Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
*** 10-Dec-17 World View -- Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned
- Trump's proclamation hardens splits among Arab countries
****
**** Protests fizzle 3 days after Trump's Jerusalem announcement was universally condemned
****
![[Image: g171209b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171209b.jpg)
Israeli troops clash with Palestinian demonstrators in Ramallah on Thursday (Sky News)
Wednesday's proclamation by president Donald Trump to recognize
Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel, and to relocate the
American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, has roiled international
media and politicians around the world.
International reaction was negative to the point of being
hysterical.
Pope Francis said:
<QUOTE>"I cannot silence my deep concern over the situation
that has emerged in recent days. At the same time, I appeal
strongly for all to respect the city's status quo, in accordance
with the relevant UN resolutions."<END QUOTE>
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said:
<QUOTE>"[The announcement] has a very worrying potential
impact. It is a very fragile context and the announcement has the
potential to send us backwards to even darker times than the ones
we are already living in."
The worst thing that could happen now is an escalation of tensions
around the holy places and in the region because what happens in
Jerusalem matters to the whole region and the entire
world."<END QUOTE>
Britain's Labor shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said that he
had taken a "hammer blow" to the peace process, and that "He is
setting it back decades."
Although these remarks are all underpinned by the usual hate-Israel
hate-Trump hate-America attitudes that are prevalent, there is an
underlying logic: It's pretty clear that the Mideast is headed for
all-out war, and the remarks reflect a fear that Trump's announcement
will trigger that war.
In fact, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya, called for a new "intifada", or
uprising:
<QUOTE>"The American decision is an aggression against our
people. It's a declaration of war against our Palestinian people,
We should call for and we should work on launching an intifada in
the face of the Zionist enemy"<END QUOTE>
Haniya has repeatedly been trying to incite an intifada. News
stations like the BBC and al-Jazeera were almost gleefully
reporting anti-Israeli marches and riots in countries from
Indonesia to Germany.
But that was on the first day. By Saturday, the third day, almost all
the protests appeared to have fizzled out, as reported by the BBC and
al-Jazeera with a tone of disappointment.
A number of commentators tried to give reasons why the protests
had fizzled out. They all gave some version of the following reasons:
- The Palestinians are tired because they've seen no
progress since the 1994 Oslo accords.
- The Palestinians live in poverty.
- The Palestinians have no faith in their leaders.
These reasons are ironic because if the new intifada had taken off,
and there were major Palestinian street protests with rioting and
demonstrations, then the same analysts would have explained that with
exactly the same list of reasons.
The real reason is that it's impossible to predict the exact timing of
popular street protests, any more than you can predict the exact
timing of stock market crashes. You can predict that they're coming
with absolute certainly, but you don't know if it will be next week,
next month, or next year.
None of the news shows that I heard attempted to explain the logic
of Trump's proclamation, as he stated in his speech:
<QUOTE>Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that
delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of
peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best
judgments based on facts as they understood them at the
time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades
of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between
Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that
repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or
better result.
Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. ...
I've judged this course of action to be in the best interests of
the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between
Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long-overdue step to
advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting
agreement. ...
That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also
directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the
American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately
begin the process of hiring architects, engineers, and planners,
so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent
tribute to peace."<END QUOTE>
In other words, as I've been saying for years, and as pretty much
everybody knows by this time, there is zero probability that the
"peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians is going to
achieve anything. I had to laugh when one analyst was asked whether
the peace process was already dead, said that was true, but Trump's
announcement makes it even less likely. I guess this analyst wasn't
aware that if the probability of an event occurring is already zero,
then it can't go any lower, and so Trump's proclamation would leave
the chances of a successful peace process unchanged.
But carrying this logic one step further, if the probability of
a successful peace agreement is zero, then the probability could
go up, and Trump's proclamation might change the politics in the
region to make a peace treaty possible. That in fact is what
Trump is claiming, and there are reports that the administration
will be presenting a new peace plan soon.
Trump is using exactly the same kind of logic with respect to North
Korea. After three decades of appeasement of North Korea, we're headed
for a disaster when North Korea will have an arsenal of nuclear-tipped
ballistic missiles pointed at the United States, which he will try to
use in an extortion to gain control of South Korea, and he will sell
the nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology to rogue states
like Iran and Venezuela. Trump's tweets have been very aggressive and
threatening toward North Korea, much to the dismay of the
international community, but the objective is to try something
different from the policies that have been failing for three decades.
Unfortunately, the Generational Dynamics prediction doesn't change.
Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major
regional war, pitting Sunnis versus Shias, Jews versus Arabs, and
various ethnic groups against each other. Generational Dynamics
predicts that in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, the
"axis" of China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be
pitted against the "allies," the US, India, Russia and Iran.
Trump's proclamation about Jerusalem, and Trump's tweets about North
Korea could change the scenario by which the Generational Dynamics
predictions occur, but the final outcomes cannot change. And no one
can predict what will trigger the coming Mideast war. So it's
possible that Trump's critics will turn out to be right, and that his
proclamation will turn out to be the trigger for new street riots next
week, and for the coming war. White House and Sky News and BBC and
Times of Israel and Debka (Israel)
Related Articles
****
**** Trump's proclamation hardens splits among Arab countries
****
No Arab country could publicly support Trump's proclamation, or even
fail to criticize as the latest blow to Palestinian dreams. Doing so
would create an enormous backlash within the Arab community. However,
it's turning out that the proclamation has been splitting Arab
countries along lines that we've seen before.
The key is Saudi Arabia. Officials representing Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) described the decision as "unjustified and
irresponsible" and "a big step back in efforts to advance the peace
process and is a violation of the historically neutral American
position on Jerusalem."
But behind the scenes, Saudi Arabia is said to be "on board" with the
decision and the broader US strategy. Saudi Arabia has for decades
depended heavily on the United States and the west for security, which
the West provides in exchange for a reliable supply of Mideast oil.
Furthermore, MBS and Israel are becoming very strongly aligned with
regard to what they see as their greatest common existential threat:
Iran.
So Saudi Arabia has provided a muted criticism to the proclamation,
and so have the UAE and Egypt. These are the countries that
implemented a land, sea and air blockade against Qatar last summer,
and that blockade is still in place.
On the other side, we see Iran, Jordan and Turkey harshly critical.
These are the same countries on the other side of the Saudi blockade.
Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said:
<QUOTE>"[Trump is] throwing the region into a ring of fire.
What do you want to do Mr Trump? What kind of an approach is this?
Political leaders exist not to create struggles but to make
peace."<END QUOTE>
When I can, I like to quote Marwan Bishara, the principal analyst from
Qatar-based al-Jazeera, and clearly represents the Qatar position.
Bishara hates Israel a great deal, but he hates the Palestinian
Authority and Mahmoud Abbas even more because he sees them as
traitors, selling out the Palestinians to Israel.
On Saturday, Bishara said that Saudi Arabia and Trump are going to
give half of the West Bank to Israel, and that "The Saudis are
sacrificing Palestine to create some sort of a front against Iran."
Reuters and Middle East Monitor and Reuters and Debka (7-Dec)
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Israel, Jerusalem, Pope Francis,
Federica Mogherini, Emily Thornberry, Hamas, Ismail Haniya,
North Korea, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, MBS,
UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Iran,
Marwan Bishara, Qatar, Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority
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
Posts: 469
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2017
I have been reading The Absent Super Power by Peter Zeihan. (The author of The Accidental Super Power). Zeihan has been discussing the results of America's retreat into isolationism.
In "Absent", Zeihan elaborates on The (Next) Gulf Wa. Ongoing conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia erupts into all out war. Resulting in a global shortage of oil, leading to The Tanker War between China and Japan.
Posts: 577
Threads: 9
Joined: May 2016
In response to John J. Xenakis's 12/7 post here.
Sadly, women are often prone to ideological blindness, just as men are. There was a lot of extreme partisanship in the 90s. But maybe the Democrats, at least, are starting to get it on this issue, what with the resignations of Al Franken and John Conyers. They need to get honest about Bill Clinton.
If there is a backlash against #metoo and today's feminism, I will not be surprised at all considering the backwardness of many people in this country. 46% of the public voted for Donald Trump, even after the “pussy grabbing” tape was publicized, not to mention all the other things that made it obvious he was unfit for office. This backlash will only bring about another feminist surge in the future, some 20 years or so down the line. People need to start taking women seriously about sexual harassment, stop focusing on the hypocrisy of some and making excuses and start believing the victims.
Sharing this WaPo video--she echoes some of your own words at the end.
Opinion | Roy Moore proves we still only believe some women
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
*** 11-Dec-17 World View -- China takes control of strategic Hambantota seaport in Sri Lanka, raising concerns in India
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Sri Lanka formally hands its southern seaport Hambantota over to China
- India's alarm grows over spread of China's 'Maritime Silk Road'
****
**** Sri Lanka formally hands its southern seaport Hambantota over to China
****
![[Image: g171210b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171210b.jpg)
China gives Sri Lanka a check for $292,097,400.00 as the first payment for Hambantota port (Colombo Page)
China on Saturday formally handed control of its southern port of
Hambantota in return for $292,097,400.00, as the first payment
on a 99-year lease.
In 2009, China invested $1.2 billion in the port as part of its
"string of pearls" strategy to surround India with ports accessible to
China's navy. Sri Lanka had expected to repay the debt through
profits earned by the port, but the slowdown in trade throughout the
entire region in the last few years has meant that Sri Lanka has been
unable to repay the debt. The result was that Sri Lanka's government
has been forced to give China a 99-year lease to take over the port.
The announcement in January of this year triggered violent protests by
thousands of Sri Lanka's Buddhist monks and anti-government
protesters. Protestors said that thousands of Sri Lankans will lose
their homes because of the project.
And then thousands of Chinese families will migrant to the land
adjacent to the port, establishing a "Chinese colony" on Sri Lankan
soil that will grow and can never be removed.
Many Sri Lankans are accusing China of having purposely set a "debt
trap" in 2009, loaning money at extremely high interest rates, knowing
that Sri Lanka would be unable to repay the debt, and would be forced
to give away Sri Lankan assets to China.
However, Sri Lanka's prime minister Ranil Wickremesingh sees
the project in a much more positive light:
<QUOTE>"The unity government expects to develop and operate
the Hambantota Port to make it a main port in the Indian Ocean.
... There will be industrialization in the area which will lead to
economic development and promote tourism."
The government pledged to pay the debt taken by the previous
government for these projects loans. With this agreement we have
started to pay back those loans. We are going to develop the
Hambantota port without burdening the masses. We get US$ 300
million today. We deposit this amount in foreign reserves. The
future generation can go forward without a burden. We have taken
steps to make Sri Lanka the hub of the Indian Ocean. We thank the
Chinese government and its representatives at this
occasion."<END QUOTE>
The government will receive another 10 percent, or around $100
million, in a month and another $585 million in six months. Colombo Page (Sri Lanka) and South China Morning Post and The Hindu
****
**** India's alarm grows over spread of China's 'Maritime Silk Road'
****
China's Maritime Silk Road, also known as the "String of Pearls," is a
sea-based network of shipping lanes and port developments throughout
the Pacific and Indian oceans to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe.
The port in Sri Lanka adds to ports that China controls in Myanmar,
Bangladesh, Maldives, Pakistan and Djibouti. China even has a
controlling stake in Greece's port of Piraeus on the Mediterranean
Sea.
India has been increasingly alarmed about being encircled by China's
"One Belt One Road" (OBOR) project, including the Maritime Silk Road.
Sri Lanka has attempted to allay India’s security concerns, Sri Lanka
has repeatedly claimed that no Chinese naval facility would be
permitted. However, India remains concerned that one day China's
influence will reach a point where Sri Lanka can't say no.
This situation has resulted in a new controversy: India wants to buy
the Rajapaksa International Airport, which is adjacent to
the Port of Hambantota.
Rajapaksa International Airport is being called the "world's emptiest
airport." The port is said to be beautiful, and a tourist attraction.
But it's almost completely unused. It has a full complement of
employees, most of whom stand looking bored, but it handles only one
international flight per week. The airport was built along with the
port, and it's part of the financial disaster that has resulted from
the project, and forced Sri Lanka to lease the port to China.
It's not known what India plans to do with the airport, but
it's suspected that India wants to keep it empty to prevent
its use by Chinese warplanes.
The port deal with China was signed almost ten years ago when the
prime minister was Mattala Rajapaksa, who named the airport after
himself. But now his son, Namal Rajapaksa, who an opposition MP who
may one day become prime minister, is demanding that the deal with
India be cancelled, warning that the government should not to allow
the country become a "pawn" in international power politics, saying
that the government decision on the airport would lead to serious
national security and defense implications, with Chinese and Indian
forces in close proximity to one another. India Times and Lowy Institute (Australia) and Press Trust of India
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Sri Lanka, Hambantota seaport,
China, Maritime Silk Road, String of Pearls,
One Belt One Road, OBOR,
Ranil Wickremesingh, India, Rajapaksa International Airport,
Mattala Rajapaksa, Namal Rajapaksa
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
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
*** 12-Dec-17 World View -- Pakistan overwhelmed and China alarmed over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- China alarmed by consequences of its CPEC investment in Pakistan -- terrorism and corruption
- China halts CPEC funds over concerns about corruption in Pakistan
- Pakistan alarmed about a Chinese 'debt trap'
****
**** China alarmed by consequences of its CPEC investment in Pakistan -- terrorism and corruption
****
![[Image: g171211b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171211b.jpg)
A truck drives along the China-Pakistan Friendship Highway in China's western Xinjiang province. (AFP)
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has almost become an
erotic fantasy. It's a $55-60 billion 20-year project that will
supposedly build a network of roads, railways and energy pipelines
aiming to connect western Chinese cities, starting from China's
easternmost city Kashgar in Xinjiang province, to the sea port in
Gwadar on the Indian Ocean in Balochistan province in southern
Pakistan. It will have both economic and military components. Power
generation, transport, commerce, R&D and the defense of Pakistan all
will be increasingly tied to Chinese investment, supplies and
interests.
For economic basket case Pakistan, the benefits are obvious -- a
tsunami of money that will overwhelm its existing debt problems, for
example allowing easy payment of the $6.1 billion that Pakistan owes
to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The benefits are also obvious for China. The transportation networks
from China to the Indian Ocean will connect China economically and
militarily to its other ports and bases in the Indian Ocean, bypassing
the risks of naval travel associated with problems like the South
China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, and the waters around India.
But since the agreement was signed in March, China has become alarmed
by the potential problems in two major areas: corruption and
terrorism.
The CPEC project will bring thousands of Chinese workers into
Pakistan, particularly into Balochstan, where most of the CPEC work
will be performed.
As we reported in June,
the
ISIS-linked Al Alami offshoot of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJA) is believed
responsible for the abduction and execution of two Chinese nationals
working in Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochstan.
LeJ is a terror group that has vowed to exterminate all Shias in
Pakistan, and has carried out numerous terrorist actions targeting
Shias and Sufis. But now LeJA is apparently turning its attention
from slaughtering Shias and Sufis in Pakistan to the slaughter of
thousands of Chinese workers and families who have come to Balochistan
to work on CPEC.
Four days ago, China warned its Chinese citizens in Pakistan of plans
plans for a series of imminent "terrorist attacks" on Chinese workers
there:
<QUOTE>"It is understood that terrorists plan in the near
term to launch a series of attacks against Chinese organizations
and personnel in Pakistan.
The embassy alerts all Chinese organizations and citizens in
Pakistan to stay vigilant, safeguard personal security, reduce
time spent outside and avoid going to crowded places as much as
possible."<END QUOTE>
There have been reports that China's Uighur separatist group the East
Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) had “sneaked into Pakistan” and
posed a threat to Chinese nationals.
On November 20, China issued "new guidelines" for the CPEC project,
stipulating greater involvement of Pakistan's army in the project to
improve the security of Chinese nationals.
It's worth pointing out that Pakistan's army has not been successful
in preventing terror attacks on its own civilian population, and has
been accused of distinguishing between "bad terrorists," who
perpetrate terrorist attacks within Pakistan, and "good terrorists,"
who perpetrate terrorist attacks within India and Pakistan. It's
possible that these "good terrorists" are now turning their attention
to the thousands of Chinese workers moving into Balochistan, near the
border with Afghanistan.
South China Morning Post (9-June) and Reuters
****
**** China halts CPEC funds over concerns about corruption in Pakistan
****
In a recent speech, Mohammad Zubair, the governor of Pakistan's Sindh
province, said that the world was witnessing a historic moment, thanks
to China's mega-investment plans, which will make Pakistan a regional
leader. According to Zubair:
<QUOTE>"Pakistan’s economy was facing uncertain situation in
2013. The government worked day and night in its first three
years to revive country’s economy and our hard work has put the
economy on the path of prosperity. Pakistan Stock exchange is now
the best stock exchange of region and its rise is a proof of the
government’s successful economic policies."<END QUOTE>
So Pakistani officials were shocked on November 20, when China
unexpectedly withheld funds for continuing development of three
projects under CPEC, citing massive graft and corruption, and laid out
"new guidelines" for how funds for the CPEC project will be disbursed.
Previously approved financing will have to be resubmitted through new
procedures before funds can be committed.
China has become alarmed by the volatility of Pakistan's civilian
government, including the dismissal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on
charges of graft and corruption, after some of his financial deal were
revealed by the Panama Papers. The terror threats against Chinese
citizens in Pakistan is one reason why China is stipulating greater
involvement of Pakistan's military, while another reason is that China
has lost faith in the civilian government and wants the army to take
responsibility for the project.
According to an analyst:
<QUOTE>"Had corruption been the reason behind the Chinese
step (to block funds), it would, or perhaps should, have happened
in July, when in the context of the Panama Papers, the former
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his relatives were
charged with financial irregularities and corruption, which
prompted the Pakistani Supreme Court to declare Nawaz Sharif
'unfit' for political office, resulting in his dismissal from the
Office of the Prime Minister of the country."<END QUOTE>
Despite the temporary cutoff of funds, a Chinese official visiting
Islamabad sought to reassure Pakistanis that all was well, and that
China wanted to build "a clean corridor, a corridor of integrity":
<QUOTE>"I want to express our strong conviction and
determination to press ahead the CPEC to deliver more benefits to
the people of Pakistan. ...
We want to build a CPEC that is a clean corridor, a corridor of
integrity.
We should also guard against the interference from external forces
and also prevent the domestic disturbances ... to promote the CPEC
construction, so that we can make CPEC a pathway of common
development, a pathway of shared fruits and the shared
future."<END QUOTE>
The unexpected cutoff of funds was a strong message to Pakistan that
China is paying the money, and China is dictating the terms, and the
project will be done China's way or not at all. Dawn (Pakistan) and Daily Times (Pakistan) and Times of India and Express Tribune (Pakistan)
****
**** Pakistan alarmed about a Chinese 'debt trap'
****
As time goes by and the euphoria about China's $55 billion investment
in Pakistan begins to where off, some people are beginning to wonder
if CPEC will actually be a financial disaster for Pakistan.
We've already described
what
happened with Sri Lanka, when China invested $1.2 billion in Sri
Lanka's Hambantota seaport in 2009. The plan was that revenue
generated by the seaport would be used to repay the Chinese, and the
surplus would bring wealth and happiness to all Sri Lankans. It
didn't turn out that way, and the project turned out to be a "debt
trap." Sri Lanka couldn't repay the loan, and now China has taken
control the seaport and the surrounding area. It's been a disaster
for Sri Lanka.
China's CPEC investment is supposed to be paid off the same way. The
CPEC projects would generate revenue from trucks carrying goods along
the CPEC roads and highways. According to analyst estimates, this
turns out to be a fantasy, based on the most optimistic assumptions
possible, just as happened with the Sri Lanka seaport project. If any
of these super-optimistic assumptions fail, which is what usually
happens in real life, then Pakistan's current debt of $6.1 billion to
the IMF will look like chicken feed. Instead of being a financial
bonanza, the debt burden will crush Pakistan's economy.
The IMF has examined the CPEC plans and is said to be "appalled" at
the implications of the project. Its main concern was that Pakistan’s
repayment capacity will remain weak, as the IMF does not see any major
increase in exports in the near future. Express Tribune (Pakistan) and Express Tribune (26-Oct)
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Xinjing, Kashgar,
One Belt One Road, OBOR, Mohammad Zubair,
Nawaz Sharif, Panama Papers,
Belt and Road Initiative, BRI, Silk Road, Economic Belt,
Maritime Silk Road, Sri Lanka, Hambantota seaport,
Pakistan, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, CPEC,
Balochistan, Quetta, India, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, ETIM,
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Al Alami, LeJA,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh
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
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
*** 13-Dec-17 World View -- China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands
- Encirclement patrols follow explicit Chinese war threats against Taiwan
- China unification continues to lose support among the people of Taiwan
****
**** China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands
****
![[Image: g171212b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171212b.jpg)
China military parade (China Daily)
China’s air force has conducted “island encirclement patrols” through
international airspace near Taiwan and between the Japanese islands of
Okinawa and Miyako in the East China Sea. The People’s Liberation
Army Air Force (PLAAF) sent two Xian long-range bombers, two fighter
jets, an electronic countermeasures aircraft, and an electronic
intelligence plane.
China has conducted this kinds of patrols before, but these patrols
were considerably more extensive than in the past. According to
China's state media:
<QUOTE>"The PLA Air Force focused on combat readiness and has
conducted a series of offshore and maritime training. The PLA
warplanes' flight paths are continuously extended, with combat
readiness growing accordingly.
The PLA Air Force's actions are justified and consistent with
international laws and practices. The PLA Air Force will stick to
its set plans and continue to fly further and deeper.
The air force started regular high seas training in 2015. The PLA
planes circling the island of Taiwan will become routine during
their training."<END QUOTE>
China has conducted numerous similar patrols near Taiwan this year,
saying such practices have been normalized as it presses ahead with a
military modernization program that includes building aircraft
carriers and stealth fighters to give it the ability to project power
far from its shores. The Diplomat and Reuters and Global Times
****
**** Encirclement patrols follow explicit Chinese war threats against Taiwan
****
The latest encirclement patrol is thought to be a show of force
following an explicit threat made last week by a Chinese diplomat in
Washington.
Li Kexin, a Chinese embassy official, last Friday said that he has
been thanking Congressional aides for providing China with a reason to
use force to resolve the Taiwan question.
<QUOTE>"I may have to thank you American friends. I said:
‘Are you not going to send military vessels to Taiwan, to
[Taiwan's port of] Kaohsiung?' If you send military vessels over
there, [you] will activate the Anti-Secession Law [of
China]."<END QUOTE>
Picking this apart, Li is making a joke. He's referring to
suggestions from American officials that the US Navy should make port
calls at ports in Taiwan, as it does in many other countries. Li is
saying that any US naval vessel at Taiwan's largest port, Kaohsiung,
would trigger China's Anti-Secession Law, followed by an invasion by
China's armed forces to take control of Taiwan.
The Anti-secession law provoked massive Taiwan riots
when it passed in March, 2005. It orders the
army to invade Taiwan if any Taiwanese official makes any move toward
independence, whether by word or by deed.
Excerpts of the law are as follows:
<QUOTE>"Article 2: There is only one China in the world. Both
the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty
and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's
sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of
all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.
Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan
independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China
under any name or by any means. ...
Article 8: In the event that the "Taiwan independence"
secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to
cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major
incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or
that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be
completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means
and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and
territorial integrity."<END QUOTE>
I've written about the Anti-Secession law many times since 2005, and
I've pointed out many times that statements by Taiwanese officials
seemed to be promoting independence, and that therefore already should
trigger the Anti-Secession Law. On the other hand, it's hard to see
why a port call by a naval vessels, so that the American soldiers
could visit Taipei's bars and perhaps get a drink or a date, would be
promoting independence at all.
Since the threat was issued by a low-level Chinese diplomat in
Washington, and was phrased as a joke, it's hard to see the threat as
intended to be serious. In fact, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman
seemed to play down the threat when asked about it:
<QUOTE>"The position of the Chinese government on the Taiwan
issue, which I believe you and all the journalists here are quite
clear about, is consistent and clear. We will continue adhering to
the policy of "peaceful reunification and one country, two
systems" in an effort to advance the peaceful development of
cross-straits relations and promote the process of peaceful
reunification of our motherland. Meanwhile, we will firmly uphold
national sovereignty and territorial integrity and never tolerate
the recurrence of the historical tragedy of national
division."<END QUOTE>
However, China's state media Global Times is issuing a veiled warning
that Taiwan's ruling DPP party and the US do not understand the full
impact of the anti-secession law, and that an invasion could come at
any time:
<QUOTE>"The island under the Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) has become deficient of both direction and sense of
security.
The Chinese mainland has never given up the option of Taiwan
reunification by force, which is clear to people across the Taiwan
Straits. But Taiwan is not sure what will prompt the PLA's actions
while the DPP has been deceiving Taiwanese that the island will
stay safe whatever it does.
Taiwan knows so little of the mainland's Anti-Secession Law. The
DPP is already approaching the boundary of the law and leading
Taiwan to a wrong direction. The sustainability of the island's
development remains uncertain.
Li's words have sent a warning to Taiwan and drew a clear red
line. If Taiwan attempts to hold an independence referendum or
other activities in pursuit of de jure "Taiwan independence," the
PLA will undoubtedly take action.
This is the cornerstone of Beijing's policy on Taiwan that can't
be shaken and also the will of the entire Chinese nation. ...
Li's words are like warning bells on Taiwan authorities
considering independence by a salami-slicing strategy. Taiwan is
facing what Peking faced in 1949 - being encircled by mainland
forces. Any move that oversteps the boundary will be in
vain."<END QUOTE>
Maritime Executive and Reuters and China Embassy (15-Mar-2005) and China's Foreign Ministry and Global Times
****
**** China unification continues to lose support among the people of Taiwan
****
As I've been describing for years, Taiwan's attitudes toward unifying
Taiwan with China have been increasingly favoring independence, as
younger generations with no memory of the Chinese civil war displace
the survivors that war, when they fled Mao Zedong and China's mainland
in 1949 for the island of Formosa, which eventually became part of the
current Taiwan.
Taiwan's current government party, the Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP), has favored Taiwan's independence since it became prominent in
the 1990s, as a reaction to China's Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
The opposing party is Kuomintang (KMT), which was the party formed by
the Chinese who fled Mao for Formosa. They have traditionally favored
Taiwan's unification with China, with the caveat that they consider
Taiwan's to be the legitimate government of all of China.
The name-calling between the DPP and KMT has been pretty harsh over
the years, so I was a bit surprised to read the following in a Taipei
News news story about the invasion threat:
<QUOTE>"Meanwhile, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Culture
and Communications Committee deputy director-general Hung Meng-kai
said that the KMT would not tolerate any threats or
finger-pointing aimed at the Republic of China’s [Taiwan's]
homeland or the security of its people.
The DPP administration should face up to the importance of
maintaining peaceful cross-strait relations and avoid any
unnecessary misunderstandings that could cause irrepressible
losses to Taiwan, he added."<END QUOTE>
I interpret this as a sign that China's unending stream of belligerent
threats aimed at Taiwan is causing the KMT and DPP to move closer
together and become more unified in opposing unification with China.
This isn't the least bit surprising in view of China's extremely
vitriolic attacks on Taiwan's politicians, especially DPP politicians.
Chinese officials are aware of this trend, and although they pay lip
service to "peaceful unification," everybody is well aware that there
will never be peaceful unification. China is biding its time, waiting
for the right trigger to justify an invasion. It's possible, though
unlikely, that a mere port call would be enough to trigger a major
war, though anything is possible. Taipei Times and China Policy Analysis (22-Mar-2016) and The Diplomat
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, People's Liberation Army, PLA,
Taiwan, Kaohsiung, Li Kexin, Anti-Secession Law,
Chinese Nationalist Party, Kuomintang, KMT,
Democratic Progressive Party, DPP
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
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
12-13-2017, 09:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2017, 10:02 AM by Cynic Hero '86.)
Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for ideological reasons.
An example of Boomers rejecting perfectly good options for purely ideological reasons:
A Boomer on JohnXs Forum Wrote:The choices that we do get to make end up shaping the world we live in.
Ultimately it is that simple: nuke them and be ruled by your environment
or hold back, risk peril, but preserve our ideals and our nation.
We can likely rebuild from the fall out from a nuke. Allies would come to
our side and probably even nuke them for us if we are completely disabled.
I think we have the strength to overcome the challenge similar to the Japanese,
but I don't think America can survive knowing it is the monster.
America while strong and coming from diverse backgrounds is ultimately sewed together by
the delicate thread of our ideals. I think America
will crumble if we drop the bomb. Our ideals
immediately go out the window the second the bomb drops.
So we're supposed to absorb a North Korean attack just so the boomers can preserve their nonsensical ideals. And boomer wonder why Xers and Millies hate them so much?
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
It looks as even one of the most illiberal and most economically-downtrodden of American states (Alabama) has shown that it has limits in what a self-proclaimed conservative Christian can get away with. Bible-thumping, unrepentant pervert Roy Moore was defeated.
Ironically, conservative family values may have finally overpowered the Sexual Revolution of the 1970s. Of course one can be very liberal and live in accordance with conservative family values, especially when those are simply habits that one takes for granted.
Bill Clinton would never get away with his sexcapades today.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
> problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
> to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
> causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
> role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
> strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
> ideological reasons."
I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers." I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm. People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.
So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times. A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:
Quote:> "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes. If we wanted
> to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
> with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
> campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air. It would run a
> minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
> these things once you start pulling triggers.
> And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
> should it survive?
> So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
> missiles. You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
> facilities. You have to go after command and control, air
> defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war. If
> we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
> war. ...
> Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
> or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"
So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish. But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.
North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea. Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.
As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer. Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
12-13-2017, 11:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2017, 11:04 AM by Cynic Hero '86.)
(12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
> problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
> to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
> causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
> role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
> strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
> ideological reasons."
I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers." I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm. People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.
So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times. A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:
Quote:> "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes. If we wanted
> to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
> with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
> campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air. It would run a
> minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
> these things once you start pulling triggers.
> And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
> should it survive?
> So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
> missiles. You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
> facilities. You have to go after command and control, air
> defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war. If
> we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
> war. ...
> Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
> or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"
So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish. But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.
North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea. Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.
As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer. Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more likely to lead to world war.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
> the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
> regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
> headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
> enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
> to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
> (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
> China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
> likely to lead to world war.
The regime will not disarm under any circumstances. They're as insane
as you are.
No, you're incorrect. In the current situation, at the current time,
all options lead to world war.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
12-13-2017, 11:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2017, 12:32 PM by Cynic Hero '86.)
(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
> the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
> regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
> headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
> enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
> to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
> (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
> China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
> likely to lead to world war.
The regime will not disarm under any circumstances. They're as insane
as you are.
No, you're incorrect. In the current situation, at the current time,
all options lead to world war.
They would be compelled to do so (disarm) by force (i.e: war).
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
> problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
> to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
> causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
> role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
> strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
> ideological reasons."
I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers." I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm. People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.
There are rational responses to the dangers of a Crisis Era. Rearmament and shoring up benign alliances are appropriate responses to a foreign Hitler. But against a lunatic fringe in your own country? We need to expose and isolate them.
Quote:So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times. A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:
Quote:> "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes. If we wanted
> to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
> with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
> campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air. It would run a
> minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
> these things once you start pulling triggers.
> And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
> should it survive?
> So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
> missiles. You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
> facilities. You have to go after command and control, air
> defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war. If
> we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
> war. ...
> Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
> or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"
So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish. But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.
North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea. Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.
As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer. Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
You may not have liked Obama, but I could easily see him telling the Chinese, "If the DPRK should fire one missile over Chinese territory, then we will sit by while your armed forces liberate North Korea. OK, maybe our partners might want to annex Kaesong and its surroundings (Kaesong is a city south of the 38th parallel assigned to the DPRK in the ceasefire agreement).
Sanity must now overpower ideology and even economic interests, however much we as persons cherish an ideology or consumer goodies. In a Crisis Era some things matter far more than getting to do whatever one wants of having a government do whatever one wants. What is the old saying -- close counts only in darts and horseshoes -- and I could modernize that to include nuclear strikes. Your mansion, fine cars, fine wines, horses, antiques, and library will do you no good in the event of a nuclear strike that destroys it all in a wave of thermonuclear heat and blast. If you are close enough to the blast, and so is some loathsome crack whore, then you both get incinerated and equalized.
Yes, I am a Boomer, but economic realities have drummed out any selfishness in me that isn't necessary for survival and sanity. Of course I am not part of the obnoxious elite of Boomers who insist that the world revolve around their obnoxious egos.
...I must congratulate the people of Alabama on making the rational and decent choice. It is time that we quit accusing people of nastiness and stupidity just because they come from or live in a "red" or "blue" state. We are all in it together.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 11:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (12-13-2017, 10:49 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The
> problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached
> to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment
> causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that
> role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive
> strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for
> ideological reasons."
I once wrote that I was seriously beginning to doubt your sanity, in
view of your extreme obsession with "selfish boomers." I still doubt
your sanity, but I would make one addendum: Today insanity is the
norm. People realize at some level that a world war is coming, and
they adopt some extreme ideological view to avoid facing what's really
happening.
There are rational responses to the dangers of a Crisis Era. Rearmament and shoring up benign alliances are appropriate responses to a foreign Hitler. But against a lunatic fringe in your own country? We need to expose and isolate them.
Quote:So anyway, I've addressed this "strike on North Korea" issue several
times. A few days ago, I quoted an army general about what would
happen:
Quote:> "This is not a question of a few surgical strikes. If we wanted
> to destroy, DESTROY their capability to build a fleet of ICBMs,
> with mated nuclear warheads, it would require an intensive
> campaign, primarily, not exclusively from the air. It would run a
> minimum of several weeks, possibly months - you can't predict
> these things once you start pulling triggers.
> And ultimately the question is the regime in North Korea: can,
> should it survive?
> So it's not just shooting a couple of launchers, knocking out some
> missiles. You have to go after deep underground bunkers, research
> facilities. You have to go after command and control, air
> defense, intelligence, early warning. And so this is real war. If
> we had to address the North Korea problem militarily, it's a
> war. ...
> Is it better to put American cities at risk of nuclear catastrophe
> or at least nuclear blackmail, or to act while we can?"
So as the last sentence suggests, you're almost certainly going to get
your wish. But while you believe in your troubled, obsessive mind
that a strike on North Korea will be "one and done," the opposite is
true: it will trigger a world war.
North Korea will not stop its program to create an arsenal of
nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles within reach of the entire world,
will sell that technology to rogue states, and will use that
technology to blackmail the US into withdrawing from Japan, South
Korea, and the South China Sea. Trump will not let that happen, which
means that your obsessive wish will come true, which means that we're
on the path to world war.
As for that quote from the Generational Dynamics forum, you didn't
provide a link and I don't recall that quote, but there have been a
number of millennials posting lately, so it may not have come from a
boomer. Don't forget: You may be completely, obsessively insane, but
that insanity is the norm today, shared by groups of boomers, xers and
millennials.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Insanity in individuals is something rare -
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
You may not have liked Obama, but I could easily see him telling the Chinese, "If the DPRK should fire one missile over Chinese territory, then we will sit by while your armed forces liberate North Korea. OK, maybe our partners might want to annex Kaesong and its surroundings (Kaesong is a city south of the 38th parallel assigned to the DPRK in the ceasefire agreement).
Sanity must now overpower ideology and even economic interests, however much we as persons cherish an ideology or consumer goodies. In a Crisis Era some things matter far more than getting to do whatever one wants of having a government do whatever one wants. What is the old saying -- close counts only in darts and horseshoes -- and I could modernize that to include nuclear strikes. Your mansion, fine cars, fine wines, horses, antiques, and library will do you no good in the event of a nuclear strike that destroys it all in a wave of thermonuclear heat and blast. If you are close enough to the blast, and so is some loathsome crack whore, then you both get incinerated and equalized.
Yes, I am a Boomer, but economic realities have drummed out any selfishness in me that isn't necessary for survival and sanity. Of course I am not part of the obnoxious elite of Boomers who insist that the world revolve around their obnoxious egos.
...I must congratulate the people of Alabama on making the rational and decent choice. It is time that we quit accusing people of nastiness and stupidity just because they come from or live in a "red" or "blue" state. We are all in it together.
The US under boomer leadership doesn't really do anything different. Our policies are essentially the same policies we had in 1992. The boomers clearly hated having to make decisions after 9/11 and chose the most risk-adverse strategy possible. Boomers imposed regulation designed not to protect Americans after 9/11, but to prevent the American people from making decisions boomers consider to be "too risky" or "irresponsible".
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for ideological reasons.
Color me confused. Wouldn't a strike on North Korea be exactly what a "world policeman" would do?
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(12-12-2017, 11:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: *** 13-Dec-17 World View -- China's warplanes conduct 'encirclement' patrols around Taiwan's and Japan's islands
You can't encircle a major island with air patrols. I think perhaps a more accurate translation would be "circumnavigation" patrols.
I don't think the KMT's position is an actual shift, but rather a reaction to changing conditions on the mainland. Some kind of power sharing arrangement could have been possible with mainland leaders from Deng to Hua, but Xi is too autocratic to be willing to share power with the KMT in return for reunification.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
12-13-2017, 01:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2017, 03:23 PM by Cynic Hero '86.)
(12-13-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (12-13-2017, 09:28 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Selfish Boomers refuse to allow a strike on North Korea. The problem here is that the selfish boomers are emotionally attached to the idea of america as the world's policeman. This attachment causes boomers to reject any option that contradicts that role. The US has the military assets to carry out a preemptive strike on North Korea, the boomers just refuse to do so for ideological reasons.
Color me confused. Wouldn't a strike on North Korea be exactly what a "world policeman" would do?
Only if we allow the NORKs to fire the first shot. A criminal is not a criminal unless he commits a crime. America has self-defense reasons to strike, but doing so the traditional "policeman" approach would eliminate any chance of achieving the element of surprise. On the other hand striking North Korea is risky but if successful arrives at lots of advantages especially if the strike in in conjunction with an agreement with China over Taiwan and a Yalu DMZ. The option of striking North Korea is not therefore a decision to continue a policeman approach but the beginning of a possible transformation into a garrison and/or an imperial state. For this reason boomers for purely ideological reasons, refuse to take the necessary actions.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
12-13-2017, 11:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-14-2017, 10:46 AM by John J. Xenakis.)
*** 14-Dec-17 World View -- Organization of Islamic Cooperation throws a temper tantrum over Jerusalem
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Organization of Islamic Cooperation throws a temper tantrum over Jerusalem
- Palestinians disappointed by final communiqué of OIC Summit
****
**** Organization of Islamic Cooperation throws a temper tantrum over Jerusalem
****
![[Image: g171213b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171213b.jpg)
A furious Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas shakes his finger on Wednesday as he makes a point (AFP)
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held an "extraordinary"
meeting on Wednesday in Istanbul, Turkey, to
protest last week's declaration by president Donald Trump to order the
recognition of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel.
A furious Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas announced that
because the United States is biased in favor of Israel, it will be
shut out as a mediator in the peace process:
<QUOTE>"The decision violated international law.
We shall not accept any role for the United States in the peace
process. They have proven their full bias in favor of Israel.
Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of the Palestinian
state... There will be no peace, no stability without that.
We will tell the Israelis that we are no longer committed to any
agreement from Oslo until today."<END QUOTE>
Abbas said that he had promised the US not to try to become a full
member of the United Nations, but now said that the Palestinian
Authority intended to return to the United Nations to to gain full
membership:
<QUOTE>"We agreed with America we would not join
international institutions on the condition that American does not
transfer its embassy, does not initiate any action against our
office in Washington, and orders Israel to freeze settlement
building.
If there is no Palestinian state along the June 1967 borders with
Jerusalem as its capital, there will not be peace in the region,
in the territories or in the world. They must
choose."<END QUOTE>
Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel a "terror state"
and called on world powers to recognize east Jerusalem as the capital
of Palestine:
<QUOTE>"With this decision [by the US to recognize Jerusalem
as the Israeli capital], Israel, which is responsible for
occupation, blockade, unlawful settlements, home demolitions,
evictions, land asset appropriations, disproportionate violence
and murders, was rewarded for all its terrorist actions. ...
I invite all countries supporting international law to recognize
Jerusalem as the occupied capital of Palestine. We cannot be late
any more.
The process to include Palestine in international agreements and
institutions should be sped up."<END QUOTE>
The meeting was attended by some 22 heads of state or government,
including those from Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Sudan,
Somalia, Azerbaijan, and Jordan. In addition, some 25 foreign
ministers, including from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and
Kazakhstan, are expected to attend. Saudi Arabia will be represented
by its Islamic affairs minister. Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Deutsche Welle and Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel
****
**** Palestinians disappointed by final communiqué of OIC Summit
****
For several years, Palestinians have been expressing frustration that
the "Palestinian issue" has been largely forgotten by the international
media. Palestinian-Israeli relations used to be one of the top four
or five international stories every day, but in the last 2-3 years
that issue has been displaced by the war in Syria, Brexit, the North
Korean crisis, and other crises.
Palestinian hopes were raised in July, when the thousands of
Palestinians poured into Jerusalem for "days of rage," after Israel
installed metal detectors outside the al-Aqsa Mosque / Temple Mount
compound, in order to deter terrorists. This was the worst violence
in Jerusalem for years, killing several people and injuring hundreds.
The Palestinian cause was once again an international news story, and
they hoped that it would remain so.
The story fizzled out, and when Trump announced that the US would
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Palestinian leaders
called for more "days of rage," hoping at least to duplicate the
intensity of last July's protests, but instead they fizzled out
after a couple of days.
Led by fiery speeches from Abbas and Erdogan, the hope was that this
summit would reignite international attention. Here are some excerpts
from the resolutions in the final communiqué:
<QUOTE>"1- Reject and condemn in the strongest terms the
unilateral decision by the President of the United States America
recognizing Al-Quds [Jerusalem] as the so-called capital of
Israel, the occupying Power; reject it as null and void legally,
and consider it an attack on the historical, legal, natural and
national rights of the Palestinian people, a deliberate
undermining of all peace efforts, an impetus to extremism and
terrorism, and a threat to international peace and security; ...
3- Reaffirm our attachment to the just and comprehensive -peace
based on the two-state solution with east Jerusalem as the capital
of the State of Palestine. ...
6- Hold the US Administration fully liable for all the
consequences of not retracting from this illegal decision; and
regard it as an announcement of the US Administration's withdrawal
from its role as sponsor of peace and its realization among all
stakeholders and an encouragement of Israel, the occupying Power,
to continue its policy of colonialism, settlement, apartheid and
the ethnic cleansing it has been practicing in the occupied
Palestinian territory in 1967, and in the City of Al-Quds
Al-Sharif at its core; ...
8- Declare East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine
and invite all countries to recognize the State of Palestine and
East Jerusalem as its occupied capital."<END QUOTE>
Many analysts consider the OIC Summit to be a failure for several
reasons.
First, it was missing important leaders, notably from Saudi Arabia
and Egypt. Both of these countries have recently developed close
relations with Israel, and are thought to have given tacit
approval to the Jerusalem declaration before it was made.
Second, the final communiqué was entirely symbolic. It made
the usual boilerplate condemnations of Israel and the United
States, but there were no significant follow-on steps listed.
Third, the recommendation to remove the US as Mideast mediator and
replace it with someone else is completely unrealistic. There was
talk of using the United Nations as a mediator, but that will never
produce anything but rhetoric.
Fourth, al-Jazeera "man in the street" interviews in Jerusalem after
the Summit ended indicated that Palestinians were completely
unimpressed with the Summit, because it didn't accomplish anything.
OIC Final Communiqué (PDF) and AP and Al-Jazeera
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC,
Israel, Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas,
Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
al-Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount
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
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (12-13-2017, 11:00 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > The point of a war is to get the regime to disarm, not take out
> the regime unless we have no choice. We deliberately avoided known
> regime targets (like the emperor and the general staff
> headquarters) when we fought Japan in WW2 and simply targeted the
> enemy war machine. The option I point out is the one least likely
> to lead to all-out world war. The options preferred by the boomers
> (either doing nothing or wage a campaign on conditions of allowing
> China to control the end state of North Korea) are much more
> likely to lead to world war.
The regime will not disarm under any circumstances. They're as insane
as you are.
No, you're incorrect. In the current situation, at the current time,
all options lead to world war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVlbhZcVtEU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqXt3sJLH1s
Both videos mention the boomber treason against the United States and the boomers attempt at imposing world government.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(12-13-2017, 11:20 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > The regime will not disarm under any circumstances. They're as
> insane as you are.
> No, you're incorrect. In the current situation, at the current
> time, all options lead to world war.
(12-13-2017, 11:30 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > They would be compelled to do so (disarm) by force (i.e:
> war).
If North Korea were an isolated country then that might be true.
However, China will not permit North Korea's regime to fall. What
you're suggesting is a declaration of war on China.
(12-13-2017, 11:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: > You may not have liked Obama, but I could easily see him telling
> the Chinese, "If the DPRK should fire one missile over Chinese
> territory, then we will sit by while your armed forces liberate
> North Korea. OK, maybe our partners might want to annex Kaesong
> and its surroundings (Kaesong is a city south of the 38th parallel
> assigned to the DPRK in the ceasefire agreement).
I agree with you completely. That statement is so moronic, I
could easily see Obama and Kerry telling it to the Chinese.
(12-13-2017, 01:18 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > You can't encircle a major island with air patrols. I think
> perhaps a more accurate translation would be "circumnavigation"
> patrols.
> I don't think the KMT's position is an actual shift, but rather a
> reaction to changing conditions on the mainland. Some kind of
> power sharing arrangement could have been possible with mainland
> leaders from Deng to Hua, but Xi is too autocratic to be willing
> to share power with the KMT in return for reunification.
Well, I'm just using the word that all the news stories are using.
It's very hard to distinguish perception from reality in the
differences between the DPP and KMT, particularly in view of the
vitriolic treatment that the DPP gets from China.
However, one of the documents that I referenced in my article
contains a detailed historical comparison of the DPP and KMT,
and seems to agree with what you're saying:
https://cpianalysis.org/2016/03/22/90972/
|
