02-06-2017, 06:45 AM
(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.
This is a great post and the shortcomings of GD are also apparent in Xenakis' analysis of Past wars. Take his explanation for WW1 and WW2; Hitler just didn't appear out of the blue. JohnX completely omits the role WW1 and the way that war ended in particular shaped Germany and set the stage for the rise of the Nazis. JohnX mentions that Germany Broke the treaty signed in 1919 but completely omits the fact that the 1919 treaty was a diktat imposed on Germany under duress and that any German government would have probably broke the treaty a soon as their country was strong enough to challenge it.
