Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

[
Justmom, I'm a vegetarian, so if you want to come over you'll have to make do with rice and lentils.

So I can keep that fur coat I was planning on giving you?

The latest commentary from Strauss and Howe implies they think we are 4T:

"By an accident of history, the terrorist attacks of 11th September are serving as the initial catalyst of this mood shift."

http://www.axess.se/english/currenti...generation.php

Mr. Meece, let me explain to you why this is a fourth turning. Think about this war for a minute. If you don’t see how this provides very clear evidence of a fourth turning it is because you just don’t want to.

Your critique of the article I posted was a complete waste of your time. I don’t care if you agree with the author’s position, as whether you agree with the author’s position is not the point. I knew you did not agree when I posted it and frankly what you told me you thought I all ready knew you thought. The point is that the people at the Democratic Leadership Council can read a poll. What ever else anyone thinks about Clinton and his retinue they could damn sure read a poll. The DLC has that posted on their web site because they believe that opposition to the war is a loosing political issue. The fact that opposition to a war waged for the reasons Bush said he was waging this war is a looser of an issue indicates we have entered a fourth turning. If you can sell a war to around 70% of the people for the reasons that Bush says we are fighting then we have moved from a third turning to a fourth. No Mr. Meece this is not what I want to see as a conservative, but it is the truth. If you look at the link to the S&H article that Crispy 59 has posted you will see that much of what is likely to come out of a fourth turning does not meet my goals. Yes I support this war, but I don’t support the domestic agenda that is coming. But I accept that it is here. I do support this war, but I do not agree that government is the solution to most problems, however, those are the policies the new national mood will demand. You should be able to see that times have changed as well. Frankly neither traditional liberals or conservatives are going to be really pleased with what is going to come out of the fourth turning but those of us who are not self delusional will recognize that it is here.

By the way the speed and size of the protests we have seen mean nothing. What we are seeing at the protests are the usual suspects who are well organized and funded and if they were not protesting the war they would be out protesting some other lefty cause such as the WTO. The left has gotten very good at producing their rent a riot goons on demand, their noise far exceeds their numbers and politicians know it. Which is why your protests have had no effect of policy.

Now Mr. Meece let me tell you why the war is right. The world has not been kind to the Arab states. They are almost universally economic and political failures. If you doubt this I suggest that you look at The Arab Human Development Report 2002:Creating Opportunities for Future Generations, Sponsored by the Regional Bureau for Arab States/UNDP, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. If you look at this document the current extent of the failure will be quite evident. This report provides undeniable evidence of the economic failure of these Arab regimes.

These regimes are also political failures, governed by tyrannical governments that are good only at keeping themselves in power. What John Ashcroft would do in your worst nightmare is nothing compared to the average regime in the Middle East. Part of the way these tyrannical regimes in the Middle East keep themselves in power is by allowing one permissible grievance and that is against the United States and Israel, which they blame for a multitude of problems we simply did not create. If you want further documentation of the political failure of the average regime in the Middle East I would suggest that you take a look at The Crisis of Islam, Holy War and Unholy Terror, or Islam, What Went Wrong, the Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, both written by Bernard L. Lewis, a history professor at Princeton. It might do you some good to engage in something besides the study of left wing orthodoxy and Uranus. These works clearly document the political failure and tyranny of the average Middle Eastern Regime and indicate how constant agitation against the United States and Israel is one of the methods these regimes use to keep themselves in power. You will note that many of the grievances against the United States are basically trumped up. We never colonized the Middle East, what grievances they have about colonization should be directed against England and France. When they nationalized the oil fields the Western Oil Companies left peaceably and made the best deal they could to purchase the oil. Except for Palestine the failure they have suffered is theirs and in no way ours. The regimes failed because they are corrupt and inefficient. As for Palestine both Israel and the Palestinians have to accept reality and partition the land giving each a state and each must accept this. Neither will like it but they can either live in constant conflict or accept that they are both here to stay. As far as Israel is concerned the Arab world should remember that Israel is really more a European creation that an American one. Yes we have helped Israel to continue to exist, what would you have us do allow the Arabs to massacre them as they most certainly would if they could?

Now the fact that the Middle East is an area that is governed by failed states who have followed the pied piper of nationalism and socialism. ( national socialism sound familiar Meese? By the way the Baath Party that governs Syria and ever decreasing portions of Iraq was started by the Nazis. If you doubt this please check references cited above. The Crisis of Islam , p. 70)

Now the fact that the Middle East is governed by a series of failed state does not justify our intervention. Nor does the oil as frankly they can’t eat it and really have no one else to sell it to so they will continue to sell us the oil no matter who is in control. However, if you couple these failed states with the virulent strain of Islam known as Wahhabism you create a witches brew that has perverted Islam into a death cult throwing off apocalyptic nihilists. Some of the news reports on NBC where they speak of non Iraqui nationals fighting in Iraq who even when captured are screaming shoot me shoot me I want to go to Allah demonstrate just how demented these individuals are. We saw on September 11 what these individuals can do. While we can probably stop most of their plots we can not stop them all, and at times the failure to do so will result in catastrophic losses.

Mr. Meese the Islamic mystical mumbo jumbo that has produced this perverted version of Islam is the reason I reject all forms of mystical drivel such as astrology. Once one abandons reason and accepts mysticism one becomes a potential recruit to this type of bizarre and dangerous thinking.

I can just here you now about to self righteously proclaim but there is no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11, and you may well be correct I really don’t know. However, what I do know is Saddam does support terrorism, as to just exactly what links exist and how deep wait and see as the evidence is developed during the occupation of Iraq. Iraq’s links to many Palestinian terrorist groups is undeniable. If you can’t acknowledge this it is simply because you wish to ignore the truth. This Middle Eastern terrorism can not operate without state support and we need to demonstrate that the price of supporting terror is simply to high to bear. Will other terrorist nations such as Iran and Syria get the message after we take out Saddam Hussein, who knows they may or we may have to do the same to them time will tell. We can not allow regimes that support terror and also possess weapons of mass destruction to exist. Again I can just here you now Saddam doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but the evidence that will come out over the next few weeks will convince all but the most pig headed who have raised denial above even the level demonstrated by the Iraqi minister of information.

Simply punishing terrorist regimes is not enough, we also have to build something better than what we destroy. Now in the case of Saddam’s Iraq building something better is a fairly low threshold, but it needs to be significantly better. This will mean a deep and long lasting commitment to the region, yes it will be hard, but I believe that Arabs are capable of better governance and they deserve better than Saddam Hussein. We have to engage in nation building. There is no reason in the world for a state that possess Iraq’s oil wealth to be in such a sorry state except that the state has been looted by a tyrant. If this means a long commitment so be it, it this means more casualties so be it.

You can see the threat that allowing the Middle East to remain a festering cesspool of hatred for America and why we must do something about it or you can deny the truth.

As far as your ranting that the world discovered a new way besides war in the 1960’s all I can say is grow up. Anyone who believes that rot is living in a dream world.

Whether you get it or not Meese times have changed and we face a real threat, you can continue to wave your sign and study Uranus, however, understand that the consequence of that choice will be to simply sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of irrelevance.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Justin, there is a lot of fat in muscles themselves that will never be removed.

Understood; nor would one want it all to be removed (unless one prefer's one's meat unpalatably dry. Of course, topically applied chemicals would tend to be in their heighest concentrations in the dermal fat layers. Removal of these would go a long way towards minimizing one's exposure. Particularly important, however, is the dilution-through-broth part of the "detoxification". It'd maybe take more effort than it'd be worth, but even without removal of the dermal fat layers, such dilution could easily reduce the toxins in the meat itself to well within tolerable levels.

Of course, by the time you've done all of this, what you'd probably be left with wouldn't be all that appetizing. Still, who but the most desperate would actually eat horse?

this has 4t written all over it.


TK

It might do you some good to engage in something besides the study of left wing orthodoxy and Uranus.

Ouch.

Bubba and everyone else,

I thought Bubba's analysis was very interesting. On the point of our being in a fourth turning at this point, I have a comment and a question.

I agree that it is likely that the events of 9/11/01 triggered a 3T-to-4T transition, or that it will at least be seen that way in time. But . . . I can't get passed the idea that many of our society's reactions since 9/11/01 can still be interpreted as third turning reactions. What especially comes to mind is our reaction to World War One and the anarchist and immigration issues that came to the fore in the years immediately afterward and how similar that seems to today.

It is obvious that our society has been rumbling since 9/11 and I suspect that the tremors are associated with the beginnings of a major tectonic shift, but I cannot conclusively and exclusively connect the rumbling with evidence for a fourth turning, though again, in retrospect it may become obvious that it was so. I also see evidence of an intense third turning reaction.

I outlined my confusion in the "Phony Fourth" thread I started here in the Authors' Column section a few weeks ago. The condensed version of my proposal is that 9/11 is/was very likely the 4T trigger, thanks to its inherent intensity and its proximity to a 4T generational constellation (allignment).

HOWEVER, that being said, the constellation in question was still somewhat immature, i.e., not lined up quite yet with generational age locations that are conducive to a turning change. This premature triggering, instead of creating a Civil War style disaster, is instead manifesting as a (so far) relatively slow turning transition (the premature timing of the Civil War and its climax had more to do with the overarching length of Transcendental generation than anything else being "immature").

Now that doesn't mean our reactions can't be intense-- third turnings have given examples of intense societal reactions-- but the nature of those reactions today (intense or otherwise) seems to show signs of both a 3T and 4T nature, for now. Or more accurately, show signs that are indeterminant or that can be reasonably portrayed either way.

But the 4T aspect of this transition should become more apparent soon, and indeed the social reaction to Gulf War II seems to portend this. We are probably coming to the point where this transition will truly and obviously become one of those radical "sharp turns" of history on par with 1929-33, 1859-61, and 1773-76.

What do you all think about the dual nature of what we've seen over the past year-and-a-half, and what do you think about comparisons with our society's intense reactions in the years of 1917-20?

Attention, Eric Meece: Read the following passage, between the arrows. It is not a statement of my opinion, but it is no less slanted than your views:

===>

By full admission of North Vietnamese commanders, after the unadulterated American victory of Tet, the ability of the North Vietnamese to sustain the fight was broken. They considered it a major defeat; at great cost to them, and small cost to the U.S., the invasion was repulsed.

In addition, the first precision-guided munitions finally became available in the early 1970's, allowing the U.S., just to give one example, to finally destroy a bridge after years and years of failed attempts to destroy it. The bridge in question was vital to the North Vietnamese supply line, but all of the "dumb" bombs previously dropped were simply unable to hit it precisely enough.

Thus, the greatest revolution in arms since the invention of the gun would just miss benefiting the people of South Vietnam by protecting them from the murderous Stalinists.

However, the war had gone on for so long, and the Democratic leadership had underestimated the cost so often, that, although polls continued to show a majority of Americans favored continuing the war (Nixon defeated McGovern, after all), the political leadership lost its will to continue it, and our South Vietnamese allies were abandoned.

What precipitated was a orgy of murder and genocide as the Stalinist North Vietnamese spread their rule into the South, and thousands of Vietnamese chose to flee for their lives on dangerous small boats rather than face the bloodshed they knew would follow Hanoi's victory. They never fled while the U.S. was fighting a war there, but they did flee when we stopped fighting.

Thus, by refusing to stand up to Stalinist evil, South Vietnam's chances of becoming the next South Korea was crushed. Every American war protester contributed to millions of deaths.

<===

This "lesson of Viet Nam" is no less slanted than the one Eric Meece teaches. Whenever he talks about the "lesson" of Viet Nam, remember that he is presenting just one side. There are plenty of learned experts the same age as Eric who would dispute his interpretation of what was to be learned from the Vietnam experience.

So might makes right, eh bubba?

Its damn scary for you to think that we should intervene in another country's problems simply because we can. Personally, I think the President was itching to attack Iraq since 9/11. I think we should offer to help the Arab states, but destroying a country by force to achieve this aim is ignorant. Russia tried to do something similar in Afghanistan, and look where it got them. The U.S. can't force Arab states to change... all we can do is give them ideas and push them a bit... basically we have to make them think they thought of the reforms. Trust me, it'll work better that way.

BTW, we're really HELPING Afghanistan rebuild aren't we?


(hear crickets chirp)


Oh wait bubba, we haven't done jack squat but bomb the hell out of them and put bases there. Not much of the money the world has pledged to them has gotten there. Afghanistan (and probably Iraq) is just another case of the U.S. being a hypocrite, like it has been for so long. I think the U.S. is making a huge mistake by doing this. This has the potential to destabilize the region even more, by making Iraq "democratic." More likely it will be putting pro-US people in power there and make it look like its democratic.

Also, the U.S. in this cause says it has made a coalition of the willing, but only the U.S. has a majority (I dont know how, must be all the boomers) that support the war. Blair is facing revolt, and a huge majority of Spain and most of Europe are against the war, and Bush praises the leaders of the countries for ignoring the will of the people. They wont forget what is happening now. IF the US doesn't watch what its doing, it will find itself supremely isolated, and will stumble.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

this has 4t written all over it.


TK

how?

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Bubba and everyone else,

I thought Bubba's analysis was very interesting. On the point of our being in a fourth turning at this point, I have a comment and a question.

I agree that it is likely that the events of 9/11/01 triggered a 3T-to-4T transition, or that it will at least be seen that way in time. But . . . I can't get passed the idea that many of our society's reactions since 9/11/01 can still be interpreted as third turning reactions. What especially comes to mind is our reaction to World War One and the anarchist and immigration issues that came to the fore in the years immediately afterward and how similar that seems to today.

It is obvious that our society has been rumbling since 9/11 and I suspect that the tremors are associated with the beginnings of a major tectonic shift, but I cannot conclusively and exclusively connect the rumbling with evidence for a fourth turning, though again, in retrospect it may become obvious that it was so. I also see evidence of an intense third turning reaction.

I outlined my confusion in the "Phony Fourth" thread I started here in the Authors' Column section a few weeks ago. The condensed version of my proposal is that 9/11 is/was very likely the 4T trigger, thanks to its inherent intensity and its proximity to a 4T generational constellation (allignment).

HOWEVER, that being said, the constellation in question was still somewhat immature, i.e., not lined up quite yet with generational age locations that are conducive to a turning change. This premature triggering, instead of creating a Civil War style disaster, is instead manifesting as a (so far) relatively slow turning transition (the premature timing of the Civil War and its climax had more to do with the overarching length of Transcendental generation than anything else being "immature").

Now that doesn't mean our reactions can't be intense-- third turnings have given examples of intense societal reactions-- but the nature of those reactions today (intense or otherwise) seems to show signs of both a 3T and 4T nature, for now. Or more accurately, show signs that are indeterminant or that can be reasonably portrayed either way.

But the 4T aspect of this transition should become more apparent soon, and indeed the social reaction to Gulf War II seems to portend this. We are probably coming to the point where this transition will truly and obviously become one of those radical "sharp turns" of history on par with 1929-33, 1859-61, and 1773-76.

What do you all think about the dual nature of what we've seen over the past year-and-a-half, and what do you think about comparisons with our society's intense reactions in the years of 1917-20?

Wasn't at least one of those 3 periods (1859-61) determined to be 3T?

Originally Posted by bubba

We can not allow regimes that support terror and also possess weapons of mass destruction to exist.

Well said Bubba. But how do we go about wiping our own country out of existence? I heard the Palestinians had a really terrible time in Jenin last year. A good friend of mine, Ian Hook, was working there for the UN but i haven't heard from him since. Now why doesn't he write?

So are we in Fourth Turning mode?
Well age wise we are all supposed to be in the next phase of life right?
Boomers are supposed to be post 60, Xers post 40, Millies post 20. I know that a new generation is currently being born.
But I have seen this kind of imperial war before, at least read about it.
In 1845 (correct me if I have the date wrong) the US marched into Mexican territory to fulfill our divine right to own and control all corners of the Earth.
There was as much 1776 hoopla then as there is 1945 hoopla now.
I read about how it was a fight for "liberty" and "the spirit of 76."
It was even called "the second American revolution" at the time.

All of this "next greatest generation" and the neverending World War II comparisons make me suspicious about our new "total" war against..everybody that doesn't agree with us.
It reminds me of things like the Mexican War. It doesn't remind me of World War II at all.

I think we are very close to entering 4T or maybe we are in one. I can tell you I don't really care about Michael Jackson, although that voodoo spell against Steven Spielberg was pretty funny.

As for what the authors say, they seem also part of this World War II nostalgia trip.
What is up with that?

Can they even be trusted or are they so drunk on generational envy?

I read that Strauss and Howe article.
I can see why so many of the Millennial youth on this board feel insulted to see themselves reduced to daddy's footsoldiers. I have no doubt that these people will, by sheer numbers and coincidental history, pave the way for America in the next century.
But I did see a peace movement erupt from college campuses. Anyone that denies the peace movement is in serious denial. Hundreds of thousands of people march down Fifth Ave in New York and that's not news? It certainly didn't happen in 1994.
These guys have totally ignored the anti-globalisation-anti-war movement.
Xers and early millies shut down trade meetings from Davos to Genoa. Every day more people are arrested protesting this war.
I was even in Philadelphia in 2000 protesting at Bush's acceptance speech. There were thousands of people there. Did they magically disappear?
Was I hallucinating?
Yes, I am on their side, but in the greater picture, why are they conveniently swept aside by these historians?

It is not truthful to deny their existence.

Originally Posted by Justino

There were thousands of people there. Did they magically disappear?
Was I hallucinating?

Where are they all now, Justino?

Why haven't they marched against Iraq's violations of human dignity? Why no demonstrations against the execution of Iraqi citizens? Why don't they march in front of Iraqi embassies somewhere to protest Iraq's violations of the Geneva convention?

Why don't they go to Iraq to help the millions who have suffered under Saddam Hussein?

The answer, Justino, to your questions is this: politicians and the media know that the antiwar movement in America is small and inconsequential compared to the majority favoring the war.

That's all there is to it. If the antiwar movement had more people in the US, you'd see more media coverage and politicans pandering to it, as in Europe.

Why haven't they marched against Iraq's violations of human dignity?

Probably because a) they aren't Iraqis, and b) Iraq is a piddly little half-assed non-power that isn't capable of doing much damage to anybody outside its own borders, and c) for a dictatorship like Iraq to do wrong is expected, while for America to do the same sort of thing is a betrayal of everything this country stands for.

I'm only guessing, you understand. But here's an associated question: Why is it that people in favor of this travesty continually compare the U.S. to Iraq, as if our country should be held to no higher standard than a tinpot dictatorship? Aren't we supposed to be better than Saddam Hussein?

politicians and the media know that the antiwar movement in America is small and inconsequential compared to the majority favoring the war.

Since Justin was asking why anti-Bush protesters at his inaugural were ignored, and that occurred more than two years before the war started, try again, John.

As for the comparison between the antiwar movement and the "majority favoring the war," the interesting thing to me is that a significant chunk of that "majority" was part of the antiwar movement before the war actually started. So what do you think? How strong is that "majority"?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm only guessing, you understand. But here's an associated question: Why is it that people in favor of this travesty continually compare the U.S. to Iraq, as if our country should be held to no higher standard than a tinpot dictatorship?

That comparison is rarely made by the pro-invasion side, and is usually made by the antiwar side. This is known in pundit circles as the "moral equivalence" fallacy, and gives birth to such common antiwar slogans as, "America needs a regime change", and "At least Saddam was elected" (!!!).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since Justin was asking why anti-Bush protesters at his inaugural were ignored, and that occurred more than two years before the war started, try again, John.

If you read his post, he kept mixing the two (and other things, like the "anti-globalalist" rallies, etc.)

My answer is for all of them. Media analysts know the movement is shallow and its core is composed of hard left whackos.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

the interesting thing to me is that a significant chunk of that "majority" was part of the antiwar movement before the war actually started.

Look, Brian. I have read you make the same observation in a lot of other posts, and have declined to comment, even though I think the point is questionable.

First of all, it is not really fair to call everyone who answers a certain way in a poll to be part of any "movement".

But besides that, before the war, some polls indicated a majority in support of the war, and some didn't.

Honestly, the key factor seemed to be whether the poll question highlighted the issue of international support. If this issue was specifically addressed in the question, such as "Would you be in favor of invading Iraq even without international support", the numbers were naturally lower. This is a standard polling phenomenon. (The Bush administration certainly noticed this, which is why they spin things to emphasise the "Coalition" or the UK, Australia, the US, Italy, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Poland, etc...)

If no mention was made of the international support issue, most polls indicated a majority support prior to the war.

As American's traditionally oppose wars, such high poll numbers in favor of war are very significant. Even 40% in favor would be high. Even before the war, the numbers in favor were higher than in 1990.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

So what do you think? How strong is that "majority"?

It is amazingly strong. A lot of it actually represents people who now have changed their minds when the reality of the war turned out to be far more humane than the antiwar spin suggested it would be. This is a pattern that has happend before, such as in Afganistan, where honest observers conceded that the war actually saved more lives then it cost, primarily by curtailing the Taliban-induced famine that was projected to occur there even pre-9/11.

So, I could ask you the analgous question: how strong do you think your "antiwar majority" was if it can change so suddenly when presented with new evidence?

I think both sides are wrong in this. The truth is, we have no idea about where this is going, mostly because of the secretiveness of the Bush Administration.

1. I did not say that I believed that the United States should invade every country with which we have a difference. I explained why I thought what was happening in the Arab world was a threat to the United States and what we should do about it. If you think I am wrong tell me why it is not a threat, don’t just spout out with meaningless platitudes. That is what is wrong with the left they wont engage in an actual debate, they will simply trot out tired emotion laden platitudes and duck the real issues.
2. The so called peace movement is a non entity of professional protesters no one takes seriously outside of democratic party primary politics. If the “peace movement’ wishes to be taken seriously they will have to change tactics radically snarling up traffic will simply not gain any support. The way the protesters were recently dealt with in Oakland portends the treatment that will await them in the future. We are one more terrorist attack away from collectively telling them to shut up. One terrorist attack and the argument that taking manpower away from other activities to supervise protests is too dangerous under the current circumstances will prevail.

John Wayne:

That comparison is rarely made by the pro-invasion side, and is usually made by the antiwar side.

I have never seen it done even once by the antiwar side. I have, however, seen people say that Bush rather than Hussein is the great threat to peace at this time. But that isn't comparing Bush to Hussein in moral quality, only in power. Bush threatens the peace because he can; Saddam does not because he can't. If he could, maybe he would; he has before.

On the other hand, I have often seen arguments from the pro-war side in the form of "you folks are ignoring what a monster Saddam is; you keep complaining about Bush's infringements of civil liberties, but look, Iraq is worse." Well, yeah, it is . . . so what?

And I have repeatedly seen defenders of the war put words into the mouth of their opponents, e.g. saying that the antiwar side claims that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction (which I assumed he did but am beginning to doubt at this point), or even that Saddam is some kind of good guy. But the arguments against the war have never, fortunately, depended on Saddam being a good guy.

If you read his post, he kept mixing the two

I did read his post, and in the statement to which you responded he did not mix the two. He was talking about media treatment of protesters at Bush's inauguration.

First of all, it is not really fair to call everyone who answers a certain way in a poll to be part of any "movement".

But besides that, before the war, some polls indicated a majority in support of the war, and some didn't.

I did not say everyone, I said some. And that has to be true, because a lot of people who favored the war after it started disapproved the day before it started, and were thus part of the antiwar movement (if not necessarily a very active part).

No poll before the war started indicated a 70% approval. If some were a majority and some were not, we're reasonable to conclude somewhere around half the people were in favor. That means that 20% of the people changed their minds as soon as the first shots were fired.

Or did they? I think some of the posters on this board are in that 20%. What do they say? Well, they've already spoken: there's no choice now but to see it through, even though they continue to believe we shouldn't have gone in.

As American's traditionally oppose wars, such high poll numbers in favor of war are very significant.

Nonsense. Even the Vietnam War enjoyed higher support in its early years. (That's years, please note -- it took until 1973 before support eroded to below 50%.) Support for the Gulf War, after it started, was in the 80s or 90s depending on which poll you chose. Support for World War II after Pearl Harbor was almost unanimous.

These are not "high" poll numbers. With American troops already fighting, they are very low poll numbers. Not low enough to stop the war, alas, but low enough for those propagating it to be worried about the political aftermath.

A lot of it actually represents people who now have changed their minds when the reality of the war turned out to be far more humane than the antiwar spin suggested it would be.

Oh? And you know this how?

Again, talk to the people on this board who are among that 20% who switched after the shooting started. I think you will get a very different perspective.

If you dare.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No poll before the war started indicated a 70% approval. If some were a majority and some were not, we're reasonable to conclude somewhere around half the people were in favor. That means that 20% of the people changed their minds as soon as the first shots were fired.

As I said before, my husband is one of those 20% who "switched sides," as it were. I tried to persuade him otherwise, to no avail (big sigh).

I believe he favors the war for two reasons:

1) Bush Senior screwed up the end of Gulf War I by not helping to overthrow Saddam then; thus, we owe the Kurds and Shiites big time.

2) The alleged connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. My husband, who has family both in Boston and in NYC, wants to prevent another 9/11 at all costs. Thus, he sees the removal of any perceived terrorist threat as a good thing.

He is very conflicted about this; he despises the Bush adminstration for hundreds of other reasons and will oppose its re-election in 2004.

I told him that in my opinion this "cure" (war) is worse than the disease. He disagrees; life goes on.

I try not to watch war coverage with him too much as we both get agitated (for different reasons). So we throw in the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" DVDs as much as we can. That's escapism for you! ;-)

Sean, I thought your post on the phony fourth was thoughtful and raised some valid points. What I believe you are noticing is this. The national mood will not change all at once but instead start down a road from which it can’t return. I remember the end of the second turning. It wasn’t that one day hippies were everywhere, and the next they were gone. As this board demonstrates we still have those who are stuck in the sixties with us. The sixties hippies slowly and over time faded into yuppies, and by some time in the 1980’s the old hippie had become a humorous caricature.

As I have said before the war with Iraq will not be what the fourth turning is about but our involvement in the Middle East may well be. I think Afghanistan was just the beginning of it and this current war is simply another phase of us getting deeper into it. I don’t think changes in national mood occur overnight, I believe that some event occurs that causes a critical mass of individuals to start to move in a certain direction, a move that would probably have occurred eventually though perhaps with less force any way. I would be willing to bet that even without Vietnam a great deal of social change would have occurred in the late sixties and early seventies, Vietnam simply made it more dramatic a created an issue around which opposition to the existing order could crystallize.

That is what I believe 9-11 was, an issue around which those who had at some level begun to believe that the world was becoming unacceptably dangerous could rally. I would argue that this is in fact quite a bit different than WWI or the first Gulf War. Justified or not I believe that many in this country believe that we are truly threatened by terrorism. I would suspect that as more and more evidence emerges from the occupation of Iraq many will feel more and more threatened. This feeling on the part of many that we are truly threatened gives this more of a 4t flavor.

Consider our reasons for becoming involved in WWI and the first Gulf War. In WWI the Germans were engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare, and discussions with Mexico that it would have been best for them diplomatically if they had avoided. In the first Gulf War Iraq invaded Kuwait and may have had designs on Saudi Arabia. Here we are fighting because a country that though it has not attacked us directly yet is engaging in policies, that in the view of the administration, mean that they are likely to either attack us or aid those who would in the future. If you look that is basically the argument that has been used to sell this war, and that argument would have fallen flat on its face in a third turning, but it did depending on the poll sell around 50% before the war started, maybe more maybe less depending on the poll. Zogby who I believe is fairy competent had support at about 54% before the war started. I think those polls that asked three questions do you support the war, support only with UN support, or oppose, were flawed as on any poll when ones asks three questions the public tends to gravitate toward the middle ground thereby taking an invalid reading where the middle response is over represented and the first and third under. If you doubt this I can only say that the literature on research design fully supports this supposition and I suggest that you check it before you flame me.

I would also ask you to consider Bush’s rhetoric since 9-11. He has spoken in terms of moral absolutes. You are with us or you are against us, axis of evil, demands for the unconditional surrender of the dictator this is clearly fourth turning rhetoric and except for the hard left that he could do nothing to please it seems to have been well received by the public. Thus indicating to me that the public is for the most part ready to accept this form of argument. Think how silly what Bush is saying would have sounded in 1990. Even if you don’t agree it does not sound as out of place as it would have not that many years ago.

On the issue of aliens and immigration, I would say that the fact that issue is being raised now is quite significant. If you think of the culture in 1917 racism and xenophobia were perfectly acceptable attitudes. Now they are not. However, in a time when they are not acceptable attitudes many are quite willing to accept racial profiling of Middle Easterner’s, detention without trial, what is happening with detainees in Cuba, and such. I believe this is quite different than what occurred during WWI.

On a personal level I think of my father. Yes I realize this is anecdotal but still instructive. He is a hard case West Texas independent oil man who has resented every tax he has ever paid, has a picture of Barry Goldwater in his office, and during the war on poverty had a bumper sticker on the back of his truck reading “I fight poverty I work”; last night he told me “We have to get these bastards and if I have to pay more taxes to pay for it that’s fine.” This morning he wrote Bush a letter expressing those sentiments in a less profane way. To me that is conclusive.

I also believe the simple fact we are willing to bet involved in the Middle East is fairly significant. No matter what one believes about this war, few will argue that the Middle East is a mess that few have the taste for. This invasion of Iraq will involve us in nation building something a pre 9-11 Bush had not taste for. I also know he is going to attempt to get involved in the Isreal, Palestine issue in a major way after this. I don’t know how effective this will be but looking for lasting solutions in the Middle East, just being willing to consider it is in my opinion evidence of a fourth turning.

One might be able to make the case that Bush is pushing for this war for political advantage, though personally I consider him a true believer. However, consider Tony Blair’s support for the war. Something that I notice is rarely discussed. At great political risk he has been a very active participant in this. With only diplomatic support he could have maintained good relations with the United States, with simply the offer of token forces he could have maintained very good relations with the United States. However, instead he has become one of the most eloquent articulators of the case for war and contributed a substantial number of combat troops to the operation. Why? I would surmise that it is because he actually believes in what he is doing and that is certainly more of a fourth turning style of leadership than a third. Blair now has roughly 54% behind the war effort in the UK, where the U.S. has around 70%, I would be willing to bet if 9-11 had occurred in the UK the numbers would be reversed.

I believe this is the fourth turning we have started down that road, but the climax is years in the future. If you want me to hazard a guess as to what the issues will be I think it will have something to do with changing the Middle East, and a Manhattan Project style program to transition to a Hydrogen Economy. Here I freely admit I am engaging in rank speculation.

Bush and his lasso of justice.

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Originally Posted by justmom

Now, I am seriously getting offline! Any insults, jokes, or other detractory remarks will not be addressed until the end of the weekend.

What are you doing out of bed and on the computer?

I don't have a computer.

OK, everyone, bend your mind around that. Unless XoE is typing all these messages from a public terminal (which she isn't, not in the middle of the night) she has an ISP that doesn't require a computer. Such a thing exists (and it's one of the things that prompts me to say "Now I believe I'm living in the 21st Century!")

Originally Posted by bubba

I believe this is the fourth turning we have started down that road, but the climax is years in the future. If you want me to hazard a guess as to what the issues will be I think it will have something to do with changing the Middle East, and a Manhattan Project style program to transition to a Hydrogen Economy. Here I freely admit I am engaging in rank speculation.

I'm down with this being the 4T, the climax being years off, and the transition to a Hydrogen Economy being a major issue of the next decade. I'm ambivalent about changing the Middle East being the major foreign policy issue in isolation--I suspect it will be part of a debate over the kind of globalization we will have.

BTW, Bubba, proper punctuation will do wonders for making me take you more seriously.

Originally Posted by Crispy '59

The latest commentary from Strauss and Howe implies they think we are 4T:

"By an accident of history, the terrorist attacks of 11th September are serving as the initial catalyst of this mood shift."

http://www.axess.se/english/currenti...generation.php

Well, S&H are indeed pretty much ignoring the anti-war activists. There are more of them and they're more serious than some of the Xers during Gulf War I. Otherwise, a good article, even if it's pretty much an updated summary of Millennials Rising.