• Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned
  
• Trump's proclamation hardens splits among Arab countries
  

• The Palestinians are tired because they've seen no
  progress since the 1994 Oslo accords.
  
  
• The Palestinians live in poverty.
  
  
• The Palestinians have no faith in their leaders.

• Israel braces for new 'day of rage' at al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Friday (27-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Tensions at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount surge again (17-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Palestinian 'day of rage' in Jerusalem results in six deaths, hundreds injured (22-Jul-2017)
  

• Israel and Saudi Arabia prepare for war with Hezbollah, as Syria war winds down (02-Nov-2017)
  
  
• Qatar and Saudi Arabia have vitriolic exchange at Arab League meeting (13-Sep-2017)
  
  
• As Hajj approaches, Iran and Qatar remain in dispute with Saudi Arabia (27-Aug-2017)
  

• Sri Lanka formally hands its southern seaport Hambantota over to China
  
• India's alarm grows over spread of China's 'Maritime Silk Road'
  

• China takes control of Sri Lanka's strategically valuable Hambantota seaport (06-Aug-2017)
  
  
• China launches 'One Belt One Road', raising objections and violent protests (14-May-2017)
  
  
• Violent protests in Sri Lanka over China's takeover of Hambantota seaport (08-Jan-2017)
  

• China alarmed by consequences of its CPEC investment in Pakistan -- terrorism and corruption
  
• China halts CPEC funds over concerns about corruption in Pakistan
  
• Pakistan alarmed about a Chinese 'debt trap'
  

• China takes control of strategic Hambantota seaport in Sri Lanka, raising concerns in India (11-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Execution of two of China's citizens in Pakistan raises concerns about CPEC (10-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Massive China-Pakistan CPEC energy project said to end energy crisis 'soon' (23-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Terror attack in Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan, kills 75 (09-Aug-2016)
  
  
• Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) continues plan to exterminate Shias (03-Nov-2015)
  

• China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands
  
• Encirclement patrols follow explicit Chinese war threats against Taiwan
  
• China unification continues to lose support among the people of Taiwan
  

• Anti-secession law provokes massive Taiwan riots (27-Mar-2005)
  
  
• Kidnapping and sham trial of Lee Ming-che brings China-Taiwan relations to another low (14-Sep-2017)
  
  
• Taiwan says it must defend against increasingly threatening China (18-Mar-2017)
  
  
• Chinese bombers circling Taiwan raise talk of war during Trump's first term (19-Dec-2016)
  
  
• New Taiwan poll shows overwhelming support for independence from China (02-Jun-2016)
  

A Boomer on JohnXs Forum Wrote:The choices that we do get to make end up shaping the world we live in.
Ultimately it is that simple: nuke them and be ruled by your environment
or hold back, risk peril, but preserve our ideals and our nation.
We can likely rebuild from the fall out from a nuke. Allies would come to
our side and probably even nuke them for us if we are completely disabled.
I think we have the strength to overcome the challenge similar to the Japanese,
but I don't think America can survive knowing it is the monster.
America while strong and coming from diverse backgrounds is ultimately sewed together by
the delicate thread of our ideals. I think America
will crumble if we drop the bomb. Our ideals
immediately go out the window the second the bomb drops.

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
> problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
> to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
> causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
> role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
> strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
> ideological reasons."

Quote:> "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes. If we wanted
> to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
> with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
> campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air. It would run a
> minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
> these things once you start pulling triggers.

> And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
> should it survive?

> So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
> missiles. You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
> facilities. You have to go after command and control, air
> defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war. If
> we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
> war. ...

> Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
> or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"

(12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
>   problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
>   to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
>   causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
>   role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
>   strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
>   ideological reasons."

I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers."  I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm.  People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.

So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times.  A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:

Quote:>   "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes.  If we wanted
>   to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
>   with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
>   campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air.  It would run a
>   minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
>   these things once you start pulling triggers.

>   And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
>   should it survive?

>   So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
>   missiles.  You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
>   facilities.  You have to go after command and control, air
>   defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war.  If
>   we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
>   war. ...

>   Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
>   or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"

So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish.  But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.

North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea.  Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.

As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer.  Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

(12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
> the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
> regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
> headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
> enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
> to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
> (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
> China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
> likely to lead to world war.

(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
>   the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
>   regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
>   headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
>   enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
>   to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
>   (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
>   China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
>   likely to lead to world war.  

The regime will not disarm under any circumstances.  They're as insane
as you are.

No, you're incorrect.  In the current situation, at the current time,
all options lead to world war.

(12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
>   problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
>   to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
>   causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
>   role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
>   strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
>   ideological reasons."

I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers."  I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm.  People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.

Quote:So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times.  A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:

Quote:>   "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes.  If we wanted
>   to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
>   with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
>   campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air.  It would run a
>   minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
>   these things once you start pulling triggers.

>   And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
>   should it survive?

>   So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
>   missiles.  You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
>   facilities.  You have to go after command and control, air
>   defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war.  If
>   we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
>   war. ...

>   Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
>   or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"

So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish.  But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.

North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea.  Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.

As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer.  Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

(12-13-2017, 11:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
>   problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
>   to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
>   causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
>   role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
>   strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
>   ideological reasons."

I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers."  I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm.  People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.

There are rational responses to the dangers of a Crisis Era. Rearmament and shoring up benign alliances are appropriate responses to a foreign Hitler. But against a lunatic fringe in your own country? We need to expose and isolate them.  

Quote:So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times.  A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:

Quote:>   "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes.  If we wanted
>   to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
>   with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
>   campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air.  It would run a
>   minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
>   these things once you start pulling triggers.

>   And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
>   should it survive?

>   So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
>   missiles.  You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
>   facilities.  You have to go after command and control, air
>   defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war.  If
>   we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
>   war. ...

>   Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
>   or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"

So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish.  But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.

North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea.  Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.

As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer.  Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

You may not have liked Obama, but I could easily see him telling the Chinese, "If the DPRK should fire one missile over Chinese territory, then we will sit by while your armed forces liberate North Korea.  OK, maybe our partners might want to annex Kaesong and its surroundings (Kaesong is a city south of the 38th parallel assigned to the DPRK in the ceasefire agreement).

Sanity must now overpower ideology and even economic interests, however much we as persons cherish an ideology or consumer goodies. In a Crisis Era some things matter far more than getting to do whatever one wants of having a government do whatever one wants. What is the old saying -- close counts only in darts and horseshoes -- and I could modernize that to include nuclear strikes. Your mansion, fine cars, fine wines, horses, antiques, and library will do you no good in the event of a nuclear strike that destroys it all in a wave of thermonuclear heat and blast. If you are close enough to the blast, and so is some loathsome crack whore, then you both get incinerated and equalized.  

Yes, I am a Boomer, but economic realities have drummed out any selfishness in me that isn't necessary for survival and sanity. Of course I am not part of the obnoxious elite of Boomers who  insist that the world revolve around their obnoxious egos.


...I must congratulate the people of Alabama on making the rational and decent choice. It is time that we quit accusing people of nastiness and stupidity just because they come from or live in a "red" or "blue" state. We are all in it together.

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for ideological reasons.

(12-12-2017, 11:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: *** 13-Dec-17 World View -- China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands

(12-13-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for ideological reasons.

Color me confused.  Wouldn't a strike on North Korea be exactly what a "world policeman" would do?

• Organization of Islamic Cooperation throws a temper tantrum over Jerusalem
  
• Palestinians disappointed by final communiqué of OIC Summit
  

• Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned (10-Dec-2017)
  
  
• Israel and Saudi Arabia prepare for war with Hezbollah, as Syria war winds down (02-Nov-2017)
  
  
• Palestinian 'day of rage' in Jerusalem results in six deaths, hundreds injured (22-Jul-2017)
  

(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
>   the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
>   regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
>   headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
>   enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
>   to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
>   (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
>   China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
>   likely to lead to world war.  

The regime will not disarm under any circumstances.  They're as insane
as you are.

No, you're incorrect.  In the current situation, at the current time,
all options lead to world war.

(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > The regime will not disarm under any circumstances. They're as
> insane as you are.

> No, you're incorrect. In the current situation, at the current
> time, all options lead to world war.

(12-13-2017, 11:30 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > They would be compelled to do so (disarm) by force (i.e:
> war).

(12-13-2017, 11:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > You may not have liked Obama, but I could easily see him telling
> the Chinese, "If the DPRK should fire one missile over Chinese
> territory, then we will sit by while your armed forces liberate
> North Korea. OK, maybe our partners might want to annex Kaesong
> and its surroundings (Kaesong is a city south of the 38th parallel
> assigned to the DPRK in the ceasefire agreement).

(12-13-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > You can't encircle a major island with air patrols. I think
> perhaps a more accurate translation would be "circumnavigation"
> patrols.

> I don't think the KMT's position is an actual shift, but rather a
> reaction to changing conditions on the mainland. Some kind of
> power sharing arrangement could have been possible with mainland
> leaders from Deng to Hua, but Xi is too autocratic to be willing
> to share power with the KMT in return for reunification.