Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(04-05-2017, 11:34 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Can it happen here?  Actually, I believe not, since we have
institutions that seem to have been working for 240 years, even
through a Civil War.  Obama was certainly pushing the country onto the
Socialist path, but now his Socialist regulations are being reversed.

You're such an optimist, John.  We can always trust you to look at the world through rose colored glasses!

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-16-2017, 12:48 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Boomers like John X frequently site Gen-X support for the MIC (military-industrial complex) and Reagan-Bush as examples of Xer "nihilism". This is delusional When reagan-Bush is the likely precursor of the crisis state. Just like teddy roosevelt/wilson was the precursor for FDR in the last saeculum, and on the german side: how Kaiser Wilhelm's war prefigured Hitler's war. The notion that John X and other boomers that Carter is the precursor is a F-ing Joke. Yeah Carter with his pathetic "human rights" and his stupid peanut farm, LOL.

1.  MIC:   Now, if the MIC restricted itself to pursuing "legit" national interests, then sure.  Brass tacks, we Jonesers/Xers are more concerned with:
a. Will this military action be a success? Yeah, I strip out the "Human Rights" bullshit, cause that's not how humans tick, ever!  The Xer "nihilism" should be considered as "being realistic".  That's what it is, essentially, "good intentions never, ever always yield good consequences". As a Joneser, it's mixed. If you think you need a war, then just follow Gen. Powell's algorithm.  Wrt Gen. Powell, yes, there are Boomers who agree with that. So with Boomers, please don't make that a category for mindless warmongers. Trust me, you'll find other generations supporting that nonsense. IOW, please quit the Boomer Bashing, OK?
b. Now, if we must go to war, then go full throttle, [right XY_*].  Look, it your gonna fight a fucking war, then let loose the fateful lightning. Pussy footing is no way to wage war.
c. Remember the lessons on 'Nam.  OK, all of who remember that debacle, what tactics, in hindsight would you have used on the VC?  Now, focus.... IS can become like the VC if it were smart. Now, never underestimate the smarts of your opponent. So, what's the plan, man?
2. Interesting concept: TR Roosevelt/Wilson -> FDR.  Looks interesting, really, good job.

3. Carter:  Tell me about it.  Carter was no inspiration to youth! Is it no wonder X'ers said, fuck that shit?

[Warren Dew]

(03-01-2017, 11:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, Warren, maybe you're right and there's a way to "thread the
needle" and devise a border adjustment tax that won't be a total
international disaster like the Smoot-Hawley tax.  But as you might
imagine, I'm way too cynical to expect success.

I really began to understand how the game was played in the 1970s.
First there was Nixon's wage-price controls, which were supposed to
reduce the inflation rate from 4% to 2%, but instead caused it to
increase to 12% and were a disaster for the economy of such
proportions that the economy didn't recover for a decade.

Then in 1976 Jimmy Carter was running for president.  He promised to
reduce the number of government agencies.  I don't recall the exact
numbers, but I think he said that of the 2,500 existing agencies, he
would eliminate 500 of them.  Which 500 would he eliminate?  He
wouldn't say.  Well, he was elected, and he didn't eliminate any
agencies.  Instead, his administration added two new cabinet-level
departments, the two DOEs -- the dept of energy and the dept of
education -- and added hundreds of new agencies.

So let's fast-forward to Barack Obama.  He was going to reduce the $8
trillion deficit by spending another $1 trillion in a stimulus package
that would stimulate growth and reduce the deficit.  The growth in the
economy would wipe out the deficity.  Instead, the economy didn't
grow, and it was a total waste of money.  The deficit today is $10
trillion higher.  Obama was also going to reduce medical costs with
Obamacare.  Instead, medical costs have exploded under Obamacare.
Obamacare is an incredibly destructive economy policy, even worse than
Nixon's wage-price controls, and it will take at least a decade for
the medical services industry to recover from the disaster.

So now let's take a side-trip to Greece.  In 2010, Greece would need a
temporary bailout to give the economy a chance to grow again.  The
growth in the economy would wipe out the deficit, and allow Greece to
repay its loans.  Instead, the economy didn't grow, and Greece has no
chance of repaying its loans.  Greece will be facing a major new
crisis by July.

So now we have a new president, Donald Trump.  He's going to cut taxes
for the middle class and spend $1 trillion on infrastructure.  And how
will this be paid for?  Why, by the Border Adjustment Tax, of course.
And his proposal to repeal and replace Obamacare will reduce medical
costs.  So, in summary, after 8 years of total economic disaster under
the Obama administration, we're facing the possibility of a new
economic disaster under the Trump administration.

That reality doesn't seem to affect investors.  Champagne corks are
popping this morning, after the Dow breached 21,000.  This is being
called the "Trump stock market rally," because the Dow is up 2,500
points since the election.  So the already huge stock market bubble is
now even more explosively huge, just waiting for the bubble to pop,
which it will with 100% certainty.

What nobody wants to talk about, the so-called "elephant in the room,"
is the velocity of money.  This indicates the rate at which people are
willing to spend money.  You can't have economic growth if people
aren't willing to spend money, which means that the velocity of money
would have to increase.  Instead, we have this:



So the reason that there's been no growth since 2008 is that the
velocity of money has been plummeting since 2008.  I posted the above
graph a year ago, but I've just checked, and the velocity of money has
continued to fall in the last year.

And so, Warren, maybe you're right that the Border Adjustment Tax,
along with a realignment of corporate taxes, will lead to great
economic growth and solve all our problems, as the Trump
administration hopes.  As for myself, I've seen too much in the past
that I can't unsee.  I would laugh, except that I'm too tired to
laugh.

You do recognize there's a large middle range between "fix everything" and "total international disaster", right?

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-16-2017, 02:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(03-01-2017, 11:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Well, Warren, maybe you're right and there's a way to "thread the
needle" and devise a border adjustment tax that won't be a total
international disaster like the Smoot-Hawley tax.  But as you might
imagine, I'm way too cynical to expect success.

<snip for brevity>

And so, Warren, maybe you're right that the Border Adjustment Tax,
along with a realignment of corporate taxes, will lead to great
economic growth and solve all our problems, as the Trump
administration hopes.  As for myself, I've seen too much in the past
that I can't unsee.  I would laugh, except that I'm too tired to
laugh.

You do recognize there's a large middle range between "fix everything" and "total international disaster", right?

1. Yeah, I see what ya mean.  There is a middle range wrt "border tax", actually.  It's called a VAT and I'm game if it 's used to replace inane payroll taxes with said VAT for funding SS/and or Medicare. The WTO is A-OK wrt VAT taxes. Payroll taxes are just so 20th century with the 21st century demographics in mind.  John should have no issues with a VAT, since hell, almost every other country has one.   A VAT camel can indeed pass through a needle's eye, man.  The VAT also is hard to escape. Even illegal aliens pay that tax.

2. John is cynical wrt tariffs, though most everyone else but the US uses a "soft tariff", the VAT. So... let's just fund SS with  the VAT [remembering that SS recipients pay the VAT, also] so it's a fair way of balancing the current demographic "hill" we have for a bit. Like you said, the a tax that taxes consumption instead of payrolls can well be thought of as a New Deal 2.0.

3. John's right in that the US just can't stop putting its hand on the hot stove, the MIdeast. We individually know that such interventions are stupid, but collectively, we can't help ourselves. Like a moth drawn to a candle flame, we're just gonna have to get burned yet again.

4. Corporate Taxes.  Those are not efficient.  I'd go for a Tobin tax instead. Tax stuff we want less of, like stawk market churn. Cleaning out all of those tax breaks would also do a lot to help. It's not the top rate that matters so  much as the corporate welfare loopholes. Like, after filing my Oklahoma taxes, there's this dumb "coal credit".  Oklahoma does not need that sort of writeoff considering our budget woes.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(04-16-2017, 01:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(04-05-2017, 11:34 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Can it happen here?  Actually, I believe not, since we have
institutions that seem to have been working for 240 years, even
through a Civil War.  Obama was certainly pushing the country onto the
Socialist path, but now his Socialist regulations are being reversed.

You're such an optimist, John.  We can always trust you to look at the world through rose colored glasses!

LOL John X, what an ideologue; the idea that large scale mass atrocitis cannot be perpetrated by Americans because of the incorruptible pure-goodness inherent in Americans.

[John J. Xenakis]

(04-15-2017, 08:36 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > What an Anti-american ideologue you are: the reason the 2001 war
> ended so quickly is because the overwhelmingly superiority of US
> air power meant that any afghan fighter who poked his head up was
> usually swiftly taken out by air strikes. The vast Majority of
> them as a result did not want to commit suicide and promptly
> switched sides. The true fanatics fought to the bitter end and
> died at places like Tora Bora or fled into Pakistan or the deep
> mountains like OBL himself and Zawahiri. You consistently refuse
> to acknowledge US military superiority.

This is truly idiotic. First, you can't win any war with air power
alone, as pretty much everyone in the world except you seems to know.

The Afghan war was actually an ethnic war against the ethnic Pashtuns.
The vast majority of the ground forces fighting the Pashtuns were the
Northern Alliance, consisting of Tajiks, Uzbeks and the Hazaras, all
historic enemies of the Pashtuns, and backed by overwhelming coalition
air power. The Pashtun militias collapsed fairly quickly because they
were in the early part of a generational Recovery era.

Compare the Yemen war, where the Saudis have overwhelming air power
against the Houthis, but after three years the war is still going on.

(04-16-2017, 12:17 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > With regards to the US debt problem, Slashing medicare and social
> security would solve matters pretty quickly.

Once again, truly idiotic. Medicare and social security are insurance
programs backed by insurance premiums into the system. If Medicare
and social security were slashed, then the premiums would stop as
well, resulting in financial disaster. I assume that in college you
majored in sociology or women's studies or something like that, and
don't have the vaguest clue what insurance is.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(04-16-2017, 12:21 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-15-2017, 08:36 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   What an Anti-american ideologue you are: the reason the 2001 war
>   ended so quickly is because the overwhelmingly superiority of US
>   air power meant that any afghan fighter who poked his head up was
>   usually swiftly taken out by air strikes. The vast Majority of
>   them as a result did not want to commit suicide and promptly
>   switched sides. The true fanatics fought to the bitter end and
>   died at places like Tora Bora or fled into Pakistan or the deep
>   mountains like OBL himself and Zawahiri. You consistently refuse
>   to acknowledge US military superiority.

This is truly idiotic.  First, you can't win any war with air power
alone, as pretty much everyone in the world except you seems to know.

The Afghan war was actually an ethnic war against the ethnic Pashtuns.
The vast majority of the ground forces fighting the Pashtuns were the
Northern Alliance, consisting of Tajiks, Uzbeks and the Hazaras, all
historic enemies of the Pashtuns, and backed by overwhelming coalition
air power.  The Pashtun militias collapsed fairly quickly because they
were in the early part of a generational Recovery era.

Compare the Yemen war, where the Saudis have overwhelming air power
against the Houthis, but after three years the war is still going on.

(04-16-2017, 12:17 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   With regards to the US debt problem, Slashing medicare and social
>   security would solve matters pretty quickly.  

Once again, truly idiotic.  Medicare and social security are insurance
programs backed by insurance premiums into the system.  If Medicare
and social security were slashed, then the premiums would stop as
well, resulting in financial disaster.  I assume that in college you
majored in sociology or women's studies or something like that, and
don't have the vaguest clue what insurance is.

Once again you refuse tog acknowledge the US' superpower status and the fact that between 1980 and 1995 America managed to obtain a degree of military superiority unknown to any nation since the days of the Roman Empire. To you and other boomer acknowledging that fact is like kryptonite to you boomers.

[Cynic Hero '86]

The Houthis have direct backing from Iran, that support allows insurgents and militias to hold on. The Taliban had no such support, the Iraqi insurgents did not having backing either at first but did have backing from Iraq's neighbors who did not want to see a permanent US military position in Iraq from 2004 onwards, not suprisingly that is precisely when the insurgents became much more dangerous to our forces.

[John J. Xenakis]

(04-16-2017, 01:40 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The Houthis have direct backing from Iran, that support allows
> insurgents and militias to hold on. The Taliban had no such
> support, the Iraqi insurgents did not having backing either at
> first but did have backing from Iraq's neighbors who did not want
> to see a permanent US military position in Iraq from 2004 onwards,
> not suprisingly that is precisely when the insurgents became much
> more dangerous to our forces.

The Pashtuns in Afghanistan were (and are) receiving support
from the Pashtuns in Pakistan.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 17-Apr-17 World View -- Sharply divided Turkey approves referendum giving Erdogan near-dictatorial powers

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Sharply divided Turkey approves referendum giving Erdogan near-dictatorial powers
  
• Turkey's referendum results will be closely scrutinized by Europe
  

****
**** Sharply divided Turkey approves referendum giving Erdogan near-dictatorial powers
****


Campaign picture from last week, when Erdogan signed an emergency decree, live broadcast on television, allowing beauty salons to perform laser hair removal. (Cumhuriyet)

By a vote of 51% to 49%, Turkey's voters on Sunday approved a
referendum giving the president Recep Tayyip Erdogan vast new powers.
Declaring victory, Erdogan said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"For the first time in the history of the republic, we
> are changing our ruling system through civil
> politics. ...
>
> April 16 is the victory of all who said 'yes' or 'no,' of the
> whole 80 million, of the whole of Turkey. ...
>
> There are those who are belittling the result. They shouldn't try,
> it will be in vain. It's too late now."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Erdogan's remarks reflect how deeply split the country is. Those who
support Erdogan often consider him to be close to a god, or at least
the savior of Turkey, following last year's coup attempt, much like
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded modern Turkey in 1924, following
the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

However, Erdogan's opponents say they're deeply worried that, far from
being a savior of Turkey, Erdogan is turning the country into a
dictatorship. They refer to the failed coup attempt on July 15 of
last year as a "gift" to Erdogan, because it permitted him to
institute a devastating purge of over 100,000 of his political
opponents, who were arrested or fired with virtually no evidence.
Erdogan declared a state of emergency, and then used the emergency
powers under the declaration to conduct a sweeping purge of the
military, judiciary and civil service.

Erdogan's supporters claim that the purges were necessary following
the coup attempt, but opponents point out that Erdogan had already
begun the first purges before the coup attempt.

The most dramatic example occurred on March 5 of last year, months
before the coup attempt, when Erdogan ordered a government takeover of
the only major opposition media publishers in Turkey, the Zaman media
group, publishers of Turkey's most popular newspaper, Today's Zaman.
On that day, Turkish police forcibly entered the Zaman building,
firing tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters who had
gathered outside, and forcibly took over the publisher, as we reported at the time.

After the coup attempt, Erdogan arrested and jailed hundreds of
additional reporters, creating an atmosphere where any reporter
that opposes Erdogan can be immediately accused of treason
and jailed.

That's one of several reasons why Erdogan's opponents are saying that
the referendum election was invalid. In the months leading up the
referendum, the media was flooded with advertising favoring the
referendum, with pro-referendum billboards visible everywhere. But
anti-referendum advertising was almost nonexistent, out of fear that
opposing the referendum could lead to being jailed.

And yet, despite those and other overwhelming advantages, Erdogan was
only able to win by one of the slimmest of margins. Furthermore,
opponents point to examples of voter fraud and say that they'll demand
an investigation, but their demands are not likely to be heeded.

The referendum makes historic changes to Turkey's government.
Turkey's parliament will be largely sidelined. The prime minister and
Cabinet will be abolished, and ministers will be directly appointed by
the president and accountable to him. The president also will set the
budget. The president will have the power to dissolve parliament and
declare a state of emergency, and will have enhanced powers to appoint
judges to the high court and constitutional court. Opponents claim
that once these powers become effective in 2019, Erdogan will be able
to use these powers to gain even more power, to the point of becoming
a total dictator. Hurriyet (Ankara) and VOA and AP

Related Articles

• Turkey's 'shameful day for free press' as government seizes Zaman media (06-Mar-2016)
  
  
• Netherlands provokes growing crisis with Turkey by blocking ministers' entry (12-Mar-2017)
  

****
**** Turkey's referendum results will be closely scrutinized by Europe
****

Following the referendum results on Sunday, politicians in the
European Union expressed dismay. One said, "Strange to see democracy
restrict democracy," referring to the view that Turkey will be a far
less democratic country than it used to be, replacing the democracy
with an autocracy.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was
responsible for observing the election, and will issue a report soon
on possible election irregularities. Until then, many EU politicians
are withholding comment.

A statement issued by the European Commission warned that since Turkey
is a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey's implementation of the
referendum must meet the standards of the European Union:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We take note of the reported results of the
> referendum in Turkey on the amendments to the Constitution,
> adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 21 January 2017.
>
> We are awaiting the assessment of the OSCE/ODIHR International
> Observation Mission, also with regard to alleged irregularities.
>
> The constitutional amendments, and especially their practical
> implementation, will be assessed in light of Turkey's obligations
> as a European Union candidate country and as a member of the
> Council of Europe.
>
> We encourage Turkey to address the Council of Europe's concerns
> and recommendations, including with regards to the State of
> Emergency. In view of the close referendum result and the
> far-reaching implications of the constitutional amendments, we
> also call on the Turkish authorities to seek the broadest possible
> national consensus in their implementation."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Officially, Turkey is still a candidate for becoming a member
nation of the European Union. However, relations between Turkey
and the EU have been increasingly hostile, and few people still
believe that Turkey has any chance of becoming an EU member in
the near or intermediate future.

In his victory speech on Sunday, Erdogan told his cheering
supporters that he would like to reinstate the death penalty.
The death penalty in Turkey was ended in 2003 as part of the process
to get approval for membership in the EU. Reinstituting the
death penalty would end Turkey's bid for EU membership once and
for all, but Erdogan presumably believes that it doesn't make
any difference.

Another issue hanging in the balance is the refugee deal signed early
last year by the EU and Turkey. Under the deal, Turkey agreed with
the EU to take back all migrants and refugees who cross to Greece
illegally. In return, Turkey would receive financial aid, visa-free
travel for all Turkish citizens in Europe's Schengen Zone, and an
acceleration of negotiations for Turkey to join the EU.

The deal has been successful in that the number of refugees crossing
the Aegean Sea to enter Greece and the EU has been reduced from
thousands a day to dozens a day. However, visa-free travel has never
been implemented as promised, and negotiations for Turkey to join the
EU have almost completely ended.

If the Council of Europe recommends any sort of sanctions on Turkey
because of the implementation of the referendum, the Turkey may follow
through on its repeated threat to rescind the EU-Turkey deal,
and allow the free flow of refugees across the Aegean Sea.

However, some analysts have said that the deal is no longer even
necessary, because all the routes through Central and Eastern Europe
are now being blocked by fences and barbed wire, so refugees know that
if they cross the Aegean, then they won't get any farther than Greece.
Statement by European Commission and New Europe and Middle East Eye and National Interest

Related Articles

• Erdogan says some Greek islands should really belong to Turkey (11-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Turkey's Erdogan eliminates more opposition in quest for power (06-Nov-2016)
  
  
• A dark shadow looms over EU-Turkey refugee deal, as Turkey passes harsh anti-Kurdish law (21-May-2016)
  
  
• Turkey's Erdogan blames the EU for reneging on the refugee deal (23-Sep-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zaman media group,
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE,
European Commission, Council of Europe,
Greece, Aegean 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

[Warren Dew]

John, what turning do you have North Korea in? If it comes to military action, how will they react?

[Cynic Hero '86]

(04-16-2017, 02:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-16-2017, 01:40 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   The Houthis have direct backing from Iran, that support allows
>   insurgents and militias to hold on. The Taliban had no such
>   support, the Iraqi insurgents did not having backing either at
>   first but did have backing from Iraq's neighbors who did not want
>   to see a permanent US military position in Iraq from 2004 onwards,
>   not suprisingly that is precisely when the insurgents became much
>   more dangerous to our forces.  

The Pashtuns in Afghanistan were (and are) receiving support
from the Pashtuns in Pakistan.

John X , how do you explain the fact that the Iraqi forces collapsed like a house of cards in both 1991 and in 2003? How do you explain the defeat of Noriega's forces in 1989? There is also the fact that the most difficult period of the Iraq war from (2004 to 2007) occurred precisely because the US did not have sufficient forces on the ground and also the fact that the Sunnis had been excluded from the government. Things improved rapidly after 2007 when more troops were added and the Sunnis were allowed into the government although the true fanatics among the insurgents fled into the desert and joined what eventually became ISIS.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Saddam no longer had WMDs by 2003. The fact that 200,000 Americans were charging straight at him and he was facing death if defeated and even then not a single WMD or anything that smacks of a WMD was used is the biggest proof one can see of the lack of an Iraqi WMD arsenal.

[John J. Xenakis]

(04-16-2017, 11:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > John, what turning do you have North Korea in? If it comes to
> military action, how will they react?

Korea's last crisis war was WW II, expelling the Japanese
colonists. The 1950s Korean War was a non-crisis war.

I wrote a generational history of Korea in the following 2007 article:

** South Korean politicians are 'euphoric' over North Korea nuclear deal (16-Feb-2007)

[i]http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e070216[/i]

[John J. Xenakis]

(04-17-2017, 01:40 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > John X , how do you explain the fact that the Iraqi forces
> collapsed like a house of cards in both 1991 and in 2003? How do
> you explain the defeat of Noriega's forces in 1989? There is also
> the fact that the most difficult period of the Iraq war from (2004
> to 2007) occurred precisely because the US did not have sufficient
> forces on the ground and also the fact that the Sunnis had been
> excluded from the government. Things improved rapidly after 2007
> when more troops were added and the Sunnis were allowed into the
> government although the true fanatics among the insurgents fled
> into the desert and joined what eventually became ISIS.

Iraq's last generational crisis war was the Iran/Iraq war of the
1980s, climaxing in Saddam's 1988 chemical weapons attack.
So in 1991 and 2003, Iraq was still in a first turning Recovery
era, which explains why his army collapsed so quickly.

After 2004, Iraq entered a generational Awakening era. I wrote
about this many, many times, most recently last year:

** 2-May-16 World View -- Iraq government faces climatic Awakening era political crisis
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e160502


My seminal article on the Iraq war was this one from April 2007:

** Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...070401.htm

As that article explains, the "surge" was important, but the reason
that things turned around is because the Sunni Iraqis themselves
turned against al-Qaeda.

There's some interesting stuff in that article that's fascinating from
the point of view of generational theory.

The Iraq war after 2004 was not being fought by Iraqis. Iraqis were
refusing to fight, much to the enormous frustration of Jordanian
terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had to keep important fighters
from Saudi Arabia, which was in a Crisis era.

Another major frustration for al-Zarqawi is that Iraqi parents refused
to allow their children to become suicide bombers, so once again he
had to import suicide bombers from other countries.

What's REALLY fascinating about this is that the Taliban in
Afghanistan had exactly the same problem. There were Afghan suicide
bombers, but they were described as the "world's worst suicide
bombers," because they would only blow themselves up, and not others.

I think that the use of suicide bombers is the key to understanding a
lot of generational behavior during the various turnings. During the
first turning, young people shun becoming suicide bombers. During the
fifth turning, young people seek out the opportunity to become suicide
bombers.

I wrote a lot about this subject after the 7/7/2005 London subway
bombings, which were perpetrated by young people from fifth turning
countries.


** Belgians shocked that suicide bomber is Belgian woman (2-Dec-2005)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e051202


** Robert Pape's 'Dying to Win' sheds light on suicide bombers (18-July-2005)
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...18pape.htm

(04-17-2017, 02:11 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Saddam no longer had WMDs by 2003. The fact that 200,000 Americans
> were charging straight at him and he was facing death if defeated
> and even then not a single WMD or anything that smacks of a WMD
> was used is the biggest proof one can see of the lack of an Iraqi
> WMD arsenal.

Anyone who thinks that the Iraq war was a mistake should be held
accountable for his willingness at that time to allow Saddam Hussein
to kill tens of thousands of people with weapons of mass destruction.

People who say that the Iraq war should not have occurred suffer from
a mental deficit. The only reason we know today that Saddam Hussein
wasn't developing WMDs is because of the war. So if the war hadn't
occurred, then Saddam could have freely developed WMDs, and we
presumably wouldn't know to this day whether he was doing so -- which
he almost certainly would be doing.

** 29-Oct-15 World View -- Iran's government splits over implementation of nuclear deal
** Khamenei's nuclear fatwa and the Iraq war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e151029

Oh geez, I'm so sick of arguing about the Iraq war, though I guess it
was good to pull all this stuff together. Hopefully it will all be
useful in some upcoming article.

[Warren Dew]

(04-17-2017, 09:03 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(04-16-2017, 11:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   John, what turning do you have North Korea in?  If it comes to
>   military action, how will they react?  

Korea's last crisis war was WW II, expelling the Japanese
colonists.  The 1950s Korean War was a non-crisis war.

I wrote a generational history of Korea in the following 2007 article:

** South Korean politicians are 'euphoric' over North Korea nuclear deal (16-Feb-2007)

[i]http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e070216[/i]

Thank you.  So if it comes to military action, we should expect North Korea to escalate rapidly to their limits.

Does it make a difference that they are ruled by, essentially, a millenial, rather than their equivalent of a boomer or an X?

[Cynic Hero '86]

The only viable candidate for the Korean Crisis War is the Korean war. During WW2 there was no fighting whatsoever on Korean soil. When Japan Surrendered, the Japanese military authorities handed over administration to the US and USSR without any fighting. Not to mention there were numerous massacres between communist and non-communists in the two years between independence and the start of the war. Most atrocities during the war were carried out by North Koreans and South Koreans against each other.

[Cynic Hero '86]

On an entirely separate subject, Boomers only care about America in terms of using this country as a vehicle for world globalism. They could care less about the Nation, or the people and their virtues of foibles or maintaining the viability of the Country. The Nixon-Reagan-Bush 1 foreign policy will be the inspiration for whatever the 4T and 1T policies are. The Carter-Clinton-Bush 2 vision is destined for the dustbin of history.

[Warren Dew]

(04-17-2017, 10:11 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: On an entirely separate subject, Boomers only care about America in terms of using this country as a vehicle for world globalism. They could care less about the Nation, or the people and their virtues of foibles or maintaining the viability of the Country. The Nixon-Reagan-Bush 1 foreign policy will be the inspiration for whatever the 4T and 1T policies are. The Carter-Clinton-Bush 2 vision is destined for the dustbin of history.

That may be true of progressive boomers, but not of boomers like myself - or, say, Bannon and, probably, Trump.

Oh, and with respect to Korea, the Korean War was soon enough after WWII that they would still likely be in a fourth turning now.

[John J. Xenakis]

(04-17-2017, 09:46 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The only viable candidate for the Korean Crisis War is the Korean
> war. During WW2 there was no fighting whatsoever on Korean
> soil. When Japan Surrendered, the Japanese military authorities
> handed over administration to the US and USSR without any
> fighting. Not to mention there were numerous massacres between
> communist and non-communists in the two years between independence
> and the start of the war. Most atrocities during the war were
> carried out by North Koreans and South Koreans against each other.
>

One major problem with that claim is that if the Korean war had been a
generational crisis war, then it would not have ended in an armistice,
but would have been fought to a victory by one side or the other.
Ending in an armistice is typical first turning behavior, not fourth
turning behavior.