Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

Xenakis, Any External Crisis war (at least under boomer leadership) would not be a uniting crisis like WW2 was for the US. Instead an large-scale war under boomer leadership would be similar to how WW1 was handled by Russia. The Only exception is if the war unexpectedly turns out to be a relative walkover for the US where we win almost every battle. In all other scenarios the boomer leaders would eventually be hunted down and killed and replaced be Xers and Millies by force. Xers and Millies hated serving under inept boomer leadership during afghanistan and Iraq. They are NOT going to give boomers another chance after the boomers display of gross incompetence in Iraq. Trump may be an exception as commander in chief because Trump is well known to have opposed the handling of the Iraq war.

Also the boomer mainstreams delusional lies that a north Korean nuclear arsenal was inevitable and that "strategic Patience" was the best option available can be laid bare simply by watching clips of political/strategic analysis by pundits as far back as the 1990s. Here is Trump talking about what should be done about North Korea all the way in 1998 or 1999. The Boomer establishment chose to sit on their ass because they characteristically want someone else to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-1WE-ivtO4

Please reply to both paragraphs.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-24-2017, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 09:20 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: The events of WW1 and WW2 made america into the premier great power in the world. However the political system and constitutional framework of our country dates from the 18th Century when we were a small frontier nation that did everything possible to keep imperial great powers away. The world wars however made america into an imperial power, in direct contradiction to the assumptions of constitutional framework. The WW2 generations tackled this and kicked this can down the road by having the defense commitments of an imperial great power but keeping the benign policies of a constitutional republic. The Selfishness of the boomer is due to their extreme desire to base america and the "american spirit" on the now outdated constitutional framework and the boomer assumption that imperial america is the outlier. Xers and Millies however want to continue the evolution of America into a real imperial power and into a real empire, which IS the logical conclusion of the world wars and the cold war and their effects on the evolution of our country. The extreme selfishness of the boomer is traced directly to the boomers desire to reestablish the old republican framework that existed before 1900. The boomer refuse to allow anyone younger than them to be at the helm because they know the younger generations support completing the conversion of America into an empire. This is in direct contradiction of the boomers love-affair with republics and their ideals of having a world without imperial nations.

There's nothing contradictory between our Constitutional framework and an American empire.  The Constitution only protects American citizens and, to a lesser extent, residents; that's in no way inconsistent with a maritime or overseas empire.  Britain had a constitutional government at home while ruling colonies overseas; why would an American empire need to do anything different?

I would agree that Presidents Clinton and, especially, Obama, and even Bush to some extent, seemed to want to extend privileges similar to those guaranteed in the constitution to the whole world.  Nothing in the Constitution requires that, though, and I think Trump, also a Boomer, recognizes that.  What more do you want?

(08-24-2017, 08:49 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 08:03 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 07:54 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   First of all what does Hillary Clinton, the personification of the
>   boomer establishment have to do with Xers and Millies opposition
>   to the boomer establishment.  

Because the Xers and Millies favored her over Trump.

One Boomer in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous generation!

The Boomers imposed tyranny upon Xers and Millies and tyranny onto america in general. Look at the efficiency of Countries like China, and Russia, as well as other countries such as Vietnam, Iran, Turkey, even North Korea. These as well as historical examples such as the USSR, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Maoist China, Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France as well as earlier examples such as the mongol empire, the Roman empire, The holy Roman empire, the original Caliphate, England From William The Conqueror to the glorious revolution I. Examples such as these are studied often by xers and Millies in their spare time. The boomer on the other hand subjected the young to tyranny by stunting their political development by forcing globalistic ideology derived from Pitt and Churchill and formulated by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and then the boomer rammed this decadence down the young's throats. That is why the young refers to the boomer as selfish, the boomer is such by suppressing the younger generations particular generational character. The Boomer then attempts to influence politics in such a way that when the next major international breakdown occurs which constitutes the crisis era and crisis war occurs; that it would be based around defending the boomers Churchillian doctrines. The Xer and Millie has no interest in Burke/Churchill values and admire that polities that I've outlined earlier in this paragraph.

The American system through the 1980s was much more efficient than the examples you mention; that is, after all, why we won the Cold War and Russia's Soviet empire did not.  A socialist economic system likewise relegated China to being an also ran.

I'll grant that was largely due to a Civic President - Reagan - and not to a Boomer.  But I'll also point out that was after a series of Civic Presidents, from Kennedy through Carter, had frittered away most of the advantages we had coming out of WWII.  Boomers have not done worse than that.

But reagan-bush left America in an extremely strong position by 1992, even stronger than in the 1950s in some ways. That strong position was thrown away systematically by the boomers until now in 2017 we're in a weak position only comparable in this saeculum to the mid-to-late 1970's (which was when the boomers demanded and got control of the political and cultural lexicon; reagan was the GI''s taking it back after the blunders of ford and Carter (who were both essentially puppets of the boomers)).

[Warren Dew]

(08-26-2017, 02:41 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 09:20 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: The events of WW1 and WW2 made america into the premier great power in the world. However the political system and constitutional framework of our country dates from the 18th Century when we were a small frontier nation that did everything possible to keep imperial great powers away. The world wars however made america into an imperial power, in direct contradiction to the assumptions of constitutional framework. The WW2 generations tackled this and kicked this can down the road by having the defense commitments of an imperial great power but keeping the benign policies of a constitutional republic. The Selfishness of the boomer is due to their extreme desire to base america and the "american spirit" on the now outdated constitutional framework and the boomer assumption that imperial america is the outlier. Xers and Millies however want to continue the evolution of America into a real imperial power and into a real empire, which IS the logical conclusion of the world wars and the cold war and their effects on the evolution of our country. The extreme selfishness of the boomer is traced directly to the boomers desire to reestablish the old republican framework that existed before 1900. The boomer refuse to allow anyone younger than them to be at the helm because they know the younger generations support completing the conversion of America into an empire. This is in direct contradiction of the boomers love-affair with republics and their ideals of having a world without imperial nations.

There's nothing contradictory between our Constitutional framework and an American empire.  The Constitution only protects American citizens and, to a lesser extent, residents; that's in no way inconsistent with a maritime or overseas empire.  Britain had a constitutional government at home while ruling colonies overseas; why would an American empire need to do anything different?

I would agree that Presidents Clinton and, especially, Obama, and even Bush to some extent, seemed to want to extend privileges similar to those guaranteed in the constitution to the whole world.  Nothing in the Constitution requires that, though, and I think Trump, also a Boomer, recognizes that.  What more do you want?

(08-24-2017, 08:49 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 08:03 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 07:54 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   First of all what does Hillary Clinton, the personification of the
>   boomer establishment have to do with Xers and Millies opposition
>   to the boomer establishment.  

Because the Xers and Millies favored her over Trump.

One Boomer in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous generation!

The Boomers imposed tyranny upon Xers and Millies and tyranny onto america in general. Look at the efficiency of Countries like China, and Russia, as well as other countries such as Vietnam, Iran, Turkey, even North Korea. These as well as historical examples such as the USSR, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Maoist China, Imperial Germany, Napoleonic France as well as earlier examples such as the mongol empire, the Roman empire, The holy Roman empire, the original Caliphate, England From William The Conqueror to the glorious revolution I. Examples such as these are studied often by xers and Millies in their spare time. The boomer on the other hand subjected the young to tyranny by stunting their political development by forcing globalistic ideology derived from Pitt and Churchill and formulated by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and then the boomer rammed this decadence down the young's throats. That is why the young refers to the boomer as selfish, the boomer is such by suppressing the younger generations particular generational character. The Boomer then attempts to influence politics in such a way that when the next major international breakdown occurs which constitutes the crisis era and crisis war occurs; that it would be based around defending the boomers Churchillian doctrines. The Xer and Millie has no interest in Burke/Churchill values and admire that polities that I've outlined earlier in this paragraph.

The American system through the 1980s was much more efficient than the examples you mention; that is, after all, why we won the Cold War and Russia's Soviet empire did not.  A socialist economic system likewise relegated China to being an also ran.

I'll grant that was largely due to a Civic President - Reagan - and not to a Boomer.  But I'll also point out that was after a series of Civic Presidents, from Kennedy through Carter, had frittered away most of the advantages we had coming out of WWII.  Boomers have not done worse than that.

But reagan-bush left America in an extremely strong position by 1992, even stronger than in the 1950s in some ways. That strong position was thrown away systematically by the boomers until now in 2017 we're in a weak position only comparable in this saeculum to the mid-to-late 1970's (which was when the boomers demanded and got control of the political and cultural lexicon; reagan was the GI''s taking it back after the blunders of ford and Carter (who were both essentially puppets of the boomers)).

I don't think it's reasonable to blame Ford or Carter on the Boomers.  Ford lost.  Carter was the Southern Democrats' revenge, and was not attributable to Boomers since conservative Boomers in the South had already switched parties.

I agree that Reagan left America in an extremely strong position, particularly after the continued collapse of the Soviet empire under Bush, which was more Reagan's doing than Bush's.

I also agree that strong position was systematically thrown away.  However, it was Bush the elder, not a Boomer, who started throwing it away, in the Gulf War, which was mishandled just as badly as the Iraq war.  Bush ceded tremendous authority to the UN by insisting that the Gulf War be a UN approved action - he ceded more authority than his son later did in the Iraq War - and he also left the war essentially unresolved, lifting the no fly zone to permit Saddam Hussein to crush a rebellion in Basra.

Basically the GIs produced 1 good President out of 7, covering 8 years out of 32.  Boomers may yet do as well.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 27-Aug-17 World View -- As Hajj approaches, Iran and Qatar remain in dispute with Saudi Arabia

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• UAE reacts furiously to Qatar's restoring diplomatic relations with Iran
  
• As Hajj approaches, Iran and Qatar remain in dispute with Saudi Arabia
  

****
**** UAE reacts furiously to Qatar's restoring diplomatic relations with Iran
****


Muslims attend Friday prayers at the Grand Mosque in Mecca two days ago, ahead of the Hajj (Reuters)

Many had been hoping that the split between Qatar and other Arab
countries would finally come to an end, but instead the
split appears to be getting worse.

The foreign minister of United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the
countries, along with Bahrain and Egypt, that followed Saudi Arabia's
lead in implementing a sea, air and land blockade on Qatar, directed
vitriolic comments at Qatar after the latter restored diplomatic
relations with Iran, and returned its ambassador to Tehran on Friday.

In a series of angry tweets, Anwar bin Mohammad Gargash said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"[Qatar’s] sovereign decision should not be shy or
> confused, but its arrogance and adolescent behavior makes it
> so. Its justification is not convincing. ...
>
> [Qatar's] management of the crisis is characterized by confusion
> and mismanagement. ... It lacks the strategic dimension and the
> interests of Qatar and its people. ...
>
> Qatar’s crisis was deepened through (Doha’s) crisis management of
> burning bridges, squandering of sovereignty and undermined what
> remained of the mediator’s chances. The wisdom we wished for is
> completely absent."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

On June 5, four Arab countries -- Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates
(UAE), Bahrain and Egypt -- imposed a land, sea and air blockade on
Qatar. The reasons given were Qatar's support for Iran, Qatar's
support for the Muslim Brotherhood, which the four countries consider
to be a terrorist group, and Qatar's aggressive use of al-Jazeera to
broadcast incitement to overthrow their governments.

The four countries listed 13 specific demands
that would be necessary to resolve the crisis. The demands
included: sever most ties with Iran; sever all ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood; shut down al-Jazeera; terminate Turkey's military
presence in Qatar; pay reparations and compensation for loss of life
and other, financial losses caused by Qatar’s policies in recent
years. Since then, the demands have been reduced to six broad principles,
but the sense is
the same.

In past decades, Mideast countries were usually able to remain
reasonably friendly with each other, or at least were able to tolerate
each other, but this all changed with the "Arab Spring" that began in
2011. Since then, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been in a proxy war in
Yemen, and Iran's Shia/Alawite client Bashar al-Assad has been
massacring Sunni women and children with barrel bombs and Sarin gas.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have grown increasingly
hostile. Relations between the two countries became explosive early
in 2016 when Saudi Arabia executed 47 alleged terrorists -- 46 Sunnis
and one Shia, Mohammad Baqir Nimr al-Nimr. Iran and Shias were
infuriated because the execution implied that Shia terrorism is
equivalent to Sunni terrorism. Iranian mobs firebombed the Saudi
embassy in Tehran, and attacked the consulate in Meshaad. Saudi
Arabia and Iran broke diplomatic relations as a result. Other Saudi
allies followed suit, including Qatar.

So now, after 20 months, Qatar is restoring diplomatic relations with
Iran. Saudi Arabia, of course, is not doing the same. So the
vitriolic feelings of the Saudis directed at Iran are now being
directed at Qatar. The end is nowhere in sight. Gulf News (Dubai) and Press Tv (Tehran) and Al Jazeera (Doha) and The National (Abu Dhabi)

Related Articles

• Kuwait expels Iran's diplomats as Saudi Arabia softens Qatar demands (23-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Egypt calls Qatar an 'enemy state' (30-Jun-2016)
  
  
• Gulf Arab states have major split over Egypt and Iran (06-Mar-2014)
  
  
• Arab League holds annual meeting among bitter splits (26-Mar-2014)
  

****
**** As Hajj approaches, Iran and Qatar remain in dispute with Saudi Arabia
****

The Hajj takes place each year in Mecca, in Saudi Arabia. It's
Islam's holiest event, commemorating rituals that date back to the
prophet Abraham, and then codified by the prophet Mohamed in the
Quran. Each Muslim is required to make a pilgrimage to the Hajj at
least once in his lifetime. In 2015, about two million Muslims from
180 countries around the world arrived in Saudi Arabia for their once
in a lifetime Hajj pilgrimage. This year, the dates of the Hajj are
August 30 to September 4.

Of all the many bitter disagreements between Iran and Saudi Arabia is
where to place the blame for the disaster that occurred in the 2015
Hajj. In 2015, one of the roads became so crowded with people that
there was a stampede that killed hundreds of people who were trampled
to death, including 464 Iranians. Although Saudi officials blamed
"inevitable fate and destiny" for the disaster, Iranian officials
blamed the disaster on the incompetence of Saudi officials, and even
criminal acts by them.

Contentious talks between Iran and Saudi failed to reach agreement
over security guarantees for the 2016 Hajj, and so Iran banned its
citizens from attending last year's Hajj.

However, the countries agreed in March of this year that Iranians
would be able to attend the Hajj this time. Some 90,000 Iranians,
including many that have already arrived, are expected to attend the
Hajj this year. They are traveling by a variety of means, including
flying on an Iranian airline.

However, only about 400 Qataris will be attending the Hajj this year,
unless something changes in the next three days. The problem is that,
unlike Iran's airline, Qatar's airline is forbidden by the
Saudi-imposed blockade from flying into Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia
has offered to fly the Qatari pilgrims to Mecca at Saudi's expense,
but a miffed Qatar has apparently taken the view that if Qatar can't
fly them into Mecca, then Saudi Arabia can't fly them into Mecca.

According to Qatar's foreign minister Ahmed bin Saeed al-Rumaihi:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"It is usual and customary for pilgrims to be
> transported from any country by means of national air, land and
> sea transportation in that country.
>
> Pilgrims from Qatar don’t need financial assistance from the Saudi
> side for the Hajj. Restrictions on transportation only with Saudi
> airlines is unprecedented and illogical."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

As for the 400 Qatari pilgrims that will be attending, they traveled
overland, and were permitted to cross the border from Qatar into Saudi
Arabia. Reuters and AFP and Azer News (Azerbaijan)

Related Articles

• Saudi Arabia's Grand Mosque, site of huge construction accident, has links to 9/11 (12-Sep-2015)
  
  
• After Hajj stampede disaster, Muslims debate the 'Will of Allah' (27-Sep-2015)
  
  
• Mideast trends: Sunni-Shia countries align along predicted lines (16-Jan-2016)
  
  
• Increasingly hostile Iran-Saudi relations affect this year's Hajj (27-May-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Hajj, Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt,
Anwar bin Mohammad Gargash, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Mohammad Baqir Nimr al-Nimr, Ahmed bin Saeed al-Rumaihi

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

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-26-2017, 10:11 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Xenakis, Any External Crisis war (at least under boomer
> leadership) would not be a uniting crisis like WW2 was for the
> US. Instead an large-scale war under boomer leadership would be
> similar to how WW1 was handled by Russia. The Only exception is if
> the war unexpectedly turns out to be a relative walkover for the
> US where we win almost every battle. In all other scenarios the
> boomer leaders would eventually be hunted down and killed and
> replaced be Xers and Millies by force. Xers and Millies hated
> serving under inept boomer leadership during afghanistan and
> Iraq. They are NOT going to give boomers another chance after the
> boomers display of gross incompetence in Iraq. Trump may be an
> exception as commander in chief because Trump is well known to
> have opposed the handling of the Iraq war.

> Also the boomer mainstreams delusional lies that a north Korean
> nuclear arsenal was inevitable and that "strategic Patience" was
> the best option available can be laid bare simply by watching
> clips of political/strategic analysis by pundits as far back as
> the 1990s. Here is Trump talking about what should be done about
> North Korea all the way in 1998 or 1999. The Boomer establishment
> chose to sit on their ass because they characteristically want
> someone else to do it.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-1WE-ivtO4

> Please reply to both paragraphs.

It continues to astonish me that after 10+ years in this forum, you
still have no idea of the difference between Unraveling and Crisis
eras. Have you even read The Fourth Turning? Either way, you should
read and reread it about 5-10 times, until you understand what the
different eras mean, and what the Regeneracy is.

As for your claim that if, say, a nuclear missile from China or North
Korea landed on Los Angeles that Xers and Millies would be shooting at
Boomer leaders, that's a completely moronic conclusion.

In the 1990s, we only went to war in Iraq because Saddam had already
invaded Kuwait, and we only got into the Bosnian war because of the
Srebrenica genocide.

There's no way, in a generational Unraveling era in the 1990s, that
we're going to invade a foreign country because they MIGHT have
nuclear weapons in 20 years. Wishing for it is like wishing that
2+2=3, which is what all your claims are equivalent to.

Let me make this clear: An invasion of North Korea in the 1990s was
mathematically impossible, as proven by generational theory, as
impossible as 2+2 equaling 3. The fact is that 2+2=4, then and now.

The other thing is that you constantly claim to speak for all Millies
and Xers. Does this board have a poll capability? If it does, why
don't you launch a poll and see how many of the Millies and Xers on
this board believe your nonsense.

The Unraveling Era ended, and the Crisis Era began, in 2003, but we're
still in what Matt Ignal dubbed the "post-unraveling" era, which is
the time in the Crisis era before the Regeneracy occurs. During that
period, there's still a major reluctance on the part of the public --
all generations -- to initiate a war, although it has happened in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

If you take your poll, find out how many people on this board think
we're going to have a war with China. Almost everyone in all
generations is in denial about this, and I doubt that the people on
this board are any different, even though it's clearly a typical
outcome predicted by the Fourth Turning, so the people on this
board should theoretically be different, though they aren't.

As you know, I've been through this before. Since 2003, I was talking
about a real estate bubble and approaching financial crisis. I was
mocked and ridiculed in this forum by the likes of Sean Love and Mike
Alexander, but as with everything else, Generational Dynamics has
turned out to be completely right. It wasn't until 2009 that the
idiotic mainstream economists even admitted that there had been a real
estate bubble. "Oh yeah, of course there was a real estate bubble.
Everyone knew that. But that was years ago, and of course nothing
like that will ever be allowed to happen again!"

In fact, you don't need generational theory any more to see that a
major financial crisis and world war are coming. It's as plain as the
nose on your face for anyone who reads the world news, as I do,
instead of spending all waking hours thinking about impeaching Trump.
In my opinion, all the nonsense about Russian meddling or racism
charges are by people who are in total denial about what's coming, and
are looking for anything, anything, anything, so that they don't have
to think about what's really going on in the world.

You're in complete denial as well, because you think by taking
military action now, a full-scale war could be avoided. That's
complete denial and wishful thinking. In a generational Crisis era,
that kind of military action that you propose would actually trigger
the world war, not prevent it.

So I hope this answers your questions until you post the next bizarre
rant.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-27-2017, 05:45 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 10:11 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Xenakis, Any External Crisis war (at least under boomer
>   leadership) would not be a uniting crisis like WW2 was for the
>   US. Instead an large-scale war under boomer leadership would be
>   similar to how WW1 was handled by Russia. The Only exception is if
>   the war unexpectedly turns out to be a relative walkover for the
>   US where we win almost every battle. In all other scenarios the
>   boomer leaders would eventually be hunted down and killed and
>   replaced be Xers and Millies by force. Xers and Millies hated
>   serving under inept boomer leadership during afghanistan and
>   Iraq. They are NOT going to give boomers another chance after the
>   boomers display of gross incompetence in Iraq. Trump may be an
>   exception as commander in chief because Trump is well known to
>   have opposed the handling of the Iraq war.

>   Also the boomer mainstreams delusional lies that a north Korean
>   nuclear arsenal was inevitable and that "strategic Patience" was
>   the best option available can be laid bare simply by watching
>   clips of political/strategic analysis by pundits as far back as
>   the 1990s. Here is Trump talking about what should be done about
>   North Korea all the way in 1998 or 1999. The Boomer establishment
>   chose to sit on their ass because they characteristically want
>   someone else to do it.

>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-1WE-ivtO4

>   Please reply to both paragraphs.

It continues to astonish me that after 10+ years in this forum, you
still have no idea of the difference between Unraveling and Crisis
eras.  Have you even read The Fourth Turning?  Either way, you should
read and reread it about 5-10 times, until you understand what the
different eras mean, and what the Regeneracy is.

As for your claim that if, say, a nuclear missile from China or North
Korea landed on Los Angeles that Xers and Millies would be shooting at
Boomer leaders, that's a completely moronic conclusion.

In the 1990s, we only went to war in Iraq because Saddam had already
invaded Kuwait, and we only got into the Bosnian war because of the
Srebrenica genocide.

There's no way, in a generational Unraveling era in the 1990s, that
we're going to invade a foreign country because they MIGHT have
nuclear weapons in 20 years.  Wishing for it is like wishing that
2+2=3, which is what all your claims are equivalent to.

Let me make this clear: An invasion of North Korea in the 1990s was
mathematically impossible, as proven by generational theory, as
impossible as 2+2 equaling 3.  The fact is that 2+2=4, then and now.

The other thing is that you constantly claim to speak for all Millies
and Xers.  Does this board have a poll capability?  If it does, why
don't you launch a poll and see how many of the Millies and Xers on
this board believe your nonsense.

The Unraveling Era ended, and the Crisis Era began, in 2003, but we're
still in what Matt Ignal dubbed the "post-unraveling" era, which is
the time in the Crisis era before the Regeneracy occurs.  During that
period, there's still a major reluctance on the part of the public --
all generations -- to initiate a war, although it has happened in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

If you take your poll, find out how many people on this board think
we're going to have a war with China.  Almost everyone in all
generations is in denial about this, and I doubt that the people on
this board are any different, even though it's clearly a typical
outcome predicted by the Fourth Turning, so the people on this
board should theoretically be different, though they aren't.

As you know, I've been through this before.  Since 2003, I was talking
about a real estate bubble and approaching financial crisis.  I was
mocked and ridiculed in this forum by the likes of Sean Love and Mike
Alexander, but as with everything else, Generational Dynamics has
turned out to be completely right.  It wasn't until 2009 that the
idiotic mainstream economists even admitted that there had been a real
estate bubble.  "Oh yeah, of course there was a real estate bubble.
Everyone knew that.  But that was years ago, and of course nothing
like that will ever be allowed to happen again!"

In fact, you don't need generational theory any more to see that a
major financial crisis and world war are coming.  It's as plain as the
nose on your face for anyone who reads the world news, as I do,
instead of spending all waking hours thinking about impeaching Trump.
In my opinion, all the nonsense about Russian meddling or racism
charges are by people who are in total denial about what's coming, and
are looking for anything, anything, anything, so that they don't have
to think about what's really going on in the world.

You're in complete denial as well, because you think by taking
military action now, a full-scale war could be avoided.  That's
complete denial and wishful thinking.  In a generational Crisis era,
that kind of military action that you propose would actually trigger
the world war, not prevent it.

So I hope this answers your questions until you post the next bizarre
rant.

Your the one that assuming that both a war with North Korea is inevitable AND that the US would wait until North Korea develops and uses the capability to hit the US with a nuke; and that only after an attack would the US begin military operations against them. The reason I say it would not happen that way is because that would mean a indefinite continuation of "strategic Patience". The GD predictions therefore a wrong because president trump specifically mentioned the scenario of waiting until we are actually attacked with Nukes to respond and rejected that option. Thus a north Korean arsenal is now regarded as a casus belli by the US which will not allow development of North Korean nuclear forces, let alone allow those forces to become integrated with the Chinese forces.

Here is President Trump declaring the end of "strategic Patience":

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...orth-korea

Here is Vice-President Pence declaring the Same thing:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/vice-pre...h-46838889

Not only that but your GD claim you made that china would defuse the standoff with North Korea and that the US would back down appears not be occuring but that the standoff has been continually escalating over the past few months directly contrary to your claims.
in an partially related note; Steve Bannon was probably removed by Trump because he probably advocated accepting a North Korean ICBM arsenal and maintaining peace with them unless we are attacked first. Trump probably Fired him for advocating that because doing so would allow a permanent threat to US national Security to exist in addition to Russia and China.
In short if the current standoff with north Korea is resolved without war it would be because Kim backed down, not The US or Trump.

Regarding the 2008 recession and your claim that you were the only person who said there was a bubble in housing: quite frankly you are a liar. Numerous analysts pointed out there was a bubble, those who discounted a bubble did so by saying that we could manage the bubble, practically no one was saying that the bubble didn't exist. The bubble was already in collapse since mid-2007 and then collapsed entirely in September 2008.  So your claim that the bubble was not acknowledged by anyone other than yourself until 2009 is not only nonsense but outright lies. 

Here Are articles Mentioning the economic crisis and clearly mentioning the housing bubble as it's cause:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...Id=4679264

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/412/housing-recession.html

Here is a optimistic pre-bubble article mentioning the bubble. Note that the optimist says that the bubble can be maintained as salve for the economy, NOT that there was no bubble in housing:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...wont-burst

Here is more analyists predicting the housing Crash:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay06/hous...ssion.html

http://freakonomics.com/2007/08/15/freak...ng-bubble/

As for Crisis Wars Being averted or prematurely triggered as not being possible. Remember that During the Last Crisis era The Japanese war preparations that ultimately led to pearl harbor was not initially directed at the US until 1940 even though japan militarized in the late 1920s. What happened is that even after the Militarists gained control in 1931, the militarists themselves were divided until 1939 into a "strike North" and a "strike south" faction. In 1939 the "strike north" faction was granted permission by the Emperor to launch an invasion of Russian-Controlled Mongolia but the subsequent war was disastrous for the army that was sent into battle, this was known as the battle of khalkhin-gol. As a result of that defeat the "Strike North" faction was discredited and "strike south" became the only viable option for imperial japan as a result Japanese preparations for war against Russia ceased around that time but at the same time Japanese preparations against the United States rapidly accelerated around that time. It also Mean't that Japan Never seriously attempted to link up with Germany like Hitler wanted the Japanese to do (Hitler hoped that japan would join the war by attacking Stalin's rear, this is also one of the main reasons Hitler declared war on the US, because he hoped japan reciprocate by joining the Barbarossa campaign).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

My point is that a US invasion of North Korea would insure that the Crisis war would NOT be with either China or Russia. This because after seeing the US make an example of North Korea, this would massively bolster US deterrence against Both Russia and China. Thus any scenario that includes a war with north Korea would exclude a world war with either Russia or China as well as massively increase the probability of a religious world war with the Muslim World. Any world war Scenario in which China or Russia is the main enemy must use the assumption that the war with North Korea either did not take place or only took place later as simply one theater of the war with Russia and/or China.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 28-Aug-17 World View -- Violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar/Burma escalates dramatically

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar/Burma escalates dramatically
  
• Rise of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militant insurgency
  

****
**** Violence between Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar/Burma escalates dramatically
****


Bangladesh border guards at the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh, to prevent Rohingyas from crossing. There are already 400,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. (AFP)

Violence between Burma's (Myanmar's) mostly Buddhist army and Muslim
ethnic Rohingyas in Rakhine State has sharply escalated in the last
four days, to the point where it's feared that it may have reached a
dangerous turning point.

Starting in 2011, Buddhists have been attacking Muslims in villages
across Burma, particularly the 1.1 million ethnic Rohingyas in Rakhine
State. Mobs of Buddhists have attacked Muslims, conducting atrocities
including torture and rape, killing hundreds and forcing hundreds of
thousands to leave their homes to flee from the attacks. In some
cases, the Buddhists have burned down entire Rohingya villages to the
ground.

The current round of violence was triggered on Friday when Rohingya
insurgents carried out a series of coordinated attacks against 30
Burma police outposts and an army base. Using knives, some guns and
homemade explosives they killed at least a dozen security force
members.

The army responded with a sweep of violence against Rohingyas, causing
thousands of them to flee their villages and head for the Bangladesh
border, where they hoped to cross and reach a refugee camp. The
Foreign Ministry of Bangladesh said Saturday that "thousands of
unarmed civilians" from Rakhine state had gathered near its border and
were "making attempts to enter Bangladesh." The Burmese army shot
them as they were fleeing, including women and children, killing
dozens. However, Bangladesh already has 400,000 Rohingyas in its
refugee camps and its border guards are refusing to allow any more to
enter, and so the Rohingyas trying to flee are hiding out along the
border between the two countries. However, an estimated 2,000
Rohingyas have made the crossing since Friday.

Yesterday, Bangladesh handed over a protest note to the Myanmar envoy
in Dhaka, and called upon Myanmar country to stop any fresh flow of
Rohingyas towards Bangladesh. CNN and AFP and Daily Star (Bangladesh)

****
**** Rise of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militant insurgency
****

The leader of the Buddhist atrocities is Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu,
who says that he's just trying to protect Burma from Muslims. He
calls his movement the "969" movement, where 969 is a historic
Buddhist sign, referring to the nine qualities of Buddha, the six
qualities of Buddha's teaching, and nine qualities of the Buddhist
community. 969 is supposed to promote peace and happiness, although
Wirathu's 969 movement is a vehicle promoting violence,

After three years of Buddhist atrocities directed at Rohingyas, a
radicalized group of Rohingyas formed the Arakan Rohingya Salvation
Army (ARSA).

ARSA took responsibility for attacks on 8 police posts in October of
last year. Those attacks sparked a wave of deadly "clearance
operations" by Myanmar’s army and forced some 87,000 Rohingya to flee
to Bangladesh. The UN believes that military crackdown may have
amounted to ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.

During the past week, the United Nations Rakhine Advisory Commission,
headed by Kofi Annan, issued a final report that confirmed these
conclusions.

ARSA has also taken responsibility for the coordinated attacks on 30
police outposts and an army base that took place on Friday. Whereas
the "clearance operations" by Myanmar's army last October appeared to
be reasonably disciplined, the reports of the army's attacks on
Rohingyas in the last three days suggest that they are extremely
undisciplined and disorganized.

There are also reports of growing violence between ARSA and the
Myanmar army, including reports that ARSA militants are shooting at
Rohingyas who are trying to flee to Bangladesh.

India's government is taking a strong position in favor of Myanmar's
government, and against the Rohingyas. According to external affairs
ministry spokesman Raveesh Kumar:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"India is seriously concerned by reports of renewed
> violence and attacks by terrorists in northern Rakhine State of
> Myanmar. We are deeply saddened at the loss of lives among members
> of the Myanmar security forces.
>
> Such attacks deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible
> terms. We hope that the perpetrators of these crimes will be
> brought to justice and we extend our strong support at this
> challenging moment to the Government of the Republic of the Union
> of Myanmar."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The clashes in Rakhine state are current turning into a mêlée that
could become a lot more serious quickly, if not now, then when the
next round of violence occurs. As the clashes between Buddhists and
Muslims continue to grow in Myanmar (Burma), other neighboring
countries are also going to be forced to choose sides. Straits Times and AFP and Reuters and Hindustan Times

Related Articles

• Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities by Buddhists targeting Muslim Rohingyas (04-Feb-2017)
  
  
• UN: Burma (Myanmar) committing 'ethnic cleansing' of Rohingyas (29-Nov-2016)
  
  
• Meiktila, Burma, violence has echoes of Kristallnacht (05-Apr-2013)
  
  
• Generational history of Burma (Myanmar) (26-Sep-2007)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Myanmar, Burma, Buddhists, Bangladesh,
Muslims, Rohingyas, Rakhine State, Ashin Wirathu, 969 Movement,
the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, ARSA,
Rakhine Advisory Commission, Kofi Annan, India, Raveesh Kumar

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

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 29-Aug-17 World View -- China and India pull back from Doklam, while North Korea sharply escalates missile crisis

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China and India announce pullback agreement on Doklam Plateau
  
• Many unanswered questions about the China-India Doklam agreement
  
• North Korea launches ballistic missile into Japan's airspace
  

****
**** China and India announce pullback agreement on Doklam Plateau
****


Chinese army soldiers in military training (Reuters, 2013)

China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that
they had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on
Bhutan's Doklam Plateau.

For almost three months, China and India have each had 300 soldiers
just 100 meters apart on the plateau, 3,000 meters above sea level.
India did not increase its troop strength on the plateau itself, but
brought troops into bases nearby, and raising the alert level in
preparation for war.

The border dispute involving China, India and Bhutan over the Doklam
Plateau continued to escalate for a long time, as we reported.
China attempted to annex
the region, which belongs to Bhutan, and on June 16 sent Chinese
troops and construction workers to begin road construction. Bhutan
troops tried to prevent the Chinese troop incursion, but they were
overrun. India sent in its own troops, saying that it did so when
Bhutan invoked a treaty with India and asked for help, resulting in a
standoff.

China made increasingly vitriolic threats towards India, saying that
there couldn't be negotiations until India unilaterally withdrew its
troops, and that China's army would destroy India's army if India
didn't withdraw.

So now it turns out that there have been secret negotiations going
on for weeks, despite the vitriolic threats.

China's foreign ministry spokesman Hua Chunying announced China's
position at a press briefing:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Q: We have learned that on the afternoon of August
> 28, the Indian border troops and equipment that illegal crossed
> the Sikkim sector of the China-India border have all been
> withdrawn to the Indian side, marking an end to the trespassing
> incident. Do you have more information?
>
> A: On June 18, the Indian border troops illegally crossed the
> well-delimited China-India border in the Sikkim Sector into
> China's Dong Lang area. China has lodged representations with the
> Indian side many times through diplomatic channels, made the facts
> and truth of this situation known to the international community,
> clarified China's solemn position and explicit demands, and urged
> India to immediately pull back its border troops to the India's
> side. In the meantime, the Chinese military has taken effective
> countermeasures to ensure the territorial sovereignty and
> legitimate rights and interests of the state.
>
> At about 2:30 p.m. of August 28, the Indian side withdrew all its
> border personnel and equipment that were illegally on the Chinese
> territory to the Indian side. The Chinese personnel onsite have
> verified this situation. China will continue fulfilling its
> sovereign rights to safeguard territorial sovereignty in
> compliance with the stipulations of the border-related historical
> treaty."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Hua received additional questions, pressing her to explain whether
China had also pulled back. She apparently became increasingly
annoyed and the questions, and finally answered:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"A: The Indian side has withdrawn all its trespassing
> border personnel and equipment to the Indian side. The Chinese
> personnel onsite have verified this situation. China will continue
> fulfilling its sovereign rights to safeguard territorial
> sovereignty in compliance with the stipulations of the
> border-related historical treaty. In light of the changes on the
> ground, China will accordingly make necessary adjustments and
> deployment."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

India's Ministry of External Affairs also issued a statement:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"In recent weeks, India and China have maintained
> diplomatic communication in respect of the incident at
> Doklam. During these communications, we were able to express our
> views and convey our concerns and interests.
>
> On this basis, expeditious disengagement of border personnel at
> the face-off site at Doklam has been agreed to and is
> on-going."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

China's Foreign Ministry and India's Ministry of External Affairs

Related: China and India prepare for border war at Doklam Plateau (12-Aug-2017)

****
**** Many unanswered questions about the China-India Doklam agreement
****

The two announcements leave many questions unanswered, including the
following:

• What did China concede? India's statement was about
  "disengagement," and India has pulled back its troops, but China
  apparently has not. In fact, China continues to claim that the region
  that it's illegally trying to annex is its "sovereign territory."
  
  
• Is China ending its road-building work? Is its earth-moving
  equipment being withdrawn? Unnamed Indian officials have reportedly
  said they have, but all that China's spokesman said was "In light of
  the changes on the ground, China will accordingly make necessary
  adjustments and deployment."
  
  
• Even if China has ended its road-building work, will they simply
  start again next week or next month?

Once again, we have to point out that China is a highly militarized
country, with a huge army and bristling with missiles, and it's lied
repeatedly and continuously about its claims and criminal activities
in the South China Sea, and so there is no reason to believe any
claims they make about Bhutan's territory on the Doklam Plateau.

My personal belief, based on all the reports that I've read, is that
China was completely surprised by what happened. I believe that China
expected to overwhelm Bhutan's army and annex the Doklam Plateau
quickly and easily. Instead, I believe that the Chinese were
completely surprised by India's intervention, making a quick and easy
victory impossible. New Delhi TV and India Today

****
**** North Korea launches ballistic missile into Japan's airspace
****


Map showing trajectory of North Korean missile (Yonhap)

North Korea on Tuesday fired a long-range ballistic missile that flew
over Japan, traveling more than 2,700 km with a maximum altitude of
around 550 km. Technically, that's an act of war, but Japan didn't
try to shoot it down, nor did the United States.

Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The North Korean missile that was launched passed
> over our nation and landed in the Pacific Ocean. The government
> had been monitoring the launch from the moment it was fired.
>
> We have done our utmost to ensure the safety of the people. The
> missile that passed over our nation represents the greatest and
> gravest threat to our nation ever. It is also a threat to the
> peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region.
>
> This reckless act of launching a missile that flies over our
> country is an unprecedented, serious and important
> threat."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

North Korea has been trying to develop a ballistic missile with a
nuclear payload since the 1990s, and international attempts have been
made to dissuade further development. However, diplomacy hasn't
worked, sanctions haven't worked, threats of retaliation haven't work,
and Security Council resolutions haven't worked. Government leaders
in many countries -- the US, Russia, China, South Korea, and so forth
-- have made delusional statements about negotiations with North
Korea, but they've repeatedly failed.

So one choice now is to accept North Korea as a full-fledged nuclear,
using nuclear weapons for all sorts of international blackmail. The
other choice now is a military option of some kind. One way or the
other, the question should be answered within a few months. Korea Times and Australian Financial Review and Reuters and South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)

Related: Japan will shoot down N. Korean missiles via 'collective self-defense' (13-Aug-2017)



KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, India, Bhutan, Doklam Plateau,
Hua Chunying, North Korea, Japan, Shinzo Abe

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]

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that
they had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on
Bhutan's Doklam Plateau. 

Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational paranoia about China.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
> had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
> Doklam Plateau.

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
> paranoia about China.

Lol! Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda. Go figure.

[Kinser79]

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
>   had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
>   Doklam Plateau.  

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
>   paranoia about China.  

Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

Actually paranoia about China probably is irrational.  As long as they can sell cheap plastic shit to the US and then use those dollars to buy oil they need us more than we them.  The DPRK and Al Qaeda are different animals entirely.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-29-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: > Actually paranoia about China probably is irrational. As long as
> they can sell cheap plastic shit to the US and then use those
> dollars to buy oil they need us more than we them. The DPRK and Al
> Qaeda are different animals entirely.

Hmmmm. Let me see. China is an international criminal, annexing
regions in the South China Sea in proven violation of international
law, threatening the US for simple freedom of navigation trips,
claiming that the artificial islands are for tourists, and then
loading them up with missiles, warplanes, radars, and so forth,
threatening the Philippines and Vietnam for fishing in their own
historical fishing waters, threatening Japan in the East China Sea,
threatening Bhutan on Doklam Plateau, threatening India in Kashmir,
and building dozens or hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles whose
only purpose is to target American cities, bases and aircraft carriers
-- and paranoia about China is irrational, according to you.

But al-Qaeda and North Korea have no nuclear missiles at present, and
paranoia about them is NOT irrational, according to you.

Yeah, that makes sense. Peace in our time. It really is all
mathematics, you know.

[Warren Dew]

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
>   had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
>   Doklam Plateau.  

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
>   paranoia about China.  

Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

If you think North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles yet, your irrationality there is in your complacency, not paranoia.  Even the perpetually behind the curve US intelligence services have finally admitted that the tests from a year ago were of missile mountable warheads.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-29-2017, 01:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
>   had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
>   Doklam Plateau.  

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
>   paranoia about China.  

Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

If you think North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles yet, your irrationality there is in your complacency, not paranoia.  Even the perpetually behind the curve US intelligence services have finally admitted that the tests from a year ago were of missile mountable warheads.

Fine. North Korea has ten nuclear missiles, while China has hundreds.
And yet, you live in a bubble where your state of denial is so great,
that NK's ten missiles bother you and Kinser, but China's hundreds of
missiles don't. I guess you think that China has only nice missiles,
while NK has nasty missiles. Peace in our time.

It's really amazing. People my age have wondered our whole lives how
Hitler could have so thoroughtly fooled everyone in Britain except
Churchill, and now we know why. That mystery has finally been solved
for me, as I see it unfold again. It's truly astonishing.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-29-2017, 01:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: >   Actually paranoia about China probably is irrational.  As long as
>   they can sell cheap plastic shit to the US and then use those
>   dollars to buy oil they need us more than we them. The DPRK and Al
>   Qaeda are different animals entirely.  

Hmmmm.  Let me see.  China is an international criminal, annexing
regions in the South China Sea in proven violation of international
law, threatening the US for simple freedom of navigation trips,
claiming that the artificial islands are for tourists, and then
loading them up with missiles, warplanes, radars, and so forth,
threatening the Philippines and Vietnam for fishing in their own
historical fishing waters, threatening Japan in the East China Sea,
threatening Bhutan on Doklam Plateau, threatening India in Kashmir,
and building dozens or hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles whose
only purpose is to target American cities, bases and aircraft carriers
-- and paranoia about China is irrational, according to you.

But al-Qaeda and North Korea have no nuclear missiles at present, and
paranoia about them is NOT irrational, according to you.

Yeah, that makes sense.  Peace in our time.  It really is all
mathematics, you know.

And those missiles have been there since the early 1980s. Like the Russian Arsenal, the ship has sailed in regards to a Chinese nuclear arsenal decades ago. If you are worried about Chinese or Russian capabilities, the only remedy to that is a permanent Military-Industrial Complex. But I forget, you boomers hate the very idea of having a permanent military-industrial complex. North Korea however is developing nuclear capability exponentially, and note unlike with China and Russia, the US is technically still at war with North Korea and the North Korean leadership is far more irrational. For these reasons the North Korean arsenal or the scenario of Al-Qaeda getting nukes is regarded by the US government with More concern than with the Status of The Russian or Chinese Nuclear arsenals even though the Latter two Countries pose a greater existential threat to the US in terms of Actual Military Power.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-29-2017, 01:38 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:16 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:45 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: >   Actually paranoia about China probably is irrational.  As long as
>   they can sell cheap plastic shit to the US and then use those
>   dollars to buy oil they need us more than we them. The DPRK and Al
>   Qaeda are different animals entirely.  

Hmmmm.  Let me see.  China is an international criminal, annexing
regions in the South China Sea in proven violation of international
law, threatening the US for simple freedom of navigation trips,
claiming that the artificial islands are for tourists, and then
loading them up with missiles, warplanes, radars, and so forth,
threatening the Philippines and Vietnam for fishing in their own
historical fishing waters, threatening Japan in the East China Sea,
threatening Bhutan on Doklam Plateau, threatening India in Kashmir,
and building dozens or hundreds of nuclear ballistic missiles whose
only purpose is to target American cities, bases and aircraft carriers
-- and paranoia about China is irrational, according to you.

But al-Qaeda and North Korea have no nuclear missiles at present, and
paranoia about them is NOT irrational, according to you.

Yeah, that makes sense.  Peace in our time.  It really is all
mathematics, you know.

And those missiles have been there since the early 1980s. North Korea however is developing nuclear capability exponentially, and note unlike with China and Russia, the US is technically still at war with North Korea and the North Korean leadership is far more irrational. For these reasons the North Korean arsenal or the scenario of Al-Qaeda getting nukes is regarded by the US government with More concern than with the Status of The Russian or Chinese Nuclear arsenals.

China has been building new nuclear missile systems exponentially.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-29-2017, 01:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
>   had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
>   Doklam Plateau.  

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
>   paranoia about China.  

Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

If you think North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles yet, your irrationality there is in your complacency, not paranoia.  Even the perpetually behind the curve US intelligence services have finally admitted that the tests from a year ago were of missile mountable warheads.

Fine.  North Korea has ten nuclear missiles, while China has hundreds.
And yet, you live in a bubble where your state of denial is so great,
that NK's ten missiles bother you and Kinser, but China's hundreds of
missiles don't.  I guess you think that China has only nice missiles,
while NK has nasty missiles.  Peace in our time.

It's really amazing.  People my age have wondered our whole lives how
Hitler could have so thoroughtly fooled everyone in Britain except
Churchill, and now we know why.  That mystery has finally been solved
for me, as I see it unfold again.  It's truly astonishing.

China has Hundreds of Missiles, But the US has thousands. Regarding North Korea, new assessments have indicated that they may have 60 or More Warheads now. The leadership factor is also important: North Korea's leadership is Much more irrational, especially since Kim-Jong-Un took power earlier this decade; while Both Xi jinping and Putin are much more Rational and strategically adept as leaders as well as the rest of China and Russia's leaderships. Thus any increased aggression from China or Russia can be taken as a sign and bellweather of whether US government is handling its security interests properly or Not. As long the Boomers refuse to permit the expansion of The military-industrial Complex back to the levels intended by the GIs who built this system, until then the Problem would not improve from that direction. Regarding the Current Standoff, there is the added factor of deterrence; the US backing down would seriously hurt US deterrence not just of North Korea but especially towards China and Russia. A successful Preemptive war on North Korea would bolster US Military deterrence against Both Russia and China.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-29-2017, 01:57 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-28-2017, 10:02 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   China and India made surprising announcements on Monday that they
>   had agreed to pull back troops to reduce tension on Bhutan's
>   Doklam Plateau.  

(08-29-2017, 08:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   Surprising to you, maybe, but only because of your irrational
>   paranoia about China.  

Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

If you think North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles yet, your irrationality there is in your complacency, not paranoia.  Even the perpetually behind the curve US intelligence services have finally admitted that the tests from a year ago were of missile mountable warheads.

Fine.  North Korea has ten nuclear missiles, while China has hundreds.
And yet, you live in a bubble where your state of denial is so great,
that NK's ten missiles bother you and Kinser, but China's hundreds of
missiles don't.  I guess you think that China has only nice missiles,
while NK has nasty missiles.  Peace in our time.

It's really amazing.  People my age have wondered our whole lives how
Hitler could have so thoroughtly fooled everyone in Britain except
Churchill, and now we know why.  That mystery has finally been solved
for me, as I see it unfold again.  It's truly astonishing.

China has Hundreds of Missiles, But the US has thousands. Regarding North Korea, new assessments have indicated that they may have 60 or More Warheads now. The leadership factor is also important: North Korea's leadership is Much more irrational, especially since Kim-Jong-Un took power earlier this decade; while Both Xi jinping and Putin are much more Rational and strategically adept as leaders as well as the rest of China and Russia leaderships. Thus any increased aggression from China or Russia can be taken as a sign of whether US government is handling its security interests properly or Not. As long the Boomers refuse to permit the expansion of The military-industrial Complex back to the levels intended by the GIs who built this system, until then the Problem would not improve from that direction.

Right. Russia and China have been acting soooooooooooo rationally.
Doing what Hitler did and illegally invading and annexing other
people's regions.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-29-2017, 02:06 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:57 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 01:23 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-29-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Lol!  Yeah, like my "irrational paranoia" about North Korea and
al-Qaeda.  Go figure.

If you think North Korea doesn't have nuclear missiles yet, your irrationality there is in your complacency, not paranoia.  Even the perpetually behind the curve US intelligence services have finally admitted that the tests from a year ago were of missile mountable warheads.

Fine.  North Korea has ten nuclear missiles, while China has hundreds.
And yet, you live in a bubble where your state of denial is so great,
that NK's ten missiles bother you and Kinser, but China's hundreds of
missiles don't.  I guess you think that China has only nice missiles,
while NK has nasty missiles.  Peace in our time.

It's really amazing.  People my age have wondered our whole lives how
Hitler could have so thoroughtly fooled everyone in Britain except
Churchill, and now we know why.  That mystery has finally been solved
for me, as I see it unfold again.  It's truly astonishing.

China has Hundreds of Missiles, But the US has thousands. Regarding North Korea, new assessments have indicated that they may have 60 or More Warheads now. The leadership factor is also important: North Korea's leadership is Much more irrational, especially since Kim-Jong-Un took power earlier this decade; while Both Xi jinping and Putin are much more Rational and strategically adept as leaders as well as the rest of China and Russia leaderships. Thus any increased aggression from China or Russia can be taken as a sign of whether US government is handling its security interests properly or Not. As long the Boomers refuse to permit the expansion of The military-industrial Complex back to the levels intended by the GIs who built this system, until then the Problem would not improve from that direction.

Right.  Russia and China have been acting soooooooooooo rationally.
Doing what Hitler did and illegally invading and annexing other
people's regions.

Countries invade and Conquer other people's regions all the time. This has been the case since at least the start of civilization. How do you think the roughly 250 countries that currently exist, including the US, acquired their current borders? They did so by invading other regions. It is the boomer, who were brimming with selfishness, who tried to artificially arrest this process and tried to impose their tyranny and attempt at world government.

[Warren Dew]

(08-28-2017, 11:12 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Why Russia now hates the Democrats, the Clintons and Obamas, is not merely because that faction represent "Western Decadence" contra Duginism. Another reason Russia hates them is because they have finally awakened to the Single Clenched Fist and looming resurgence of the East Bloc. We can see this in the vast changes in nuclear and military posture which occurred mid this decade. Now these changes may been too little too late but nonetheless we had seemingly once and for all abandoned, rightfully, the sad and naive notions of "The Peace Dividend" and "The West / US Won the Cold War." No, we were merely deceived by The Shape Shifting Beast. We did not win the Cold War. In any case, The Beast started to get up and dance at the start of this decade. Obama reacted appropriately, and we were situated to continue. NATO would have been bolstered and we would have readopted the Contra Iron Curtain strategy of the Cold War. The SCO would have none of this. They knew our own Western factions aligned with Duginism were the answer. We (the collective "we") blundered into electing them. And now here we are. Blundering our way into being defeated and possibly conquered by East Bloc 2.0.

The fact that we fought Germany in WWII doesn't change the fact that we won WWI.  Similarly, even if we end up fighting Russia again, that doesn't change the fact that we won the Cold War.

If you think the resurgent eastern bloc is a threat, it's hard to see how you can view Obama as doing the right thing when he eliminated the US missile shield presence in Poland that Bush had started on.  Fortunately Trump seems to be planning to put it back.