Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Iraq CF Thread - Page 19







Post#451 at 11-10-2007 06:32 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
11-10-2007, 06:32 AM #451
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Biden & Brownback are on the right track, but they don't go far enough.

Nothing less than what happened in India/Pakistan in 1947 will suffice.

Then, we "win" in Iraq because we will have gained a strategic ally in the region in perpetuity (the Kurds), plus we will have limited Iran to de-facto control of just one-third of Iraq, instead of the whole enchilada, as we say out here in the Golden State.

If Hillary climbs aboard this bandwagon - and actively campaigns from it - she wins the election in a landslide.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#452 at 11-10-2007 11:29 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
11-10-2007, 11:29 AM #452
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II View Post
Biden & Brownback are on the right track, but they don't go far enough.

Nothing less than what happened in India/Pakistan in 1947 will suffice.

Then, we "win" in Iraq because we will have gained a strategic ally in the region in perpetuity (the Kurds), plus we will have limited Iran to de-facto control of just one-third of Iraq, instead of the whole enchilada, as we say out here in the Golden State.

If Hillary climbs aboard this bandwagon - and actively campaigns from it - she wins the election in a landslide.
That's about the best outcome I can see for the US given current reality. The oil compainies won't like it for Iran will effectively control the bulk of the oil scince most of it is in shiite majority areas. Nevertheless, the US needs a way out that at least forestalls a regional war in the middle east. If the next president agressively persues a policy of energy independence, then a regional war in the middle east may be avoided long enough to limit Americas' need for involvement due to our need for imported oil.

I'm going to add something here. We are in the so called off season for gas prices and they rising almost by the hour. I've heard that about 30% of the price rise is due to the trouble in the middle east. I wouldn't be surprised if it were even more. Just think what's going to happen in the spring of 2008 when the driving season is here again.

We are in the early, bumbling around part of the 4T. Few people would disagree that a lot of what we're doing is making things worse. I don't see how next year can occur without a full blown outer world social moment being clearly evident.
Last edited by herbal tee; 11-10-2007 at 11:49 AM.







Post#453 at 11-10-2007 04:37 PM by sean '90 [at joined Jul 2007 #posts 1,625]
---
11-10-2007, 04:37 PM #453
Join Date
Jul 2007
Posts
1,625

Post

God save King Ra'ad of Iraq! No to partition!







Post#454 at 11-10-2007 04:55 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-10-2007, 04:55 PM #454
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
We are in the early, bumbling around part of the 4T.
Folks (including me) have been saying that since 2001.

Few people would disagree that a lot of what we're doing is making things worse.
Once again this has been true for a long time. The first big presentation of peak oil in Scientific American was nearly a decade ago.

I don't see how next year can occur without a full blown outer world social moment being clearly evident.
The same thing could be (and was) said in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Maybe 2007 is the trick and then maybe not.

For quite some time I have been trying to advance (and getting nowhere) that perhaps there will be no "full blown outer world social moment" ever "being clearly evident".

Since we have nukes that can't be a world war. Since we understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression. Peak oil and global warming were foreseen a very long time ago and solutions have been available for a very long time. Civil War? Been there and done that.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this crisis isn't going to be about a social moment that makes itself evident. In other words maybe the task is for enough people to recognize the social moment by acting in the appropriate fashion (i.e. by shaping history in such a way that future historians identify the present period as a social moment). Given this, it is likely that 50% of close observers will never see the crisis while it is happening.

Could it be, perhaps, that secular crises have never "made themselves evident"?







Post#455 at 11-10-2007 10:28 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-10-2007, 10:28 PM #455
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Angry Screw you, Alexander!

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Folks (including me) have been saying that since 2001... The same thing could be (and was) said in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006... Since we have nukes that can't be a world war. Since we understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression...
There is much I could say about all the other 4t "trigger" stuff mentioned in this post, but this "understand how the economy functions" line is pure bull.

Excuse me, but liberalism today utterly rejects JFK's tax cut remedy for jumpstarting an ailing economy. No, liberals today loudly trumpet the idea that tax cuts benefit only the rich and thus hurt the poor and the economy overall.

You are a liar, pal. An outright lying jerk, Alexander. What you've "said in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006" utterly betrays your statement that we "understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression."

Simply put, had Bush acted as Hoover did in 1930, we would've had another serious downturn in the economy and you know it.







Post#456 at 11-10-2007 10:44 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-10-2007, 10:44 PM #456
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Focus, and Lack Thereof

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
For quite some time I have been trying to advance (and getting nowhere) that perhaps there will be no "full blown outer world social moment" ever "being clearly evident".

Since we have nukes that can't be a world war. Since we understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression. Peak oil and global warming were foreseen a very long time ago and solutions have been available for a very long time. Civil War? Been there and done that.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this crisis isn't going to be about a social moment that makes itself evident. In other words maybe the task is for enough people to recognize the social moment by acting in the appropriate fashion (i.e. by shaping history in such a way that future historians identify the present period as a social moment). Given this, it is likely that 50% of close observers will never see the crisis while it is happening.

Could it be, perhaps, that secular crises have never "made themselves evident"?
Past crises have generally involved major 2GW wars. The wars at least tend to open with spectacular easy to recognize mobilization causing events... Lexington Green, Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor. Mind you, the transformations of society that solve the underlying non-martial aspects of the crises are generally quite distinct.

Basically, I'm with you up until that last sentence. The 4T secular crises are rather evident any any telling of history. I suspect what you were trying to say isn't what I'm reading...

But if I'm allowed to second the rest of your post, yes. Past crises have generally been resolved when one side or another is no longer able to support a 2GW overt army in the field. Usually, as industrial capacity has a lot to do with supporting 2GW armies, the faction that advocates industrialization and modernization has been the side to destroy the other faction's ability to support 2GW armies. Fortunately, in recent centuries, the robber barons and those advocating democracy and human rights have generally been on the same side, resisting remnants and variations of agricultural age totalitarian government.

Weapons of mass destruction and the triumph of insurgent war over 2GW conventional war change the dynamics significantly. Your other point about economics might well be true as well. There will be recessions, but unlikely another Great Depression. I too see a civil war as unlikely, or at least the spirals of rhetoric and violence aren't moving in that direction in this country at this time. Thus, those waiting for the crisis to closely echo prior crises are apt to be very wrong about the broad shape of the upcoming crisis. Those waiting for a major economic crash followed by World War III are looking too hard at the past and not hard enough at the dynamics of the forces that are actually in play today.

And yet, cultures seldom let go of old value systems until their economy is in ashes to the point they can no longer support a 2GW army in the field. The large 4T scale problems cannot be solved without major changes to values systems. Yet, it is unlikely to impossible that we will see a conclusive 2GW culture shifting conflict, not without using the nukes.

Off the cuff, I'll propose that while insurgent war can prevent an outside force from overwhelming a native culture, the long drawn out terror, ethnic cleansing and slow bloodletting that flows from insurgent conflict does not produce the sort of decisive victory that transforms cultures.

The current crisis also has not coalesced around a single decisive issue. I can call out scarce resources, division of wealth, warlord government, ecological concerns, dysfunctional democracies, religious / ethnic intolerance and the changing nature of warfare as each presenting critical challenges. No single one of those problems is strong enough to allow focusing on that issue to the dismissal of all others. In fact, I'd rather make the case that all these problems are heavily interlocked, that you can't solve any of the above without a comprehensive value set that attempts to systematically attack all of the above concerns together.

But each problem is long foreseen. We have had no shortage of small catalysts illustrating each problem. There has been no lack of prophets crying out from the wilderness, loudly, clearly, and by many unheard. I could second a notion that there will be no single illuminating event clear enough to wake up all those who wish to remain asleep.

In short, no decisive war. Without a decisive war, no decisive shift in values. No decisive shift in values, no solving the problems confronting us.

I hope that is wrong. I hope that as problems become more obvious, people will try to solve them. Still, you get denialists. No problem is so blatantly obvious that one cannot cling to the status quo. There is no problem with a division of wealth? Democracy is working just fine? Insurgency can be defeated through aggressive use of 2GW? The world is not getting warmer? Time to buy a bigger SUV? The proper response to a rival world view or religious system is closed minded intolerant hate?

In various flavors, that is all denial that problems exist and that the culture must be transformed to solve them. More and more, I don't expect to convert the hard core denialists. In past crises, they would let go of past and privilege only when their 2GW armies were destroyed. I expect similar degrees of obstinacy today. I have no reason to expect otherwise.

This time around, we can't raise a bigger 2GW army to force them to change their minds. We have to roll up our sleeves, work together, and solve the problems confronting us in spite of them.







Post#457 at 11-10-2007 11:39 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-10-2007, 11:39 PM #457
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
There is much I could say about all the other 4t "trigger" stuff mentioned in this post, but this "understand how the economy functions" line is pure bull.

Excuse me, but liberalism today utterly rejects JFK's tax cut remedy for jump-starting an ailing economy. No, liberals today loudly trumpet the idea that tax cuts benefit only the rich and thus hurt the poor and the economy overall.

You are a liar, pal. An outright lying jerk, Alexander. What you've "said in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006" utterly betrays your statement that we "understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression."

Simply put, had Bush acted as Hoover did in 1930, we would've had another serious downturn in the economy and you know it.
I can hardly speak for all liberals, but you are falling back into your 'all liberals think' mode, attributing your hate filled misunderstandings and lies to those you dislike.

Two distinctly different elements of macroeconomics...

To my mind, deficit spending stimulates the economy, but creates a risk of inflation. There is a careful tightrope to walk there. Generally, I would advocate deficits as required during an economic downturn, then paying off said deficits during good times. This would be classic Keynes, practiced with variations from FDR through Reagan. Yes, Kennedy got it more or less right. Johnson got it subtly wrong, and lead us into the stagflation problems that Nixon, Ford and Carter wrestled with.

Reagan bought into a myth that you could reduce the debt by cutting taxes. Lower taxes supposedly meant a stronger economy which in theory would result in more tax income. This was supply side economics, or Voodoo economics, as Bush 41 called it. It has just proven wrong. Republican attempts to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes have always resulted in increased deficits. They seledom even pretend it will work, anymore. They just keep cutting taxes without pretending the debt won't grow.

While China's willingness to buy US debt has complicated the picture, I am still very dubious about deficit spending during booms, as are many others. There is still no such thing as a free lunch. If you have a debt, the economy will force one to pay it off, one way or another. I just cannot advocate a policy of perpetually increasing deficits. I just doubt China will keep propping us up indefinitely, though they are living in the same house of cards.

The question on whether taxes should be cut more to the rich, the poor, or in some balanced form should be independent. I personally distinguish between the real and paper economies. Put more wealth in the hands of the wealthy, and they will buy more stocks and bonds. Put more wealth in the hands of the lower classes, and they might buy bigger homes, bigger cars, or a next generation video game box. The question is where the pump needs to be primed. Is there a lack of investment funds that allows new start up companies, or is there a lack of orders for goods? Which is the bottleneck that is slowing the economy? Do we need more companies, or money in the hands of people so they can purchase the existing company's products? There is something to be said for both.

From my perspective, interest rates have stayed fairly low, and I haven't perceived a lack of available investment funds. I personally think the Republicans have erred too much towards the stimulating the investment industry, rather than the hard nuts and bolts economy.

Now Mike might have misstated his comment. If Bush had totally disregarded the advice of his economic advisors, of course he could have pursued Hoover's policies. He might have managed to create another Great Depression. Hoover practiced what would have made sense to a CEO of a company facing depression. He downsized. He stopped major spending projects. He cut back the government's debt. He made the government smaller. He was a classic conservative, from before the supply side myth. These would all be good moves if he were leading a company facing an economic hard time. He dug in to wait it out, not taking risks or spending money until a time arrived when there would be a better chance for a return. He assumed that what was good for a company would be good for the government. He didn't know any better.

This is the opposite of what Keynes would advise, and what Bush is doing... deficit spending.

It is not that it is no longer possible to cause another Great Depression, it is that we know a lot more about how to avoid it, no one has the motive to do it, and it would be really hard to put in place bad enough policies over a long enough time to actually create a new Great Depression. It could be done, but not even the Republicans are that stupid. They are making the opposite mistake.







Post#458 at 11-10-2007 11:41 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-10-2007, 11:41 PM #458
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Uhhh...

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Past crises have generally involved major 2GW wars. The wars at least tend to open with spectacular easy to recognize mobilization causing events... Lexington Green, Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor. Mind you, the transformations of society that solve the underlying non-martial aspects of the crises are generally quite distinct.

Basically, I'm with you up until that last sentence. The 4T secular crises are rather evident any any telling of history. I suspect what you were trying to say isn't what I'm reading...

But if I'm allowed to second the rest of your post, yes. Past crises have generally been resolved when one side or another is no longer able to support a 2GW overt army in the field. Usually, as industrial capacity has a lot to do with supporting 2GW armies, the faction that advocates industrialization and modernization has been the side to destroy the other faction's ability to support 2GW armies. Fortunately, in recent centuries, the robber barons and those advocating democracy and human rights have generally been on the same side, resisting remnants and variations of agricultural age totalitarian government.

Weapons of mass destruction and the triumph of insurgent war over 2GW conventional war change the dynamics significantly. Your other point about economics might well be true as well. There will be recessions, but unlikely another Great Depression. I too see a civil war as unlikely, or at least the spirals of rhetoric and violence aren't moving in that direction in this country at this time. Thus, those waiting for the crisis to closely echo prior crises are apt to be very wrong about the broad shape of the upcoming crisis. Those waiting for a major economic crash followed by World War III are looking too hard at the past and not hard enough at the dynamics of the forces that are actually in play today.

And yet, cultures seldom let go of old value systems until their economy is in ashes to the point they can no longer support a 2GW army in the field. The large 4T scale problems cannot be solved without major changes to values systems. Yet, it is unlikely to impossible that we will see a conclusive 2GW culture shifting conflict, not without using the nukes.

Off the cuff, I'll propose that while insurgent war can prevent an outside force from overwhelming a native culture, the long drawn out terror, ethnic cleansing and slow bloodletting that flows from insurgent conflict does not produce the sort of decisive victory that transforms cultures.

The current crisis also has not coalesced around a single decisive issue. I can call out scarce resources, division of wealth, warlord government, ecological concerns, dysfunctional democracies, religious / ethnic intolerance and the changing nature of warfare as each presenting critical challenges. No single one of those problems is strong enough to allow focusing on that issue to the dismissal of all others. In fact, I'd rather make the case that all these problems are heavily interlocked, that you can't solve any of the above without a comprehensive value set that attempts to systematically attack all of the above concerns together.

But each problem is long foreseen. We have had no shortage of small catalysts illustrating each problem. There has been no lack of prophets crying out from the wilderness, loudly, clearly, and by many unheard. I could second a notion that there will be no single illuminating event clear enough to wake up all those who wish to remain asleep.

In short, no decisive war. Without a decisive war, no decisive shift in values. No decisive shift in values, no solving the problems confronting us.

I hope that is wrong. I hope that as problems become more obvious, people will try to solve them. Still, you get denialists. No problem is so blatantly obvious that one cannot cling to the status quo. There is no problem with a division of wealth? Democracy is working just fine? Insurgency can be defeated through aggressive use of 2GW? The world is not getting warmer? Time to buy a bigger SUV? The proper response to a rival world view or religious system is closed minded intolerant hate?

In various flavors, that is all denial that problems exist and that the culture must be transformed to solve them. More and more, I don't expect to convert the hard core denialists. In past crises, they would let go of past and privilege only when their 2GW armies were destroyed. I expect similar degrees of obstinacy today. I have no reason to expect otherwise.

This time around, we can't raise a bigger 2GW army to force them to change their minds. We have to roll up our sleeves, work together, and solve the problems confronting us in spite of them.
Hey, Buttler, you can literally say less in 500 words than most everyday folks can say in ten.

Take your 2GW nonsense and stick it, pal.







Post#459 at 11-11-2007 12:19 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-11-2007, 12:19 AM #459
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
Hey, Butler, you can literally say less in 500 words than most everyday folks can say in ten.

Take your 2GW nonsense and stick it, pal.
If you believe the distinction between 2GW and 4GW unimportant, between conventional war and insurgency, it is not how many words I wrote that matters, it is how many you comprehended. If a denialist would deny, no lengthy itemized notarized treatise, or no succinct pungent telling, will serve. Against stupidity, the gods themselves strive in vain. *







Post#460 at 11-11-2007 11:05 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-11-2007, 11:05 AM #460
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
You are a liar, pal. An outright lying jerk, Alexander. What you've "said in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006" utterly betrays your statement that we "understand how the economy functions they can't be another Great Depression."
There hasn't been another Depression in 70 years. They used to happen every 20 years or so. So yes, we (meaning economic policymakers) have learned to avoid them.

Simply put, had Bush acted as Hoover did in 1930, we would've had another serious downturn in the economy and you know it.
What Hoover or Bush did was largely irrelevant. What the Fed did or did not do is more relevant, but not the whole story. The big difference between 1931 and 2002 was that aggregate spending was much less strongly a function of asset performance in 2002 than it was in 1931. Thus, although the stock market crashed in 2000-2002 it did not have the same impact as it did in 1929-1931. The final crash in early 1932 that made the Great Depression Great, didn't happen.

I specifically argued at the bottom in October 2002 (when you were all doom and gloom) that this collapse would not happen. Here's the article.

http://www.safehaven.com/article-84.htm

Upper middle class and wealthy households in 1929-30 contracted their spending in anticipation of hard times they knew were coming (they had just lived through a major depression in 1920-21 and knew what to expect). Because they expected a depression (and behaved accordingly) a depression was what happened.

The corresponding households in 2002, bought houses instead and made a great deal of money. The idea that a Depression could happen was assumed to be something only cranks talked about. So they behaved as if "prosperity was around the corner"

Why did 2002 households behave this way? Because Depressions were something that happened in the past, to their parents and grandparents, not to them. Simply put, they didn't believe in depressions so they did not act in a way that creates depressions, and so there was no depression.

Intelligent economic policy can prevent an ordinary recession from becoming a depression. "Economic shock absorbers" in the form of social security and unemployment benefits keep demand intact when employment falls because these income streams are paid to largely unemployed people. Together these policies help remove fear of depression from those households unaffected by mere recessions (i.e. upper middle class and wealthy households).

Today, upper middle class and wealthy consumers no longer are in the habit of pulling back during hard times. Often it is a time to buy. A good time to have home maintenance done is during hard times when businesses are eager for business. Asset prices and interest rates are depressed so its a good time to invest. All it takes is confidence that the recession won't make you unemployed, which affluent and rich people believe is true.







Post#461 at 11-11-2007 12:32 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-11-2007, 12:32 PM #461
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Past crises have generally involved major 2GW wars. The wars at least tend to open with spectacular easy to recognize mobilization causing events... Lexington Green, Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor.
Wars also occur during other turnings. The Seven Years war was bigger than the Revolutionary war for Britain. The Glorious Revolution saw a civil war and a couple of trade wars before, a big war during and an even bigger war after.

Mind you, the transformations of society that solve the underlying non-martial aspects of the crises are generally quite distinct.
Yes, this is what makes it a 4T, but these are not spectacular nor are they necessarily easy to recognize in real time.

The 4T secular crises are rather evident any any telling of history.
Yes they are, from the viewpoint of the future (which is what history is). I was talking amount contemporary perceptions.

But if I'm allowed to second the rest of your post, yes. Past crises have generally been resolved when one side or another is no longer able to support a 2GW overt army in the field.
Not necessarily. In the last crisis the losing side was defeated in 1932, no 2GW armies were needed.

WW II was an outcome of the crisis, not the cause. Of the fascist leaders, only Mussolini was in power in 1929. Hitler was a GC who led his people into evil and defeat (not all GCs are successes or lead to positive outcomes). I would consider Phillip II as another failed GC in the late 16th century crisis. I also would consider Hoover and Buchanan as failed GCs who were replaced by more successful ones.

Usually, as industrial capacity has a lot to do with supporting 2GW armies, the faction that advocates industrialization and modernization has been the side to destroy the other faction's ability to support 2GW armies.
Yes, when the issue was settled through force of arms.

I don't see this idea as operative the the War of the Roses (the sides represented equivalent levels of economic advancement). I don't see it as operative in the Glorious Revolution or US Depression crises (internal struggles not settled through wars). I don't see it in the American Revolution (the more industrialized side lost).

Weapons of mass destruction and the triumph of insurgent war over 2GW conventional war change the dynamics significantly.
Yes, I think we both agree that things can no longer be settled by military force. But I don't think non-military resolution of crises is a new thing. For example, I believe the last 4T was won at the ballot box.

And yet, cultures seldom let go of old value systems until their economy is in ashes to the point they can no longer support a 2GW army in the field.
Yes. I believe finding a way to change without having an economy in ashes or a destructive war IS the main challenge of this crisis. In the last crisis we didn't know how to prevent depressions. Today we don't know how to achieve crisis-solving change without major pain. The job in this 4T is to find a way to do this, that is to have a critical 4T election without an external force making us do this.

Since the GOP was in power when I believe the 4T began, they had first crack at formulating a successful response. By successful I mean a response that puts keeps them in the driver seat for most of the 4T (i.e a couple of decades). Next year we see if the GOP can regain Congress and hang on to the White House. If not, then it will be the Democrats turn.

The large 4T scale problems cannot be solved without major changes to values systems.
Yes

Yet, it is unlikely to impossible that we will see a conclusive 2GW culture shifting conflict, not without using the nukes.
I agree and our goal should be to avoid any conflict of this nature.

Off the cuff, I'll propose that while insurgent war can prevent an outside force from overwhelming a native culture, the long drawn out terror, ethnic cleansing and slow bloodletting that flows from insurgent conflict does not produce the sort of decisive victory that transforms cultures.
I don't see how this applies to our needs here in America.

The current crisis also has not coalesced around a single decisive issue.
I think it is. The American Dream is dying. If America no longer has a national story, does America even exist?

If a GC can address this issue successfully, the nation will survive, if not it will fall apart or perhaps become another Brazil.

More and more, I don't expect to convert the hard core denialists.
You don't convert them, you defeat them.

In past crises, they would let go of past and privilege only when their 2GW armies were destroyed.
They never let go. They took their beliefs to their graves. Subsequent generations, being raised in the new environment either never adopted these old values in the first case or did adopt them and became reactionaries. Unless the reactionaries got some success from their reaction, the old values died with them.

This is why generations matter. If people changed their minds there would be no saeculum.







Post#462 at 11-12-2007 08:37 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
11-12-2007, 08:37 PM #462
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
The Bush argument for deposing Saddam was as follows:

In Bush's first post-9/11 State of the Union address (January 2002), he framed Iraq as part of a larger and more enduring problem, the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. And unless something was done, we faced the prospect of an infinitely more catastrophic 9/11 in the future.

Later that year, in a speech to the United Nations, he spoke of the danger from Iraq not as "clear and present" but "grave and gathering," an obvious allusion to Churchill's "gathering storm," the gradually accumulating threat that preceded the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. And then nearer the war, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." Bush was, on the contrary, calling for action precisely when the threat was not imminent because, "if this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions . . . would come too late."

The threat had not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse. Hussein was not going away. The sanctions were not going to restrain him. Even his death would be no reprieve, as his half-mad sons would take over. The argument was that Hussein had to be removed eventually and that with Hussein relatively weakened, isolated and vulnerable, now would be more prudent and less costly than later.

He was right. - Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post (July 18, 2003)
But let's face it, the lie is a lot more fun to play with.

It always is when your lie is confronted with the truth.
Dubya may have said "clear and gathering" that time, but he and many top folks in his administration said more than that, many times. Like here, and here, and here, and here and elsewhere.

So, again, and again, and again, and again, whether it be Bush, or Cheney, or Rummie, or Scotty, or Bartlett, or whomever, the threat from Hussein's regime is described as "immediate", "mortal", "terrible", "unique", or extraordinarily dire in some fashion. And on at least two occasions White House officials (Fleisher and Bartlett) agreed with the "imminent" assessment about Iraq specifically and never retracted those statements and the White House never distanced itself from the statements.

But one of my favorites is this little piece from Scott McClellan:


This gets to the crux of the matter. Several nations have nuclear weapons, and many more have biochemical capabilities. What the Bush Administration was saying was Iraq was extra special because Hussein was going to give WMD to Al Qaeda.

Thus, we have the trumped up Iraq - Al Qaeda connection, which report after report has shown was "discovered" via cherry-picking the data. Were there points of data that could be used to demonstrate such a connection? Sure. But the same could be said for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and for little green men from the gamma quadrant giving grandma the ol' anal probe. However, the totality of the data makes accepting such conclusions highly suspect.

So yes Mr. Lamb, it is the truth that the Bush administration said that the threat posed by Iraq was "imminent" and "immediate" and "mortal", in addition to "grave" and "growing". This is not just the "4T truth", but the factual truth. And as I said before, as long as they are sticking to such terminology then they are lying because they knew it was not the case. Sure, a strong case could be made that they thought WMD would actually be there. I am not faulting them on that, though that turned out wrong too. But, as the British ascertained, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

I could, at a LONG stretch, believe that the adminstration did not know what it was doing and that it just got caught up in a whirlwind of paranoia and belligerence. Even then, the fact remains that the White House has not disavowed it's "findings". Therefore, they are still lying.
Marc, this was a direct response to a direct request from you. Are you going to answer or not?
Uh, Marc. Hello. What was that about my "lie being confronted with the truth"?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#463 at 11-13-2007 02:34 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-13-2007, 02:34 AM #463
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Talking to oneself is a sure sign of insanity.
Some truth in that. Thing is, I think he is actually attempting to prompt Zilch to respond with a serious post. This is a more sure sign of insanity.







Post#464 at 11-13-2007 09:44 AM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-13-2007, 09:44 AM #464
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Debating those who oppose themselves?

It does not surprise me that the Bush critic ignores a carefully worded, major speech by the president and, instead, chooses his among his "favorites" a cherry-picked off-the-cuff news conference-response by a press secretary to make his case.

What we are led to believe, obviously, is that Bush intentionally lied in his prime-time speech to the American people, stating we strike "before" the threat becomes "imminent," but was caught red-handed when his press secretary oopsed-out the real truth -- albeit extremely vague even in this case, stating "the most dangerous threat of our time, and that's the nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups." I mean, would those airliners have been counted as WMD had the two towers been full of people, say 25,000 each?

What's really ridiculous, and indeed shows the complete and utter rage these people are filled with, is that we are killing al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. But this doesn't count because Bush was only right to invade Afghanistan, and not a nation with an outlaw regime (who had indeed used horrific WMD to kill human beings).

But, with the case of this specific poster, even that argument is null and void, because he's tried on several occasions to say Bush sucks because he didn't send in a massive force to change the "outlaw regime" in Iraq.

This is a person who opposes himself. Highly unstable, he is, and not one I would choose to debate on any serious matter.
Last edited by zilch; 11-13-2007 at 09:48 AM.







Post#465 at 11-13-2007 11:34 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-13-2007, 11:34 AM #465
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Talking to oneself is a sure sign of insanity.
I don't think so. It's when you start answering.







Post#466 at 11-13-2007 12:24 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
11-13-2007, 12:24 PM #466
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Quote Originally Posted by The Rani
Talking to oneself is a sure sign of insanity.
I don't think so. It's when you start answering.
I thought it was when the two of you started disagreeing.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#467 at 11-13-2007 01:04 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-13-2007, 01:04 PM #467
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by zilch View Post
It does not surprise me that the Bush critic ignores a carefully worded, major speech by the president and, instead, chooses his among his "favorites" a cherry-picked off-the-cuff news conference-response by a press secretary to make his case.
H-m-m-m. I think he listed about ten references, but you chose two. So who is cherry picking?

Quote Originally Posted by zilch
... What we are led to believe, obviously, is that Bush intentionally lied in his prime-time speech to the American people, stating we strike "before" the threat becomes "imminent," but was caught red-handed when his press secretary oopsed-out the real truth -- albeit extremely vague even in this case, stating "the most dangerous threat of our time, and that's the nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups." I mean, would those airliners have been counted as WMD had the two towers been full of people, say 25,000 each? (Emphasis mine)
Clever. First you slam your opponent for not being scrupulous in selecting quotes you think are determinant vis a vis the Bushian view of the Saddamian future , then you concatenate that with the standard WTC reference, knowing the two are totally unrelated.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch
... What's really ridiculous, and indeed shows the complete and utter rage these people are filled with, is that we are killing al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. But this doesn't count because Bush was only right to invade Afghanistan, and not a nation with an outlaw regime (who had indeed used horrific WMD to kill human beings).
Again, we are killing terrorists Iraq that now style themselves as al Qaeda, even though they were not in existence at the time of the WTC/Pentagon attacks, and are not now and never have been a part of the al Qaeda that attacked us.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch
... But, with the case of this specific poster, even that argument is null and void, because he's tried on several occasions to say Bush sucks because he didn't send in a massive force to change the "outlaw regime" in Iraq.
No, he said that going into Iraq with less than the required force was stupid, and still is. If you have trouble seeing the difference, you need an English class ... or two.

Quote Originally Posted by zilch
... This is a person who opposes himself. Highly unstable, he is, and not one I would choose to debate on any serious matter.
You, on the other hand, are consistently sleazy in thought and deed.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#468 at 11-13-2007 01:43 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-13-2007, 01:43 PM #468
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Correction

"[T]he most dangerous threat of our time, and that's the nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups."
Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Clever. First you slam your opponent for not being scrupulous in selecting quotes you think are determinant vis a vis the Bushian view of the Saddamian future , then you concatenate that with the standard WTC reference, knowing the two are totally unrelated.
Good point. The fact that Saddam was paying the families of human suicide terrorists $25,000 would've emphasised the press secretary's point just fine, too. And then there was these good reasons, too:
December, 16, 1998 Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.







Post#469 at 11-13-2007 02:13 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-13-2007, 02:13 PM #469
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Thumbs down Missed opportunities, and WWOE

Quoting Clinton to me is a waste of time. I find him only less guilty of pandering than Dubya - which is still a long way from sainthood. I do think he showed a degree of proportionality that, in retrospect, should have had grafted-on to his successor at the swearing-in ceremony, but Bush and Cheney apparently had other plans.

... and for the record, Saddam deserved his fate, but we had no business delivering him to it.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-13-2007 at 02:19 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#470 at 11-13-2007 02:43 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
11-13-2007, 02:43 PM #470
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Not necessarily. In the last crisis the losing side was defeated in 1932, no 2GW armies were needed...

WW II was an outcome of the crisis, not the cause. Of the fascist leaders, only Mussolini was in power in 1929. Hitler was a GC who led his people into evil and defeat (not all GCs are successes or lead to positive outcomes). I would consider Philip II as another failed GC in the late 16th century crisis. I also would consider Hoover and Buchanan as failed GCs who were replaced by more successful ones...

I don't see this idea as operative the the War of the Roses (the sides represented equivalent levels of economic advancement). I don't see it as operative in the Glorious Revolution or US Depression crises (internal struggles not settled through wars). I don't see it in the American Revolution (the more industrialized side lost)...

Yes, I think we both agree that things can no longer be settled by military force. But I don't think non-military resolution of crises is a new thing. For example, I believe the last 4T was won at the ballot box.
Mike, I respect you a lot on issues of economics and science, and try to avoid slamming into you head on in these fields. My interest is more into military history and transforming changes in politics. I generally find this difference in specialty and interests leads us to different perspectives and conclusions. I'll briefly review my perspective, but doubt we will end up totally agreeing with each other.

From my perspective, FDR led a double crisis. World War II, the full maturation of the Military Industrial Complex and the switch from isolationism to containment and 'world's policemen' status were significant. They transformed US policy at least as much as Keynes, leading to Korea, Vietnam, and the rest of the Cold War. In addition, I believe the neocon movement would not likely have been able to provoke the recent Middle Eastern military incursions without decades of Cold War policies that advocated containment and zones of influence. Heck, if we hadn't confronted fascism and communism, the Islamists wouldn't be our problem today. The Middle East would have been Germany's or the Soviet Union's problem.

There are often last gasp conservative leaders who attempt to maintain the 3T policies, stalemates and compromises beyond their time. Hoover and Buchanan are fine examples. Grey Champions move beyond the prior 3T's patterns and address the critical problems confronting the culture. I believe there is a basic genuine difference between the famous and much honored Grey Champions and their much scorned predecessors. I am very aware that you claim not to be able to reliably and scientifically quantify this difference.

I hold the War of the Roses to be an Agricultural Age dynastic war. In a pure war cycle theory, it might be a crisis war, but I don't hold it to be a key conflict in the transition from the Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial.

From a military perspective, the English Civil War was the crisis conflict, while the Glorious Revolution was a negotiated political resettlement with associated parades and parties. I know I disagree with S&H's Official Holy Writ here, but Cromwell is my Grey Champion figure, at the center of the political, religious and economic transitions, not William and Mary. That conflict was a key part of the Agricultural Age to Industrial transition, with Protestant v. Catholic, urban v. rural and royal v. parliament overtones all over the place.

Returning to the modern era, I am a little more ready to entertain the notion of Bush 43 as a failed Grey Champion than Hoover and Buchanan. Bush 43 mouthed some of the traditional Pearl Harbor style rhetoric on September 11th. His conversion of the Cold War containment and zones of influence tactics into the War On Terror policy of serial preemptive unilateral invasion can't truly be called a continuation of 3T stalemate and compromises. Bush 43's version of 'stay the course' involved a fairy new and different course, unlike Hoover and Buchanan.

I'll still underline the word 'failed' in failed Grey Champion, though. I knew he was failed on September 12th, when he declared we could not address underlying issues, as doing so would be giving ground to the terrorists. Sorry, right then and there he disqualified himself from being a Grey Champion candidate. He tried 'On to Richmond,' hoping a military solution could bring victory without altering society. I don't think his policies sustainable over the course of the crisis. His resistance to ecological values, shunning of global alliances and diplomacy and reliance on 2GW tactics seem likely to get him pigeon holed with Hoover and Buchanan. His great service to the country will be in perfectly illustrating how not to solve the upcoming crisis. As with Hoover's and Buchanan's policies, any Grey Champion will be able to point at his predecessor's policies and say the old way didn't get it done.

But our different emphasis in economics and military aspects definitely gives us different perspectives. I don't deny that economics is important. I might even suggest that all the military can do this time around is buy time for the underlying ecological, economic and social changes to take hold. Still, I hold ethnic cleansing, genocide, insurgent warfare and terrorism to be significant issues that must be dealt with this crisis. If the only problems were economic, I could be with you more, believing our problems can be made to go away by using the ballot box to enable new science and technology. As is, I don't think the security related issues can be slighted and ignored. Our military and security related memes are at least as flawed as our economics and politics. The 4T transitions will take place in many areas.

But while we disagree in many areas, there were a lot of paragraphs in your last post I didn't quote, ones that began with the word 'yes.' I'll definitely and enthusiastically say yes to your yes paragraphs.







Post#471 at 11-13-2007 02:54 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
11-13-2007, 02:54 PM #471
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

"From a military perspective, the English Civil War was the crisis conflict, while the Glorious Revolution was a negotiated political resettlement with associated parades and parties. I know I disagree with S&H's Official Holy Writ here, but Cromwell is my Grey Champion figure, at the center of the political, religious and economic transitions, not William and Mary. That conflict was a key part of the Agricultural Age to Industrial transition, with Protestant v. Catholic, urban v. rural and royal v. parliament overtones all over the place."

I totally agree. I can't see how it could be any other way.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#472 at 11-13-2007 05:00 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-13-2007, 05:00 PM #472
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
From my perspective, FDR led a double crisis. World War II, the full maturation of the Military Industrial Complex and the switch from isolationism to containment and 'world's policemen' status were significant. They transformed US policy at least as much as Keynes, leading to Korea, Vietnam, and the rest of the Cold War. In addition, I believe the neocon movement would not likely have been able to provoke the recent Middle Eastern military incursions without decades of Cold War policies that advocated containment and zones of influence. Heck, if we hadn't confronted fascism and communism, the Islamists wouldn't be our problem today. The Middle East would have been Germany's or the Soviet Union's problem.
I agree that WW II was transformative. That's why it's part of the 4T, as opposed to most of the Napoleonic Wars and the War of the Spanish Succession. However I don't think WW II was a victory for FDR values over the pre-1929 values. I think this victory came in 1932 when the Democrats crushed the Republicans. So weak was the post-1932 GOP that they ran a Democrat for president in 1940. They went along with FDRs war plans with hardly a squeak because if they had given any resistance; they could be marginalized.

Also, in those days, leaders had to win the wars they undertook if they expected to stay in power, and FDR benefitted from GOP acquience to his war policies (which were extreme, amounting to a nationalization of the US economy). In exchange, the GOP gained a seat at the table, like when FDR appointed arch-conservative Republican "Wild Bill" Donovan to be head of the OSS, making the intelligence agencies Republican bastions ever since.

I believe there is a basic genuine difference between the famous and much honored Grey Champions and their much scorned predecessors.
My understanding of a GC is that they play visionary (prophetic) roles during the 4T. There is not just one, but many. They do not necessarily succeed or fail. Sam Adams is a GC, whose most famous role was during the 3T. He played a mostly losing role in the 4T, yet still gets considered as a GC. Similarly I would consider Jeff Davis as a GC. In my broader view of the saeculum I see Spain has having a 4T around the time of the Armada crisis and their GC being mostly conservative failures.
On the other hand the GCs in the late 18th century crisis were conservatvie and mostly successful (they prevented a revolution in Britain like those in American and France).

I hold the War of the Roses to be an Agricultural Age dynastic war. In a pure war cycle theory, it might be a crisis war, but I don't hold it to be a key conflict in the transition from the Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial.
Since the saeculum is the invention of S&H and they call the War of the Roses a 4T, I would say that makes it a 4T by definition.

I know I disagree with S&H's Official Holy Writ here, but Cromwell is my Grey Champion figure, at the center of the political, religious and economic transitions, not William and Mary. That conflict was a key part of the Agricultural Age to Industrial transition, with Protestant v. Catholic, urban v. rural and royal v. parliament overtones all over the place.
Here you do what John X does. You have substituted your own definition for 4T in place of what S&H are looking at. What you say is both true and apparent. So apparent that S&H could not possibly have missed it. It's like the Civil War versus the Glorious Revolution. Obviously the former and not the later is a crisis war. S&H could easily see this too. Yet they picked the Glorious Revolution as the crisis, despite the obvious "crisisness" of the Civil War period by both your and John's criteria.

However, their cycle doesn't look at events, it looks at generations. The glorious revolution is the crisis because the Puritans were too young to be elders during the Civil War. Thus, the civil war ends up being an Awakening event and the glorious revolution a Crisis event, despite the crisis war nature of the civil war and what seems to be large structural changes occurring with it.

Returning to the modern era, I am a little more ready to entertain the notion of Bush 43 as a failed Grey Champion than Hoover and Buchanan.
Of course, if his party loses power for the duration he will certainly have failed. But if we have president Mitt next year and the GOP is able to pull off something they can call victory in iraq, then Bush isn't going to be a failed GC.

His conversion of the Cold War containment and zones of influence tactics into the War On Terror policy of serial preemptive unilateral invasion can't truly be called a continuation of 3T stalemate and compromises. Bush 43's version of 'stay the course' involved a fairy new and different course, unlike Hoover and Buchanan.
Yes

I'll still underline the word 'failed' in failed Grey Champion, though. I knew he was failed on September 12th, when he declared we could not address underlying issues, as doing so would be giving ground to the terrorists. Sorry, right then and there he disqualified himself from being a Grey Champion candidate.
As long as his side is decisively defeated as a result. I hope it is, but that hasn't happened yet.

He tried 'On to Richmond,' hoping a military solution could bring victory without altering society. I don't think his policies sustainable over the course of the crisis.
I don't think so either. But the Bush-Cheney gambit might work. After all the troops are still in Iraq and neither Clinton not Obama is saying they will definitely be gone by 2013.

His resistance to ecological values, shunning of global alliances and diplomacy and reliance on 2GW tactics seem likely to get him pigeon holed with Hoover and Buchanan.
If he looses. What if he wins and the US becomes another Brazil? The nation might have lost, but the Republican party will have won.

His great service to the country will be in perfectly illustrating how not to solve the upcoming crisis. As with Hoover's and Buchanan's policies, any Grey Champion will be able to point at his predecessor's policies and say the old way didn't get it done.
IF he is followed by a string of Democratic presidents who repudidate his policies. The Democrats have won the election yet and Clinton isn't sounding like she wants to repudidate the Bush foreign policy. And with Obama embracing Republican talking points on Social Security both of the leading Democratic candidates are sounding like moderate Republicans.

Still, I hold ethnic cleansing, genocide, insurgent warfare and terrorism to be significant issues that must be dealt with this crisis.
They are significant foreign policy problems. They are signficant problems for the US as long as it embraces empire. Suppose the US decides empire isn't worth it? Are they problems then?

And if the US decides on empire how can you be sure a military solution won't work? It did for Septimus Severus and Diocletian.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-13-2007 at 07:33 PM.







Post#473 at 11-13-2007 07:12 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
11-13-2007, 07:12 PM #473
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
IF he is followed by a string of Democratic presidents who repudidate his policies. The Democrats have won the election yet and Clinton isn't sounding like she wants to repudidate the Bush foreign policy. And with Obama embracing Republican talking points on Social Security both of the leading Democratic candidates are sounding like moderate Republicans.
Hmmm. So Dubya may or may not be a GC, depending on the outcome of the 4T, but from where we sit Hillary is definitely NOT aiming for the GC role... Interesting. But I think we should be prepared to be surprised. FDR and Lincoln weren't aiming for that role either, but they were smart enough to go where events took them. Maybe Hillary is too (though little I've seen from her would indicate that.)


Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
And if the US decides on empire how can you be sure a military solution won't work? It did for Septimus Severus and Diocletian.
A military solution to what?? How will there be a military solution to the US debt crisis, or healthcare, or environmental degradation? It seems you've already bought the GOP talking point that this Crisis is about global terrorism.
Yes we did!







Post#474 at 11-13-2007 07:47 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
11-13-2007, 07:47 PM #474
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
Hmmm. So Dubya may or may not be a GC, depending on the outcome of the 4T, but from where we sit Hillary is definitely NOT aiming for the GC role...
Not exactly. Clinton is not saying she aims to do great things, but then neither did FDR.

A military solution to what?? How will there be a military solution to the US debt crisis, or healthcare, or environmental degradation? It seems you've already bought the GOP talking point that this Crisis is about global terrorism.
Please read what Bob wrote. He was talking about the problems of ethnic cleansing, genocide, insurgent warfare and terrorism. These type of problems can be addressed using military means.

I have suggested that perhaps less military would be preferable. That is remove the means for wars of pre-emption and wars for resources. Doing so also removes the means for humanitarian interventions. My argument is if we become as unobtrusive as Brazil or Mexico, we would likely draw the numbers of terrorist attacks they do (zero).

Bob advocates for judicious use of military power--more peace keeping and less wars of pre-emption. He also suggests that this sort of approach will yield better results than Bush's approach. In fact he goes further to argue that Bush's approach is doomed to failure. I merely pointed out that the jury is not yet in on Bush's approach.

For example, if the goal of invading Iraq was to put US troops in that region permanently, (as I think it was) then it has so far been a qualified success. I rather doubt the troops in Iraq are ever going to be withdrawn. Of course, better situations can easily be imagined, e.g. a peaceful Iraq whose government lets us keep troops in Iraq (and US oil companies drill for oil), but the present situation will do.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-13-2007 at 07:51 PM.







Post#475 at 11-13-2007 08:36 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
11-13-2007, 08:36 PM #475
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Cool Liberal Nirvana

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
So weak was the post-1932 GOP that they ran a Democrat for president in 1940. They went along with FDRs war plans with hardly a squeak because if they had given any resistance; they could be marginalized.

Of course, if his party loses power for the duration he will certainly have failed. But if we have [a GOP] president... next year and the GOP is able to pull off something they can call victory in iraq, then...
Well, after 40 failed resolutions to force a surrender of the U.S. military in Iraq, Democrats will certainly be more marginalized as the Party of George McGovern. Hey, that's approaching a near-liberal nirvana!
-----------------------------------------