Election 2018

[Eric the Green]

(11-10-2018, 05:18 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 09:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They [the businessmen of Wall Street] disobeyed the law, and should have paid the penalty any criminal would pay suitable to their crimes. Business of course needs to be regulated; the best balance between free market and social responsibility is the best policy.

Criminals need to be punished, always. But every individual must be judged separately. The crimes weren't committed by a "Wall Street crowd", but by individuals. Collective responsibility against Big Business is unworthy of a democracy, like collective responsibility against Jews, Chechens or any other ethic group.

Makes sense

Quote:

Quote:Obama did not incite Arab Spring riots, and they were not riots. They were non-violent protests and revolutions, which often became violent after the tyrants attacked them. It's important to get history correct. Obama's mistake was to go to the opposite extreme from Bush. Balance is needed in foreign policy. There was no basis for Bush's aggressive and unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan was poorly carried out and probably should have focused on capturing bin Laden and his cohorts. Obama on the other hand should have given more support earlier to the Syrian rebels, so that Russia would not have been able to come in and take over. Obama was too passive when it counted.

Obama's foreign policy did not create the Arab Spring Revolutions. The Libyans themselves rose up against their tyrant, inspired by the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt; and so did the Syrians and others. The majority of revolutions don't work out historically; tyrants are often too strong, and rebels can become tyrants in turn. The western allies helped the Libyans, but then the Libyans didn't want help after their victory, and they should have asked for it instead to stabilize their country. It's all on them, and remains so.

It is very suspicious that the Arab Spring revolutions broke out in so many places at once. Some degree of unrest was unavoidable because of the Awakening going on in the region. But I maintain the Spring would have far less momentum without Western involvement.

https://clarionproject.org/nytimes-obama...ab-spring/

I agree that it would be the right thing to do to intervene in Syria and topple Assad back in 2011, before the war gave rise to ISIS. It would also be good to do some nation building in Syria. Unfortunately, America's resources are not infinite. Iraq and Afghanistan were projects already started, so Obama should have focused on finishing them rather than supporting the Arab Spring. After stabilising the situation in both counties, he could have intervened in Lybia and Syria. A good realistic pace, like toppling one or two tyrannies per decade.

Suspicions are not history. Rationalists and scientists as well as liberals and reactionaries should not depend on suspicion and conspiracy for their view of the world and the facts. The article didn't confirm it's title that he jumpstarted anything; he was aware of what was ripe to happen, and was preparing his policy in light of what was going to happen. Conspiracy theories are out there that the USA caused the civil wars in the Arab Spring, but they are false.

I did not believe that a direct military troop involvement was needed in Syria or Libya, as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq; just some timely moves of support. It is not our business to topple tyrannies with unprovoked military intervention. It is against international law. The USA invasion of Iraq was illegal, and our only legitimate "business" once Bush started it, was to get out. As it turned out, Obama followed what Bush and the Iraqis worked out as of the timing of withdrawal. Withdrawal was finished just as the Arab Spring was beginning. Then, because USA invasion of Iraq in 2003 had unleashed the Islamic State, more small-scale intervention was needed in 2014-17. It was done more-or-less correctly.

The USA did the right thing in Libya, but the Libyan people decided to do the wrong things.

The USA war cycle is well established according to an astrological timetable. Trouble is, the Afghan invasion, timely according to the cycle, was mishandled and extended to Iraq in a bigger way, and was not finished before the next cycle came around in 2013-14.

It is a cycle that has a double rhythm though, generally speaking. A large intervention is often followed the next cycle by events that lead to the next intervention.

Quote:

Quote:A new progressive era is needed in the 2020s, and I hope it comes as I predicted, even despite the inevitable resistance from the powerful American right-wing that is making this era into a 4th turning crisis.

Wait! It was you who predicted that the 1T won't start before 2028. "It's in the stars", according to your astrological writings.

A 1T is NOT a progressive era. It is exhaustion, recovery, reconstruction, reaction, xenophobia, consensus, and/or steady development. I expect this coming 1T to be more turbulent and active than the last one, according to my astrological indicators. However, it won't start until 2028-29.

Progress is supposed to come in 2T and 4Ts; steady stalemate or reaction is 1Ts and 3Ts. But our current 4T is like the "anomaly" in the 1850s. We are 1850s redux.

Thanks Rags for mentioning the Uranus cycle. It is very formidable. When Uranus returns in its 83-84 year cycle of revolution to its place where it was when Jamestown was founded in 1607 and when the Declaration of Independence signed in 1776, the USA struggles for its very existence. That was a cycle long known in astrology, and Strauss and Howe unknowingly picked up on it. The return in 1861 was exactly to the minute of arc of its place on July 4 1776 when Ft. Sumpter was attacked. The return in 1944 corresponded to D-Day again exactly to the minute of arc, and S&H chose that as the "crisis climax." So look for another climax in 2027.