included), will be enough to deflect that.

I dunno. Perhaps.
But I still think it's more likely the Red and Blue Zone will split. I think that any cohesion will be overshadowed by domestic unrest, and that may be, in fact, the crux of the Crisis (much like the Civil War you mentioned)--not outside threats. Of course, a schism may actually not be such a bad thing. Reverse the t and i in United (States) and what do you get? Think of a husband and wife who hate each other's guts (not just those with the usual problems). While still married, they will probably abuse each other, or at the very least are angry and miserable and ruin their kids' lives. While divorce is not always the best solution, in cases of spousal abuse or hatred, it may be the lesser of evils, and the ex-spouses and children, while probably worse off financially for a while, may be able to find happiness for the first time. Think of the Red and Blue Zones as a marriage that is no longer working. Maybe they should not stay "united" and be "untied" instead. The two new nations may not be prosperous at first and have a number of struggles ahead, but they have hope of a better future and are united from within their new borders, which strengthens them.

So when bubba asked what's to be afraid of if the country splits up, perhaps this was what he meant.

As for the Gray Champion, I will agree with you that Rudy is a possibility, but I don't think Hillary can do the job. I can't see her as a rallying force behind the country, even if she does think she is FDR, and his wife, all in one. - For my money, no GC has shown him or herself yet.

It's too early still, The GC won't appear until the middle to end of the 4T. It's anyone's guess who it (or they) could be, and it will actually probably be a late Boomer (Joneser) who is able to combine the vision of Prophets with the pragmatism of Nomads. Both are needed for success in bringing a 4T to a safe and satisfying end, if there is the possibility of one at all.
Of course, the GC could also prove to be thouroughly evil, if the outcome is bad.

Your observation that many of the forces in the gulf now are under 21 is right on the money. Gulf War 1 was a battle of containment, fought by Nomads lead by Boomer Captains and Sergeants, and mapped out by Silent Generals. Gulf war 2 is (apparently) an all-or-nothing war fought by Millies, lead by Xer Captains and Sergeants and being planned out by Boomers.

Just as S&H predicted.

Stonewall you are wrong. Whether Bush is right or wrong enough of us bought the policy to make it happen. If we had rejected the policy enmasse it would not be happening. You may not have wanted this, but it has happened and it would not have happened if we had not bought into it. The arguments pro and con were out there and we bought the administrations version. Now we have to live with it.

Mr. Meece you are right the 4t will not be about this war as it wont last 20 years it could be about our involvement in the Middle East but it wont be about this particular war. What I have said about this war is that our national reaction to it is indicative of a fourth turning.

No I am not frustrated as I can't "win" this debate with you because as I said you can not debate with one whose mind is closed. Logic is wasted on one who believes that the alignment of planets affects human behavior.

I hate to say it but frankly astrology is a load of crap. The only way one could believe in it is to deliberately divorce themselves from reason and reality. This book is not about prophecy it is about a behavioral phenomena based according to the authors about very worldly causes. You will note the authors basically argue that as generations line up differently the nations response to events will tend to differ.

mmailliw 8419

You are right it is quite possible we could win the war and for Bush to not be re elected even if a concensus forms that he is right about the war.


My original point was that Bush has sold a war to most people based on the idea that we are stopping future attacks on the U.S.. I belive that fact that he could sell this idea to a majority is evidence of a change in national mood. That is really all my point is which I believe stands no matter what one thinks of the war.

I also think splitting up the country into different nations and thinking this is the end of the world is just plain silly, but that has nothing to do with whether we are in a fourth turning.

Eric, I'm a double Pisces with a Gemini rising. How bad off am I?

--Croaker

Mr Meece wrote:

Quote:
"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!"

Eric,
Could you please explain this a bit more?

[quote="Stonewall Patton"]

Originally Posted by bubba

Justice needs to be served in order to deter similar arrogance in the future. The Constitution prescribes a proper punishment involving a rope. Do Americans give enough of a damn to ensure that justice is served? I doubt it.
:

Sorry, Stonewall. That would be cruel and unusual punishment, considering our practice with 42 and both the impeachment and treason provisions.

I can handle Meece doing quatrains, but if he starts anything with "I, John" or "Thus sayeth ...", then it is time for the nice young men in their clean white coats.

Originally Posted by cbailey

Mr Meece wrote:

Quote:
"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!"

Eric,
Could you please explain this a bit more?

Pick up a copy of Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men at your local library, for details.

If that proves a little too complex and engaging, try Humpty Dumpty. That should do the trick. :wink:


HTH.

Originally Posted by monoghan

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.

Gee, coulda swore Arnett's prize was Vietnam, not the horrendous, stupendous, 100 hour Gulf War I.

No matter. I thought it was Nomads, like Arnold, McClellan and Lindbergh, who proved to be the backstabbers in a fourth. Not Artists. :wink:

p.s. Put me down firmly in the 3T camp, where I've been all along. And thus remain.