Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

    Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
    But you miss the point, they ARE good at getting others, particularly the young and impressionable, to do just that! Pakistan even more so.

    Like pak military hoarding OBL and saudi financing him? Talking about being caught with pants down. :|

    Outsourcing is popular nowadays, even for military ops and .... cyberops. The US also uses contractors.

    Wars are fought through proxies but that doesn't make them less damaging.
    Last edited by touchring; 07-08-11, 10:18 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.

      You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

      Since you do not live in a dictatorship, you may not understand the mentality of dictatorships - they value their power more than the lives of their family and even their own lives.

      Gaddafi is a good example of a madman who will use nukes on Europe if he had one.

      I'm not saying that something needs to be done, never mind that it is already too late for something to be done. Anyway, this is a Middle East problem. Life continues in the rest of the world even if the Middle East goes up in flames.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-attack-europe

      Muammar Gaddafi has threatened to send hundreds of Libyans to launch attacks in Europe in revenge for the Nato-led military campaign against him.

      In a speech on Libyan television the Libyan leader said: "Hundreds of Libyans will martyr in Europe. I told you it is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. But we will give them a chance to come to their senses."

      The Canary Islands, Sicily, other Mediterranean islands as well as Andalusia in southern Spain were Arab lands that should be liberated, he said.

      Last edited by touchring; 07-09-11, 01:50 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

        Originally posted by touchring View Post
        At the present moment, Saudi Arabia and Iran are run being by rational thinking governments, so even if they got the bomb, no one is going to use it.
        Iran's government is rational? It's a theocracy; the very definition of irrational.

        Originally posted by touchring View Post
        You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.
        Ahmadinejad is really more of a figurehead than anything else. He certainly isn't the real seat of power.

        Comment


        • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

          Originally posted by Serge_Tomiko View Post
          You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.

          You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

          Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

          Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

          You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

          As a starting point consider the following data.

          Median household income 2009 (US Census)
          White: $70,000
          Asian: $90,000
          Ed.

          Comment


          • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

            Originally posted by Chris Coles
            But you miss the point, they ARE good at getting others, particularly the young and impressionable, to do just that! Pakistan even more so.
            Sending off your own young men to die in conflict isn't the same thing as staring down the barrel of a nuke yourself.

            Do you really doubt that leadership will not be among the first targets in a nuclear conflict?

            Originally posted by touchring
            You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.

            Since you do not live in a dictatorship, you may not understand the mentality of dictatorships - they value their power more than the lives of their family and even their own lives.

            Gaddafi is a good example of a madman who will use nukes on Europe if he had one.
            Gaddafi is a big mouth who says all sorts of wacky stuff.

            And let's note: would NATO be able to bomb the crap out of Libya at will if Libya had a half dozen nuclear weapons with a short or intermediate range delivery system?

            Let's not forget that Libya and Gaddafi were being praised and awarded as recently as 6 months ago. Look in the Libya threads to see pics of him shaking hands with various European leaders including Sarkozy.

            While I am the last person to say Gaddafi is a wonderful human being, the reality is that he is being attacked at least in part because he lacks the means to defend himself and his country.

            Comment


            • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
              While I am the last person to say Gaddafi is a wonderful human being, the reality is that he is being attacked at least in part because he lacks the means to defend himself and his country.

              How about Pearl Harbor? Was the US attacked because the Japanese rulers deems the US incapable of defending itself?

              Because of 66 years of post-WWII peace, we start to take for granted about danger of dictatorships and what can happen if they grow overconfident. Give them an inch and they will want a yard - they will want control out of their borders - it is the nature of dictatorships to yearn for more power. There is no such thing as a peaceful dictator. If it appears peaceful, it is a Trojan horse.

              Anyway, nukes are no longer scary as we find them to be in the past. Japan had been nuked thrice and the Japanese are still surviving?

              Therefore I do not believe that nukes can prevent wars. 7 centuries ago, the mongols burnt down entire cities along with the people in them for not surrendering, and yet there are others that still would not surrender. It is said that 300,000 people in Moscow were slaughtered. That was the equivalent of nukes of today.


              Meanwhile, more news on Spratly.

              For those of you who do not know where the Spratly is, here is the map.

              If China is claiming Spratly, I hope Singapore will also claim Spratly, because as you can see, the distance is about the same.




              http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/07...esson%E2%80%99

              China hardliners to teach Spratly intruders ‘a lesson’


              Hardliners in the Chinese Military Academy are raring to teach China’s neighbors “a lesson” for intruding into the South China Sea, which they consider part of their national territory, a Chinese Southeast Asian expert said.


              Shen Hong-Fang, professor and senior research fellow at the Center of Southeast Asian studies at Xiamen University, spoke of “a new upsurge” of Chinese nationalism set off by claims made by some Asian countries, including the Philippines, over territory China considers its own.
              “Some suggested that it is the right time to adopt necessary measures to teach some countries a lesson,” Shen said, startling participants at the two-day Conference on the South China Sea held in Manila last week.



              She added there are those who think it justifiable “for China to launch a war against the invaders.”


              The Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have staked claims over some of the 160 islands that constitute the Spratlys in the South China Sea. These countries, along with Indonesia which is a non-claimant, have filed protests before the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) over the “nine-dash line map” China submitted to prove its claim.



              That map practically covers the whole of the South China Sea and encroaches over the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone of some its neighbors, the Philippines included.


              Brunei and Taiwan are also claiming parts of the Spratlys.


              In its note verbale last April 14, China accused the Philippines of having “started to invade and occupy some islands and reefs of China’s Nansha (Spratly) Islands.”
              Asked by Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez about the role of the Chinese Military Academy in the leadership’s decisions, Shen said it is “a very influential group. “
              The Chinese Military Academy, formally known as the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), is the highest-level research institute and center of military sciences of the People’s Liberation Army which is a major force in the Chinese government.


              A Philippine diplomat who requested anonymity said Shen would not be making such strong statements without the approval of the Chinese government.
              Shen reiterated previous declarations of Chinese officials that the South China Sea is a “core interest,” just like Tibet and Taiwan.


              She quoted a published statement by Han Xudong, an army colonel and a professor at the PLA’s National Defense University (NDU), that “China’s comprehensive national strength especially in military capabilities is not yet enough to safeguard all of the core national interests.”


              Golez expressed concern over what China would do “if their ‘national strength especially in military capabilities’ would be enough to take care of all core national interests.”


              Shen also quoted another NDU professor, Zhang Zhongzhao, as saying that “the best time of solving the territory disputes has already passed” and that “diplomatic negotiations alone cannot solve the problem.”


              She described Zhang as “a well-known military theorist,” and further quoted him saying that to defend national sovereignty, the Chinese should have the “courage to use the sword if it is really needed.”


              Shen said the Chinese government is under public pressure to stand firm on the South China Sea. “If China lost more territory to foreign states, the national honor would be under attack and the people and the army would question the legitimacy of the government,” she said.


              “It is of utmost importance that the government is not considered by people or the army as internally or externally weak which in turn could have severe political consequences,” she added.


              Included in Shen’s recommendations to ease tension in the South China Sea is joint exploration in disputed areas. The Philippines already took this step during the term of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when it started a Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China and Vietnam, which was completed in 2008. At least 70 percent of the coverage of the JMSU is in areas claimed by the Philippines. The constitutionality of the agreement is being questioned in the Supreme Court.


              The Manila SCS conference was organized by the Foreign Service Institute of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the National Defense College of the Philippines and the Development Academy of Vietnam.
              Last edited by touchring; 07-10-11, 12:35 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                Originally posted by touchring
                How about Pearl Harbor? Was the US attacked because the Japanese rulers deems the US incapable of defending itself?
                Pearl Harbor was attacked because the US was conducting economic warfare on Japan in the form of an oil embargo.

                As I've noted in previous posts: oil for Japan was literally the staff of economic growth.

                Where is the Chinese embargo on the US? Or vice versa?

                Comment


                • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                  Originally posted by FRED View Post
                  You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

                  Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

                  Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

                  You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

                  As a starting point consider the following data.

                  Median household income 2009 (US Census)
                  White: $70,000
                  Asian: $90,000
                  +1

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                    Originally posted by touchring View Post
                    You assume that Ahmadinejad will be in power forever. Regime change happen all the time in the Middle East, and the tendency is for a more radical or fundamentalist regime with each change.
                    You're on to something here, TR. Ahmadinejad is the public face of the Iranian government, but the powers behind him are even more radical.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                      Originally posted by FRED View Post
                      You will no doubt disagree but you are displaying a pattern of prejudicial comments that is neither in the spirit of iTulip nor related to the topic of this thread.

                      Over the years we have learned that there is nothing to be gained by attempting to educate the uneducable about race and culture.

                      Any additional off-topic posts here will be deleted.

                      You are welcome to start a new thread on the Rant and Rave forum on the topic of race, ethnicity, and culture and perhaps other members will attempt to teach you more about it.

                      As a starting point consider the following data.

                      Median household income 2009 (US Census)
                      White: $70,000
                      Asian: $90,000
                      Thanks Fred

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                        Originally posted by Verrocchio View Post
                        You're on to something here, TR. Ahmadinejad is the public face of the Iranian government, but the powers behind him are even more radical.

                        I'm not making any inference, just saying I won't trust an authoritarian government to be peaceful in the long term (30-50 years). This includes bipartisanship.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                          Originally posted by Serge_Tomiko View Post
                          You're really not being honest here. The number of Jews involved with the power elite is vastly disproportionate to their absolute numbers.
                          You would have made a perfect Nazi. Jews in Germany accounted for roughly 1% of the population, but made quite the target for Hitler. Stealing their "welth" helped fund a good part of the war for Germany. Maybe you can find a few to steal from yourself?

                          Or better yet, watch the series running now on The History Channel anout the Nazi's, as I was last night, and get yourself a real education.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                            What exactly is the offensive benefit of nukes?

                            You can't take over a country using nukes - you can only destroy it.

                            Nukes, however, make invading a nation completely impractical.

                            As Israel has nukes - I am continually amazed by the ongoing meme that Iran would destroy Israel if Iran had nukes.

                            As nutty as Ahmadinejad or whoever may be, it has yet to be demonstrated that they are suicidal.
                            I have to agree with this. Nuclear attack on Israel would lead to massive retaliation. With nukes, its the countries that don't have 'em that feel threatened.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen

                              Originally posted by flintlock View Post
                              I have to agree with this. Nuclear attack on Israel would lead to massive retaliation. With nukes, its the countries that don't have 'em that feel threatened.

                              I'm not advocating something needs to be done, but for discussion purpose, I think don't I can agree that radical countries that have nukes will not pose a danger to world peace in the long term. By long term, I'm looking at a 20-30 years time frame.

                              Nowadays, countries just don't attack each other directly or openly. Remember the Mumbai terrorists attack? Some Indians believe that the Pak military or spy agencies are behind it. Just a couple of men with AK 47 can wreck so much havoc. If something similar happens 30 years into the future, it maybe with one of the dudes carrying a suitcase nuke device.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Next Ten Years Part I: There will be blood - Eric Janszen



                                Nearly fifty years ago I signed on as a trainee forester with HM Forestry Commission. One of the first jobs I had was bent down, forked stick in one hand, grass hook in the other, weeding young trees in a long enclosure where the rows of trees were more than a mile long. It was high summer, so no shirt, and the only entertainment, now and again, was to hear one of my colleagues suddenly shout out and start running for their life followed by a swarm of wasps. There were a lot of wasp nests; so it was not long before I too swept my grass hook over a nest entrance and suffered some very nasty stings; and this thread has reminded me that, sometimes, without knowing any better, it is still possible to walk into trouble, entirely innocently. So the first point I wish to make is that I did not set out to stir up trouble, nor, do I sincerely believe; did anyone else here.

                                My "tribe" is I am a Brit. Churchill once made a very pertinent remark about the difference between the British and Americans which roughly translates into; "one language, two different cultures". I came to iTulip as a means to debate themes; mostly but not always presented to us by EJ as here, where the theme is to postulate the potential for a war caused by economic difficulties. But just like my experience with weeding trees, here I did not think about the very simple fact that others will see the potential for a war as a return to a very dark period during which some very depraved people tried their best to exterminate them. So the second point I feel I must make is that I do not, for one moment, believe that anyone here was thinking to turn the debate in such a negative direction.

                                Our problem, here, in such a debate, is a matter of tribal description. Being a Brit, never assigns me any religious aspect to my tribal description. But as a Brit, I am not minded to walk away from a debate either, however difficult it gets; because the most important aspect of any disagreement is to talk the matter through, as peacefully as possible; so that we can all get to an agreement of what truly matters.

                                To give you all a better idea of where I am coming from, you need to understand that my childhood was riven by religious argument. My father having lost all his friends in France 1918, then lost his shirt in 1929, and then "got religion" badly a decade before I was born and my home was a battleground dominated by the imposition of intense fighting between my father and his by then large family, quietly moderated by my mother who assumed a position of friendly neutrality. I grew up in a family at war over religion and it was not a happy time; but, by golly, it taught me the value of debate.

                                Take this how you will; No one here is any form of a Nazi, and as such, some of the statements made here, against those of us trying to get to grips with the debate can only be seen as deeply objectionable and totally reprehensible. (Yes, on both sides). Our problem is we do not have an easy answer to the matter of identity. No one took a blind bit of notice when we were debating the recent nuclear tragedy in Japan; where the hierarchical structures preclude any debate with everyone in Japanese industrial and political life bowing to seniority. But here, in trying to get at why the Western economy has collapsed; we have run into a storm of dissent caused by our inadvertent religious description of the leadership. If we had a non religious "tribe" description none of this would have occurred. May I be so bold as to ask, does anyone have an answer to that conundrum?

                                Now, turning to the debate, the potential for war; and why we have got to where we are. What certainly I was trying to get at was the answer to the question: how do we change the mindset of the leadership? For, again, like it or not, famously; The Buck Stops Here.

                                Whomever they are, and whatever their background; they must come to terms with their own failure. This is not about trying to set them up for systematic deletion in a fireplace; this is all about getting across the idea that they have to change direction in their own thinking. If, by grouping together, channeling their efforts into circling the wagons to protect themselves from a perceived threat; they entirely misunderstand the debate; then, like it or not, someone has to have the brass cheek to say; "Enough", get real, this is not about religion, this is all about an attitude of mind that has passed over the higher responsibility to lead the nation. Particularly towards a better prosperity for the many whom; without such leadership, have no other option than to fight in a war.

                                If I am to be shunned for being so blunt, so be it; that is the price I have decided to pay for the debate. For, to my mind, the central theme for this debate; the potential for war; is far far more important than my iTulip image. We are not debating whether or not any one of us might be drawn into a war, for the chances are the most of us here today are too old to be considered suitable participants; but we must recognise the potential for millions of lives to be disrupted and lost. That is not a trivial matter over which we should be seen, for one moment, bickering between ourselves over a small matter of a tribal description.

                                The national leadership, of all nations involved, at all levels of responsibility, financial, institutional and political; must now sit back and recognise their own input to the current economic difficulties. All of them; all, must rethink their own responsibility and look again at why they have made such desperately bad decisions in the past and learn the lessons through open debate with all of us on the outside; who can see a way forward. No one has all the answers; but neither will anyone succeed without examining their own solution in comparison to every other presented.

                                That is the great responsibility of leadership. So; get on with it and stop bickering, we are all friends here and everyone is trying their best to find a solution.

                                Chris Coles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X