Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(09-03-2017, 09:14 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(09-03-2017, 08:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Your own source says that the muslims are killing buddhists, too,
>   including a bunch of policemen, though I notice you omitted that
>   part from your post.  To me this sounds like an ethnic war and the
>   muslims just happened to be on the losing side.  In some conflicts
>   there are no good guys.  

So if someone in Somerville decided to kill a cop or two, then the
government would be justified to kill you, rape your wife, kill your
family, rape your neighbors' wives, kill their families, and then burn
down your home and the entire neighborhood.  Is that what you're
saying?

The rapes and slaughter of Rohingyas has been going on for years.
Last year, Rohingya activists killed some border guards, and it
happened again a couple of weeks ago.  But that doesn't justify the
massive scorched earth slaughter that's going on now.  Maybe it will
turn into an ethnic war, but it hasn't so far, and I don't believe
that it will unless some other nation (Bangladesh) intervenes
militarily.

Did you miss the part where I said "no good guys"?  Neither side is justified.  The point remains that you tell only half the story.

[John J. Xenakis]

(09-04-2017, 11:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Did you miss the part where I said "no good guys"? Neither side is
> justified. The point remains that you tell only half the
> story.

No, as with all your criticisms, you're completely wrong.

This item was a brief summary of further escalation in the fighting,
linking back to the lengthy story I wrote last week. Since this was a
brief summary, I couldn't include everything I wrote last week. But
if you click on that link, you'll find a lengthy discussion of the
"Rise of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militant
insurgency."

Your claim about "half the story" is also completely wrong. That's
like criticizing a brief summary of the Nazi Holocaust by saying, "You
only told half the story, because you didn't describe how a couple of
Jews killed a couple of policemen in 1939." Or like saying, "There
were no good guys on either side in the Holocaust."

There is a historic genocide and ethnic cleansing going on in Burma,
and for you and Burma's government to try to trivialize it is a
service to those committing the war crimes. I'm quite used to
trolls trivializing Robert Mugabe's horrific genocide, Bashar
al-Assad's genocide, and so forth. Trivializing these historic
crimes does not do a service to anyone except the criminals.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 5-Sep-17 World View -- America's UN ambassador Nikki Haley says North Korea is 'begging for war'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• America's UN ambassador Nikki Haley says North Korea is 'begging for war'
  
• China's UN ambassador Liu Jieyi responds to Haley
  
• Trump approves more powerful weapons sales to South Korea
  

****
**** America's UN ambassador Nikki Haley says North Korea is 'begging for war'
****


Nikki Haley speaking at UN Security Council on Monday

During an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Monday,
called as a response to North Korea's weekend hydrogen bomb test, US
ambassador Nikki Haley said that North Korea is "begging for war" and
that the US does not have unlimited patience.

Here are some excerpts from her statement (my transcription):

> [indent]<QUOTE>"To the members of the Security Council, I must say
> enough is enough. We have taken an incremental approach, and
> despite the best of intentions, it has not worked. Members of
> this council will no doubt urge negotiations, and a return to
> talks.
>
> But as I've just outlined, we have participated in numerous direct
> and multilateral talks with the North Korean regime, and time
> after time they have not worked. The time for half measures in
> the Security Council is over. The time has come to exhaust all of
> our diplomatic means, before it's too late. We must now adopt the
> strongest possible measures. Kim Jong-un's actions cannot be seen
> as defensive. He wants to be acknowledged as a nuclear power.
> But being a nuclear is not about using those terrible weapons to
> threaten others. Nuclear powers understand their responsibility.
> Kim Jong-un shows no such understanding.
>
> His abusive use of missiles and his nuclear threats show that he
> is begging for war. War is never something the United States
> wants; we don't want it now, but our country's patience is not
> unlimited; we will defend our allies and our
> territory."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Haley said that negotiations and diplomatic measures have failed
repeatedly for decades. Therefore, if diplomatic measures are to be
tried again, then all of the most powerful diplomatic measures must be
used now, and quickly, as a last resort:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The time has come to exhaust all diplomatic means, to
> end this crisis. And that means quickly, enacting the strongest
> possible measures here in the UN Security Council.
>
> Only the strong sanctions will enable us to resolve this problem
> thru diplomacy. We've kicked the can down the road long enough.
> There is no more road left.
>
> This crisis goes well beyond the UN. The United States will look
> at every country that does business with North Korea as a country
> that is giving aid to the reckless and dangerous nuclear
> intentions.
>
> And what we do on North Korea will have a real impact on what
> other outlaw nations who seek nuclear weapons choose to conduct
> themselves in the future.
>
> The stakes could not be higher. The urgency is now. 24 years of
> half-measures and failed talks is enough."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Haley is proposing a maximal round of extremely harsh economic
sanctions on North Korea, as a last-ditch attempt to stop North Korea
by diplomatic means.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the phrase "begging
for war" is an interesting one, because it describes a widespread
attitude that can prevail during a generational Crisis era, but not
elsewhere on the generational timeline.

For America and other countries during the 1960s-90s (generational
Awakening and Unraveling eras), for most people war was to be avoided.
That's because the survivors of World War II were still in power, and
they recall the horrors, the atrocities, the rapes, the famines, the
genocides, and so forth, and they will do anything to keep it from
happening again.

Today, those WW II survivors are gone, and people in most countries
are increasingly nationalistic and xenophobic. They think that they
can easily win any war -- that's certainly the attitude of people in
the US, China and North Korea.

So leaders in the 1990s do anything to avoid war, because they have
personal memories of the horrors of WW II, leaders today have never
experience any such horrors, and with their nationalism and
xenophobia, they consider war acceptable or even desirable. North
Korean leaders have been taking this one step further, seeming trying
to actually provoke war. Hence, "begging for war."

It's well to remember that North Korea has been "begging for war" for
years. In 2010, the North conducted two acts of war targeting South
Korea -- in May, North Korea torpedoed and sank the warship Cheonan,
killing dozens of South Korean
crew members, and in November, North Korea killed South Korean
civilians by shelling Yeonpyeong Island.
In both cases, the South Koreans chose not to respond, but
it's pretty clear that they might have.

The concept of "begging for war" can take other forms as well. My
father, who was a Greek immigrant, told me when I was a kid that in
the 1930s the violence by labor unions and communist groups was so
great that he thought that America might not survive. I wish I had
asked him for more details, but unfortunately I didn't. But we can
see the same thing today in America, with the 2006 movie "Death of a
President" inciting the assassination of George Bush, labor union boss
James Hoffa during the Obama administration repeatedly inciting
violence against the Tea Party and other Obama opponents,
organizations like Black Lives Matter inciting violence against
policemen, and organizations like Antifa violently beating and
assaulting anyone they disagree with -- all with the encouragement of
Democratic party leaders who have no memory of WW II and its horrors.
These kinds of things occur during generational Crisis eras, and are a
form of the "begging for war" concept.

The phrase "begging for war" is extremely startling when coming from a
diplomat, because it's a concept that can be understood only through
generational theory. For that reason, I'm tempted to think that it
had its roots in the days when Steve Bannon was in the White House, as
Bannon is an expert on both world/military history and Generational
Dynamics. VOA

Related Articles

• Will we have to accept a world in which North Korea is a nuclear power? (04-Sep-2017)
  
  
• Rex Tillerson warns China is risking 'open conflict' with the United States (03-Aug-2017)
  
  
• S. Korea accuses N. Korea of sinking warship Cheonan (21-May-2010)
  
  
• South Korean civilians on Yeonpyeong Island shelled by North Koreans (24-Nov-2010)
  

****
**** China's UN ambassador Liu Jieyi responds to Haley
****

Haley's call for a maximal round of extremely harsh economic sanctions
on North Korea would fall most heavily on China, as 90% of North
Korea's trade is with China. China is scrambling in every way
possible to shift all the responsibility back to the United States.

A couple of days ago the BBC interviewed a Moscow analyst in Russia's
government. He said that really Russia and China don't care if North
Korea builds a nuclear ballistic missile, since it will be aimed at
the U.S. rather than at either of them. Good to know.

So China's UN ambassador Liu Jieyi followed Haley at the UN Security
Council, and responded to Haley's calls for harsh economic sanctions.
His statement was almost meaningless babble, but it did put all the
responsibility on the United States:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The situation on the peninsula is deteriorating
> constantly as we speak, falling into a vicious circle. The
> peninsula issue must be resolved peacefully. China will never
> allow chaos and war on the peninsula. The parties concerned must
> strengthen their sense of urgency, take due responsibility, play
> their due roles, take practical measures, make joint efforts
> together to ease the situation, restart the dialog and talks, and
> prevent further deterioration of the situation on the peninsula.
>
> The proposal by China and Russia of a two-track approach, which
> promotes the denuclearization of the peninsula, and the
> establishment of a peace mechanism in parallel the suspension
> initiative which calls for the DPRK to suspend its nuclear missile
> activities and for the United States and the Republic of Korea to
> suspend their large scale military exercises and the step by step
> conception from Russia are the basis on which both countries
> currently propose a roadmap to resolve the peninsula
> issue."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

However, this meaningless babble did contain the "freeze for freeze"
proposal that Russia and China are advocating. Under this proposal,
the United States and South Korea would end their annual joint
military exercises. The whole idea is a big joke, since North Korea
would simply continue nuclear weapon and missile development in
underground bunkers, and then as soon as Donald Trump said something
they didn't like, they'd say that they have to resume testing again.

Nikki Haley did respond to Liu's statement by calling it "insulting":

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The idea that some have suggested the so-called
> "freeze for freeze" is insulting. When a rogue regime has a
> nuclear weapon, and an ICBM is pointed at you, you do not take
> steps to lower your guard. no one would do that, and we certainly
> won't."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

It's very hard to see where all this is going to go, except to war.

North Korea is not going to stop developing nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles under any circumstances, despite sanctions or
proposals for negotiations. It's a done deal.

China is playing the extremely dangerous game "Let's You and Him
Fight." It's quite possible that Chinese leaders believe that if
there's a new Korean war, then China will be the victor. That's
typical of the stupid fantasies that people believe during a
generational Crisis era.

The Trump administration, as far as I can tell, has clearly committed
itself to stopping North Korea from developing a nuclear ICBM, using
military means to do so, even if it results in a war that will involve
South Korea. This was already clear from yesterday's article,
and it was reinforced very forcefully
on Monday by Nikki Haley. Eric Berne - Let's You and Him Fight

****
**** Trump approves more powerful weapons sales to South Korea
****

Not surprisingly, North Korea's weapons tests are provoking Japan and
South Korea to consider developing their own nuclear weapons, as
defensive measures.

South Korea is conducting a massive live-fire drill simulating a
possible attack on North Korea. The purpose is symbolic -- to expose
North Korea's vulnerability.

South Korea's new president Moon Jae-in suspended deployment of the
American-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems
when he took office several months ago, because he didn't want to
anger China. China is alarmed by the THAAD installation, but not
because of the missiles, which are purely defensive, but rather
because the THAAD systems have very powerful radar capabilities that
can peer deep into China.

Since then, the North Korean crisis forced Moon to approve the
deployment of a single THAAD launcher, much to the anger of China.
Now, on Monday, Moon authorized the deployment of four more THAAD
launchers. Presumably that won't infuriate the Chinese even more,
because the additional missile launchers do not provide any additional
radar capabilities.

US president Donald Trump also took steps on Monday to help South
Korea strengthen its military. Trump agreed to remove decades-old
restrictions on the maximum payload of South Korea's missiles, as an
effective counter-measure to the North's hydrogen bomb test. Trump
also said he would approve arms sales worth "many billions of dollars"
to South Korea.

South Korea hosts 28,500 US troops to defend it, and it is banned from
building its own nuclear weapons under a 1974 atomic energy deal it
signed with Washington, which instead offers a "nuclear umbrella"
against potential attacks. Stars and Stripes and AFP

Related Articles

• South Korea approves new THAAD deployment after North Korean missile test (30-Jul-2017)
  
  
• China promises retaliation over surprise deployment of THAAD in South Korea (08-Mar-2017)
  
  
• China's fury grows over South Korea's plan to deploy THAAD anti-missile system (10-Aug-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, North Korea, South Korea, Nikki Haley,
Cheonan, Yeonpyeong Island, Liu Jieyi,
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

(09-04-2017, 09:56 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: A couple of days ago the BBC interviewed a Moscow analyst in Russia's
government.  He said that really Russia and China don't care if North
Korea builds a nuclear ballistic missile, since it will be aimed at
the U.S. rather than at either of them.  Good to know.

Moscow may not care.  Based on Chinese analysts, China does care, but doesn't know what to do.  Of course North Korea already has missiles that can hit China, so the situation looks a bit different to them.  And Moscow cares at least enough to have been offering to increase trade with North Korea recently.

I don't understand why we're still talking about economic sanctions at all.  North Korea now has all this extra coal that China is boycotting; they can easily make it through the winter without the oil imports from China - or for that matter the oil imports laundered through Singapore from Russia.  We should be asking for a security council resolution for a blockade or military action.

Well, other than perhaps our using North Korea as an excuse to start a trade war with China, which apparently some in the administration want anyway.

Reading Nikki Haley's statement carefully, it says, "quit making threats and we'll accept you as a nuclear power".  It looks to me like the Trump administration, or at least Nikki Haley, is looking for a way to back down, rather than to go to war.

That of course just plays into North Korea's hands.  They quit making threats for a year or two, perfect their nuclear arsenal, then invade the South while telling the US to stay out of it unless the US wants to start losing cities.

Has North Korea showed any willingness to freeze their program in return for negotiations? My understanding is that they have not. If there are going to be negotiations, we have to have "no freeze for no freeze" negotiations.

[Kinser79]

(09-05-2017, 01:16 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-04-2017, 09:56 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: A couple of days ago the BBC interviewed a Moscow analyst in Russia's
government.  He said that really Russia and China don't care if North
Korea builds a nuclear ballistic missile, since it will be aimed at
the U.S. rather than at either of them.  Good to know.

Moscow may not care.  Based on Chinese analysts, China does care, but doesn't know what to do.  Of course North Korea already has missiles that can hit China, so the situation looks a bit different to them.  And Moscow cares at least enough to have been offering to increase trade with North Korea recently.

I don't understand why we're still talking about economic sanctions at all.  North Korea now has all this extra coal that China is boycotting; they can easily make it through the winter without the oil imports from China - or for that matter the oil imports laundered through Singapore from Russia.  We should be asking for a security council resolution for a blockade or military action.

Well, other than perhaps our using North Korea as an excuse to start a trade war with China, which apparently some in the administration want anyway.

Reading Nikki Haley's statement carefully, it says, "quit making threats and we'll accept you as a nuclear power".  It looks to me like the Trump administration, or at least Nikki Haley, is looking for a way to back down, rather than to go to war.

That of course just plays into North Korea's hands.  They quit making threats for a year or two, perfect their nuclear arsenal, then invade the South while telling the US to stay out of it unless the US wants to start losing cities.

Has North Korea showed any willingness to freeze their program in return for negotiations?  My understanding is that they have not.  If there are going to be negotiations, we have to have "no freeze for no freeze" negotiations.

I can only speak from my perspective here, but as far as I'm concerned, the ROK, Japan and the US should have invaded the DPRK not long after Kim launched that ballistic missile test over Japanese Air Space, and told the PRC and Russia to stay out unless they wanted to lose cities.

You don't negotiate with mad dogs, you shoot them.

As for the Nation Building and Occupation aspects we would want to leave that to the ROK.  They are not even cousins, they are twin siblings.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 6-Sep-17 World View -- North Korea and Russia continue to incite a new Korean War

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Putin says that North Korea would rather 'eat grass' than end its nuclear program
  
• North Korea threatens the United States with 'gift packages'
  

****
**** Putin says that North Korea would rather 'eat grass' than end its nuclear program
****


South Korean tanks take part in exercises in Paju, near the border with North Korea, on Monday. Donald Trump tweeted on Tuesday, 'I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.' (AP)

Russia's president Vladimir Putin commented on the North Korea
situation, and the statements by American's UN ambassador Nikki Haley,
saying that North Korea is "begging for war," and that the strongest
possible sanctions must be used as quickly as possible.

Putin said that additional sanctions would be "useless," and could
lead to a "planetary catastrophe."

He said that North Korea had learned the lessons of the 2003 US-led
invasion of Iraq and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, both of
which, according to Putin, occurred only because the leaders had given
up their weapons of mass destruction. The lesson, according to Putin,
is that North Korea needs a nuclear arsenal to protect itself from an
American invasion:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Ramping up military hysteria in such conditions is
> senseless; it’s a dead end. It could lead to a global, planetary
> catastrophe and a huge loss of human life. There is no other way
> to solve the North Korean nuclear issue, save that of peaceful
> dialogue. ...
>
> We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. His
> children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole
> country was destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged. ... We all
> know how this happened and people in North Korea remember well
> what happened in Iraq.
>
> As I told my colleagues yesterday, they will eat grass but will
> not stop their (nuclear) program as long as they do not feel safe.
> What can restore their security? The restoration of international
> law."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

I have to laugh when this war criminal Vladimir Putin appeals to
international law. He invaded and annexed Crimea, and he supplies
weapons to Bashar al-Assad, who uses them to kill innocent women in
children in hospitals and schools, and who kills his own people with
Sarin gas. Supplying weapons to a war criminal makes Putin a war
criminal as well.

The Libya analogy is nonsense. At the time of the 2011 intervention,
a major refugee crisis had already begun in Tunisia and Libya, with
hundreds of thousands of people pouring into neighboring countries,
and thousands crossing the Mediterranean to Italy. Muammar Gaddafi
declared war on the protesters and was threatening genocide,
especially in Benghazi. It was this refugee crisis that caused
Libyans to demand a no-fly zone, and for the Arab League to do the
same, after which the UN Security Council passed a resolution
authorizing a no-fly zone, which turned into the 2011 military
intervention. ( "5-Mar-16 World View -- A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West debates another military intervention"
) The invasion of Libya had nothing to
do with genocide and millions of refugees, and had nothing to do with
giving up WMDs.

The Iraq analogy is even more ridiculous. Apparently Putin is a total
idiot, or he thinks all of us are, because the lesson from the Iraq
war is exactly the opposite of what he's claiming. The justification
given for the Iraq invasion was that Saddam Hussein was developing
WMDs, and would use them to kill perhaps millions of people.

So Kim Jong-un is doing exactly what Saddam Hussein did, and if
there's an invasion of North Korea, it will be for exactly the same
reason as the invasion of Iraq. So if Kim Jong-un wants to learn a
lesson from Iraq, it should be to stop doing what he's doing, which is
the opposite of what Putin apparently believes. By inciting a new
Korean War, Kim is inviting an invasion. That's how stupid Putin is.

So this brings us to what Putin is recommending: He's not recommending
sanctions. He's not recommending a military solution. He's saying
that the North Koreans would rather "eat grass" than end their nuclear
development.

So what's the bottom line? Putin wants North Korea to develop its
nuclear arsenal, aimed at the United States, and not Russia. Putin
would like to see the US military tied down to defending against NK's
nuclear arsenal, or even have a repeat of the 1950s Korean War. Putin
may even believe that that's the route to restoring a new Soviet
empire. As I said, the guy's an idiot. Russia Today

Related Articles

• A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West debates another military intervention (05-Mar-2016)
  
  
• UN's Ban Ki-moon calls Syria's Bashar al-Assad a war criminal (15-Jan-2016)
  

****
**** North Korea threatens the United States with 'gift packages'
****

On Tuesday, North Korea's UN ambassador, Han Tae Song, said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I am proud of saying that just two days ago on the
> third of September, DPRK [North Korea] successfully carried out a
> hydrogen bomb test for intercontinental ballistic rocket under its
> plan for building a strategic nuclear force.
>
> The recent self-defense measures by my country, DPRK, are a ‘gift
> package’ addressed to none other than the U.S.
>
> The U.S. will receive more ‘gift packages’ from my country as long
> as its relies on reckless provocations and futile attempts to put
> pressure on the DPRK."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

So Han says that North Korea is developing a nuclear arsenal to use
against the United States for defense. Defense from what? An
American invasion? North Korea already has an arsenal of conventional
weapons lining the border with South Korea that could be used to
destroy Seoul, and that would deter an American invasion if any were
even contemplated.

Han's statement is a clear incitement to war or, as Nikki Haley put
it, North Korea is "begging for war." As I described yesterday, this
has been going on for a long time. In 2010, the North conducted two
acts of war targeting South Korea -- in May, North Korea torpedoed and
sank the warship Cheonan,
killing
dozens of South Korean crew members, and in November, North Korea
killed South Korean civilians by shelling Yeonpyeong Island.
In both cases, the South Koreans chose
not to respond, but it's pretty clear that they might have.

North Korea's ambassador Han Tae Song could have made a more
conciliatory statement, but his threat of "gift packages" cannot have
any possible outcome except to increase the probability of war.

As I wrote yesterday in my Generational Dynamics analysis, North Korea
is not afraid of war, and is encouraging war, apparently believing
that they'll win because of support from China. Furthermore, in this
generational Crisis era, the people in both the US and China believe
that they'll win any war quickly. That's a recipe for "a global,
planetary catastrophe and a huge loss of human life," as Putin has
suggested, though his solution of "dialog" won't prevent it.

It's hard to see how Donald Trump has any choice. If North Korea is
permitted to build a nuclear arsenal, and the US just sits there and
does nothing to stop it, then it will be an enormous humiliation to
Trump and to the United States, and will soon lead to war anyway. The
die seems already to be cast. Reuters

Related: America's UN ambassador Nikki Haley says North Korea is 'begging for war' (05-Sep-2017)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Nikki Haley,
Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Benghazi, Iraq, Saddam Hussein,
Crimea, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
North Korea, Kim Jong-un, Han Tae Song, China

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

(09-05-2017, 10:12 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The Libya analogy is nonsense.  At the time of the 2011 intervention,
a major refugee crisis had already begun in Tunisia and Libya, with
hundreds of thousands of people pouring into neighboring countries,
and thousands crossing the Mediterranean to Italy.  Muammar Gaddafi
declared war on the protesters and was threatening genocide,
especially in Benghazi.  It was this refugee crisis that caused
Libyans to demand a no-fly zone, and for the Arab League to do the
same, after which the UN Security Council passed a resolution
authorizing a no-fly zone, which turned into the 2011 military
intervention.  ( "5-Mar-16 World View -- A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West debates another military intervention"
) The invasion of Libya had nothing to
do with genocide and millions of refugees, and had nothing to do with
giving up WMDs.

While I agree Putin's conclusion is clearly mistaken and self serving, the Libya analogy does make sense.  One can certainly imagine a situation where refugees were streaming out of North Korea into, say, China or South Korea, the Kim family decided that this could be somehow fixed through genocide, and others called for ending the Kim regime as a result.  And It does seem likely that if Qadafi had nuclear weapons rather than having given up his nuclear program, Europeans would have elected not to destroy his regime.

The conclusion, though, is that we should avoid destroying regimes just for "humanitarian" reasons, not that we should avoid destroying nuclear programs.  Destroying North Korea's nuclear program while leaving the Kim regime in place would be an excellent example to show third world dictators that getting nuclear weapons is not a solution.

[John J. Xenakis]

(09-05-2017, 10:12 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > The Libya analogy is nonsense. At the time of the 2011
> intervention, a major refugee crisis had already begun in Tunisia
> and Libya, with hundreds of thousands of people pouring into
> neighboring countries, and thousands crossing the Mediterranean to
> Italy. Muammar Gaddafi declared war on the protesters and was
> threatening genocide, especially in Benghazi. It was this refugee
> crisis that caused Libyans to demand a no-fly zone, and for the
> Arab League to do the same, after which the UN Security Council
> passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, which turned into
> the 2011 military intervention.
> (
> "5-Mar-16 World View -- A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West
> debates another military intervention" ) The invasion of
> Libya had nothing to do with genocide and millions of refugees,
> and had nothing to do with giving up WMDs.

(09-05-2017, 11:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > While I agree Putin's conclusion is clearly mistaken and self
> serving, the Libya analogy does make sense. One can certainly
> imagine a situation where refugees were streaming out of North
> Korea into, say, China or South Korea, the Kim family decided that
> this could be somehow fixed through genocide, and others called
> for ending the Kim regime as a result. And It does seem likely
> that if Qadafi had nuclear weapons rather than having given up his
> nuclear program, Europeans would have elected not to destroy his
> regime.

> The conclusion, though, is that we should avoid destroying regimes
> just for "humanitarian" reasons, not that we should avoid
> destroying nuclear programs. Destroying North Korea's nuclear
> program while leaving the Kim regime in place would be an
> excellent example to show third world dictators that getting
> nuclear weapons is not a solution.

That reasoning could also go in the opposite direction. If thousands
of refugees were flooding into neighboring countries and Europe to
escape Gaddafi's violence, and there was a threat of genocide in
Benghazi -- AND if Gaddafi also had nuclear weapons, the fear would
have been that Gaddafi would use them on Benghazi. Furthermore, the
Arab League would have been even more strident in asking the West to
set up a no-fly zone -- AND they would have asked the West to bomb
Gaddafi's nuclear development facilities, for fear that Gaddafi might
use his nuclear weapons on Egypt or Tunisia.

So with that reasoning, the West would not only have been MORE likely
to set up the no-fly zone, but they would also have been MORE likely
to destroy his nuclear facilities, and MORE likely to destroy his
regime.

Allowing a madman to have nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous to
the world. Bashar al-Assad used Sarin gas on his people, why not a
nuclear weapon? Burma's army is exterminating Rohingyas in Rakhine
state, why not with a nuclear weapon? Putin's analogies only serve to
prove the opposite of what he's trying to claim.

[Warren Dew]

(09-06-2017, 01:50 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(09-05-2017, 10:12 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   The Libya analogy is nonsense.  At the time of the 2011
>   intervention, a major refugee crisis had already begun in Tunisia
>   and Libya, with hundreds of thousands of people pouring into
>   neighboring countries, and thousands crossing the Mediterranean to
>   Italy.  Muammar Gaddafi declared war on the protesters and was
>   threatening genocide, especially in Benghazi.  It was this refugee
>   crisis that caused Libyans to demand a no-fly zone, and for the
>   Arab League to do the same, after which the UN Security Council
>   passed a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone, which turned into
>   the 2011 military intervention.
>   (
>   "5-Mar-16 World View -- A look back at Libya in 2011 as the West
>   debates another military intervention" ) The invasion of
>   Libya had nothing to do with genocide and millions of refugees,
>   and had nothing to do with giving up WMDs.  

(09-05-2017, 11:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   While I agree Putin's conclusion is clearly mistaken and self
>   serving, the Libya analogy does make sense.  One can certainly
>   imagine a situation where refugees were streaming out of North
>   Korea into, say, China or South Korea, the Kim family decided that
>   this could be somehow fixed through genocide, and others called
>   for ending the Kim regime as a result.  And It does seem likely
>   that if Qadafi had nuclear weapons rather than having given up his
>   nuclear program, Europeans would have elected not to destroy his
>   regime.

>   The conclusion, though, is that we should avoid destroying regimes
>   just for "humanitarian" reasons, not that we should avoid
>   destroying nuclear programs.  Destroying North Korea's nuclear
>   program while leaving the Kim regime in place would be an
>   excellent example to show third world dictators that getting
>   nuclear weapons is not a solution.  

That reasoning could also go in the opposite direction.  If thousands
of refugees were flooding into neighboring countries and Europe to
escape Gaddafi's violence, and there was a threat of genocide in
Benghazi -- AND if Gaddafi also had nuclear weapons, the fear would
have been that Gaddafi would use them on Benghazi.  Furthermore, the
Arab League would have been even more strident in asking the West to
set up a no-fly zone -- AND they would have asked the West to bomb
Gaddafi's nuclear development facilities, for fear that Gaddafi might
use his nuclear weapons on Egypt or Tunisia.

So with that reasoning, the West would not only have been MORE likely
to set up the no-fly zone, but they would also have been MORE likely
to destroy his nuclear facilities, and MORE likely to destroy his
regime.

You seriously think France or Italy would have supported the rebellion against Qadafi after he started nuking their cities?  I would bet rather heavily that they would not even have tried in the first place, and if they were crazy enough to do it, they would have quit immediately after Qadafi nuked Marseille and Naples and said "Paris and Rome are next".

Quote:Allowing a madman to have nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous to
the world.  Bashar al-Assad used Sarin gas on his people, why not a
nuclear weapon?  Burma's army is exterminating Rohingyas in Rakhine
state, why not with a nuclear weapon?  Putin's analogies only serve to
prove the opposite of what he's trying to claim.

Of course.  Which is why Putin's being correct that North Korea will eat grass first is exactly why he's wrong on his policy recommendation, and why we need to remove North Korea's nuclear weapons by force.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 7-Sep-17 World View -- UN: Burundi's Hutu government attacks on Tutsis are crimes against humanity

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• UN: Burundi's Hutu government attacks on Tutsis are crimes against humanity
  
• Violence by the Imbonerakure, Nkurunziza's 'visionary' youth wing
  

****
**** UN: Burundi's Hutu government attacks on Tutsis are crimes against humanity
****


Nyarugusu refugee camp in Tanzania. Over 400,000 people have fled to other countries to escape the Burundi government violence (MSF)

A final report issued on Monday by a special UN Commission of Inquiry
on Burundi has found massive human rights violations by the government
of president Pierre Nkurunziza, and ethnic Hutu, to the level of
crimes against humanity.

The report was based on interviews with more than 500 people among the
over 500,000 who had fled the country from the violence. The
violations included torture, rape, beatings, arbitrary jailings and
summary executions. The investigators were not permitted to enter the
country for the investigation.

A year ago, there was an initial United Nations report on Burundi,
documenting torture, sexual violence, arbitrary jailings, targeted
assassinations and summary executions. The targets of this massive
violence were mostly political opponents.

Nkurunziza's reaction to that report was to ban the United Nations
from Burundi, and to withdraw Burundi's membership from the
International Criminal Court (ICC). However, a withdrawal doesn't
take effect for a year, and the year is not up until October. For
that reason, the UN is strongly recommending that the ICC take up an
investigation immediately, before the withdrawal takes effect.
Reuters and United Nations
and Deutsche Welle

Related Articles

• Burundi's Pierre Nkurunziza follows Syria's Bashar al-Assad on path to genocide (13-Oct-2016)
  
  
• 20,000 refugees flee violence in Burundi, fearing Hutu-Tutsi war (30-Apr-2015)
  

****
**** Violence by the Imbonerakure, Nkurunziza's 'visionary' youth wing
****

The violence began in June, 2015, after Nkurunziza announced that he
was going to run for a third term as president, in violation of the
country's constitution. There were peaceful protests, which
Nkurunziza countered by killing anyone who protested. Tens of
thousands fled to neighboring countries to escape the violence.

Today, there are almost 500,000 registered refugees in neighboring
countries, including 237,000 in Tanzania, 86,000 in Rwanda, 35,000 in
Uganda, and 37,000 in Democratic Republic of Congo. Three-quarters
of the refugees are Tutsis.

In the 1994 Rwanda genocide, which also took place in Burundi, the
ethnic Hutus slaughtered close to a million Tutsis in a three-month
period. Today's targets of Nkurunziza's violence are not necessarily
Tutsis, but are anyone who is politically opposed to Nkurunziza.
However, the vast majority of the targets are the Tutsis, since most
of Nkurunziza's political opposition comes from Tutsis.

The UN found that the crimes that violate international law were
committed by members of the National Intelligence Services, Burundi's
national police and the army.

A major participant in the violence are the Imbonerakure, the youth
wing of Nkurunziza's political party. The word Imbonerakure means
"visionaries," and for these kids, being "visionary" means raping
women and beating people with iron bars. Reports in 2015 indicated
that Nkurunziza's police would select targets in the opposition, and
would give kids in the Imbonerakure police uniforms, along with
instructions to go to the homes of the targets, kill the men with iron
bars, rape the women, and then kill the women and children.

Burundi is in a generational Awakening era, following the 1994
genocide. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, we've seen
this time after time, in Syria, Zimbabwe, South Sudan, Burundi,
Thailand, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Eritrea, and
other countries, where leaders in generational Awakening and
Unraveling eras use arbitrary jailings, violence and atrocities to
keep the opposition ethnic group out of power. Over a period of
years, the violence worsens until it turns into a full-scale
generational crisis civil war when the next generational crisis era
arrives.

It's worth recalling what happened during America's last generational
Awakening era in the 1960s-70s. There was plenty of street violence
by young people in Los Angeles, Detroit and Chicago, during the "long
hot summers." There was also targeted violence by left-wing and
anarchist groups such as the Weather Underground. There was similar
violence in Europe and other countries during the "Revolution of
1968." UN OHCHR (18-Apr) and "Stand Now and NPR (7-July-2015)

Related Articles

• Burundi's Nkurunziza continues down Mugabe-Assad path of genocide (10-Dec-2015)
  
  
• Boomers commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love. (12-Jun-2007)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Burundi, Pierre Nkurunziza, Hutu, Tutsi,
International Criminal Court, ICC, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda,
Imbonerakure

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

> You seriously think France or Italy would have supported the
> rebellion against Qadafi after he started nuking their cities? I
> would bet rather heavily that they would not even have tried in
> the first place, and if they were crazy enough to do it, they
> would have quit immediately after Qadafi nuked Marseille and
> Naples and said "Paris and Rome are next".[/quote]

Wow! You and I really have different world views. If Gaddafi had
nuked Marseille or Naples, that would have been a regeneracy event
triggering a full-scale counterattack on Libya, leveling Tripoli.

[Warren Dew]

(09-07-2017, 02:14 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   You seriously think France or Italy would have supported the
>   rebellion against Qadafi after he started nuking their cities?  I
>   would bet rather heavily that they would not even have tried in
>   the first place, and if they were crazy enough to do it, they
>   would have quit immediately after Qadafi nuked Marseille and
>   Naples and said "Paris and Rome are next".

Wow!  You and I really have different world views.  If Gaddafi had
nuked Marseille or Naples, that would have been a regeneracy event
triggering a full-scale counterattack on Libya, leveling Tripoli.

Perhaps, though Italy has no nuclear weapons.  I think France would also have regretted the loss of Paris for a long time, but perhaps that's what crisis wars are like.

Still, would they have started the conventional war over refugees and oil knowing that was a reasonably likely outcome?  Do you think nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect?

[Cynic Hero '86]

Yeah if Qaddafi kept his WMDs and his military arsenals his regime would have still been in power in Libya. NATO would not have intervened precisely because it would have led to the full-scale war scenario that was being discussed in the last few posts.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 8-Sep-17 World View -- Israeli warplanes strike Syrian weapons site, as UN confirms al-Assad's Sarin use

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• UN report confirms al-Assad's massive Sarin gas attack on April 4
  
• Israeli warplanes strike Syrian chemical weapons site in Masyaf
  

****
**** UN report confirms al-Assad's massive Sarin gas attack on April 4
****


A Syrian man collects samples from the site of the Sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April. (AFP)

A UN report confirms Syria's air force conducted a massive Sarin gas
attack on the town of Khan Sheikoun in Hama province on April 4,
killing at least 83 civilians. The report, by the Independent
International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, says
that the regime of Syria's president Bashar al-Assad conducted over 20
chemical weapons attack in the past four years.

Readers may recall that on April 6 of this year, American ships in the
eastern Mediterranean Sea launched dozens of cruise missile attacks at
the Shayrat Airbase in Syria. This airbase was chosen because it was
the airbase from which the April 4 Sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun
took place. The Syrian regime claimed at the time that the Sarin gas
attack never took place, but the new UN report now confirms that it
did, and that the Syrian regime was responsible:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The commission finds that there are reasonable
> grounds to believe that Syrian forces attacked Khan Sheikhoun with
> a sarin bomb at approximately 6.45 a.m. on 4 April, constituting
> the war crimes of using chemical weapons and indiscriminate
> attacks in a civilian inhabited area."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The Syrian regime is still claiming that the attack never took place,
despite the 83 civilian deaths. According to pro-regime political
commentator Marwa Osman, an MIT professor looked at photos and said
that "the attack could not have happened":

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I think this is just the last case, or the last
> scenario in the hands of the West, especially the US-UK and its EU
> friends who were against the Syrian government, the Syrian army
> from the beginning of the crisis. But if you want to talk about
> the report, the actual information that was given by the
> report. If you go back to April 2017, just after Khan Sheikhoun,
> we had a professor, an actual expert on chemical attacks, an MIT
> [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] professor called Theodore
> Postol, who actually managed to look at the video and photos that
> were sent. And just by looking at those photos he literally said
> this attack could not have happened. And he presented evidence,
> given the fact that the people were not dressed well for any sarin
> poisoning, especially after the attack. He presented evidence
> concerning the people who were there without any gloves, without
> even any shoes on their feet."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Osman says that the only reason for the UN report was to undermine the
regime's military successes in Deir az-Zour.

The UN report also documents chemical weapons attacks by the al-Qaeda
linked al-Nusra front, as well as other militant groups. The report
documents 25 incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria between March
2013 and March 2017, of which 20 were perpetrated by Syrian regime
forces and used primarily against civilians. United Nations
and Canadian TV and Russia Today

Related Articles

• President Trump orders missile strikes on Bashar al-Assad's Syria (07-Apr-2017)
  
  
• US warplanes strike Syrian regime military convoy near al-Tanf base (19-May-2017)
  
  
• President Trump plans military action on Syria after horrific nerve gas attack on civilians (06-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Russia's policies thrown into confusion as US resumes its 'world policeman' role (09-Apr-2017)
  

****
**** Israeli warplanes strike Syrian chemical weapons site in Masyaf
****

The Syrian regime says that Israeli warplanes fired rockets from
Lebanon's airspace and hit a military facility, the Al-Tala’i
Scientific Studies and Research Center, near Masyaf in Hama province.

Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, said that
the strike was "not routine," and that:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"[The target was a] Syrian military-scientific center
> for the development and manufacture of, among other things,
> precision missiles. ...The factory that was targeted in Masyaf
> produces the chemical weapons and barrel bombs that have killed
> thousands of Syrian civilians."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Syria's army said that the Israeli rockets targeted "military
positions" and killed two army personnel, causing "material damage" to
the site. The army statement said that the attack was in support of
the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh):

> [indent]<QUOTE>""This aggression comes in a desperate attempt to
> raise the collapsed morale of the ISIS terrorists after the
> sweeping victories achieved by the Syrian Arab Army against
> terrorism on several fronts, and it affirms the direct support
> provided by the Israeli entity to the ISIS and other terrorist
> organizations,” the Army Command said in a statement.
>
> The Command warned against the dangerous repercussions of such
> hostile acts on the security and stability of the region,
> reiterating determination to eliminate terrorism and uproot it
> from all the Syrian territories whatever the type of support
> provided to these terrorist groups is."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Israel is becoming increasingly concerned that Iran's puppet Hezbollah
militia, based in Lebanon, is planning a new attack on Israel after
being freed from the heavy commitment to fight side-by-side with the
al-Assad regime in Syria. According to Israeli sources, it was
believed that Hezbollah had planned to take control of the targeted
facility, with the manufactured weapons, including chemical weapons,
to be used against Israel.

Israel has been particularly concerned that weapons from Syria,
including chemical weapons, could be transferred to Hezbollah in
Lebanon for use against Israel. Former Israel Air Force chief Amir
Eshel recently said that Israel carried out at least 100 strikes over
the past five years against the transfer of advanced arms, including
chemical weapons, from the al-Assad regime to Hezbollah. SANA (Damascus) and BBC and
Jerusalem Post and Long War Journal

Related Articles

• Israel's warplanes strike weapons depot inside Syria near Damascus (28-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Israel and Syria have unprecedented missile clash over Jordan (19-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Syria says that Israel bombed al-Mazzeh military airport near Damascus (14-Jan-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Sarin gas, Khan Sheikoun,
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Nusra Front, Shayrat Airbase, Marwa Osman,
Israel, Al-Tala’i Scientific Studies and Research Center, Masyaf,
Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran, Amos Yadlin, Amir Eshel

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

(09-07-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Perhaps, though Italy has no nuclear weapons. I think France
> would also have regretted the loss of Paris for a long time, but
> perhaps that's what crisis wars are like.

> Still, would they have started the conventional war over refugees
> and oil knowing that was a reasonably likely outcome? Do you
> think nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect?

Italy and France are members of Nato. The no-fly operation was
a Nato operation, and the retaliation for a nuclear strike would
be a Nato operation.

One problem is that we're making contrafactual assumptions and
guessing what might happen, and conclusions could easily be
affected by the assumptions.

One assumption that I'm making is that even if Gaddafi had nuclear
weapons, he wouldn't have had a delivery system, which means that the
only way he could deliver a nuclear weapon is by launching it out of a
warplane, and that could be intercepted over the Mediterranean. He
could, however, have easily delivered it to Benghazi or Cairo.

In any event, Nato would not have tolerated Gaddafi for long having a
nuclear arsenal threatening Europe.

> Do you think nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect?

Well, we can look at history for examples.

The Soviet Union/Russia has nuclear weapons, but instead of
bombing Russia we adopted the famous MAD policy.

Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and Israel bombed their
facility.

Syria has been developing chemical weapons, and Israel bombed their
factory yesterday, while the US bombed their airbase in April.

Iraq was thought to be developing WMDs, and we invaded Iraq
in 2003.

Libya was developing WMDs, but gave them up when Pres Bush pointed out
that we invaded Iraq because of its WMDs, and hinted that we might do
the same in Libya. At any rate, Libya did not give up WMDs to prove
he was a nice guy. He felt threatened, and rightly so.

Iran threatened to develop nuclear weapons, and we imposed sanctions
and then signed a highly questionable deal.

So in answer to your question, I would say that in the vast majority
of the cases, nuclear weapons have the OPPOSITE of a deterrent effect
-- they INCREASE the chances of a missile strike or invasion to
eliminate the threat. That's why Putin is completely full of shit.
He lies about the "lessons learned" from Iraq and Libya, and uses it
to encourage North Korea to continue developing nuclear missiles.
Putin wants a war between the US and North Korea, because in his
delusional mind, that will benefit him and Russia.

So will we do something militarily to stop North Korea's nuclear
missile development? I would say that history answers emphatically
YES.

(09-07-2017, 09:52 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Yeah if Qaddafi kept his WMDs and his military arsenals his regime
> would have still been in power in Libya. NATO would not have
> intervened precisely because it would have led to the full-scale
> war scenario that was being discussed in the last few posts.
>

See my response to Warren.

There were hundreds of thousands of Libyan refugees pouring into
neighboring countries, with many headed for Europe. Gaddafi was
threatening to exterminate then in Benghazi. So Libya was already at
war.

The Arab League would not have tolerated Libya in chaos with a nuclear
weapon. Nor would Nato.

[Warren Dew]

(09-08-2017, 12:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 09:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Perhaps, though Italy has no nuclear weapons.  I think France
>   would also have regretted the loss of Paris for a long time, but
>   perhaps that's what crisis wars are like.

>   Still, would they have started the conventional war over refugees
>   and oil knowing that was a reasonably likely outcome?  Do you
>   think nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect?

Italy and France are members of Nato.  The no-fly operation was
a Nato operation, and the retaliation for a nuclear strike would
be a Nato operation.

One problem is that we're making contrafactual assumptions and
guessing what might happen, and conclusions could easily be
affected by the assumptions.

One assumption that I'm making is that even if Gaddafi had nuclear
weapons, he wouldn't have had a delivery system, which means that the
only way he could deliver a nuclear weapon is by launching it out of a
warplane, and that could be intercepted over the Mediterranean.  He
could, however, have easily delivered it to Benghazi or Cairo.

In any event, Nato would not have tolerated Gaddafi for long having a
nuclear arsenal threatening Europe.

Valid point on implicit assumptions.  I'm assuming a fully functional delivery system - say, he has ICBMs as good as France's, or has nuclear weapons indetectably prepositioned in all relevant European cities.  Does that change your answer?

Quote:So in answer to your question, I would say that in the vast majority
of the cases, nuclear weapons have the OPPOSITE of a deterrent effect
-- they INCREASE the chances of a missile strike or invasion to
eliminate the threat.  That's why Putin is completely full of shit.
He lies about the "lessons learned" from Iraq and Libya, and uses it
to encourage North Korea to continue developing nuclear missiles.
Putin wants a war between the US and North Korea, because in his
delusional mind, that will benefit him and Russia.

So will we do something militarily to stop North Korea's nuclear
missile development?  I would say that history answers emphatically
YES.

You don't really answer my question, though, because my question was about completed nuclear programs.

I agree that trying to develop nuclear weapons is usually stopped, though India, Pakistan, and possibly Israel and South Africa are counterexamples.

The idea that Putin is trying to tie the US up in a war with North Korea is interesting and a possibility.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 9-Sep-17 World View -- Burma's ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas witnessed by BBC reporter

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi under fire for allowing Rohingya ethnic cleansing
  
• BBC reporter Jonathan Head returns from Burma's government-controlled visit
  
• Generational explanation for Burma's genocide and ethnic cleansing
  
• The future of Burma and the Rohingyas
  

****
**** Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi under fire for allowing Rohingya ethnic cleansing
****


Since this photo was taken, Desmond Tutu has condemned Aung San Suu Kyi over the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Burma (AP)

Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Burma (Myanmar), and
other Burmese government officials have been saying that the Rohingya
Muslims in northern Rakhine State have been burning down their own
villages and killing each other, presumably to embarrass the
government. This claim by Aung San Suu Kyi is typical of the kind of
garbage we hear from other international criminals and war criminals,
such as Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Russia's Vladimir Putin, and China's
Xi Jinping.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and lately other Nobel
Peace Prize winners, including Desmond Tutu and Malala Yousafzai, have
been demanding that Suu Kyi either stop lying or resign from the
government. The Nobel Prize committee has announced that it's not
their policy to take back a Nobel Prize, once it's been awarded.

Desmond Tutu wrote a letter to Suu Kyi, saying:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"As we witness the unfolding horror we pray for you to
> be courageous and resilient again. We pray for you to speak out
> for justice, human rights and the unity of your people. We pray
> for you to intervene in the escalating crisis and guide your
> people back towards the path of righteousness again."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

And "unfolding horror" is an apt description. Starting in 2011,
Buddhists have been attacking Muslims in villages across Burma,
particularly the 1.1 million ethnic Rohingyas in Rakhine State. Mobs
of Buddhists have attacked Muslims, conducting atrocities including
torture and rape, killing hundreds and forcing hundreds of thousands
to leave their homes to flee from the attacks. Buddhist civilians
have joined the Burmese army in burning down entire Rohingya villages
to the ground.

In the last year, Rohingya activists have formed a separatist group
called the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). Last month, ARSA
carried out coordinated attacks against 30 Burma police outposts.

This has triggered a new tsunami of violence by Buddhist civilians and
Burma's army against the Rohingyas. In the last two weeks, 270,000
refugees have been forced to flee across the Naf River into
Bangladesh, joining the 400,000 refugees already there. They're
living there in terrible conditions, may sleeping out in the open in
the pouring rain, with shortages of food. BBC and Guardian (London)

****
**** BBC reporter Jonathan Head returns from Burma's government-controlled visit
****

Foreign officials, including reporters and humanitarian organizations,
have been requesting for years to visit Rakhine state, in order to
determine what's really happening and whether the government is lying.
Burma's government has strictly forbidden such visits, which is all
but a guarantee that Burma's government is lying.

Jonathan Head is the South East Asia Correspondent for BBC News, and
he was granted permission to visit Rakhine state under the control of
Burmese army minders, who would control what he saw and who he spoke
to. He gave a lengthy interview on the BBC World News. Interview
does describe exactly what's going on in Rakhine state, but only
portions of what Head says are in BBC printed news stories.

Head's interview contains a great deal of valuable information not
available anywhere else. It's an absolutely fascinating as a piece of
modern history and generational history, so I transcribed it and am
posting most of it here.

The Burmese minders' attempts to control what Head saw and here were a
total farce. The minders were caught in obvious lies, including
fabricating a photo with a Hindu actor and Hindu women wearing tea
towels, pretending to be Muslims burning down the Muslim villages.
Things like this prove the massive stupidity of Aung San Suu Kyi and
other Burmese leaders.

Head was first asked what he saw on the trip:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"A lot more than we were supposed to.
>
> It was a government controlled trip, and I think the idea was to
> show us aspects of the conflict in northern Rakhine State that
> would reflect better on the government. And so initially we were
> shown displaced people who talked about how the Muslims had burned
> them out of house and home, and we were shown various photographs
> supposedly showing Muslims setting fire to their own homes,
> although those photographs have turned out to be fakes. A man
> who's a Hindu in a display center has admitted acting, and a few
> women put tea towels on their heads.
>
> It wasn't a very convincing show. We found there was so much fear.
> We were surrounded by officials and armed police the whole time,
> that it was impossible for people to speak freely, and even then
> quietly on a few occasions when we could meet Muslims, they all
> expressed their deep fear of the government. The government was
> willing for us to be able to see destroyed villages. And I have
> to say I was staggered by the extent of it. You cover large
> distances, and there are whole areas that have been emptied out,
> where villages have been burned, but even where villages haven't
> been burned, they're empty.
>
> One village we saw, dogs had killed a goat, because they were
> starving, they hadn't been fed. Rice had been left untended.
> Boats abandoned. Really extraordinary scene of depopulation.
>
> We were told by the remaining police and soldiers, who are the
> only people you'd meet there, that this is Muslims and Muslim
> militants destroying their own villages."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Head then described how his minders lost control of him when he ran
across a rice field to a burning village that they didn't want him to
see:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Well, on the way back from one of those visits, we
> happened to see some smoke going up through the trees, and you
> could see it was fresh, the smoke and flames were just going up.
>
> We managed to get the vans to stop, and before our minders could
> stop us, we dashed off through the rice field, they kind of lost
> control of us. And as we arrived in this village, you could see
> houses just beginning to go up, and there were young men, Rakhine
> Buddhists, and they identified themselves as such, very muscular,
> carrying swords and machetes, hanging around. There was nobody
> else there.
>
> As we arrived, they departed, they didn't want to talk, although
> one of them did admit to a colleague that they had set fire to the
> buildings, and he said he'd been helped by the police.
>
> And as we walked further into the village, we just watched house
> after house going up in flames. We saw a madrassa go up in
> flames. Pages of Muslim textbooks had been torn out and left all
> over the park. There were women's clothes, personal possessions
> everywhere. We've seen people walking out with trolleys full of
> looted stuff.
>
> There was no sign at all of the inhabitants. It's a Muslim
> village. We simply don't know where the people who lived ther had
> gone."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Head was asked, Was this ethnic cleansing?

> [indent]<QUOTE>Absolutely. You can't mistake it really. And when
> you actually go and talk to Rakhine Buddhists, the hatred you get
> from them is a horrible echo of other communal conflicts that
> we've seen and experienced.
>
> I spoke to one man, and he was foaming up inside about the
> Muslims. They're very fearful of them too. And of course, the
> new factor we have now, is that after decades of marginalization
> and discrimination, Rohingya men have now armed themselves.
> They're not very well armed, but they've certainly armed
> themselves and large numbers even with just knives and machetes
> have joined the armed insurgents.
>
> And they did launch very well coordinated attacks, although the
> authorities tell us they knew the attacks were coming or prepared,
> and it seems that most of the casualties in these attacks were on
> the militant side. But it's made the Rakhine Buddhists even more
> angry and nervous towards them, and they said simply they can
> never live here again. They made no bones about it.
>
> They want them out. They will do anything to get them out. They
> LOATHE them. They say that "We HATE them. We absolutely HATE
> them."
>
> And so it's no surprise they're joining in this destruction of
> villages. Once the Muslims have been chased out the destruction
> of villages is meant to make sure that they never come
> back."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Head was asked, Where does that hatred come from?

> [indent]<QUOTE>"There's a lot of history involved.
>
> Rakhine itself has a sense of identity as an original Buddhist
> kingdom, which was then basically forcibly joined to Burma under
> British rule, but has always been cut off from the main economic
> heartland of Burma by a range of mountains and it's very
> impoverished. The Rakhine Buddhists themselves had to put up with
> a great amount of Bengal migration into Rakhine State, under
> British rule, to serve the new market for labor, for rice fields,
> and that tension became particularly bitter during the Second
> World war when there was an active front line, and the Muslims by
> and large supported the British forces, and the Rakhine Buddhists
> supported the Japanese.
>
> And every time the line shifted, there were massacres, mutual
> massacres of each community, and it was around that time Muslims
> became the majority in the very northern part of Rakhine state,
> which is where all this trouble is happening now, and where in
> effect we're seeing a rebalancing of the population going on,
> where Rakhine Buddhists after 70 years are redressing the balance,
> and pushing Muslims out.
>
> And that hatred, it is mutual, but the Rakhine Buddhists enjoy a
> great deal of sympathy from other Burmese Buddhists, and even from
> the government. The local authorities make absolutely no bones
> about the fact that they dislike Rohingyas, that they don't think
> belong there, that they're illegal immigrants. It's an absurd
> claim, as Bangladeshi officials said to me, in 70 years of
> history, the government of Myanmar has never once asked the
> Bangladesh to take back or repatriate anybody that could have come
> illegally into Myanmar.
>
> But inside Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine state, there's a
> deep-seated belief that the Rohingyas are illegal, they shouldn't
> be there, and they should be wiped out."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

BBC and
BBC

****
**** Generational explanation for Burma's genocide and ethnic cleansing
****

Burma's genocide and ethnic cleansing follows a generational pattern
that's probably been repeated a million times throughout history.
Jonathan Head's interview provides a good deal of information about
what happened.

In 1942, Japan invaded Burma to oppose the British. Burma sided with
the Japanese, while the British actually pulled out, leaving behind a
population of Muslims who had been performing services in the rice
fields.

There was an extremely bloody generational crisis war between the
Burmese Buddhists and Muslims, with huge atrocities on both sides.
After the war ended, new generations of children on both sides grow up
with no personal memory of the war. What they hear from their parents
is stories about the bravery of their hero parents, and about the
atrocities committed by the other side. Parents always forget to
mention the atrocities that their side committed.

So the children learn to hate the other ethnic group. This is what
always happens. As new generations grow up, there are riots,
demonstrations, and sporadic violence, but the traumatized survivors
of the war make sure that nothing like that happens again.

Today, all those traumatized survivors of the 1942 massacres and
atrocities are all gone, but the hatred remains, as described by
Jonathan Head. The younger generations are not traumatized, and have
no personal memory of the massacres and atrocities 70 years ago, and
have no fear of repeating those massacres and atrocities.

We see the same kinds of hatreds turn into violence in other
situations, whether Jews versus Arabs in the Mideast, Sunnis versus
Shias in the Mideast, Christians versus Muslims in Central African
Republic, Tamils versus Buddhists in Sri Lanka, and so forth. This is
how the world works.

****
**** The future of Burma and the Rohingyas
****

The Burma Rohingya situation is an absolute disaster. We know that
World War III is coming soon, but we don't know how it will be
triggered -- whether in the South China Sea, North Korea, the Mideast,
or elsewhere. But the rapidly escalating violence in Burma puts that
situation near the top of the list.

As I understand the figures, there are (were) 1.1 million Rohingyas
living in Rakhine State, and now almost half of them have fled into
Bangladesh, where they're living in disgusting refugee camps or just
in open fields. Now presumably the Burmese plan drive the rest of the
Rohingyas out, and burn their villages down as well, so that they
can't return.

Then presumably the Burmese plan repopulate the area with Buddhists.
So you're going to have a million Muslims just across the Naf River
from a million Buddhists, living in the Muslims' old places. Is there
anyone who seriously believes that's a stable situation?

This has now caught the attention of Muslims in other countries.
Muslims in the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are talking about a
"jihad" targeting the Buddhists in Burma.

Furthermore, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the so-called Islamic
State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), declared as early as 2014 that
Burma is a place that's ripe for infiltration of ISIS militants.
RSIS (Singapore) and Rohingya.org (2006)

Related Articles

• U.N. alarmed as ethnic violence grows in western Burma (Myanmar) (27-Oct-2012)
  
  
• Burma (Myanmar) declares state of emergency over Buddhist/Muslim violence (11-Jun-2012)
  
  
• Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities by Buddhists targeting Muslim Rohingyas (04-Feb-2017)
  
  
• Generational history of Burma (Myanmar) (26-Sep-2007)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Burma, Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi,
Rohingyas, Buddhists, Muslims, Bangladesh,
Desmond Tutu, Malala Yousafzai,
Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, ARSA,
BBC, Jonathan Head, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

It's pretty amusing seeing the darling of the left involved in this.  Maybe if they had let the generals stay in charge of Burma, it wouldn't have gotten that bad.

That said, given the crisis war is going to happen anyway, I'm not that bothered if it ends up being muslims versus the rest of us.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 10-Sep-17 World View -- China demands that Indonesia end plans to rename its own territorial waters

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China demands that Indonesia end plans to rename its own territorial waters
  
• Indonesia blocks China's repeated attempts to annex Indonesia's Natuna Islands
  

****
**** China demands that Indonesia end plans to rename its own territorial waters
****


Senoa Island, in Indonesia's Natuna island chain

China is demanding that Indonesia rescind its decision to rename its
own territorial waters in its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

In July, Indonesia announced that it's renaming
the portion of the South China Sea belonging to
Indonesia's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as the "North Natuna Sea."
Indonesia is making the name change official by registering the name
name through the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the
United Nations.

This has freaked the Chinese out to the point of throwing a temper
tantrum:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The China-Indonesian relationship is developing in a
> healthy and stable way, and the South China Sea dispute is
> progressing well. Indonesia’s unilateral name-changing actions
> are not conducive to maintaining this excellent situation.
>
> [Changing] an internationally-accepted name had resulted in the
> complication and expansion of the dispute [and undermines] the
> peace and stability of the region."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

As usual with China, this is total farce. China is undermining peace
and stability in the region by building artificial islands and turning
them into huge military bases, bristling with missiles, radar and
aircraft, in clear violation of international law, as determined by a
2016 ruling by the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
in the Hague, which declared China's activities in the South China Sea
to be illegal.

According to one international relations analyst:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"In fact, the territorial waters of China is only to
> the boundaries of its territorial sea recognized by international
> law. On the other hand, Indonesia also has its own territorial sea
> territory, and therefore has the right to give a name to the
> territorial sea of Indonesia."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

China's military belligerence has caused India, Vietnam and Japan to
form an alliance opposing China in the South China Sea. Because of
China's illegal activities, tensions have escalated substantially in
the South China Sea, threatening the "peace and stability" of the
region. But that's because of China's belligerent military actions,
not because Indonesia is renaming its own territorial waters.
Channel News Asia (2-Sep) and The Diplomat and Asia Times and Netral News (Indonesia)

****
**** Indonesia blocks China's repeated attempts to annex Indonesia's Natuna Islands
****

The region that Indonesia is renaming is in its territorial waters
around the Natuna Islands, a region rich in fish and oil fields. The
region is also strategically important, being located at the southern
tip of the Malacca Strait that connects the South China Sea to the
Indian Ocean.

Indonesia is very, very far from China. There is no possibility
whatsoever that the region in question every belonged to China. But,
just like Adolf Hitler in 1939, China's president Xi Jinping sees
something that he wants that belongs to someone else, and plans to use
China's vast, powerful military to steal it.

There have already been several incidents, with Chinese fishing
vessels illegally fishing in Indonesia's territorial waters.

In March of last year, an Indonesian patrol vessel had captured a
Chinese fishing boat and was towing back to a port where it could be
destroyed, after the 8-member crew had been arrested and were being
held in custody. The patrol vessel was deep into Indonesia's
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), when two large Chinese warships showed
and forced the Indonesians to release the fishing boat.

This incident caused a great deal of outrage among Indonesians,
including calls for a more confrontational relationship with China.
However, Indonesia's president Joko "Jokowi" Widodo has chosen to
continue a steady course, trying to maintain good relations with both
China and the United States. To this end, Indonesia has maintained
what one analyst calls a "delicate equilibrium" with respect to the
South China Sea issue, engaging China diplomatically, while also
pursuing a range of security, legal and economic measures designed to
protect its own interests.

It's undoubtedly Joko's diplomatic engagement that caused China, in
its recent threatening note, to say that the "China-Indonesian
relationship is developing in a healthy and stable way." China
considers a relationship healthy and stable only if the other party is
doing what China is demanding.

Unfortunately, however, China continues to pull stunts like the most
recent one, demanding that Indonesia rescind its decision to rename
its own territorial waters, with the usual implied threat that
Indonesia had better comply, or there will be eventually military
retribution. The Diplomat (24-Mar-2016)

Related Articles

• As other Asian nations back down, India and Vietnam become allies confronting China (01-Sep-2017)
  
  
• Indonesia defies China and renames part of the South China Sea (18-Jul-2017)
  
  
• China's coast guard warship rams vessel in Indonesian waters (24-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Tensions grow with China over Indonesia's Natuna Islands (21-Oct-2014)
  
  
• Philippines humiliates China in harsh Hague Tribunal ruling over South China Sea (13-Jul-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Indonesia, Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo,
China, Xi Jinping, South China Sea, India, Vietnam, Japan,
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration, PCA,
Natuna Islands, Malacca Strait, North Natuna Sea

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

(09-08-2017, 04:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > You don't really answer my question, though, because my question
> was about completed nuclear programs.

In my opinion, Libya would never have been allowed to complete
its nuclear and missile programs.

(09-08-2017, 04:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I agree that trying to develop nuclear weapons is usually stopped,
> though India, Pakistan, and possibly Israel and South Africa are
> counterexamples.

In my opinion, the West would have stopped nuclear and missile
development in those countries, but there was no way to stop it,
unlike Iraq, Libya, Syria, and possibly North Korea.

(09-08-2017, 04:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The idea that Putin is trying to tie the US up in a war with North
> Korea is interesting and a possibility.

It looks more likely every day. Putin is a total moron.

(09-09-2017, 01:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > It's pretty amusing seeing the darling of the left involved in
> this. Maybe if they had let the generals stay in charge of Burma,
> it wouldn't have gotten that bad.

Yes. Hillary Clinton supports left-wing violence and rape by
Democratic men, and Aung San Suu Kyi supports ethnic cleansing. I
wonder what female mass murderer the feminists will choose next as
their icon to be adored. I would suggest someone like Andrea Yates,
who murdered her five children, and was celebrated and adored as a
heroine by feminists.