RUSSIA'S UNDENIABLE WAR PREPARATIONS by J. R. Nyquist

[Sapiens]

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0824.html

RUSSIA'S UNDENIABLE WAR PREPARATIONS
by J. R. Nyquist

Since 1998 I have publicly warned of Russia’s war preparations. The idea of preparing for nuclear war is absurd for most Americans, because the idea of nuclear war makes no sense in a consumer society. However that may be, Russia’s war preparations were as undeniable then as they are today. And Russia is not a consumer society. In the late 1990s Russia was refurbishing huge nuclear war bunkers and building underground cities. The only purpose such bunkers and cities could serve is in relation to a future nuclear war. For a country that was supposedly broke to be spending its precious resources on something so expensive, so far out of the way of “normal” expectations, seemed inexplicable. “Oh well,” people would shrug. “The Russians are used to doing this sort of thing. It gives them psychological comfort. Let them do what they want. It needn’t trouble us.” The public missed the fact, however, that Russia was continuing to violate arms control agreements. It was not admitting to all the nuclear warheads it possessed, and was not reliably disposing of them. It was developing new, deadly, biological and chemical weapons.

Why in the midst of peace, a few short years after the end of the Cold War, were the Russians adhering to this insane path? Were they anticipating a future war?

The answer must be yes. And the answer continues to be yes. In the 1990s Russia forged an alliance with China that involved a growing series of joint military exercises. Why would the Russians do this? Why would they seek to develop a joint military capability that would link Russian missile power with Chinese manpower? For over a decade the Russians have been providing the Chinese with technology and weapons. This is not merely a commercial transaction, as some would insist. These transactions are carefully considered strategic steps. Since the mid-1990s, Russia and China have initiated joint-armaments programs that further solidified their military partnership. It is obsolete thinking to suppose Russia and China are enemies. It must be understood, as a practical matter, that Russia and China are underdog powers locked in a struggle for primacy with the United States. The only sensible strategy, if Russia and China expect to emerge on top, is to unite against the Americans. And that is what the two countries have been doing for the past decade.

A week ago today, on August 17, the Russians and Chinese conducted joint military exercises on Russian soil, in the southern Ural Mountains. These coincided with strategic air operations involving Russian nuclear bombers. The combination of ground exercises with nuclear bomber exercises is a characteristic of Soviet nuclear war theory, which holds that troops must be used to follow up nuclear strikes. President Putin and China’s President Hu Jintao watched the exercises while holding a summit in Bishkek (the capital of former Soviet Kyrgyzstan). While China and Russia insist that their preparations aren’t aimed at any specific power, only a simpleton would believe them. (I am sad to acknowledge that many Americans, in this regard, are simpletons.)

Last week, in an obvious upgrading of nuclear war readiness, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the resumption of long-range nuclear bomber patrols that had previously been suspended in 1992. “I made the decision to restore flights of Russian strategic bombers on a permanent basis,” said Putin. “Combat duty has begun.” For some reason, Americans cannot digest Putin’s statement or his decision to resume bomber patrols. Why is this happening? Well, we say to ourselves, there is no reason other than the peculiar psychology of the Russians. President Bush has not put U.S. strategic bombers on patrol. And why should he? Russia isn’t our enemy. We are all friends. We are all economic partners and allies in the war against terror.

In Washington the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, responded to the Russian announcement of permanent strategic bomber patrols by saying, “It’s interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It’s a different era. If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that’s their decision.”

It’s as if the Russian military had resumed stamp collecting or archery. There is no strategic alarm, no threat, no difficulty and no discomfiture. Let them play with their obsolete toys. We are living in a new era, and these activities no longer trouble us. The Cold War ended and the animosity between the great powers is gone. Say good-bye to it. Any evidence to the contrary is not evidence. We’re living in “a different era.” Anyone who doesn’t know this, even if they are the president of the Russian Federation, is out-of-step. One might imagine Washington’s reaction to a Russian missile strike against U.S. targets. “It’s interesting,” the State Department would purr. “This is not the sort of missile strike we would have expected from the Soviet Union. Of course, it’s a different era. If Russia feels that they want to launch some old, useless missiles, that’s their decision.”

Our lack of imagination, our inability to grasp our enemy’s thought process, leads us to dismiss what is obvious. The Russians are getting ready. Why isn’t the American side responding? Why aren’t the Americans getting ready? We have been seduced by a series of comforting illusions. We are also absorbed in a struggle against Islamic terrorism (only we are at pains to admit the “Islamic” aspect of it). The American shopping mall regime produces stupefaction and complacency. The regime is predicated on economic optimism and entertainment. This optimism is about to be shattered. The Russians know this is going to happen, and they are preparing even as we fail to prepare.

© 2007 Jeffrey R. Nyquist



You better be paying attention. The Fed's and ECB liquidity injection game will not last. The people on the street are maxed out, they will not have a pleasant wakeup call, they will demand someone's head. Get ready and be ready.

-Sapiens

[Tet]

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0824.html



You better be paying attention. The Fed's and ECB liquidity injection game will not last. The people on the street are maxed out, they will not have a pleasant wakeup call, they will demand someone's head. Get ready and be ready.

-Sapiens
Nyquist is a complete idiot, what a moron. Is Russia installing a missile defense shield in Mexico? how about Canada? Is Russia at war with two countries right now? Are they at war with one? Is Russia at war with a country that borders the US of propaganda? Does Russia have military bases in 120 different countries across the world? Does Russia spend $450 billion directly on their military plus an extra couple hundred billion of indirect spending? Does Russia even spend $40 billion on their military? Was it Russia that was first to start new nuclear testing? Is it Russia working on nuclear bunker busters? Is Russia working on developing small tactical nuclear warheads? Was it Russia who first got out of the missile treaties? The US of Terrorists is the country ripping up peace treaties and telling countries it's our way or the highway.

It's the US of idiots at war with two countries right now killing hundreds of thousands of innocents all of whom had nothing to do with the 9-11 insanity. This war was started on lies, total and complete lies breaking hundreds of international laws, if the morons in the US of lacking intelligence don't understand this, both the military leaders of Russia and China certainly do. Both these wars border Russia and China, now WTF would this dipshit Nyquist be recommending his military be doing if he was in charge of either Russia or China? Would this Nyquist be telling his people to fold up camp and give up? The US is going to invade anyway maybe Russia and China could strike some sort of a deal instead of establish some sort of military deterence. I notice countries that the US invades don't usually have a military. It's articles like this one that make Financial Sense a complete waste of time.

[metalman]

Nyquist is a complete idiot, what a moron. Is Russia installing a missile defense shield in Mexico? how about Canada? Is Russia at war with two countries right now? Are they at war with one? Is Russia at war with a country that borders the US of propaganda? Does Russia have military bases in 120 different countries across the world? Does Russia spend $450 billion directly on their military plus an extra couple hundred billion of indirect spending? Does Russia even spend $40 billion on their military? Was it Russia that was first to suspend new nuclear testing? Was it Russia who first got out of the missiles treaties? The US of Terrorists is the country ripping up peace treaties and telling countries it's our way or the highway.

It's the US of idiots at war with two countries right now killing hundreds of thousands of innocents all of whom had nothing to do with the 9-11 insanity. This war was started on lies, total and complete lies breaking hundreds of international laws, if the morons in the US of lacking intelligence don't understand this, both the military leaders of Russia and China certainly do. Both these wars border Russia and China, now WTF would this dipshit Nyquist be recommending his military be doing if he was in charge of either Russia or China? Would this Nyquist be telling his people to fold up camp and give up? The US is going to invade anyway maybe Russia and China could strike some sort of a deal instead of establish some sort of military deterence. I notice countries that the US invades don't usually have a military. It's articles like this one that make Financial Sense a complete waste of time.

A common sense question, and other points

It is also worth noting that Nyquist has a website about this topic (The Final Phase), which has apparently been operating for some years. Look into the archives and you will find an interesting factoid; he has been predicting an immanent Russian/Chinese nuclear strike against the US at least since 1999. In 1999, he said it would happen no later than 2000. Then in 2001, after 9/11, he said it would happen in 2001 or 2002 at the latest. In 2003, he said the Iraq War would trigger it. Then in 2004, the end game was predicted to be no later than 2006, when Russia and China had scheduled joint war games....yet the war games have come and gone, and still no Russian/Chinese strike against the west.


Beware the Red Menace!,

The copy of "Origins of the Fourth World War" that I currently have has three featured reviews printed on the back cover in lieu of a normal blurb. Two of these reviews are from radio talk show hosts and the third is from a buddy of the author's who, if I recall, is actually featured in the book. This is actually rather appropriate, because it identifies right away for you, the discerning-if-feeling-slightly-scammed reader who purchased this book, that this is not a scholarly work. At all.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0966687701/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/102-7000507-3564962?ie=UTF8&n=283155#customerReviews

Nyquist = Doombat whacko

Financial Sense = Financial Nonsense

[Jim Nickerson]

Nyquist = Doombat whacko

Financial Sense = Financial Nonsense

There are some worthwhile articles on financialsense.com. If you write it off because some contributions don't appear to be of value, then one might just as well write off iTulip because not everything here is worth reading either.

[metalman]

There are some worthwhile articles on financialsense.com. If you write it off because some contributions don't appear to be of value, then one might just as well write off iTulip because not everything here is worth reading either.

fair enough some of the posters here may have a screw or two loose, your's truly included. but i do not see itulip posting doombat whacko stuff on the front page and syndicating it. and when do they ever interview anyone of import? apples and oranges as far as i'm concerned. i'm surprised as heck you'd even compare them.

[Sapiens]

Nyquist is a complete idiot, what a moron. Is Russia installing a missile defense shield in Mexico? how about Canada? Is Russia at war with two countries right now? Are they at war with one? Is Russia at war with a country that borders the US of propaganda? Does Russia have military bases in 120 different countries across the world? Does Russia spend $450 billion directly on their military plus an extra couple hundred billion of indirect spending? Does Russia even spend $40 billion on their military? Was it Russia that was first to start new nuclear testing? Is it Russia working on nuclear bunker busters? Is Russia working on developing small tactical nuclear warheads? Was it Russia who first got out of the missile treaties? The US of Terrorists is the country ripping up peace treaties and telling countries it's our way or the highway.

It's the US of idiots at war with two countries right now killing hundreds of thousands of innocents all of whom had nothing to do with the 9-11 insanity. This war was started on lies, total and complete lies breaking hundreds of international laws, if the morons in the US of lacking intelligence don't understand this, both the military leaders of Russia and China certainly do. Both these wars border Russia and China, now WTF would this dipshit Nyquist be recommending his military be doing if he was in charge of either Russia or China? Would this Nyquist be telling his people to fold up camp and give up? The US is going to invade anyway maybe Russia and China could strike some sort of a deal instead of establish some sort of military deterence. I notice countries that the US invades don't usually have a military. It's articles like this one that make Financial Sense a complete waste of time.

Mmm, it's not they will attack the U.S. it's what the U.S. may do once the population has a hard time being re-priced into the poorhouse and needs a distraction. Power only respects power, might only respects might.

You may call his opinion worthless, but to me is just another perspective into my tool kit of what ifs...

Cheers,

-Sapiens

[Sapiens]

Check this post out about the psychology of what the man on the street is about to go through: http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2007/08/22/suzanne-researched-this-part-2/

[Tet]

Mmm, it's not they will attack the U.S. it's what the U.S. may do once the population has a hard time being re-priced into the poorhouse and needs a distraction. Power only respects power, might only respects might.

You may call his opinion worthless, but to me is just another perspective into my tool kit of what ifs...

Cheers,

-Sapiens
Russia lost well over 20 million people in the Great War, China had similar losses. Russia and China believe these losses came about because of the international raping of Germany after WWI that brought about Hitler. Now why would Russia and China want to create another Hitler? I doubt we're heading to the poor house, it's not in the worlds best interests.

[Jim Nickerson]

fair enough some of the posters here may have a screw or two loose, your's truly included. but i do not see itulip posting doombat whacko stuff on the front page and syndicating it. and when do they ever interview anyone of import? apples and oranges as far as i'm concerned. i'm surprised as heck you'd even compare them.

I don't think I compared them. I only said you can't condemn a site that allows posters to put up their opinions because some posters seem to have it all wrong. It seems to me, and I really have no facts, that financialsense has people that it allows to post their articles. I look at f-s's article titles everyday, and some whose authors I have developed reason to believe offer some insight, I peruse, then read if it looks interesting to me.

Where's the upside for condemning financialsense just because it allows someone to post articles who is perceived by someone else as a kook?

[Rajiv]

Here is an image to go along with that thought

http://inlinethumb41.webshots.com/13096/2662002920101688296S425x425Q85.jpg

[Lukester]

Sapiens -

I agree with Tet and Metalman on this. Nyquist is one of the least compelling commentators on Financial Sense. I regularly hold his commentary at arms length or skip it altogether. He is what you might call a 'courtesy' contributor to Financial Sense. This is not by any means mainstream Financial Sense commentary - if you read the many other commentators, Nyquist is right out there in left field (or should I say "right" field?).

Further - IMHO Tet's response to your Nyquist quote is correct. A term was coined in the early days of this administration after 9/11 for US foreign policy in response to that event - I think indeed the term was coined by former Sec. Def. Rumsfeld - a 'forward leaning' foreign policy stance? Well, America in the 2000's has literally written the book on leaning forward. We certainly are 'leaning forward' on every front relative to Russia and FSU newly established states. Surely you must agree on that?

We give 'forward leaning' a whole new significance within the art of 'diplomacy'. Therefore Nyquists unfailingly ominous interpretations of international events, nevery whispering the remotest critique of US policy itself, but which invariably summon up clashes of the superpowers worthy of the sweeping history and drama of a Paul Kennedy history text or a Goya painting, seem to be more the literary fluff than the serious commentary on the Financial Sense website. Financial Sense fields a lot of very different points of view, and they like to keep the doors open wide. I know you are partial to him, and to each his own preferences, but Nyquist is definitely for me one of the more marginal writers there.

And in response to Metalman's dismissal of Financial Sense:

Maybe you can explain to those of us who disagree which interviewees you've actually listened to as interviewed there?

Here's just a few of the people they've interviewed. Seems to me these are some pretty decent names. Maybe there's more to that community than Metalman is acknowledging?.

Financial Sense has interviewed (in no particular order):

Bill Murphy - of GATA
Frank Barbera - one of the best technical analysts on precious metals
Caroline Baum - quoted here
Kenneth Deffeyes - Princeton geology professor
Roger Conrad - top authority on Canadian energy trusts
John Embry - Sprott Asset Management - Canada's top natural resources firm
Marc Faber - quoted here
Louis Vincent Gave - quoted here
Peter Grandich - needs no introduction
Ross Hansen - Northwest Territorial Mint - lowest cost bullion dealer in the US
Eric Janszen - quoted here
Laurence Kotlikoff - needs no introduction
Stephen Leeb - quoted here
Ferdinand Lips - should not require an introduction
Doug Noland - quoted here
Robert Prechter - quoted here
Robert Quartermain - Silver Standard
Jim Rogers - needs no introduction
John Rubino - quoted here
Peter Schiff - quoted here
Richard Russell - quoted here
Matt Simmons - quoted here
Jim Sinclair - quoted here
Jay Taylor - quoted here
James Turk - quoted here
John Williams - quoted here

What's so worthess about this collection of contributors to Financial Sense? Are they worthless there but worthwhile when quoted here?

[metalman]

let's see if i can be as diligent as the luke man...



Here's just a few of the people they've interviewed. Seems to me these are some pretty decent names. Maybe there's more to that community than Metalman is acknowledging?.

[/size][/font]Financial Sense has interviewed (in no particular order):

Bill Murphy - of GATA -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Frank Barbera - one of the best technical analysts on precious metals -> goldbug
Caroline Baum - quoted here -> token msm housing bear
Kenneth Deffeyes - Princeton geology professor -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Roger Conrad - top authority on Canadian energy trusts -> credible expert
John Embry - Sprott Asset Management - Canada's top natural resources firm -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Marc Faber - quoted here -> professional doomer, quoted here where?
Louis Vincent Gave - quoted here -> level-headed bull
Peter Grandich - needs no introduction -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Ross Hansen - Northwest Territorial Mint - lowest cost bullion dealer in the US -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Eric Janszen - quoted here -> tech venture capitalist/entrepreneur/journalist/quasi-goldbug/anti- fire economy racket crusader
Laurence Kotlikoff - needs no introduction -> credible academic economist
Stephen Leeb - quoted here -> credible asset manager
Ferdinand Lips - should not require an introduction -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
Doug Noland - quoted here -> professional bear selling bear fund in bear and bull markets, appreciated for persistence... stock with his perpetual it's getting worse and worse position "it's midnight" some day position
Robert Prechter - quoted here -> professional doomer, never quoted on itulip except as punchline to a joke
Robert Quartermain - Silver Standard -> pro bear selling bear fund in bear and bull markets
Jim Rogers - needs no introduction -> credible expert on currencies and commodities
John Rubino - quoted here -> credible business person commentator
Peter Schiff - quoted here -> professional bear selling bear fund in bear and bull markets
Richard Russell - quoted here -> clever newsletter writer who sprinkles the ether with dozens of contradictory positions then pulls the one out that fits in the present and displays it as proof of prescience
Matt Simmons - quoted here -> professional peak oil doomer
Jim Sinclair - quoted here -> credible pro goldbug (that means he's right but not correct)
Jay Taylor - quoted here -> goldbug/hard assets bandwagon
James Turk - quoted here -> credible goldbug
John Williams - quoted here -> credible critic of corrupt gov't stats

What's so worthess about this collection of contributors to Financial Sense? Are they worthless there but worthwhile when quoted here?

compare to itulip:

- Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
- Martin Mayer - World's leading banking expert (just saw him in this week's barron's)
- Michael Hudson - credible world class economist
- Jamie Galbraith - credible world class economist
- Peter Morici, University of Maryland business school professor and former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission under the Clinton administration
- Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
- Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute and a governor of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College
- James O’Sullivan, a UBS economist
- Ken Goldstein, an economist with the Conference Board
- Russ Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University
- Ron Blackwell, chief economist of the AFL-CIO
- Dr. Richard Curtin, director of the Surveys of Consumers at the University of Michigan
- John Challenger, CEO Challenger, Grey, Christmas
- James D. Scurlock, Author, "Maxed Out"
- Jim Rogers
- Eric Janszen

see the diff?

[Tet]

let's see if i can be as diligent as the luke man...



compare to itulip:

- Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
- Martin Mayer - World's leading banking expert (just saw him in this week's barron's)
- Michael Hudson - credible world class economist
- Jamie Galbraith - credible world class economist
- Peter Morici, University of Maryland business school professor and former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission under the Clinton administration
- Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
- Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute and a governor of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College
- James O’Sullivan, a UBS economist
- Ken Goldstein, an economist with the Conference Board
- Russ Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University
- Ron Blackwell, chief economist of the AFL-CIO
- Dr. Richard Curtin, director of the Surveys of Consumers at the University of Michigan
- John Challenger, CEO Challenger, Grey, Christmas
- James D. Scurlock, Author, "Maxed Out"
- Jim Rogers
- Eric Janszen

see the diff?

Financial Sense sells the yellow mighty metal period, they've had a pretty good run when you think about it. I just don't want to be holding their bag when the gangsters decide to deflate the commodity bubble, like they've done with the dot.bomb bubble and the real estate bubble, I'd say commodity bubble is next. When you've got 10K nuclear bombs the price of something is whatever you say it is. Pirate Capitalism at it's best, good luck to anyone who belives even for a moment in supply and demand. Ayn Rand was a idiot, make no mistake about that.

[metalman]

Financial Sense sells the yellow mighty metal period, they've had a pretty good run when you think about it. I just don't want to be holding their bag when the gangsters decide to deflate the commodity bubble, like they've done with the dot.bomb bubble and the real estate bubble, I'd say commodity bubble is next. When you've got 10K nuclear bombs the price of something is whatever you say it is. Pirate Capitalism at it's best, good luck to anyone who belives even for a moment in supply and demand. Ayn Rand was a idiot, make no mistake about that.

the stupid cows are easy to manage. reality tv and such. the smart cows require a more sophisticated and intellectually satisfying ruse, as ayn rand provided. a religion for intellectual idiots.

[Tet]

the stupid cows are easy to manage. reality tv and such. the smart cows require a more sophisticated and intellectually satisfying ruse, as ayn rand provided. a religion for intellectual idiots.
I think you and I have the exact same read, but we still somehow end up at different places on the investment/betting spectrum. I'll say this, it's an interesting scam they've got going.

[EJ]

Russia lost well over 20 million people in the Great War, China had similar losses. Russia and China believe these losses came about because of the international raping of Germany after WWI that brought about Hitler. Now why would Russia and China want to create another Hitler? I doubt we're heading to the poor house, it's not in the worlds best interests.

I have met many very wealthy people in my life, from every background and nation you can think of. I do not know one that is an Rand follower. Sun Tsu, yes. Rand is the flip side of the coin with Karl Marx on the other.

[Tet]

I have met many very wealthy people in my life, from every background and nation you can think of. I do not know one that is an Rand follower. Sun Tsu, yes. Rand is the flip side of the coin with Karl Marx on the other.

The funniest global political moment that I can remember was when China's President Hu gave young George Bush Very Junior a very ancient, very valuable copy of Sun Tsu's Art of War. I think this was when I realized that the Chinese were in complete and total control of events in the world and have a very good sense of humor. One out of Eight women in the world is Chinese, I'm willing to concede defeat if no one realizes what this means. Shortly after President Hu gave young George the Art of War I sold my gold, not the best timing in the world, but I believe it will prove to be good enough. Sometimes events and the news makes me overcome my view of the chart and this was one of those moments. Good comparison, Rand and good ole Marx. Do you know if they were brother and sister? :D

[bart]

let's see if i can be as diligent as the luke man...

compare to itulip:

- Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
- Martin Mayer - World's leading banking expert (just saw him in this week's barron's)
- Michael Hudson - credible world class economist
- Jamie Galbraith - credible world class economist
- Peter Morici, University of Maryland business school professor and former chief economist of the U.S. International Trade Commission under the Clinton administration
- Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute
- Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute and a governor of the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College
- James O’Sullivan, a UBS economist
- Ken Goldstein, an economist with the Conference Board
- Russ Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University
- Ron Blackwell, chief economist of the AFL-CIO
- Dr. Richard Curtin, director of the Surveys of Consumers at the University of Michigan
- John Challenger, CEO Challenger, Grey, Christmas
- James D. Scurlock, Author, "Maxed Out"
- Jim Rogers
- Eric Janszen

see the diff?



Yes, of course there's a difference... and your bias is showing too with mild pejoratives like "peak oil doomer" and "goldbug".


Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.

[Tet]

Yes, of course there's a difference... and your bias is showing too with mild pejoratives like "peak oil doomer" and "goldbug".


Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.
Einstein also stole every idea he ever had, he did work in the Patent Office in Germany reviewing everything he ever claimed to come up with. But I do agree with the comparison, Einstein, Peak Oil, Peak Gold and Peak Warming. All of these are scams, especially good ole Albert.

[bart]

Einstein also stole every idea he ever had, he did work in the Patent Office in Germany reviewing everything he ever claimed to come up with. But I do agree with the comparison, Einstein, Peak Oil, Peak Gold and Peak Warming. All of these are scams, especially good ole Albert.

Repeated Assertion:
I say that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.



You will certainly live in interesting times.

[Tet]

Repeated Assertion:
I say that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.



You will certainly live in interesting times.

I believe the mark to be under the shell on your left. To believe in anything other than economic slight of hand is a complete waste of time. There is only one logic to this game, you put your money down and the House takes your money away. Period.

[bart]

I believe the mark to be under the shell on your left. To believe in anything other than economic slight of hand is a complete waste of time. There is only one logic to this game, you put your money down and the House takes your money away. Period.



As I said:

Repeated Assertion:
I say that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.
I say again and again and again that this is the best logical fallacy.




Alternate choices:

Appeal to the Bandwagon:
It's obvious that Bandwagon is going to win as the greatest fallacy. You wouldn't want to be one of the losers who choose something else, would you?


Appeal to Fear:
If you don't accept Appeal to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON. Do you want that on your conscience, that THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON because you were a pansy who didn't really think that Appeal to Fear was worth voting for, and you wanted to vote for something else? Of course not, and neither would the people you let die because THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.


Appeal To Majority:
Most people think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.


Appeal To Tradition:
We've used Appeal to Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be wrong?


Burden Of Proof:
Can you prove that Burden of Proof isn't the best logical fallacy?

[zoog]

There is only one logic to this game, you put your money down and the House takes your money away. Period.

If you really believe this, Tet, why do you bother to invest?:confused:

[Tet]

If you really believe this, Tet, why do you bother to invest?:confused:
I do my best to bet like the House.

[c1ue]

I have met many very wealthy people in my life, from every background and nation you can think of. I do not know one that is an Rand follower. Sun Tsu, yes. Rand is the flip side of the coin with Karl Marx on the other.

Interesting you should see this.

I've seen this too - but my take is this: Sun Tzu is basically like a computer program: if a), then b); if c), then d).

You can actually reduce all of the Art of War into a series of if-then propositions. In fact there were a few written although I don't have one anymore.

This is extremely attractive to the control freak/chess player sub-type - imagine being able to control literally everything just by understanding the situation and applying the correct strategy.

I'm more of the revolutionist; all my life I've enjoyed examining systems and placing large sticks in the holes I find therein.

[BiscayneSunrise]

A great article in the Sunday 9/02/07 Washington Post Outlook Section.

In effect, it said that while it is popular to call the end of the US "empire", what the US doomsayers tend to do is overestimate the problems the US faces and underestimate the problems of the other potential superpowers.

Russia? A spent force trying to regain glory with a last gasp authoritarian government riding a resource boom. Russian population trends are in serious decline and they have a Muslim threat nipping at their heels, as well. Didn`t the Soviets try and fail to reach world hegemony without a vibrant private sector and empowered citizens. What makes one think they will be more effective this time? Nyquist claims America is doing nothing while Russia re-arms. How does he figure that? I have many friends in the "military industrial complex" and I can assure you, there are many bright people working on some very innovative ideas.

China? Sure, 1 in 8 women are Chinese but the one child rule effectively diminsihes that demographic threat. They are riding a 10% plus annual economic boom but how long can they sustain that while stripping their ecosystems? My guess is that the Chinese are running on reserves right now trying to make themsleves look good in anticipation of the Olympics. Once the Olympic party is over next summer, the hangover will start when people see that their boom has been unsustainable and needs to take a breather.

In short, the best way America can rebuff threats is to continue to be American.

[metalman]

A great article in the Sunday 9/02/07 Washington Post Outlook Section.

In effect, it said that while it is popular to call the end of the US "empire", what the US doomsayers tend to do is overestimate the problems the US faces and underestimate the problems of the other potential superpowers.

Russia? A spent force trying to regain glory with a last gasp authoritarian government riding a resource boom. Russian population trends are in serious decline and they have a Muslim threat nipping at their heels, as well. Didn`t the Soviets try and fail to reach world hegemony without a vibrant private sector and empowered citizens. What makes one think they will be more effective this time? Nyquist claims America is doing nothing while Russia re-arms. How does he figure that? I have many friends in the "military industrial complex" and I can assure you, there are many bright people working on some very innovative ideas.

China? Sure, 1 in 8 women are Chinese but the one child rule effectively diminsihes that demographic threat. They are riding a 10% plus annual economic boom but how long can they sustain that while stripping their ecosystems? My guess is that the Chinese are running on reserves right now trying to make themsleves look good in anticipation of the Olympics. Once the Olympic party is over next summer, the hangover will start when people see that their boom has been unsustainable and needs to take a breather.

In short, the best way America can rebuff threats is to continue to be American.

the most cynical take on the new cold war myth... ever.

cold war bullshit

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6226&IBLOCK_ID=35

[BiscayneSunrise]

Very Funny and Very true. I especially liked the part about the aging Sovietologist saying the new generation of pundits deserves to have their own cold war to assess. Being a geopolitical academic is a great gig, it sure beats having to be right.