02-05-2017, 08:32 PM
(02-05-2017, 07:43 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > Or, you know, it could mean that some of them don't participate at
> all. Just because India and Pakistan go to war, or the Chinese
> and the US go to war, or the US and Iran go to war, does not mean
> that everyone else on the planet is obligated to pick sides and
> immediately attack one of their neighbors in a fit of hysteria. I
> mean, really, is that how you imagine the world works? India and
> Pakistan go to war, and China and Russia are going to look at each
> other and go, "To hell with it, we should go to war, too! With
> each other! Sure, we've been cooperating against the Americans
> for years now, spent decades resolving outstanding issues, and
> they're still our primary geopolitical concern. But we can't just
> get left out like this. The missiles are launching in five
> minutes!"? The only way what you are talking about makes sense is
> if you assume that every country on the planet is run by a
> complete lunatic. Popular hysteria plays a part, but it isn't
> just a random spasm, it's a sign of pressure that has been
> building up for years. Absolutely no "reference" you've cited
> bears out your conclusion that these things happen out of the
> blue.
> "What about Pearl Harbor! What about Fort Sumner, huh!"
>
> The only way you could think that is if you've been coasting
> entirely off of the history you learned in middle school.
> Speaking of references, where's the actual Generational Dynamics
> research you keep claiming exists? Every time I or anyone else
> asks you a question, you either sputter indignantly or toss off
> some link that obviously came from the first result you found on a
> Google search. Need I remind you of the article from a white
> supremacist website you posted in response to a question of mine a
> couple of years ago? I can dig up the post if you like. I
> thought this was supposed to be based on MIT's System Dynamics,
> and a complex analysis of contemporary events and history? Do you
> ever do original research? All I've seen is a half-assed attempt
> to take S & H's work and pass it off as your own, coupled with a
> skimming of news stories which you then twist to fit an
> interpretation that you seem to have based on nothing more than
> your own opinions. Take your Chinese missiles story. The article
> you quoted basically says that they were moved to China's border
> to better target the United States, and that with their range it
> would be unecessary to move them their to target Russia, and yet
> you immediately crow about how this is "proof" that the Chinese
> are years away from nuking and invading Russia. It's like you
> don't even read your own sources before putting it out.
> I guess there's a reason Bannon and others keep referencing S & H,
> while nobody ever seems to reference the Xenakis model except you.
>
Whatever.
