Generational Dynamics World View

[pbrower2a]

Quote:MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Philippine officials say police have filed sedition and other criminal complaints against the vice president, three opposition senators, four Roman Catholic bishops and a university president for allegedly conniving to destabilize President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration.

The Department of Justice says it received the complaints against Vice President Leni Robredo and several Duterte critics Thursday from the police’s investigation arm. Robredo and many of her co-accused have long denied the allegations.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra says he would form a prosecutorial panel, which may start serving subpoenas to the accused next week at the start of an investigation.

The allegations center on a formerly detained crime suspect, Peter Joemel Advincula, who alleged that he plotted with the accused to discredit Duterte and his family by linking them to drug syndicates.

(from an AP news wire)

It looks like a purge to me.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 20-Jul-2019 World View: Iran seizes UK-flagged oil tanker / Operation Sentinel


The news all day Friday was of the seizure by Iran's Revolutionary
Guards Corp (IRGC) of the a British-flagged oil tanker, the Stena
Impero.

However, there were no British crew members aboard. The 23 crew
members are of various nationalities, including India, Russia, Latvia,
India, and the Philippines.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is also running for Prime
Minister, said, "These seizures are unacceptable."

The IRGC seized a second tanker, the Liberian-flagged Mesdar. IRGC
armed guards boarded the ship, but then let it go shortly thereafter.

This appears to be the latest in what some analysts are calling one
inept action after another. Before today, Iran has sabotaged 6
tankers and shot down an American drone. All of these actions might
be called "militarily safe," since they do not involve the death or
capture of American, British or European citizens. Instead, the
purpose of these childish actions is to convince European officials to
put pressure on the Trump administration to remove some sanctions.

But Iran has completely failed in that objective. Instead of now
pressuring the Trump administration to remove the sanctions, the
European officials are harshly condemning Iran, accusing Iran of
"destabilizing the Mideast", and are giving Donald Trump space to brag
about making the right decision to back out of the nuclear deal, and
to make statements like, "Iran is nothing but trouble."

In fact, Iran's actions have had the opposite effect, and caused
attitudes to harden. US Central command has issued two statements.

The first statement announces the movement of troops to Saudi Arabia,
for the first time in decades:

Quote: "In coordination with and at the invitation of the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Secretary of Defense has authorized
the movement of U.S. personnel and resources to deploy to Saudi
Arabia. This movement of forces provides an additional deterrent,
and ensures our ability to defend our forces and interests in the
region from emergent, credible threats. This movement creates
improvement of operational depth and logistical
networks. U.S. Central Command continually assesses force posture
in the region and is working with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
authorities to base U.S. assets at the appropriate
locations."

The number of troops was not specified, but it's believed that the
number will be 500.

The second statement proposes a multinational effort to protect ships
in the Strait of Hormuz from attacks by Iran:

Quote: "U.S. Central Command is developing a multinational
maritime effort, Operation Sentinel, to increase surveillance of
and security in key waterways in the Middle East to ensure freedom
of navigation in light of recent events in the Arabian Gulf
region.

The goal of Operation Sentinel is to promote maritime stability,
ensure safe passage, and de-escalate tensions in international
waters throughout the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, the Bab
el-Mandeb Strait (BAM) and the Gulf of Oman.

This maritime security framework will enable nations to provide
escort to their flagged vessels while taking advantage of the
cooperation of participating nations for coordination and enhanced
maritime domain awareness and surveillance.

While the United States has committed to supporting this
initiative, contributions and leadership from regional and
international partners will be required to succeed.

U.S. officials continue to coordinate with allies and partners in
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East on the details and capabilities
required for Operation Sentinel to enable freedom of navigation in
the region and protect vital shipping lanes."

Much of the debate on television on Friday was over the question of
whether there would be full-scale war between Iran and either the US
or the UK. In my opinion, the probability of such a war is extremely
low, since Iran is in a generational Awakening era, following the 1979
Islamic Revolution, and the younger postwar generations are extremely
hostile to the hardline geezers that survived the revolution.

---- Sources:

-- Iran / U.S. Central Command Statement on Operation Sentinel
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/STATEMENTS...-sentinel/
(Centcom-mil, 19-Jul-2019)

-- U.S. Central Command Statement on movement of U.S. personnel to
Saudi Arabia
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/STATEMENTS...di-arabia/
(Centcom-mil, 19-Jul-2019)

-- Iran's Revolutionary Guard seizes one UK-operated tanker in Strait
of Hormuz, briefly detains another
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-uk-op...-of-hormuz
(FoxNews, 19-Jul-2019)

-- US moves forward on operation to counter Iran, begins sending
troops to Saudi Arabia
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/45398...s-to-saudi
(TheHill, 19-Jul-2019)

[Warren Dew]

(07-19-2019, 11:26 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Much of the debate on television on Friday was over the question of
whether there would be full-scale war between Iran and either the US
or the UK.  In my opinion, the probability of such a war is extremely
low, since Iran is in a generational Awakening era, following the 1979
Islamic Revolution, and the younger postwar generations are extremely
hostile to the hardline geezers that survived the revolution.

The UK and the US are not in awakening eras.  WWII started in noncrisis eras for many of the participants. As far as I can tell, only one side needs to be in a crisis era for a war to become a crisis war.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 21-Jul-2019 World View: War with Iran

(07-19-2019, 11:26 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Much of the debate on television on Friday was over the question
> of whether there would be full-scale war between Iran and either
> the US or the UK. In my opinion, the probability of such a war is
> extremely low, since Iran is in a generational Awakening era,
> following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the younger postwar
> generations are extremely hostile to the hardline geezers that
> survived the revolution.

(07-20-2019, 09:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The UK and the US are not in awakening eras. WWII started in
> noncrisis eras for many of the participants. As far as I can tell,
> only one side needs to be in a crisis era for a war to become a
> crisis war.

You're absolutely right. I was stating my opinion, and if it hadn't
been so late and I hadn't been sooooooooooooo sleepy, I would have
explained further.

As you suggest, there are politicians in both the US and UK who are
calling for military action against Iran, and if they have their way,
then there will be at least a military attack.

The whole subject of a war between two parties, one in a Crisis era
and the other in an Awakening era, has been really fascinating to me.
My favorite example is Napoleon's attack on Russia, where the Russians
cleared out of Moscow and let Napoleon's troops gorge themselves to
death.

** Book I / Chapter 5 -- Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/w...olstoy.htm

So let's imagine what would have to happen to have a war between the
US/UK and Iran.

There would be some kind of military strike in retaliation for Iran's
actions, something like the cruise missile attack on al-Shayrat
Airbase in Syria in April 2017, as a response to al-Assad's use of
Sarin gas. That didn't end in war, and I don't think a similar attack
on Iran would either.

Another possibility is that the US or UK would send in special forces
to free the hostages and recapture the tanker. Since most of the
hostages are Indian, I wouldn't expect that. But if it did happen,
then the special forces would succeed or fail, but either way I
wouldn't expect either side to declare full-scale war.

Another possibility is the US could send in some of those 500 troops
that are now on the way to Saudi Arabia. That's possible, I guess,
but I consider the probability low.

Trump has previously made clear that he's being restrained in making a
military strike against Iran, so he's personally exhibiting Awakening
era behavior, even though the US is in a Crisis era. Iran is in an
Awakening era, so they're going to be restrained as well.

So putting all those random thoughts together, I consider the
probability of a war to extremely low, for several reasons, but the
main one is that Iran is in an Awakening era and will not want to do
anything that triggers a declaration of war by the US or UK. I expect
this situation to be resolved in some other way.

I would explain it some more, but it's late and I'm sooooooooooo
sleepy.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 21-Jul-2019 World View: Racial civil war in America

Guest Wrote:> Group membership, aka ethnonationalism, is one of the most
> powerful underlying forces of human psychology, hence why I view
> the coming US Civil/Race War as inevitable and why sides must be
> chosen.

That was an interesting discussion that happened overnight. Glad I
slept through it. A lot of the racist stuff is fatuous nonsense,
referencing political rants that are directed against whites and have
nothing to do with race. Many idiotic things were said.

There will certainly be isolated instances of rioting and looting in
this Crisis era, and some of it may even be racial, but there is
absolutely nothing in American history to support the idea of an
organic, racial civil war.

The American Civil War of the 1860s was not such a war. There was
nothing organic about it. It was a highly organized war between the
Northern and Southern armies. And almost nothing happened after the
war ended to perpetuate it.

You could argue that there were many instances of violence after the
Civil War. The Democratic Party had opposed ending slavery, and after
the war, the Democratic party launched a military wing, the Ku Klux
Klan, against its political enemies, the Republicans. The KKK
particularly targeted blacks with violence during the Reconstruction
Period, and then for decades afterward. But the KKK violence toward
blacks only consisted of isolated instances, and never "caught on" in
an organic way, that might have lead to a more significant war, even
during the 1930s, which was a generational Crisis era. There was
plenty of left-wing violence in the 1930s, but it was mostly motivated
by economics, rarely by race.

Today, the fascist organization Antifa is arguably the successor to
the Ku Klux Klan as a new military wing of the Democratic party, but
Antifa's violence is not directed towards blacks but towards whites in
the Tea Party who are now Trump supporters. Violence and incitement
of violence against Tea Partiers began years ago, with Democrats using
the invective "teabaggers," which is the modern day equivalent of the
n-word, and with people like Obama's close friend and advisor James
Hoffa, head of the Teamsters Union, calling for violence and war
against Tea Partiers with language like: "We are ready to march.
Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an
America where we belong." Today you have congresswoman Maxine Waters
repeatedly inciting violence against Trump supporters by telling
Democrats to confront them in restaurants and gas stations.

Left-wing violence has been increasing gradually for years,
and the fascist organization Antifa has been leading the way.
I expect Antifa violence to continue growing.

But once again, the Antifa violence is not "catching on" in an organic
way that might lead to a racial civil war, especially since the
fascist Antifa is targeting white political opponents, not blacks.

If you live in New York City, you may end up being at the epicenter of
one of those isolated riots, especially with the mayor Bill de Blasio
doing all he can to incite racial violence.

However, even in NY city there's little to suggest that an organic
racial war is coming. Here, from Wikipedia, is a list of all
the NY City riots:

• 1712 – New York Slave Revolt occurred on April 6, when Africans
  set fire to a building and attacked settlers
  
• 1741 – New York Conspiracy occurred when a series of fires March
  through April burned portions of the city
  
• 1788 – Doctors Mob Riot, occurred in April over the illegal
  procurement of corpses from the graves of slaves and poor whites
  
• 1834 – Anti-abolitionist riot, occurred from July 7 to July 10
  over abolitionism
  
• 1837 – Flour Riots, occurred February 12, when merchant stores
  were sacked, destroying or looting 500-600 barrels of flour and 1,000
  bushels of wheat
  
• 1844 – Brooklyn riot, occurred on April 4 between nativists and
  Irish immigrants.
  
• 1849 – Astor Place riot, occurred May 10 at the Astor Opera House
  between immigrants and nativi
  
• 1857 – New York City Police Riot occurred June 16 between the New
  York Municipal Police and the Metropolitan Police over the Mayor's
  appointment for the position of city street commissioner
  
• 1857 – Dead Rabbits Riot, occurred July 4 through 5 and consisted
  of widespread gang violence and looting
  
• 1863 – New York City draft riots, occurred July 13 through 16 in
  response to government efforts to draft men to fight in the ongoing
  American Civil War.
  
• 1870 – First New York City Orange riot, occurred July 12 when
  demonstrators clashed with hecklers and laborers during a parade
  
• 1871 – Second New York City Orange riot, occurred July 12 when
  Orangemen, police and militia clashed with the crowd during a parade
  
• 1874 – Tompkins Square riot, occurred January 13 when the New York
  City Police Department clashed with demonstrators
  
• 1917 – New York City Food Riot, occurred February 20 over
  shortages related to World War I
  
• 1919 – May Day Riots
  
• 1922 – Straw Hat Riot, occurred September 13 and 14 when gangs of
  boys stole hats throughout the city and assaulted those who resisted
  
• 1935 – Harlem riot, occurred March 19–20, sparked by rumors of the
  beating of a teenage shoplifter
  
• 1943 – Harlem riot, occurred August 1 and 2 following the nonfatal
  shooting of Robert Bandy by a white police officer
  
• 1964 – Harlem riot, occurred July 16 through 22, following the
  fatal police shooting of a 15-year-old African American bystander
  
• 1968 – New York City riot, occurred April 4 and 5 following the
  assassination of Martin Luther King
  
• 1968 – Columbia University protests, occurred April 23 in response
  to the Vietnam War and segregation
  
• 1969 – Stonewall riots, occurred June 28 through July 2 as a
  series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay
  (LGBT) community in response to a police raid of the Stonewall Inn
  
• 1970 – Hard Hat Riot, occurred May 8 in a confrontation between
  construction workers and protesters of the Vietnam War, the Kent State
  shootings, and the U.S. invasion of Cambodia
  
• 1973 – Shooting of Clifford Glover, occurred on April 28 and led
  to several days of rioting in the South Jamaica neighborhood
  
• 1977 – New York City Blackout riot, occurred July 13 and 14, when
  widespread looting and arson followed a power outage
  
• 1988 – Tompkins Square Park riot, occurred August 6 and 7 as
  protesters against a city imposed curfew clashed with police
  
• 1991 – Crown Heights riot, occurred August 19 through 21 between
  black and Orthodox Jewish residents after two children of Guyanese
  immigrants were unintentionally struck by an automobile
  
• 1992 – Washington Heights riots, occurred July 4 through 7
  following the fatal police shooting of Jose Garcia, a Puerto
  Rican. One man was killed after falling five stories off a building,
  15 were injured and 11 were arrested.
  
• 2011 – Occupy Wall Street (Brooklyn Bridge
  protests). Demonstrators blocked the bridge and more than 700 people
  were arrested. Brooklyn, New York
  
• 2013 – Flatbush Riots, on March 11, a candlelight vigil was held
  in response to the police shooting death of 16-year-old Kimani Gray,
  who allegedly pointed a .38 caliber pistol at the officers. The
  demonstration turned violent due to disappointment that no public
  officials had attende. At least one person was injured and a Rite Aid
  store was looted and damaged. There was one arrest on disorderly
  conduct. Violence continued on March 12 resulting in two officers
  receiving minor injuries and 46 arrests, mostly for disorderly
  conduct.

You look through this list and see that there are three or four racial
riots in Harlem, but the vast majority of riots just involved whites
-- anti-draft, antiwar, economic, and so forth.

So someone living in NY City might feel that he's in the epicenter of
crisis era riots, but there's absolutely no sign that any of these
riots will spread out of NYC in an organic way. No one outside of NYC
gives a shit what happens in NYC anyway. There is simply no
historical evidence at all that points to a racial civil war.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 22-Jul-2019 World View: Hong Kong riots become more dangerous with introduction of 'Triads'

• Men wearing white shirts filmed attacking protesters in Hong
  Kong on Sunday

The riots in Hong Kong became substantially more dangerous over the
weekend when the pro-democracy protesters and ordinary civilians were
attacked by unidentified men in white shirts. Videos on social media
shows men in white storming a metro station and beating people with
batons and steel rods. At least 46 people were injured.

The attack by the men in white shirts was very well organized,
suggesting that the attack had been planned for several days.

It's generally believed that the attacks were organized by Beijing
security forces, who didn't want to be seen getting their own hands
dirty. The Hong Kong police watched the attacks, but made no attempt
to intervene, or to respond to injured civilians begging for help.

In 1949, following the end of China's civil war that led to the
independence of Communist China, many people fled to Hong Kong and
continued on to Formosa to form the Republic of China in Taiwan.

However, many of the people who fled China remained in Hong Kong, then
a British colony, and during the 1960s-70s formed a number of criminal
gangs. Some of these criminal gangs identified themselves as "the
Triad," referring to anti-government gangs in China in the 1600s.

These criminal gangs have evolved, and it's now believed that Beijing
co-opted some of them to conduct Sunday's attacks on unarmed
civilians. Some of these gangs are being called "Triads," although
that connection is currently informal, pending further investigation.

Whether they're Triads or not, it's believed that Beijing controls
these criminal gangs. I frequently refer to the utter stupidity of
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), implementing some of the stupidest
policies in the history of the world, such as locking millions of
Uighurs up in concentration camps and crematoria.

So I can imagine some idiot in Beijing saying, "We don't want to be
blamed for the violence in Hong Kong, so let's hire some white-shirted
thugs to beat the crap out of innocent civilians." This would be one
more example of the stupidity of the CCP.

This is a major escalation in the violence in Hong Kong, and brings
closer the day when the CCP will initiate full-scale violence in Hong
Kong.

Another major escalation over the weekend was that a small group of
protesters painted pro-democracy anti-Beijing graffiti on the outside
walls of the Beijing Liaison Office building, which serves as
Beijing's embassy in Hong Kong. This would be considered a major
affront to the Chinese Communist Party.



---- Sources:

-- Triads linked to violent pro-China gangs as Hong Kong protests
enter dangerous new phase
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/triads...529ln.html
(Sydney Morning Post, 22-Jul-2019)

-- A brief history of Hong Kong’s triad gangs
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-...riad-gangs
(South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, 4-Feb-2017)

-- Hong Kong’s protests are spreading
https://www.inkstonenews.com/politics/ho...le/3018652
(Inkstone, 15-Jul-2019)

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Jul-2019 World View: Everyone's happy with proposed bipartisan budget deal

The House and Nancy Pelosi have reached agreement with Donald Trump
about a budget deal. This is being hailed as a rare moment of
bipartisan cooperation. The proposed agreement still has to be passed
by both houses of Congress and signed by Trump.

The terms are:

• The budget deal is for two years.
  
• It will prevent a government shutdown in the fall, since the
  national debt limit will be increased.
  
• There will be a lot of spending on social programs.
  
• There will be a lot of spending on the military.
  
• It's almost free, increasing the public debt from a mere $22
  trillion to a mere $23 trillion.

There are some Debbie Downers, like Rand Paul and other so-called
"fiscal conservatives," who are whining that this is going to
negatively affect our grandchildren, who will have to pay the bill.

Such protests are silly. To reduce the deficit, we'd have to cut
social programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, and a thousand
others. You'd have to be totally delusional to believe that could
happen.

Long-time readers will be aware that I was always posting various
charts that showed such things as surging public debt, surging
price/earnings ratios, super-exponential growth of stock prices, sharp
falls in velocity of money, and so forth.

But basically I've decided it's not worth the trouble. If we're going
to a world war with China, and we are, then what difference does it
make whether the public debt is $22 trillion or $23 trillion? Either
figure might as well be infinity.

That reminds me that 10-12 years ago I used to make reference to the
1950s book by George Gamow, One, Two, Three ... Infinity. That
book title kept popping into my mind whenever I thought about public
debt. So today we're pretty much at infinity.

Some major financial event (such as the collapse of Deutsche Bank or a
stock market panic somewhere) could trigger a chain of bankruptcies
that lead to a global financial crisis and a world war. Or,
alternatively, some geopolitical event (such as the rapid
deterioration of law and order in Hong Kong that I've been reporting
on) could trigger a regional conflict that spreads to a world war, and
causes a global financial crisis. Either way, it doesn't really
matter whether the debt is $22 trillion or $23 trillion.

And at that point, is Higgenbotham has pointed out, the living will be
envious of the dead.

So we might as well lean back and enjoy the Biblical proverb, "Eat,
drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

---- Sources:

-- Trump announces 'real compromise' on budget deal, as fiscal hawks
and some Dems cry foul
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-b...al-leaders
(FoxNews, 23-Jul-2019)

-- Budget deal / Why a strange bit of bipartisanship may be breaking
out
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...aking-out/
(WaPost, 22-Jul-2019)

[David Horn]

(07-23-2019, 09:53 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: There are some Debbie Downers, like Rand Paul and other so-called "fiscal conservatives," who are whining that this is going to negatively affect our grandchildren, who will have to pay the bill.

Such protests are silly.  To reduce the deficit, we'd have to cut social programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, and a thousand others.  You'd have to be totally delusional to believe that could happen.

In good times, deficits should be at or even below zero, so getting there means raising taxes in a meaningful way and cutting spending. Spending cuts do not have to be, and actually should not be, to social programs, since underfunding them merely shifts costs elsewhere to cover the blowback. For example, undernourished people are more likely to get sick. The homeless likewise, plus they are often a risk to themselves and others. The defense budget, on the other hand, is so bloated that the size of the bloat can't even be determined. Whack off $100 Billion, and see if it makes a difference. If not, repeat until it does.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Jul-2019 World View: Frustrated Syria, Russia step up Idlib bombing

In an all too familiar pattern, Syrian and Russian bombers have been
targeting marketplaces, hospitals and schools in Syria's Idlib
province, threatening and killing as many women and children as
possible. Idlib was supposed to be a ceasefire "de-escalation zone,"
but that was never more than a cover to give Syria's psychopathic
monster president the necessary time for Syria and Russia prepare to
finish the full-scale genocide and ethnic cleansing of al-Assad's
Sunni Arab opponents, including civilians.

The only thing that's missing so far is the use of chemical weapons --
chlorine gas and Sarin gas -- which al-Assad used with impunity in
Aleppo, Ghouta, Daraa, and other de-escalation zones. I wouldn't be
surprise to see chemical weapons used soon.

There's a big difference between Idlib versus Aleppo, Ghouta, Daraa,
and previous de-escalation zones: Civilians in the early zones were
permitted to flee to Idlib, but "there's no Idlib for Idlib," meaning
that there's no way place to flee.

Al-Assad has repeatedly said that he will take full control of Idlib,
and eliminate the entire population of over 3 million people, all of
whom he says are "terrorists," to be killed like cockroaches. Since
there's no Idlib for the "terrorists" to escape to from Idlib,
al-Assad probably thought that he could simply exterminate them in a
few months at his leisure.

However, the fact that the Idlib population is trapped has apparently
created another reality. Since they can't escape, they're standing
and fighting, and news reports indicate that for the last few weeks,
Syria's army has not gained any ground. Al-Assad and the Russians are
now responding by increasing the bombing on markets, hospitals and
schools, but so far it hasn't worked.

There's another dynamic here. Turkey already hosts 3.5 million
Syrians that have escaped from al-Assad's violence, and doesn't want
to have to host another million or two from Idlib.

Therefore, some reports indicate that Turkey is supplying arms to the
anti-Assad rebels, helping them to hold back the Syrian army. That's
why I say that the desperate psychopath al-Assad will almost certainly
turn to chemical weapons before long.

According to reports, Turkey is taking some other steps as well.

Turkey has taken advantage of the chaos to take control of a buffer
zone in Syria, along the border with Syria.

Also, there are reports that Turkey is deporting hundreds of Syrians
who entered illegally or are believed to have engaged in criminal
activities.

The broader picture is that I remain continually astonished that there
are three Holocausts going on today in three different countries
today, all targeting Sunni Muslims -- China's genocide and ethnic
cleansing of Uighurs and Kazakhs, Myanmar's (Burma's) genocide and
ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas, and Syria's (Bashar al-Assad's)
genocide and ethnic cleansing of his Arab Sunni enemies. After
hearing "Never Again!" over and over again for decades, referring to
the Nazi genocide targeting Jews, it continues to astonish me that
there are three Holocausts going on today, and nobody cares.


---- Sources:

-- Russia and Syria step up airstrikes against civilians in Idlib
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/j...s-in-idlib
(Guardian, London, 22-Jul-2019)

-- 'Boundless criminality': Idlib market bombing toll rises to 38
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas...58010.html
(Al-Jazeera, 23-Jul-2019)

-- Russian jets strike Idlib market, killing 50 civilians in northwest
Syria
https://www.dailysabah.com/syrian-crisis...n-nw-syria
(Al-Sabah, Ankara, 23-Jul-2019)

-- As Idlib burns, Turkey focuses on another corner of Syria
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina...burns.html
(Al-Monitor, 23-Jul-2019)

[John J. Xenakis]

** 23-Jul-2019 Deficits

(07-23-2019, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: > In good times, deficits should be at or even below zero, so
> getting there means raising taxes in a meaningful way and cutting
> spending. Spending cuts do not have to be, and actually should
> not be, to social programs, since underfunding them merely shifts
> costs elsewhere to cover the blowback. For example,
> undernourished people are more likely to get sick. The homeless
> likewise, plus they are often a risk to themselves and others.
> The defense budget, on the other hand, is so bloated that the size
> of the bloat can't even be determined. Whack off $100 Billion,
> and see if it makes a difference. If not, repeat until it does.
>

Lol! This is the totally delusional left wing view of cutting
deficits.

It's the mirror image of the equally delusional right wing view that
cutting taxes cuts deficits.

Both the left and the right are totally, completely delusional about
almost everything have to do with economics. They just have different
delusions.

[David Horn]

(07-23-2019, 08:46 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 23-Jul-2019 Deficits

(07-23-2019, 12:58 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   In good times, deficits should be at or even below zero, so
>   getting there means raising taxes in a meaningful way and cutting
>   spending.  Spending cuts do not have to be, and actually should
>   not be, to social programs, since underfunding them merely shifts
>   costs elsewhere to cover the blowback.  For example,
>   undernourished people are more likely to get sick.  The homeless
>   likewise, plus they are often a risk to themselves and others.
>   The defense budget, on the other hand, is so bloated that the size
>   of the bloat can't even be determined.  Whack off $100 Billion,
>   and see if it makes a difference. If not, repeat until it does.
>  

Lol!  This is the totally delusional left wing view of cutting
deficits.

It's the mirror image of the equally delusional right wing view that
cutting taxes cuts deficits.

Both the left and the right are totally, completely delusional about
almost everything have to do with economics.  They just have different
delusions.

Except for the very real issue: cutting taxes has always created more debt, Kennedy's cut of top rates from 90% to 70% being the sole exception.  And I thought you  conservative types like to cut spending to cut the deficit.  Is military spending sacrosanct?  It shouldn't be, considering how miserable a job of budget management DoD has done for decades.

And why, in God's name, do we need annual spending on "defense" exceeding the combined spending of the next seven or eight nations combined? Is DoD that wasteful?

[Warren Dew]

(07-23-2019, 08:42 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The broader picture is that I remain continually astonished that there
are three Holocausts going on today in three different countries
today, all targeting Sunni Muslims -- China's genocide and ethnic
cleansing of Uighurs and Kazakhs, Myanmar's (Burma's) genocide and
ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas, and Syria's (Bashar al-Assad's)
genocide and ethnic cleansing of his Arab Sunni enemies.  After
hearing "Never Again!" over and over again for decades, referring to
the Nazi genocide targeting Jews, it continues to astonish me that
there are three Holocausts going on today, and nobody cares.

The Nazi holocaust was mostly objected to in retrospect.  I strongly suspect a part of that was to justify the Allied bombing of hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians as the lesser evil - plus the fact that many Jewish German expatriates came to the US and formed a political lobby with an interest in keeping the memory of that holocaust alive.

After the crisis war, the current ethnic cleansings might loom larger.  Then again, if we end up on the side of the Shiites and against the Sunnis as you predict, and if we win, we might just sweep it all under the rug.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 24-Jul-2019 Liberals and cutting the deficit

(07-24-2019, 01:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: > Except for the very real issue: cutting taxes has always created
> more debt, Kennedy's cut of top rates from 90% to 70% being the
> sole exception. And I thought you conservative types like to cut
> spending to cut the deficit. Is military spending sacrosanct? It
> shouldn't be, considering how miserable a job of budget management
> DoD has done for decades.

I don't know why you're shouting at me. You just quoted me as
saying that the belief that cutting taxes reduces the deficit
is delusional. So I agreed with you.

Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm hated and despised equally by both
liberals and conservatives, and I get insulted by both sides.
Examples of some of the names that conservatives have called me are
"libtard," "scumbag globalist," and "liberal Trojan horse sent to
destroy conservativism from within." As I said, both liberals and
conservatives are totally delusional -- they just have different
delusions.

Generational Dynamics is completely non-political and non-ideological.
It reaches conclusions by applying MIT's System Dynamics to population
flows, and incorporates historical analysis, chaos theory, complexity
theory, and technological forecasting. I've now developed a huge
body of knowledge, with generational analyses of hundreds of countries
and eras, a body of knowledge which is unmatched anywhere.

(07-24-2019, 01:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: > And why, in God's name, do we need annual spending on "defense"
>
> exceeding the combined spending of the next seven or eight nations
> combined? Is DoD that wasteful?

We're headed for a world war with the other side led by China. So
that would be one reason, in God's name, why we need spending on the
military.

You make the standard leftist claim that cutting the military budget
would cut the deficit.

Even a leftist can understand that the deficit would not be cut. If
the military budget were cut, then Democrats and the left would
immediately demand that all that money go into buying votes for
Democrats .... errr ... I mean spending on social programs, social
workers, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, and so forth.

In fact, cutting the military budget would actually increase the
deficit. The reason is that Democrats and the left would demand to
spend the available money on new entitlements. Those entitlements
would grow exponentially, cause the deficit to grow exponentially. So
cutting the military budget would only increase the deficit -- and
also would lead to Chinese victory.

I would say that I hope that the first Chinese nuclear missile strikes
whatever town you live in, since you deserve it, but actually what I
really hope is that it will strike where I live, and hopefully kill me
quickly and painlessly.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(07-23-2019, 09:53 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 23-Jul-2019 World View: Everyone's happy with proposed bipartisan budget deal

The House and Nancy Pelosi have reached agreement with Donald Trump
about a budget deal.  This is being hailed as a rare moment of
bipartisan cooperation.  The proposed agreement still has to be passed
by both houses of Congress and signed by Trump.

The terms are:

• The budget deal is for two years.
  
• It will prevent a government shutdown in the fall, since the
  national debt limit will be increased.
  
• There will be a lot of spending on social programs.
  
• There will be a lot of spending on the military.
  
• It's almost free, increasing the public debt from a mere $22
  trillion to a mere $23 trillion.
  

There are some Debbie Downers, like Rand Paul and other so-called
"fiscal conservatives," who are whining that this is going to
negatively affect our grandchildren, who will have to pay the bill.

Such protests are silly.  To reduce the deficit, we'd have to cut
social programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, and a thousand
others.  You'd have to be totally delusional to believe that could
happen.

Long-time readers will be aware that I was always posting various
charts that showed such things as surging public debt, surging
price/earnings ratios, super-exponential growth of stock prices, sharp
falls in velocity of money, and so forth.

But basically I've decided it's not worth the trouble.  If we're going
to a world war with China, and we are, then what difference does it
make whether the public debt is $22 trillion or $23 trillion?  Either
figure might as well be infinity.

That reminds me that 10-12 years ago I used to make reference to the
1950s book by George Gamow, One, Two, Three ...  Infinity. That
book title kept popping into my mind whenever I thought about public
debt.  So today we're pretty much at infinity.

Some major financial event (such as the collapse of Deutsche Bank or a
stock market panic somewhere) could trigger a chain of bankruptcies
that lead to a global financial crisis and a world war.  Or,
alternatively, some geopolitical event (such as the rapid
deterioration of law and order in Hong Kong that I've been reporting
on) could trigger a regional conflict that spreads to a world war, and
causes a global financial crisis.  Either way, it doesn't really
matter whether the debt is $22 trillion or $23 trillion.

And at that point, is Higgenbotham has pointed out, the living will be
envious of the dead.

So we might as well lean back and enjoy the Biblical proverb, "Eat,
drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

---- Sources:

-- Trump announces 'real compromise' on budget deal, as fiscal hawks
  and some Dems cry foul
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-b...al-leaders
(FoxNews, 23-Jul-2019)

-- Budget deal / Why a strange bit of bipartisanship may be breaking
  out
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...aking-out/
(WaPost, 22-Jul-2019)

Face it disgusting boomer, you don't want any kind of civilization to exist after the "boomer era" is over, you and other elite boomers like you hate humanity and want it to die along with your subpar generation. Because you know if civilization exists to write history books after boomers they would record your generation as being among the worst of the worst. Nobody outside of the beltway elite likes the idea of continuing the 3T indefinitely. You reject any genuine solution NOT because such would be impossible but instead the reason you are confident of failure of such initiatives is because as long as your generation is running things any genuine reform initiatives would be blocked. But we are rejecting the end of the human race that the boomers want: Xers and Millies will save the world from your evil generation elites. Boomer elites are the one of have obligations to society not the other way around: you owe us, not the other way around.

Your generations violation of its prerogatives is blatantly obvious; we the people can't even freely choose simple electoral candidates anymore without the elites ramming through their disgusting preferences; the Boomer DNC forced Hillary down the voters throats in 2016, and the Boomer RNC tried to do the same by forcing Jeb Bush down the voters throats except the attempt was repulsed and we got Trump (who the elites clearly did not want to be the nominee) instead who then won the election. Now globalists are putting a leash on president Trumps Neck and a political gun to his head in order to force through globalist preferences regarding US policy. Bolton overrules President Trumps initiatives in Syria and North Korea and is attempt to negotiate peace with Kim Jong Un are sabotaged by Bolton. Outside of the beltway, the Boomer DNC again is attempting tyranny by showing blatantly obvious signs of wanting to ram Kamala Harris down the voters throats when the primaries have barely even started. Non-Boomers and Non-Globalists clearly oppose elite boomers here and other globalists plan to commit a world wide hara-kiri. Do you globalists even care that the citizens are not on board with your programs and have clearly signaled such that they are not on board?

[David Horn]

John, you have to get rid of this text editor, It's only 30 years out of date! No one, and I mean NO ONE, uses fixed line length texting anymore. HTML -- even in its infancy -- has always used text wrapping.

(07-24-2019, 08:06 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 24-Jul-2019 Liberals and cutting the deficit

(07-24-2019, 01:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   Except for the very real issue: cutting taxes has always created more debt, Kennedy's cut of top rates from 90% to 70% being the sole exception. And I thought you conservative types like to cut spending to cut the deficit.  Is military spending sacrosanct? It shouldn't be, considering how miserable a job of budget management DoD has done for decades.

I don't know why you're shouting at me.  You just quoted me as saying that the belief that cutting taxes reduces the deficit is delusional.  So I agreed with you.

OK, fair enough. I'll accept your self characterization as definitive, because everyone gets to be who they wish to be.

(07-24-2019, 08:06 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 01:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: >   And why, in God's name, do we need annual spending on "defense" exceeding the combined spending of the next seven or eight nations combined? Is DoD that wasteful?  

We're headed for a world war with the other side led by China.  So that would be one reason, in God's name, why we need spending on the military.

You make the standard leftist claim that cutting the military budget would cut the deficit.

Even a leftist can understand that the deficit would not be cut.  If the military budget were cut, then Democrats and the left would immediately demand that all that money go into buying votes for Democrats .... errr ... I mean spending on social programs, social workers, Planned Parenthood, labor unions, and so forth.

In fact, cutting the military budget would actually increase the deficit.  The reason is that Democrats and the left would demand to spend the available money on new entitlements.  Those entitlements would grow exponentially, cause the deficit to grow exponentially.  So cutting the military budget would only increase the deficit -- and also would lead to Chinese victory.

I would say that I hope that the first Chinese nuclear missile strikes whatever town you live in, since you deserve it, but actually what I really hope is that it will strike where I live, and hopefully kill me quickly and painlessly.

Cutting defense would be wise on two fronts, one in your wheelhouse. Starting there, no nation state can be effective if it's unable to self finance, and we're already at the point that self finance of the massive debt we have makes that questionable. Let's not add to the problem. Second, there is no justification for the spending, based solely on results. Are we getting anything close to the value of the money spent? I doubt it. That's unquestionable in the contracting realm, where it's easy to just OK every cost overrun or missed commitment. The defense budget is simply larded to the point it's defeating its own purpose. That' needs to be addressed, and no time is better than the present.

As far as spending on social programs, they have one redeeming virtue that defense spending lacks: the money is put back into the economy quickly and efficiently. The poor spend their money. The rich, and by extension large corporations, tend to horde their wealth. Worse, the products they create and the services they perform are isolated from the economy, and only benefit the providers. No one, to my knowledge, is in the market for an F-35 or a guided missile cruiser.

And finally, your guilting me and others on making the nation less safe is a joke. China has no interest in starting a war with us. They want to dominate the Pacific Rim and what remains of the Third World. This they are doing thorough their Belt and Road initiative, not by threatening war. If there is any potential risk of war, its miscalculation by the world's chest beaters, and our defense budget has zero impact on that. More to the point, our ability to respond is not enhanced by more spending either.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-Jul-2019 Disgusting Boomers

(07-25-2019, 01:08 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Face it disgusting boomer, you don't want any kind of civilization
> to exist after the "boomer era" is over, you and other elite
> boomers like you hate humanity and want it to die along with your
> subpar generation.

What happened to you? Your rants seem even more hysterical and
dysfunctional than usual. Did something change? Did your father
finally disown because you're a complete idiot?

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-Jul-2019 World View: Han chinese

Guest Wrote:> Mainlanders speak Mandarin, but they are made up of all kinds of
> people like Manchus, Koreans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Hakkas,
> etc.Ethnic minorities have their own languages and
> dialects. Saying someone is 'Chinese' is like saying someone is
> 'European'. Han Chinese dominate, but even they are divided
> too. Shanghai has it's own dialect, and the Shanghaise have fought
> back against attempts by Beijing to destroy their language and
> culture.

> China will break up, but it will not be a clean North/South break
> like you envision. The 1920s was not a clean break
> either. Regionalism is stronger now that it was 25 years ago. As
> communism has weakened, regionalism has strengthened. Life was
> much better for the common Chinese in the 1980s. Now most people
> are hungry and unhappy. Even most of the Han Chinese are angry. I
> don't know if the Beijing mafia will be able to redirect the anger
> of the poor against Canto Hong Kongers. Poor Chinese are not
> stupid.

That's an interesting analysis, and obviously correct, but it does go
against the CCP's Master Race message identifying Han Chinese in the
Middle Kingdom as "yellow race, black hair, brown eyes, yellow skin,"
and the rest of the world as barbarians.

There's a new story today about clashes in Australia between Hong
Kongers and mainlanders:


** Hong Kong and mainland China students clash at rally at Australian university
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australas...australian
(SCMP, 24-Jul-2019)

Also, protesters are getting trolled by mainlanders. Here's a
cartoon from Facebook:

• A reaction image posted by Chinese online trolls on Facebook
  on July 22. The caption reads: “No matter how much chaos you guys
  make, China is still your dad.” The Di Ba watermark says: Di Ba
  Central Army Special Seal.
  
  https://qz.com/1672487/chinas-internet-t...rotesters/
  

[Cynic Hero '86]

There is No moral Basis/Lesson from a hypothetical near future war with either Russia/China or Both. The Moral Lesson of the Civil war was that "slavery was evil", the Moral lesson of WW2 was that "genocide was evil" there is no currently outstanding Moral lesson of war with Russia or War with China. It is the US that is interfering in Russia and China's internal affairs, not the other way around. We Must Respect Russian, Chinese, Syrian and North Korean sovereignty. International Borders are sacrosanct and idealists morality has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity of said borders. Globalist Atlanticist elite boomers are regarded by practically everyone most nations including the US populace and by everyone of all generations outside of their globalist cadre as a bunch of crazed radicals. It is the DC beltway elites here that need to be restrained not those of the Kremlin or the Forbidden City.

[John J. Xenakis]

** 25-Jul-2019 War with China

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > John, you have to get rid of this text editor, It's only 30 years
> out of date! No one, and I mean NO ONE, uses fixed line length
> texting anymore. HTML -- even in its infancy -- has always used
> text wrapping.

Don't blame the editor. It's true that I'm using Emacs, which is a
1970s editor, but I'm using the latest 2019 version of GNU Emacs, and
Emacs is perfectly capable of handling arbitrarily long lines when I
need them.

I do all my editing in Emacs -- whether I'm writing my book, articles,
posts, scripts, HTML, Java code, C++ code, SQL code, etc. I very much
appreciate the fact that I can edit almost anything using the same
hotkeys, the same macros, and the same formatting. So I have macros
that can convert paragraphs with short lines into one long line, or
vice versa. I keep almost everything on my disk in a 70-80 margin
format, and that works very well for me. I post messages with the
same margins, and I've been doing so online for decades.

Also, short lines are the easiest to read, since you can speed read
the text without having to move your eyes as you scroll. That's why
newspapers are printed in columns.

I've probably posted hundreds of thousands of messages to thousands or
tens of thousands of people. In all that time, only one person has
ever complained about the short lines, or even pointed them out, and
that one person out of tens of thousands is you.

Which leads me to ask: Why is this even an issue for you?

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > OK, fair enough. I'll accept your self characterization as
> definitive, because everyone gets to be who they wish to be.

The reason that you think that I and Generational Dynamics are
"conservative" is because Neil Howe and David Kaiser are far left
liberals.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama took some policy
decisions that I've described many times as completely delusional.

He was going to heal the world as soon as he took office. He would be
guided by facts, not like President Bush, who was guided by ideology
and ignored facts. He would cure global warming, close Guantánamo,
become friendly with Iran and North Korea, bring a two-state solution
to Palestinians and Israelis, beat the Taliban and al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, reflate the real estate and stock market bubbles and, of
course, provide universal health care. Possibly my greatest single
shock about the campaign occurred after Obama won the election.
Instead of moving to the center and repudiating some of the looniest
promises, he repeated them, and added that the world was going to
change on January 21, 2009. I believe the exact words that went
through my mind were, "Omigod!! He actually believes his campaign
rhetoric!!" After 8 years of an Obama presidency, it's clear that I
was right to call him completely delusional.

However, Howe and Kaiser extended the delusions one step further.
Kaiser completely adopted Obama's delusions, but extended the delusion
to the view that Obama's delusional policies would bring about major
social changes, and this would be the Fourth Turning crisis that their
1990s book predicted. That's about as delusional as you can get, but
it's what they believed.

This led to what is essentially an amendment to the 1990s TFT theory.
In the 1990s theory, the three previous crisis eras featured full-scale
wars -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II -- and
so there would be a new war in the 2005-2025 time frame that America
might not survive.

That view was OK during the Clinton administration, but during the
Bush administration it was no longer politically correct for TFT
theory to predict a war, since that would support the
neo-conservatives and other Republicans. Theory had to change, in
order to bend to politics and ideology. So TFT theory was amended to
say there wouldn't have to be a war, and during the Obama
administration this was further amended to say that Obama's delusions
would be the Fourth Turning crisis. Since Howe and Kaiser despised me
and GD anyway, this provided a convenient way to distinguish TFT from
GD.

So the reason that you and other TFT acolytes believe that I'm
conservative is because GD predicts that there will be a war with
China with 100% certainty. This however is not the "conservative"
position. The conservative position is that war with China will be
avoided through military strength.

So from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, both sides (the
TFT/Democratic/Liberal side vs the Republican/neo-conservaitve side)
are completely delusional, since both sides hold the delusion that
a world war with China can be avoided.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > Cutting defense would be wise on two fronts, one in your
> wheelhouse. Starting there, no nation state can be effective if
> it's unable to self finance, and we're already at the point that
> self finance of the massive debt we have makes that
> questionable. Let's not add to the problem. Second, there is no
> justification for the spending, based solely on results. Are we
> getting anything close to the value of the money spent? I doubt
> it. That's unquestionable in the contracting realm, where it's
> easy to just OK every cost overrun or missed commitment. The
> defense budget is simply larded to the point it's defeating its
> own purpose. That' needs to be addressed, and no time is better
> than the present.

Spending on the military would be justified if it allowed us
to defend against the the certain preemptive attack by China.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > As far as spending on social programs, they have one redeeming
> virtue that defense spending lacks: the money is put back into the
> economy quickly and efficiently. The poor spend their money. The
> rich, and by extension large corporations, tend to horde their
> wealth. Worse, the products they create and the services they
> perform are isolated from the economy, and only benefit the
> providers. No one, to my knowledge, is in the market for an F-35
> or a guided missile cruiser.

No, that's completely wrong. The money creates a generation of
victims who think that everything should be free, and who are
incapable of functioning in society.

(07-25-2019, 09:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: > And finally, your guilting me and others on making the nation less
> safe is a joke. China has no interest in starting a war with
> us. They want to dominate the Pacific Rim and what remains of the
> Third World. This they are doing thorough their Belt and Road
> initiative, not by threatening war. If there is any potential risk
> of war, its miscalculation by the world's chest beaters, and our
> defense budget has zero impact on that. More to the point, our
> ability to respond is not enhanced by more spending
> either.

I wrote a whole book on this subject, based on thousand of hours of
research. China has no interest in a war with the US, and yet they've
been preparing for it by developing one weapon system after another
with no purpose except to destroy American cities, aircraft carries
and bases. They don't want a war with the US, but they do want a war
of revenge with Japan, and a war of annexation with Taiwan, and they
know that the US will defend Japan and Taiwan.

Also, the chaos in Hong Kong could easily spread to a war between
China and Britain, which we'll be drawn into.

I would add that the Chinese Communist Party is pursuing some of the
stupidest policies of any nation in the history of the world, even
stupider than Nazi Germany's or Imperial Japan's, and so they're going
to start a war whether they want to or not.

So there is definitely a war with China in sight. If you'd like to
learn what's actually going on in the world, you should definitely
read my book, "World View: War Between China and Japan: Why America
Must Be Prepared" (Generational Theory Book Series, Book 2) Paperback:
331 pages, with over 200 source references, $13.99
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732738637/

[Warren Dew]

(07-25-2019, 01:03 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Which leads me to ask: Why is this even an issue for you?

I don't know about him, but I find it an issue when I'm replying to one of your posts.  In particular, the use of '>' for quoting can mess things up.  I do agree that shorter lines are more legible; I just prefer for the reader to be able to adjust to his preferred line length.

Quote:However, Howe and Kaiser extended the delusions one step further.
Kaiser completely adopted Obama's delusions, but extended the delusion
to the view that Obama's delusional policies would bring about major
social changes, and this would be the Fourth Turning crisis that their
1990s book predicted.  That's about as delusional as you can get, but
it's what they believed.

This led to what is essentially an amendment to the 1990s TFT theory.
In the 1990s theory, the three previous crisis eras featured full-scale
wars -- the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II -- and
so there would be a new war in the 2005-2025 time frame that America
might not survive.

Which book was that in?  I've only read Generations.  I've tried to read The Fourth Turning, but I ended up concluding that Strauss was the real brains of the original pair.

That said, even Generations wimped out in claiming that the Great Depression was the crisis, and kind of glossed over WWII, so part of this was a failing of the original theory.

Quote:I wrote a whole book on this subject, based on thousand of hours of
research.  China has no interest in a war with the US, and yet they've
been preparing for it by developing one weapon system after another
with no purpose except to destroy American cities, aircraft carries
and bases.  They don't want a war with the US, but they do want a war
of revenge with Japan, and a war of annexation with Taiwan, and they
know that the US will defend Japan and Taiwan.

Maybe.  Or maybe after continued escalation of the current spat, there will be a war between South Korea and Japan and China and Taiwan will intervene on the side of South Korea.  The the US will be forced to choose between to "unsinkable aircraft carriers".  We might still choose Japan, though your own arguments about how crisis wars tend to break along the same lines as the previous crisis suggests that's not the only possibility.

Or maybe Hard Brexit happens and things blow up between England and the EU over North Sea oil first, and then we get to go to war with Germany again, which would be right in line with your theory.