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: Through prism of tragedy, generations are defined - Page 4







Post#76 at 09-26-2002 02:59 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
09-26-2002, 02:59 PM #76
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

But Rumsfeld just gave a press conference a half hour ago. He now says that they do have evidence that Iraq has been supporting Bin Ladins's Terrorists. He wouldn't give specifics.


Getting stranger and stranger.







Post#77 at 09-26-2002 03:16 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-26-2002, 03:16 PM #77
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...pital_protests

In a related development, as the Fourth Turning winds its tortured way towards regeneracy . . .







Post#78 at 09-26-2002 03:20 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 03:20 PM #78
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by cbailey
But Rumsfeld just gave a press conference a half hour ago. He now says that they do have evidence that Iraq has been supporting Bin Ladins's Terrorists. He wouldn't give specifics.

Oh, of course he does. And no doubt he is relying in whole or in part on information "discovered" by that organization no one had ever even heard of who just happened to seize the Iraqi embassy in Germany as soon as Junior's handlers began talking about an Iraqi invastion. Perhaps this "group" was bored and just happened to take the time to go through the embassy's boring files and just happened to find the name of one of the 911 hijackers on a record in those files (perhaps a dry cleaning receipt?) and just happened to forward it on to Washington. Yep, this will make the case that Saddam has been supporting al-Qaeda even though his income has been way, way down given the embargo, and even though he knows that he would be taken out if he were tied in any way to terrorism (which is why he is not tied to terrorism as the CIA continues to state emphatically). Yep, how convenient and coincidental.







Post#79 at 09-26-2002 03:28 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
09-26-2002, 03:28 PM #79
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Well, Rumsfeld was a little testy when the reporters asked for further clarification. :o ( I think this smiley best represents the hypnotized American sheeple.)







Post#80 at 09-26-2002 03:34 PM by PaulD'50 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 27]
---
09-26-2002, 03:34 PM #80
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
27

The New American Century

A conservative think-tank named "Project for the New American Century" wrote a paper outlining the changes needed in US military forces in order to implement and maintain Bush's American Empire. If you compare the wording in their sections on justification, seizing the opportunity, etc, it is spookily similar to what we read about these days.

The paper was written in September 2000.

A news story about this paper appeared recently in the Scottish newpaper "The Sunday Herald" under the title "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President":
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm

The article contains a link to www.newamericancentury.org where you can read the entire original paper.







Post#81 at 09-26-2002 03:36 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-26-2002, 03:36 PM #81
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59
Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Heh. Maybe Bush should just demand that Saddam turn over Osama bin Laden, then invade Iraq and overthrow him when he doesn't, a la Afghanistan.
Justin, that's simply brilliant. You should get a job with the adminstration :lol:
Imagine how terrible I'll feel if the Bush administration decides to take my 'suggestion'. :x







Post#82 at 09-26-2002 03:58 PM by cbailey [at B. 1950 joined Sep 2001 #posts 1,559]
---
09-26-2002, 03:58 PM #82
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
B. 1950
Posts
1,559

Re: The New American Century

Quote Originally Posted by PaulD'50
A conservative think-tank named "Project for the New American Century" wrote a paper outlining the changes needed in US military forces in order to implement and maintain Bush's American Empire. If you compare the wording in their sections on justification, seizing the opportunity, etc, it is spookily similar to what we read about these days.

The paper was written in September 2000.

A news story about this paper appeared recently in the Scottish newpaper "The Sunday Herald" under the title "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President":
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm

The article contains a link to www.newamericancentury.org where you can read the entire original paper.



Project for A New American Century........ William Kristol Chairman......also provides info on the Iraq al Qaeda link.

August 6, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Iraq - al Qaeda Connection

In making the case for removing Saddam Hussein from power, the Bush Administration has rested its case principally on the nexus between Saddam, his development of weapons of mass destruction and his ties to international terrorism. However, there are indications that the administration is close to concluding that the specific ties between Iraq and al Qaeda are sufficient to justify the use of force, as well.

In a news briefing last Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated simply that Iraq had "a relationship" with al Qaeda and that elements of al Qaeda were now in Iraq. Then, last Friday, the Los Angeles Times ran a front page story ("U.S. Returns to Theory on Iraq-Sept.11 Link" by Bob Drogin, Paul Richter and Doyle McManus) that quoted a senior Bush Administration official as saying that "there is growing evidence" of ties between the two.

Of particular interest in this context, of course, is whether Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague prior to the attack. According to the above report in the Times, "the White House is now backing claims" that the meeting in fact took place. Further in, the article states: "However, no tapes or photos of the visit have surfaced." But, in the current Weekly Standard, Executive Editor Fred Barnes reports from Prague ("Mohamed Atta Was Here?and met with Saddam Hussein's man in Prague" August 12) that "Czech officials say they have a photograph of the meeting."




PDF Format







Post#83 at 09-26-2002 04:07 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
09-26-2002, 04:07 PM #83
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Stonewall is wrong when he says the administration denied Iraqi links after 9/11. It is correct to say that some administration representatives denied some links, but at the same time other administration reps confirmed other links. After 9/11, the administration's stance RE Iraq links to al Qaeda and 9/11 are correctly described as "muddled", not "emphatically denying any link", as Stonewall suggests.

Since then, not a whole lot has changed. Even today, the administration's stance is muddled, but there does seem to be a trend towards implicating Iraq.







Post#84 at 09-26-2002 04:09 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
09-26-2002, 04:09 PM #84
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

(Warning: Stonewall-Trolling follows)

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
I posted foreign press reports recounting these Israeli claims numerous times in the wake of 911.
Isn't it nice that the Bush administration is coming around to agreeing with you now?

Why has your stance changed?

(Warning: Step away from Stonewall. Repeat, stand back, move away from Stonewall...)







Post#85 at 09-26-2002 04:12 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 04:12 PM #85
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Re: The New American Century

Quote Originally Posted by PaulD'50
A conservative think-tank named "Project for the New American Century" wrote a paper outlining the changes needed in US military forces in order to implement and maintain Bush's American Empire. If you compare the wording in their sections on justification, seizing the opportunity, etc, it is spookily similar to what we read about these days.

The paper was written in September 2000.

A news story about this paper appeared recently in the Scottish newpaper "The Sunday Herald" under the title "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President":
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm

The article contains a link to www.newamericancentury.org where you can read the entire original paper.

Very good. I sincerely believe that this Iraqi action was planned for 2004 leading up to the reelection campaign. During the first Bush administration, the Bush people thought that the American people were stupid enough that they could be screwed every which way while Bush Sr. pursued his personal and corporate interests, but forget it all and reelect Bush Sr. so long as a great military victory had been achieved which would wash away all memories of getting screwed. Of course it did not work! So what the Bush people took away from the experience is that you can probably screw the people right and left while pursuing your personal and corporate interests (the only reason the Bush people are even in the White House after all) and still get reelected so long as you time a contrived war properly. Ergo, the great Iraq war was originally timed for 2004 leading into the election which would give Junior the boost he needed to hold the office despite a dismal first term record.

But things have not gone specifically as planned. The heat got too intense by August with the bad economic news (even Larry Kudlow hinting at bank runs) and all the scandals from Harken to Halliburton, you name it. The timetable had to be moved up. So this is why we are witnessing this ridiculous chaotic scene where the Bush administration has made it clear that Iraq will be invaded without providing evidence to support the invasion, while launching a global scavenger hunt to quickly come up with evidence to support the invasion before it actually begins. If His Satanic Majesty Karl Rove can successfully keep the bad economic news and scandals out of the headlines through election day, then the administration can take a powder and resume with the original timetable with an Iraqi invasion scheduled for 2004 leading up to Junior's reelection. The UN will in fact play into their hands by delaying action by a year. On the other hand, if Herr Rove cannot keep the bad economic news and/or scandals out of the headlines through to election day, we will see an Iraqi invasion with or without credible evidence to support it.

So it all depends on whether something terrible happens eocnomically or on the scandal front between now and Election Day. If it does, the Iraqi invasion goes forward with or without evidence to support it. And if it does go forward, Herr Rove will have to invent a new contrived war for 2004 in order to keep to the original plan. I wonder who might get the honor of being the target of a 2004 pre-election war? Iran?







Post#86 at 09-26-2002 04:15 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
09-26-2002, 04:15 PM #86
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Stonewall in 1944:

"I told you all last year, the true core of the Axis was Germany, not Italy, but FDR ignored me and we invaded Sicily instead. Only now, when the economy is faltering, is FDR launching an invasion in Normandy, near the German heartland. What changed! What a load of crappy BS!"







Post#87 at 09-26-2002 04:19 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-26-2002, 04:19 PM #87
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Well, since Al Q'aeda is a profoundly religious group, and the ruling establishment of Iraq is wholly secular, its pretty unlikely they're in cahoots. The Al Q'aeda 'presence' in Iraq is in the northern (wholly Kurd-controlled) part of the country. Add to the mix the fact that the Kurds (Saddam's enemies for quite some time) are muslim fundamentalists and you wonder if Mr Hussein isn't be more properly on the side of the US gov't in its war on terrorism...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/21/iraq.alqaeda/
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst090302.htm
"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#88 at 09-26-2002 04:20 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 04:20 PM #88
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Sanford
(Warning: Stonewall-Trolling follows)

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton
I posted foreign press reports recounting these Israeli claims numerous times in the wake of 911.
Isn't it nice that the Bush administration is coming around to agreeing with you now?
It was not my stance. It was the content of foreign press reports. Israel has always had an interest in opposing Saddam, but the US has not. The criticism was that Israeli intelligence was trying to sucker the US into dealing with their personal bugaboo Iraq. The Bush administration supported that criticism by emphatically denying the veracity of the Israeli reports. The Bush administration did not come around to anything but the realization that they had to get the media attention off the bad economy and their own scandals.







Post#89 at 09-26-2002 04:23 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
09-26-2002, 04:23 PM #89
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Well, since Al Q'aeda is a profoundly religious group, and the ruling establishment of Iraq is wholly secular
Oh, c'mon, you know it's not that simple. Saddam put "There is no God but Allah, etc." on the Iraqi flag not so long ago. He could easily try to play both sides. It's been done.

(This from a guy who wouldn't stop from pointing out that the U.S. and Stalin were allies in WWII, if he thought it aided his argument.)







Post#90 at 09-26-2002 04:24 PM by Sanford [at joined Aug 2002 #posts 282]
---
09-26-2002, 04:24 PM #90
Join Date
Aug 2002
Posts
282

Gee, what civilization gave birth to the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Oh, that's right, it was an ARAB saying.







Post#91 at 09-26-2002 04:29 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 04:29 PM #91
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Sanford
Stonewall in 1944:

"I told you all last year, the true core of the Axis was Germany, not Italy, but FDR ignored me and we invaded Sicily instead. Only now, when the economy is faltering, is FDR launching an invasion in Normandy, near the German heartland. What changed! What a load of crappy BS!"

No, but you certainly continue to post crappy BS. We are talking about human lives here. Iraqi women and children (and men) AS WELL AS American boys and girls and men and women, will die...all to keep some imbecile's poll numbers up. We have had quite enough of this BS over the past 15 years and it is well past time that it stopped. Obviously, only the most vile vermin finds it remotely acceptable to kill human beings for poll numbers and personal gain and those who consciously and willingly support this vile vermin are obviously no better. Enough!







Post#92 at 09-26-2002 04:40 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-26-2002, 04:40 PM #92
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Sanford
Oh, c'mon, you know it's not that simple. Saddam put "There is no God but Allah, etc." on the Iraqi flag not so long ago.
Do some research, buddy. The center band of the flag of Iraq has three stars and the takbir -- allahu akbar (God is Great), not laa illaha ilallah Muhamadur Rasuulullah (there is but one God, and his Mohammed is his prophet). Saddam added it in 1991 to try to sway the attitude of his less secular neighbors during the Gulf War. Muslims are no fools; I quote from the Manchester Qiyam al-Layl, January 1999 "He doesn’t care for the Muslims and has even attacked the Muslims of Iraq. Placing the name of Allah on a flag doesn’t make the nation Islamic, in the same way that reading Takbir over a pig doesn’t make it halal."

(This from a guy who wouldn't stop from pointing out that the U.S. and Stalin were allies in WWII, if he thought it aided his argument.)
:-? Are you talking about you or me :-?
"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#93 at 09-26-2002 05:21 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 05:21 PM #93
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Ah geez, the darling of the "round tables" and of the ass end of Chevron supertankers, Her Elite Phoniness Condi Rice strikes again! Now she says that we are "special." That means that our masters can grant themselves special dispensation to lord over others worldwide:


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...734274938.html

(for educ. and discussion)


A 'special country' needs special powers: Bush aide

September 26 2002


Washington: The United States should maintain its military superiority in the world and keep other nations from challenging it because it is "a very special country," a top White House official said.

"The United States is a very special country in that when we maintain this position of military strength that we have now, we do it in support of a balance of power that favours freedom," said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, appearing last night on PBS's The HewsHour with Jim Lehrer program.

She made the comment as she defended a new US national security strategy that was unveiled last Friday and that lays the foundation for pre-emptive military strikes.

The strategy also declares that Washington will not allow any other country to attain military superiority or even parity with the United States.

The document has been roundly criticised at home and abroad as a claim to US dominance in the world.

Rice said that in its quest to maintain its current military status, the United States did not want to act
alone and welcomed military contributions from other like-minded states.

"But if it comes to allowing another adversary to reach military parity with the United States in the way that the Soviet Union did, no, the United States does not intend to allow that to happen," the national security adviser said.

"Because when that happens, there will not be a balance of power that favours freedom," she stressed. "There will be a balance of power that keeps part of the world in tyranny the way that the Soviet Union did."

AFP











Post#94 at 09-26-2002 06:47 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-26-2002, 06:47 PM #94
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

"The United States is a very special country in that when we maintain this position of military strength that we have now, we do it in support of a balance of power that favours freedom" -- Condoleeza Rice

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity -- if need be, at the point of a sword." -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

You find the differences. I can't see them.







Post#95 at 09-26-2002 07:26 PM by Neisha '67 [at joined Jul 2001 #posts 2,227]
---
09-26-2002, 07:26 PM #95
Join Date
Jul 2001
Posts
2,227








Post#96 at 09-26-2002 08:29 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 08:29 PM #96
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Thanks, Neisha! That was a good one!







Post#97 at 09-26-2002 08:50 PM by Chicken Little [at western NC joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,211]
---
09-26-2002, 08:50 PM #97
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
western NC
Posts
1,211

Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton



Stonewall, I think this is great!
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski







Post#98 at 09-26-2002 10:15 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
09-26-2002, 10:15 PM #98
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

[quote="Heliotrope"]
Quote Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Stonewall, I think this is great!

Here is another for you, Susan:









Post#99 at 09-26-2002 11:14 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
09-26-2002, 11:14 PM #99
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

************************************************** **************







Post#100 at 09-27-2002 04:53 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-27-2002, 04:53 AM #100
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Beyond Napoleon

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
Having been born in a town called Waterloo, I seem to recall that Napoleon was defeated on the battlefield. Comb the history books. Were there any Napoleon-type figures who had a different fate?
In the age of the sword and bow, major powers expanding territory and power by force seemed to be generally cost effective. To a great degree, the nations with the stronger armies got to write the history books. Broadly, this started to change about the time of the musket and bayonet. Fewer people were required to tend the land. Armies got much larger as a percentage of the population. Economic and industrial power came to rival then surpass military power. The policy of containment, of alliances to neutralize the strongest power, tended to keep the military expansionists like Napoleon and Hitler in check.

This is a broad generalization. I'm sure there are others that will counter this thesis, but in general containment of military adventurers has been pretty successful among major powers, though there have been more than enough examples of colonial imperialism.

If militaristic empires dominated the agricultural age, while defensive alliances dominated the industrial age, what will be the shape of the hypothetical millennial age? Will weapons of mass destruction deter war, as they did during the Cold War, or to prevent terrorist use of such weapons against the established powers, must a truly global government be carved by the sword?

Today's debates are more profound than the clown acts that have been reaching the press.
-----------------------------------------