Originally Posted by bubba

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.

So that includes the protests against it, bubba? Does that indicate a 4T? What about our national reaction then indicates a 4T?

BTW, the generational alignment seems partially 3T and 4T. The ages of the people in each category (soldier, officer, planner) cross generational lines. So this war is part of a "phoney 4T." Late 3Ts can also be pessimistic, although that was not true of the 1920s. Below the surface it was true, however. If the 1850s were 3T, they were pessimistic. They were much like today; something of a phoney 4T.

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.

Judge and respond to someone's points on their own merits. I suggest that it is wrong to respond to someone's points on the basis of some belief they may hold. It's like saying, "he's a Hindu; that's a load of crap; therefore everything he says is wrong."

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.

Whatever the basis for it was, T4T is a book that predicts the future. That's what I meant. Astrological predictions are also based on worldly causes and trends; just not those you recognize bubba. I do not ask that you buy astrology. But it is a kind of predictive study, so it fits here, and I post it for those who are interested. And some people here are. Those who are not, can simply ignore it.

Whoever wants to debate the truth of astrology per se with me, fine; but I think such a debate is of limited relevance to this site. Astrology is also a typology with common elements to that of Generations and T4T, just as are the Enneagram, MBTI and other typologies we have discussed here.

Posting about astrology here does not imply that I think T4T was based on astrology. The authors specifically deny this (although they speak well of it in a few passages in T4T).

Sorry Stonewall, it is too much trouble to put all this into quatrains. Maybe another time.

Originally Posted by eameece

Originally Posted by elilevin

International Law was made by a body that has no power to back it up--the UN. They rely on nation states to agree to enforce that law within their borders but there is no sovereignty ceded to the UN by the states that participate in it. Therefore, if there is a conflict between the sovereignty of the state and international law, the state is obliged by the citizens to protect the agreement made among the citizens...

As far as our national interests go--yes, I would like our government to pursue them. The problem of what those interests legitimately are and how they ought to be pursued is properly debated by the citizenry.
That is where the protests and the differing views on this board come in.

It is in our national interest to obey international law.

Law is rewritten after the crisis is complete. The Constitution, XIVth Amendment and UN Charter might stand as examples. A crisis occurs when law and tradition are no longer in step with the reality of modern technology, culture, economics and politics. After profound and intense struggle, lessons learned are applied, new laws are written, set in stone for three generations.

If we assume that a crisis period is approaching, or already started, we should not assume current international law will be sufficient.

Current international law assumes that states are sovereign. That all have the right to develop arms. The UN Charter presumes that the power of the State is the basis for International law, derives its own power from the power of the state, and presumes no power to interfere in the internal affairs of a state.

A major point of this crisis is apt to be defining the procedures for revoking sovereign status, for forcing regime change, for enforcing human rights, for revoking the right to possess weapons of mass destruction. For a long time, an act of war has justified war, which results in the winner reinventing the loser. Far more recently, Somalia, the Balkans and East Timor showed examples of blatant human rights violations - genocide, ethnic cleansing, famine, and organized rape - which the international community could not and did not allow to stand. Recent US policy takes this further, with security threats allegedly justifying preemptive unilateral revocation of a nation's sovereign status.

By the end of the Millennial Crisis, I do anticipate a formal procedure defining when sovereign status may be revoked. Terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction makes this necessary. Dubya will someday be correct in that action in this respect will not be an option. The international community is correct that such action cannot be taken in an arbitrary preemptive and unilateral fashion. Finding a reliable procedure for exactly when and how to intervene will require a decade or two of painful, deadly, trial and error. Only after the pain will we know enough to rewrite international law.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by eameece

It is in our national interest to obey international law.

Eric, that depends on the particular law. For example:global politics being what it is, I can forsee international law being written and used to hurt a state because certain other states dislike that nation--even though the reasons given may be couched in self-righteousness.

It may or may not be in the interest of a nation to obey international law depending on what the law is.

By the end of the Millennial Crisis, I do anticipate a formal procedure defining when sovereign status may be revoked. Terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction makes this necessary. Dubya will someday be correct in that action in this respect will not be an option. The international community is correct that such action cannot be taken in an arbitrary preemptive and unilateral fashion. Finding a reliable procedure for exactly when and how to intervene will require a decade or two of painful, deadly, trial and error. Only after the pain will we know enough to rewrite international law.

I would agree with you here--that some mechanism will be found. How it all works out, however, is not really forseeable at this point. Either the UN gets revitalized or it goes the way of the League of Nations--in which case there will be new and unforseen ways for these issues to be resolved.

For now, though, here at the beginning of the crisis, it appears that international law is honored most in the breach.

"Liberalism faltered when it turned out it could not cope with truth. Even the tentative truths of social science." --Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1995 New York Times eulogy for his friend, sociologist James S. Coleman)

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Law is rewritten after the crisis is complete. The Constitution, XIVth Amendment and UN Charter might stand as examples. A crisis occurs when law and tradition are no longer in step with the reality of modern technology, culture, economics and politics. After profound and intense struggle, lessons learned are applied, new laws are written, set in stone for three generations.

What a crock of complete crap!

The Constitution, witten during a fourth turn, while tested, has been amended during a fourth turn (the repeal of Prohibition in 1935), as well.

Laws are reviewed and changed all the time, sir. And they are done per the guidelines set forth in U.S. Constitution, each and every president, elected offical, and government employee is sworn to uphold.

Man, you liberals take this fourth and Crisis stuff to the extreme, twisting and turning history and the facts to fit whatever convienent position you deem desirable at the time. Boy, was Moynihan right or what.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Originally Posted by eameece

It is in our national interest to obey international law.

Eric, that depends on the particular law. For example:global politics being what it is, I can forsee international law being written and used to hurt a state because certain other states dislike that nation--even though the reasons given may be couched in self-righteousness.

It may or may not be in the interest of a nation to obey international law depending on what the law is.

That's a basis for any tyrant to do whatever he wants.

International laws are not written to punish certain nations. They are not created because of the actions of one nation at one time. They are more long-term than that.

If we want other nations to respect our rights, we'd better respect theirs. We're not doing this now.

I could see genocide by one tyrant on his own people as being against international law, since the people being "ethnically cleansed" would probably be seeking their own sovereign nation, and are in a sense a nation already. National Sovereignty won't be as inviolable in the future in international law as it is today, but that will only be because it has been superceeded by the rights of international institutions like the UN.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I've heard that Jesus was born in the spring, because that's when the shepherds slept outside with their flocks.

Croaker, I think you're being paged, here.


In other news...

(3/31/03, 7 a.m. ET) -- The Dixie Chicks controversy continues with the trio getting some support from former Vice President Al Gore. Gore spoke to a college audience last week on the subject of fewer companies owning more media outlets, and what he sees as the increasing lack of tolerance for opposing views.

According to the Tennessean, Gore used recent attacks on the Dixie Chicks that followed anti-war comments by Natalie Maines as an example. Gore told the audience, "They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit," Gore said. "Our best protection is free and open debate."

Record sales have fallen for the Chicks and radio stations across the country banned the trio's music after Maines told a London concert crowd that she was "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Maines later released an apology. -- Nancy Brooks, Nashville

What I think Mr. Gore is trying to say here, is that freedom to purchase is precluded by the First Amendment.

Sorry, former Dixie Chick fans, but you are being unAmerican by your failure to continue to buy the Chick's CDs.


p.s. Man, am I glad this guy lost.

What actually happened, if you care at all about fact, is a clear attempt by a media giant to control the debate on an issue dear to its corproate heart. Clear Channel Communications is as pro-Bush as it comes. They have "created" many of the prowar rallies, single handedly. And since they tend to dominate many markets with their 1700 radio stations, they can pull it-off.

That does not make them anything other than the corproate half of the Fascist front, unless you just can't accept that this is actually happening, of course.

PS: Clear Channel owns all the stations that have banned the Dixie Chicks.

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Sorry, former Dixie Chick fans, but you are being unAmerican by your failure to continue to buy the Chick's CDs.

What actually happened, if you care at all about fact, is a clear attempt by a media giant to control the debate on an issue dear to its corproate heart. Clear Channel Communications is as pro-Bush as it comes. They have "created" many of the prowar rallies, single handedly. And since they tend to dominate many markets with their 1700 radio stations, they can pull it-off.

That does not make them anything other than the corproate half of the Fascist front, unless you just can't accept that this is actually happening, of course.

PS: Clear Channel owns all the stations that have banned the Dixie Chicks.

Your last claim is simply not true, but that is beside the point. First of all, with the introduction of the interent and satelite television's gazzillion channels, diversity of free speech is the greatest it has ever been in history. And secondly, the left use economic boycotts all the time when seeking to enforce moral authority.

You, Gore, the Chicks and their recording label are all wet. As well as more than a little jealous about getting a taste of your own medicine, for a change. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

What a crock of complete crap!

The Constitution, witten during a fourth turn, while tested, has been amended during a fourth turn (the repeal of Prohibition in 1935), as well.

Laws are reviewed and changed all the time, sir. And they are done per the guidelines set forth in U.S. Constitution, each and every president, elected offical, and government employee is sworn to uphold.

Man, you liberals take this fourth and Crisis stuff to the extreme, twisting and turning history and the facts to fit whatever convienent position you deem desirable at the time. Boy, was Moynihan right or what.

In my opinion, the transition from colony to union and the post Civil War Amendments attempting to establish equal rights for all races are more basic than, say, ending Prohibition or tuning procedures for electing the president. Yes, lessons are learned in all four turnings. It is just that the larger lessons come in the Fourth.

I also reject both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' label. I'm a wannabe radical. I embrace both the liberal notion of addressing the rights and needs of the People, and the Conservative desire for security. These should not be held to be mutually exclusive. You won't get one without the other.

But mostly I reject those locked deeply in the liberal v conservative unraveling quagmire. This was an entertaining past time a decade ago. Tis no longer a sport. Both factions see basic truths that will have to be incorporated into the regeneracy's consensus. The notion that because an individual's Truths are True, therefore he need not listen to someone coming from an opposing world view, is tragic. The more people who are incapable of listening, incapable of growing, who contribute only noise and insults to the discussion, the longer and harder the crisis will be.

Thus, I am going to attempt to duck the unraveling liberal - conservative debates, honor what is best from both world views, encourage those attempting to build something new, and attempt to move on.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

The Constitution, witten during a fourth turn, while tested, has been amended during a fourth turn (the repeal of Prohibition in 1935), as well.

In my opinion, the transition from colony to union and the post Civil War Amendments attempting to establish equal rights for all races are more basic than, say, ending Prohibition or tuning procedures for electing the president.

Well, let's just say it was a 4T repeal of a 3T "noble experiment" with regards to overreaching federal control of "We, The People," eh?

In addition, it must not be forgotten that the Constitution, per the Supreme Court, killed two very important parts to FDR's New Deal, as well. Right in the middle of a fourth turn.

p.s. Constitutional overreaching, of course, but overreaching nevertheless. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by Justino

If we can marginalize the neoconservatives ( a small group in terms of those who are their opponents) and the islamic fundamentalists (another tiny group) and declare some kind of war against BOTH of them, we could pretty much bring the whole world into some kind of univeral victory against stupidity.

I'm with you, sweetie, as always.

You mean, "with you, sweetie" who can't spell "intolerant,", er, "univeral"?

Hmmm, mom is castigated as an "idiot" when she recently misspells, while friend, Justino, is cooed and called a "sweetie."

The adjectives, blatant hypocrite seems appropriate, here.



p.s. Maybe she meant to say Justino is a idiot sweetie? :wink:

Well, he is a sweetie. And a hottie. Also, a missing letter doesn't mean he can't spell or that he's an idiot; it just means he thinks faster than he types, which means he is not only sweet but is brainy as well. :o
I think you are envious because he is more popular on this site than you. :razz: So suck it up!

Oops...

Originally Posted by Justino

Lambo,

I don't make alot of money. I work hard though, so hard that I don't spell check my posts. However, even if I did have the money, I wouldn't spend it on building bombs, training pilots, building planes, and bombing Saddam's presidential palace. That to me, seems like a big waste of money.
If there is a civil war, I hope that the majority of Britons, Italians, French, Germans, Brazilians, Chinese, and pretty much everybody in the world except for the neoconservatives and the foreign ministers they can buy, will come to the aid of the Blue States,

The Reverend

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: in that scenario, full-scale nuclear war follows pretty much inevitably.

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?

Me. America is in very late 3T. Europe is several years behind us, solidly in the middle of 3T as far as current mood goes.

Let's try this again...

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Well, he is a sweetie. And a hottie. Also, a missing letter doesn't mean he can't spell or that he's an idiot; it just means he thinks faster than he types, which means he is not only sweet but is brainy as well. I think you are envious because he is more popular on this site than you. So suck it up!

Oh, sister.

Well, she is a sweetie. And a hottie. Also, a missing letter doesn't mean she can't spell or that she's an idiot; it just means she thinks faster than she types, which means she is not only sweet but is brainy as well. I think you are envious because she is more popular on this site than you. So stick a sock in it! And the use of misspelling as a means to make a silly and petty point, Xer!

Furthermore, at least, she isn't a bigot like Justino...

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Justino (posted earlier today)

Meanwhile Lambo, you can move your swete ass down to Dixie and uh..squeal like a pig.

While I detect a bit of unabashed and ugly bigotry in your comment, thanks, anyway. Yes, I'll join my brothers and sisters on the pilgrimage, Rev... :wink:

"Census 2000 numbers show that the non-Hispanic black population of the South surged in the 1990s by 3,575,211 people ? more than in the other three regions of the United States combined. This number represents 58 percent of the total increase in the country's black population. It is roughly double the number of blacks that the South gained in the 1980s (1.7 million) and well above the gain for the 1970s (1.9 million), when blacks began returning to the South." -- William H. Frey, demographer at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

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).

Heliotrope, this last statement is simply false. Even if al Queda is not in any way connected to Iraq, Iraq is unquestionably a terrorist supporter. Hussein pays cash money to encourage the Palestinain suicide attacks, and it's fairly clear that other terrorist organizations have drawn support from Hussein as well. The smart money is still that there is an Iraq-al Queda connection, though it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

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,

No evidence for that exists. America is winning the war. It may turn nasty if it goes into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, but overall, things are not too far off plan. The media is trying to spin up a failure where it doesn't exist.

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,

Do you wonder why conservatives tend to think liberals hate America? 'what's coming to us'?!!! That implies that it is deserved!

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.

If it does get that bad, secession won't be permitted peacefully.

Boomers are nearly at the height of their power,

The Boomers are only in the beginning phases of their power. We are in the transition from Silent control to Boomer control, the true height of Boomer power is almost certainly ten years or more away. It is true that Bush himself is showing us a diluted, very mild form of 4T Idealist leadership behavior, but compared to what's probably coming, it's not much yet.

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).

Hillary Clinton strikes me as a would-be monarch, frankly. I'm not sure there's anyone on the national stage less well suited, by temperament and beliefs, to executive power. She wants it, though, she wants the presidency so bad she can taste it.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

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.

The fission of the United States would be a disaster for civilization unparalleled in centuries. Our enemies would rapidly destroy those fragments that had not already destroyed each other, and it's nearly certain that the West would be weakened and split to the point that a new round of wars would rise to see who the new 'dominant power' would be.
Worse yet, a second American Civil War, led by Boomers in Elderhood, would run a very, very high probability of going nuclear.

You can't really use the domestic metaphor meaningfully in regard to a nation-state, they are too dissimilar in nature. It was applied in the last Civil War, too, but it didn't work.

BTW, my point applies to the last civil war, too. Had the CSA won, it is nearly a certainty that it would have come apart as soon as the war was over, the seceding states being unwilling to submit to the Confederate Government. Even during the war, they never were really all that unified, and IIRC the Confederate Supreme Court was never even appointed, since they couldn't agree on the limits of its authority.

Most likely, the net result of a Confederate victory would have been big chunks of the South absorbed into the European colonial empires, or waging war on each other. Conceivably, the industrializing North might have been able to hold together and keep on growing in wealth and power, in which case the South would probably eventually have been reconquered by the North in a later war.

But it's hard to construct a viable scenario for Confederate victory in the American Civil War. The two sides were to imbalanced in power, the North was the war with one hand while expanding with the other.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

Either you've been reading some of my old posts, or you and I think quite a bit alike.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Even if al Queda is not in any way connected to Iraq, Iraq is unquestionably a terrorist supporter. Hussein pays cash money to encourage the Palestinain suicide attacks, and it's fairly clear that other terrorist organizations have drawn support from Hussein as well. The smart money is still that there is an Iraq-al Queda connection, though it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I disagree. There is no evidence at all, at least not yet. We had none going into the war at all. That people think there's a connection, makes me think that the majority of Americans and their leaders simply don't know how to think anymore. They can't draw distinctions. They think: 9-11-- Militant Arabs did it. Saddam is an Arab, and he's dangerous. So let's attack and overthrow him. Smart money? No, dumb money.

I've read that in fact Saddam only gives money to the family of the victims of Israeli attacks, except for one or maybe a few suicide bombers who missed.

America is winning the war. It may turn nasty if it goes into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad, but overall, things are not too far off plan. The media is trying to spin up a failure where it doesn't exist.

You could be right, but there's no doubt that America underestimated the Iraqis, and there's more resistance than planned. They overran their supply lines, which shows poor planning. It might not make a lot of difference because the US is still overwhelmingly stronger than Iraq militarily. We can afford to make some mistakes. It still could be a quagmire, mostly depending on what happens after the war against Saddam.

Do you wonder why conservatives tend to think liberals hate America? 'what's coming to us'?!!! That implies that it is deserved!

We didn't deserve 9-11, though some of our policies helped bring it about. But by attacking another country without provocation, we are inviting retaliation. Arabs don't have much more ability to think than Americans do. They'll think: Saddam is an Arab; we are Arabs. The big bully is attacking us.

If it does get that bad, secession won't be permitted peacefully.

Are you saying you would support military action against seceeders? I think you would, since you say that break-up of the union would mean the end of civilization in your other post. I disagree of course. The USA is not the bulwark of civilization. It would do better without us, in fact. Not as we were in 1945, but as we are now. We have become ignorant, stupid and complacent, and we do't know how to elect good leaders. We don't even vote.

If the Soviet Union can break up and not be invaded and torn apart, why would the USA be invaded and torn apart if we split into smaller nations? Democratic nations can act together to defend it from attack. Whether as part of that coalition, there is one big boy and a bunch of little boys, or more little boys with the same amount of toys, what difference does it make?

Speculation about what would have happened if the South had won the Civil War is interesting. It would not have happened unless the Civil War had broken out in 1850, as President Taylor almost precipitated. If that had happened and the South won, then I think the Confederacy could have stayed together; it would just have been a looser federation. It's like saying because Canada didn't join the revolution in 1776, that it could not exist by itself; but of course it does. We would have had three English-speaking states instead of two.

The North would have been freer by now to make social and political progress, without you red zoners holding us back. But this is only a current saeculum problem; in the previous one the red zone was Democratic and supported progressives like W.J. Bryan. So the real issue is would the South been able to hold onto slavery. I think not. The Fugitive Slave Law would have been dead, and runaway slaves would have come across into Yankee territory in droves. The South would have had to build a long Berlin Wall. And they would not have been strong enough to attack the North, or probably not even damage the North with trade wars. The North was strong enough to do without the South.

In my opinion, it might have been better to let the South go. Unable to sustain slavery, it would have been eliminated by Dixie itself in a few decades. It was simply an anachronism and could not have been sustained. The South would have realized by the time of our modern era (post-1890) that a modern state in a global economy cannot be based on slavery. It would have died a natural death. The relative weakness of the South compared to the modern North might even have led them to reapply for Union statehood again by the 20th century. At the least, both nations could have been part of the alliance against the Central Powers and the Axis.

The Boomers are only in the beginning phases of their power. We are in the transition from Silent control to Boomer control, the true height of Boomer power is almost certainly ten years or more away.

I think I agree with you there, HC.

Hillary Clinton strikes me as a would-be monarch, frankly. I'm not sure there's anyone on the national stage less well suited, by temperament and beliefs, to executive power. She wants it, though, she wants the presidency so bad she can taste it.

I understand why people suspect this of her. I do too. However, she is new to political leadership, and she may learn a lot by the time she runs. My suspicion is that she may very well be the Gray Champion. We will need a strong leader. But more likely, it's someone who is now in the lower rungs of power. I thought of someone else but I forget who it was now. We should be looking there for potential GCs.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also reject both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' label. I'm a wannabe radical. I embrace both the liberal notion of addressing the rights and needs of the People, and the Conservative desire for security. These should not be held to be mutually exclusive. You won't get one without the other.

I believe Ben Franklin said that he who trades liberty for security will have neither.

But mostly I reject those locked deeply in the liberal v conservative unraveling quagmire. This was an entertaining past time a decade ago. Tis no longer a sport. Both factions see basic truths that will have to be incorporated into the regeneracy's consensus. The notion that because an individual's Truths are True, therefore he need not listen to someone coming from an opposing world view, is tragic. The more people who are incapable of listening, incapable of growing, who contribute only noise and insults to the discussion, the longer and harder the crisis will be.

As usual, though admirable, attempts to bestride the fence and take a moderate view have problems. First of all, liberal v conservative is not a 3T pastime, and not a sport. Liberals simply are those who want to see the nation move forward, and the debate between the two sides has gone on through many turnings and saecula. Conservatives have a place in a sane society, to restrain or correct poorly thought-out liberal schemes. But today's America is not a sane society, and its conservatives serve no purpose. There may be some value in combining liberal and moderate views in America today, but not liberal and conservative ones. There is no "growth" available from the conservative side in America today. American conservatives are far to the right of those in other developed nations. They are simply greedy, deceived, afraid, and ignorant.

That may be unkind to say; it may be insulting. Being polite is a virtue. However, politeness, while useful at times, cannot mask the real situation we find ourselves in, in which 40% or so of Americans have been taken in by fanatic ideologies and are losing the ability to think for themselves, and a situation in which the media which supplies them with "information" is controlled by a corporate monopoly of elitists; along with most of our economy and government.

This is what has happened during the Unravelling, and this is why the "3T debate" is fruitless. There is no reason to debate with people who have such extreme conservative views, or engage in offensive culture wars attacks against them. In that sense you are right Bob. Simply debating with these folks serves no purpose but to make them feel important and give them publicity. They should be ignored, while constructive discussions are held among liberals and moderates about the future. Unfortunately though, they probably aren't going away soon, so they must be resisted as they take over our country (as they currently have done).

Though not as bad as the situation before the Nazis came to power, it is analogous. In my opinion, it is those who don't see this dire situation who "aren't listening." And this is the real Crisis we face, not some foreign terrorists or dictators. This 4T is going to be the next American Revolution. The current war is only serving to reveal how bankrupt, greedy, arrogant and stupid our society and its leaders are.

Thus, I am going to attempt to duck the unraveling liberal - conservative debates, honor what is best from both world views, encourage those attempting to build something new, and attempt to move on.

Only liberals will have the ideas that can lead to something new, aided and checked by moderates' caution. Conservatives today have nothing to contribute but to hold us back and preserve the wealth and power of traditional authority. They are simply the problem. We can move on to the extent we can block them and ignore them, or separate from them and let them stew in their own miserable red world. Their numbers will dwindle as the real situation we face becomes inescapably obvious. The environment will be the thread that links most of the issues.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch, likely to become the first popular hero of the Iraqi War, is only 19. She?s too young, in my estimation, to be of the Hero mold, or a Millie. But maybe she is just a very late one. On the other hand, she may be on the leading edge of my generational archetype?the thumb-sucking Artist. In which case, will there soon be a name for these Silent-esque children who sheepishly take bullets for the Holy Cause?

--Croaker

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinius Parthicus

Especially given that a big part of the basis for the illusion of unity mentioned above was the expectation on each side of co-opting the other, which I feel left a bitter taste of betrayal and double-dealing in both sides' mouths when reality set in about a year ago.

Either you've been reading some of my old posts, or you and I think quite a bit alike.

HC, I'd say it's the latter. And after having more time to think over the idea of another civil war, the nearest I can really see to it happening would be a nasty, but short-lived uprising by the left, out of frustration over GWB winning another term next year. Said uprising would, IMO, be put down swiftly, and severely, and if it does take place, it would only end up giving our side all the justification we would still need for 'taking the gloves off'.

I am not going to quote any of you because there is too much to quote but I will say this.

(neoconservatives take a deep breath preparing to skim)

I do not support President Bush, the Republican Administration, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, or any of the foreign ministers we have managed to buy in this conflict. I never will fall in line.
For the majority of the 3T I have been able to live quite well as an American. Although disgusted at moments, I was able to compromise my anger and focus on other more pertinent manners.
These days I feel my government is putting my life, as well as the lives of Americans on the line. They lie to us. They use religious and 19th century terminology to justify wars that are more personal vendettas than security issues.
I will never support the war in Iraq, or any other wars that follow suit. In other words, our nation has completely soiled itself in the past weeks.
As an American I am dirty.

The only options I have in this identity crisis are to ignore completely what being American means, change my citizenship at some point, or fight for a third way.
A third way that doesn't alienate the majority of the world, but that brings the world together.

This administration has got to go. They need to be publically shamed for their actions. I am not throwing around rhetoric. I mean it.
They must go. Their party must be stopped.

I believe that the neoconservatives in America are as much a threat to global peace as the Islamic fundamentalists. Osama and W are twins. They both need to be cast aside, and I believe that their time will come.
And if Iraq supports terror, then the US is a co-conspirator.
We helped put the Baathists in power in 1963. We looked the other way at the invasions of Iran and the brutal suppression of the Kurds in the 1980s. We armed Saddam, and we abandoned the anti Saddam forces in Iraq in the early 90s. All ancient history of course.
We also fund Israel. A place where UN inspectors can be murdered by Israeli army officers, and nobody cares. A true rogue state, just like the US.
This past week 7 women and children were murdered in Iraq by US soldiers. Even the British soldiers have called our soldiers "cowboys" who shoot first and think later.

In this way the idea of terrorism becomes more and more abstract. Is it really just about uniforms and states. So if Osama gets a state, and a uniform, he is no longer a terrorist?

There is no way I can choose a side here. A third way must be established and I believe it already exists. Why must we suffer from the actions of two extremist groups?

Originally Posted by Justino

In this way the idea of terrorism becomes more and more abstract. Is it really just about uniforms and states. So if Osama gets a state, and a uniform, he is no longer a terrorist?

There is no way I can choose a side here. A third way must be established and I believe it already exists. Why must we suffer from the actions of two extremist groups?

I believe Dubya is partially correct, that in the long term weapons of mass destruction must be contained. Certain states - aggressive, lacking respect for human rights, willing to support terror - may not be allowed access to WMD. On the other hand, the Republican neo-conservative agenda of maintaining and extending sole superpower status is dangerous. So long as other nations are unsure whether we are acting for hegemony or to fight terror, fighting terror becomes difficult to impossible.

Osama is both of the past and the future. The Islamic world is still stuck halfway between an agricultural culture, and industrial. The long stable agricultural pattern putting the vast majority of the people on the land is dissolving, with people moving to cities and suburbs. This has always resulted in cultural and political upheaval. Religious and royal elements struggle to maintain tradition and power. Military dictators and one party tyrannical governments attempt economic transformation without embracing democracy and human rights, but cannot compete with states that do embrace modern government. Osama and the other Islamic fundamentalists extremists are not going to succeed. They cannot prevent the future. Still, with modern terrorist weapons and tactics, if they cannot prevent the future, they can make the future an ugly place.

Yes, it is rational to wish extremists would not be extremists. Still, traditions die hard, and will always die hard. Religious conservatives will value the past, will cling to obsolete cultures. If a small power cannot confront a major power using conventional tactics, unconventional tactics will be used. In a time of crisis, always the establishment faction, profiting most from the status quo, attempts to block change. Always, they fail.

Could the slave owners and abolitionists ignore each other? I think not. Yes, I would seek a third way, but too many will be clinging to the past.

Originally Posted by Justino

I am not going to quote any of you because there is too much to quote but I will say this.

(neoconservatives take a deep breath preparing to skim)

I do not support President Bush, the Republican Administration, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, or any of the foreign ministers we have managed to buy in this conflict. I never will fall in line.
For the majority of the 3T I have been able to live quite well as an American. Although disgusted at moments, I was able to compromise my anger and focus on other more pertinent manners.
These days I feel my government is putting my life, as well as the lives of Americans on the line. They lie to us. They use religious and 19th century terminology to justify wars that are more personal vendettas than security issues.
I will never support the war in Iraq, or any other wars that follow suit. In other words, our nation has completely soiled itself in the past weeks.
As an American I am dirty.

The only options I have in this identity crisis are to ignore completely what being American means, change my citizenship at some point, or fight for a third way.
A third way that doesn't alienate the majority of the world, but that brings the world together.

This administration has got to go. They need to be publically shamed for their actions. I am not throwing around rhetoric. I mean it.
They must go. Their party must be stopped.

Legolas,
Your post made me smile, you know the kind of wry ironic smile.
DUDE, your post sums up EXACTLY the way us Neocon's felt about
the previous administration. No, really, I'm serious.
Don't be offended by the current administration. Perhaps the
pendulum will swing back in your favor the next time around.

-Galadriel

Kiff, maybe I'm taking you too literally, but your remarks about Justmom's spelling errors bugged me. Spelling mistakes are an annoyance, but not a sign of stupidity. I usually enjoy your posts and agree with much of what you say, but your bickering with Justmom rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't have the services of Spellcheck when I post on-line, unlike when I use Outlook or MS Word. I expect most of us don't either. Webmaster or other posters, do any of you know of a way to Spellcheck while posting (unless you write out your post in MS Word and them cut and paste it into the post box?

I see Justmom as a nativist, rather than a bigot. She's perfectly happy to have an America of different races, religions, and ethnicity, as long as they conform to what she sees as core American values. It is a point of view that not everyone shares, but I'm happy that she gives voice to it -- it is an attitude shared by an awful lot of Americans.