World Affairs

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Yo Ln X --

I will be brief -- (I have a warship drydock lot to work on).

Let's be clear about one thing -- the USA does not have a monopoly on lies -- and even Putin has to keep a straight face when he denies shooting down airliners. 

EVERY nation on Earth tells the story that suits them best at the moment.

EVERY nation on Earth looks out for it's own "sacred self-interest".

EVERY nation on Earth hates to be left out if there's a "party" going on somewhere.

EVERY nation on Earth is riddled with crooks and oligarchs (that may be redundant).

NO NATION ON EARTH OWNS "THE MORAL HIGH GROUND" -- because there is none.

It would please me greatly to line up Obama and his TBTF oligrachs right beside Putin and his oligarchs and turn a .50 cal on them all.  I cannot say if it would solve the world's boatload of crises -- but it would make me smile!!

But that means you would also have to eliminate the oligarchs in China, Britain, France, Germany, etc, etc.  The world runs on greed and lust for power.  Doesn't matter whether you call it capitalism, communism, or fascism. 

Putin is nothing more than a 21st Century version of Al Capone -- on a GRAND scale.  The major difference is that Putin has the KGB to do his dirty work and there is no one to prosecute him for the billions he steals.  Where you see Putin controlling the oligarchs for good -- I see him organizing the mob so that he can get the lion's share of the ill-gotten gains.

As for Wall Street -- I hope the first A-Bomb of the next war lands right there!

As for the Middle East -- I blame it all on France and Britain.  Much as i admire the Brits -- they colluded with France in 1919 to create the geopolitical mess we see today.  While they maintained colonial control, all was well.  True -- they did eventually give these countries independence.  But only when it became abundantly clear that they could no longer act freely in the area (see Suez Crisis - 1956).  AND -- when they could no longer FINANCIALLY support their colonial empires.  Their quick abdication and evacuation of the area was controlled more by bankers than anything else, and has left a vacuum that has not yet been filled.

As for Russia -- she has always enjoyed a bit of brinkmanship in what the Brits called "The Great Game".  Putin does, indeed, play the game well -- but a winner is yet to be determined.

Ta --

Don't you think the geopolitical situation is reaching an intolerable stage?  All these MAD powers have too much to say in world affairs, while interfering in the daily lives of people who have not even the slightest ability to resist?  This is the ultimate failure of capitalism and there is no viable replacement in sight.

The demise of capitalism is pronounced a bit prematurely, Nonny.

The failure lies with the politicians that accept bribes and then remove the restraints placed on capitalists.

(See also -- removal of restraints on political campaign funding.  Since when is a corporation an entity entitled to free speech??)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

One of the biggest problems we have today is the TBTF corporation, especially after the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are "persons before the law".  A TBTF outfit is immortal.  For capitalism to work properly, nothing should be immortal.  In 2008 the Wall Street outfits that were in trouble should have gone to the capitalist wall, and been wound up properly by receivers according to the rules.  The same for both GM and Chrysler.

Instead, the U.S. government applied the Keynesian Economics solution which states that the "state is the payer of last resort".  This is foolish.  In this situation the "payer of last resort" is the taxpayer, and they all objected but could do nothing about it.  The IRS has too much power.

Yes, there would have been a huge spike in unemployment and dislocation of workers, but it would have been temporary.  Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum, so some other thing would have replaced the failed banks and the busted car companies.  These would have employed some of the job casualties, but not necessarily all of them as some of them are truly unfit.  The original people in the board rooms should have gone to jail.  They all committed some sort of fraud.

Guess who really runs the government?

[Dreadnought 8,226]

One of the biggest problems we have today is the TBTF corporation, especially after the SCOTUS ruled that corporations are "persons before the law".  A TBTF outfit is immortal.  For capitalism to work properly, nothing should be immortal.  In 2008 the Wall Street outfits that were in trouble should have gone to the capitalist wall, and been wound up properly by receivers according to the rules.  The same for both GM and Chrysler.

Instead, the U.S. government applied the Keynesian Economics solution which states that the "state is the payer of last resort".  This is foolish.  In this situation the "payer of last resort" is the taxpayer, and they all objected but could do nothing about it.  The IRS has too much power.

Yes, there would have been a huge spike in unemployment and dislocation of workers, but it would have been temporary.  Business, like nature, abhors a vacuum, so some other thing would have replaced the failed banks and the busted car companies.  These would have employed some of the job casualties, but not necessarily all of them as some of them are truly unfit.  The original people in the board rooms should have gone to jail.  They all committed some sort of fraud.

Guess who really runs the government?

THE OLIGARCHS !!

[AkemiAzula 280]

The main reason I have always been a supporter of nationalisation of systemic infrastructure (rail, power, water, mail) is that privateers are in it for themselves.

Sure, with firmly enforced controls and restrictions capitalistic free markets 'work' but in the end it is all about private not national success.

But I agree that in any system whether it be fascist socialist or capitalist the problem from a technical viewpoint is abuse of the system by corrupt individuals.

At the end of the day all systems are in theory designed for the 'greater good' but all are in practice run by humans.

And while half my heart yearns for strong cultural discipline and a military spirit of responsibility and honour in upholding the state I am also all too aware of the many sins of our elders and superiors... 

Ideally those who do good should receive higher posts and rewards than those who do evil. In this respect I sympathise to an extent with the Thatcherite belief in self determination and earnt status.

But the aim should not be power or personal superiority over others. The purpose of success should be the greater benefit.

Thus one should be rewarded for things which benefit the state, not for parasitic business. Big Tobbacco was shown this but there is nothing preventing me from buying a litre of vodka and downing it today.

Business should always serve the state interest not profitmaking for its own sake.

So I suppose I am a left wing economical authoritarian but I am not against 'free markets' where they are beneficial rather than decadent.

At work I fill shelves with hundreds of confections. None of them necessary, all costing something, and all making their manufacturers profitable. An entire industry based on something of little benefit but which produces plenty of problems.

[raynev1 1,886]

   I feel the same , it's all about the all mighty dollar . Quality went out the window for quantity , make more money . Oil seems to own the United States . The country of disposable everything . Even the people , What a shame .

   It's the cause and effect thing that gets to me , meaning like the Big Pharma Industry . Here take this pill , it will make you feel better . Never mind the side effects , we have a pill for that too . Oh , sorry you have cancer now . It will be OK we have meds for that as well .

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Take your Soma, and don't forget that tonight's orgy is mandatory.  Ford, Ford, Ford, Ford said Big Henry.  [Paraphrased from George Orwell's Brave New World.]

Are we there yet?

And this just in from BBC

I could be mistaken but I thought Bangladesh was a secular state?  This kind of stupidity is a blow against freedom.

  Edited October 31, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
Added feed from BBC

[MintberryCrunch 83]

Take your Soma, and don't forget that tonight's orgy is mandatory.  Ford, Ford, Ford, Ford said Big Henry.  [Paraphrased from George Orwell's Brave New World.]

Are we there yet?

And this just in from BBC

I could be mistaken but I thought Bangladesh was a secular state?  This kind of stupidity is a blow against freedom.

That kind of thing has been going on for a while in Bangladesh. This is the fifth case I know of this year of atheist or secular bloggers being hacked to death by extremists for speaking out against extremism, thus proving their point. 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Take your Soma, and don't forget that tonight's orgy is mandatory.  Ford, Ford, Ford, Ford said Big Henry.  [Paraphrased from George Orwell's Brave New World.]

Are we there yet?

And this just in from BBC

I could be mistaken but I thought Bangladesh was a secular state?  This kind of stupidity is a blow against freedom.

That kind of thing has been going on for a while in Bangladesh. This is the fifth case I know of this year of atheist or secular bloggers being hacked to death by extremists for speaking out against extremism, thus proving their point. 

As a side note --

La Canada - Flintridge !!

I used to live down in Torrance -- back when the "California Girls" were wearing miniskirts !!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Name of Canada

Not Spanish origin, I am afraid, but from the Mohawk "kanata" meaning village or community or from the actual word canada in Iroquois with the same meaning.  The conquistadors never got up here.  There are lots of Original Canadian languages and dialects that have similar words.

We have some interesting names floating around and some interesting history.  For example, the capital of Upper Canada was once Niagara-on-the-Lake at the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake Ontario but after it was burned by American raiders (we burned Washington in retaliation), it was moved to (Muddy) York, later Toronto.  Niagara-on-the-Lake is now the centre of a thriving tourist trade, a yacht port, and the seat of the Shaw Theatre Festival as well as one of the major stops on the wine tour of the Niagara Bench.  Quaint, friendly, and Americans welcome.

[MintberryCrunch 83]

@Dreadnought Torrance is a great place! When my friend came to visit me recently (from the East Coast), he stayed in a hotel in Torrance. It was almost all Japanese businessman staying there lol. But I love SoCal, especially where I live.

@A Nonny Moose That's interesting. I always knew the name of "Canada" had nothing to do with the "Cañada" of my hometown, but I didn't actually know the origin. We have a lot of interesting SoCal names that comes from Native American words: Cucamonga, Topanga, Tujunga, Pacoima, Cahuenga, Azusa, etc. (all of these comes from the Tongva language). 

 

 

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Woah --

Two lost in a week --pretty high profile -- bad week for Russian aircraft.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

@Dreadnought Torrance is a great place! When my friend came to visit me recently (from the East Coast), he stayed in a hotel in Torrance. It was almost all Japanese businessman staying there lol. But I love SoCal, especially where I live.

We have a lot of interesting SoCal names that comes from Native American words: Cucamonga, Topanga, Tujunga, Pacoima, Cahuenga, Azusa, etc. (all of these comes from the Tongva language). 

 

 

Yeah the "South Bay Area" was a wild and wonderful place in the days of my "lost and unrepentant" youth. 

Girls still wore dresses (the best girls wore the mini-dresses), gas was less than a dollar a gallon, and drive-in movies were still in business.  The "Cinnamon Cinder" was open up on "The Strip" in Hollywood and the nights were never long enough. 

"We are such stuff as dreams are made upon,

And our little life is rounded with a sleep."

Shakespeare -- The Tempest

My favorite (I have many) Cal city name is "San Luis Obispo" (lol-lol) -- prominently featured in an old W.C. Fields movie from the 30's.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Name of Canada

Yo, Nonny --

I just ran across something I thought you'd get a laugh out of -- a joke.

An open letter from the citizens of Canada to the citizens of the United States:

You elected George H. Bush;  we sent you Celine Dion.

You elected George W. Bush; we sent you Nickelback.

You re-elected George W. Bush; we sent you Justin Bieber.

DO NOT elect Donald Trump; you don't want to know what's coming next!!

As with all humor -- a bit of pain, the ring of truth, and a good laugh!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My friend, we would then send you the Harperman and his boys in the garage band.  Plays a mean keyboard, if it doesn't bite him.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Never smile at a crocodile.
 

"Never tip your hat and stop to talk a while.
"Don't be taken in by his welcome grin,
"He's imaging how well you'll fit within his skin."
        From Disney's Peter Pan.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

Yo Ln X --

I will be brief -- (I have a warship drydock lot to work on).

Let's be clear about one thing -- the USA does not have a monopoly on lies -- and even Putin has to keep a straight face when he denies shooting down airliners. 

EVERY nation on Earth tells the story that suits them best at the moment.

EVERY nation on Earth looks out for it's own "sacred self-interest".

EVERY nation on Earth hates to be left out if there's a "party" going on somewhere.

EVERY nation on Earth is riddled with crooks and oligarchs (that may be redundant).

NO NATION ON EARTH OWNS "THE MORAL HIGH GROUND" -- because there is none.

In my opinion thinking this should be completed by a second thought.

As we can learn these days (it wasn't the same 100 years ago) - it became simply impossible to move 7 billion people around the planet from one side to another.

Let's take Oil for example. If you move the oil – political – from one nation to the other sooner or later the people will follow. Same with all resources. Take away the food, people sooner or later will follow the food. They don't seek nations - they seek living space. This is nothing political, this is a natural behavior of human beeing.

We take ressources from the muslim world and sooner or later muslim people follow. The western world becomes (partial) muslim.

Now think this, without any emotions only logical, to the end:

US drops bombs on china. What will happen next? 1 billion chinese will flee. US will become chinese.

So in the world we live today the word 'nation' almost lost his sense.

'Nation' is an almost historical world, some kind of nostalgic way to see the world.

  Edited November 15, 2015 by fantozzi  

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Yo Ln X --

I will be brief -- (I have a warship drydock lot to work on).

Let's be clear about one thing -- the USA does not have a monopoly on lies -- and even Putin has to keep a straight face when he denies shooting down airliners. 

EVERY nation on Earth tells the story that suits them best at the moment.

EVERY nation on Earth looks out for it's own "sacred self-interest".

EVERY nation on Earth hates to be left out if there's a "party" going on somewhere.

EVERY nation on Earth is riddled with crooks and oligarchs (that may be redundant).

NO NATION ON EARTH OWNS "THE MORAL HIGH GROUND" -- because there is none

So in the world we live today the word 'nation' almost lost his sense.

'Nation' is an almost historical world, some kind of nostalgic way to see the world.

Yo, tantozzi --

Let me preface my remarks by simply saying:  Ask any Frenchman this morning, if he is a "citizen of the world, a Frenchman, or a Parisiene.  You will quickly understand why your line of reasoning falls apart.

To elaborate:

Many years ago (about 45), I had a High School teacher who was a very smart man -- and he explained the theory that the world was divided into "the haves, and the have-nots".  Populations without resources will either flow toward the resources, or they will seize the resources by force.  Which is, basically, the basis for your reasoning.  And, as far as it goes, you are quite correct.  That theory is sound -- it is, in  fact, basic human instinct.

Nationhood:

If you examine human nature, you will find that "nationhood" is also based on a fundamental human instinct -- survival.  The anthropological record is full of examples -- even back to the very beginnings of the human race.

Two men back together for  mutual defense and hunting skills -- a team is formed.

Over time and population growth -- teams become tribes -- and they defend their settlement and hunting territory.

Tribes became towns, and then cities, and eventually nations.

This is, of course, a very simplistic explanation of a very complicated socioeconomic evolution.  But the human animal always bands together for mutual benefit. 

Within the "band", there must always be a "leader" -- because decisions must be made to ensure the benefit and survival of the band.  Not all members of the band may wish to take responsibility for, say, moving the flocks to a lower pasture, or planting crops at a certain time -- hence, a leader is needed.  This is how nations and heads-of-state came into being.

The problem comes in when the "bands" grow too large.  Too many people means thought becomes divided on the issues of what is good for the "band" or, possibly, what works against a particularly ambitious individual.  When that happens, you get splinter groups that acquire their own tribe, their own territory, their own mutual needs.  The REAL problem comes in when history combines the words "ambitious individual" with the word "empire".  Now you have the basic formula that you see in operation, today -- and the stage is set for national / global conflict.

The theory of a "World Federation" -- or a "one-nation world" -- has long been a theme of science fiction writers.  But it overlooks the nature of the human animal.  There will always be at least one individual that wishes to deprive another individual of their personal possessions for his own personal benefit.  Greed destroys the "all for one" theory and it promotes nationhood.

The human animal is also horribly insecure -- they have a deeply rooted need to "belong" to something.  Gang members are a readily understandable manifestation of this behavior.  Nationhood is membership in a "gang, but with more complicated rules.  It has taken us tens of thousands of years to evolve this far -- and the European Union is tottering on the brink of dissolution.  Who knows how long a "world federation" will take?  Nationhood will never go away.  It may, possibly, evolve into another form of "banding" or "belonging".

Most famously, Hemingway professed to be "a citizen of the world" -- mainly because of his early disillusionment with the Spanish Civil War.  He wished to reject any connection with the greed and cruelty of "nations".  He was powerless to stop it -- so he disassociated himself from it.  He was unfortunate in that he lived in an "age of dictators".

If one looks around at The Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, and China -- we may be living in an age of "coming" dictators. 

 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Yo Ln X --

I will be brief -- (I have a warship drydock lot to work on).

Let's be clear about one thing -- the USA does not have a monopoly on lies -- and even Putin has to keep a straight face when he denies shooting down airliners. 

EVERY nation on Earth tells the story that suits them best at the moment.

EVERY nation on Earth looks out for it's own "sacred self-interest".

EVERY nation on Earth hates to be left out if there's a "party" going on somewhere.

EVERY nation on Earth is riddled with crooks and oligarchs (that may be redundant).

NO NATION ON EARTH OWNS "THE MORAL HIGH GROUND" -- because there is none.

In my opinion thinking this should be completed by a second thought.

As we can learn these days (it wasn't the same 100 years ago) - it became simply impossible to move 7 billion people around the planet from one side to another.

Let's take Oil for example. If you move the oil – political – from one nation to the other sooner or later the people will follow. Same with all resources. Take away the food, people sooner or later will follow the food. They don't seek nations - they seek living space. This is nothing political, this is a natural behavior of human beeing.

We take ressources from the muslim world and sooner or later muslim people follow. The western world becomes (partial) muslim.

Now think this, without any emotions only logical, to the end:

US drops bombs on china. What will happen next? 1 billion chinese will flee. US will become chinese.

So in the world we live today the word 'nation' almost lost his sense.

'Nation' is an almost historical world, some kind of nostalgic way to see the world.

This doesn't make any sense.

Muslims aren't leaving the middle east because western powers took their food and oil. They're leaving because radical islamic terrorists are turning it into an unlivable hellhole. There are plenty of rich Muslim countries with an abundance of oil and food (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan), but Muslim refugees are fleeing to European countries because those countries have welfare programs and are welcoming. European countries also have religious and social freedoms that the nations these people are fleeing don't have. There is plenty of living space around the world, so why are they going to Europe? Why not China? Russia?

If the US drops bombs on China they'll be at war with China. Won't China also bomb the US. Would Americans flee to China? Why would the chinese want to flee to a country that is bombing them? Even if the majority population in the US became chinese, it wouldn't become China - it would still be The United States. Nationality is far from irrelevant, especially in the world of today. It most certainly isn't an outdated concept. A nation is more about it's laws and values than the kind of people that live there.

 

If one looks around at The Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, and China -- we may be living in an age of "coming" dictators. 

What do you mean by that?

  Edited November 15, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

While the demographics of the current volkerwandrung may be heavily Muslim, one wonders if much of it is other than Shi'a or Sunni.  There are more schisms in Islam than those well-known sects.  Further, how much of this new diaspora is Christian, Jewish, other?

One must not speculate before the facts.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

While the demographics of the current volkerwandrung may be heavily Muslim, one wonders if much of it is other than Shi'a or Sunni.  There are more schisms in Islam than those well-known sects.  Further, how much of this new diaspora is Christian, Jewish, other?

One must not speculate before the facts.

Right, that's a nuance I forgot to put in my comment. No doubt some of the Syrian refugees are also Christian and Jewish.

  Edited November 15, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[Fantozzi 4,067]

This doesn't make any sense.

Muslims aren't leaving the middle east because western powers took their food and oil. They're leaving because radical islamic terrorists are turning it into an unlivable hellhole. There are plenty of rich Muslim countries with an abundance of oil and food (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan), but Muslim refugees are fleeing to European countries because those countries have welfare programs and are welcoming. European countries also have religious and social freedoms that the nations these people are fleeing don't have. There is plenty of living space around the world, so why are they going to Europe? Why not China? Russia?

If the US drops bombs on China they'll be at war with China. You don't open your doors to a mass flood of migrants from a country you're at war with. That's a stupid immigration policy. Why would the chinese want to flee to a country that is bombing them? Even if the majority population in the US became chinese, it wouldn't become China - it would still be The United States. Nationality is far from irrelevant, especially in the world of today. It most certainly isn't an outdated concept. A nation is more about it's laws and values than the kind of people that live there.

How to answer - in my opinion both of your arguments are right.

But they don't disaprove what I wrote.

The reason why people move/migrate may be very different it may be a causal chain. But still they move because they seek living space.

My China-US-example wasn't well chosen. Sorry for it. But I don't find another one that couldn't lead to misunderstanding.

You could think of Tibet - if a nation includes another nation - culture remains. A nation that eats other nations one by one become multicutural, multilingual, multiethnical. A democratic state will change this way.  Those you 'eat' will be part in the next elections, won't they? So - theoretical - if germany eats russia the next election germany would have a russian president. Do you agree?

Now - do you agree that every war destroys living space?

If germany would destroy the living space of all russians - the nation of russia - and all the russians would flee to elsewhere. What would happen in this 'elsewere' if this elsewhere is democratic? Who would become the next president of this 'elsewhere'?

So on a planet with 7 billion people - this 'elsewhere' becomes everywhere. Have in mind: with the diaspora jewish peoples where spread all over the world. Think the same with a billion people on the run.

That's what I wanted to say with my not so well choosen example. Drop a bomb over China and you will spread out chinese culture all over the world. Lets say Germany drops this bomb. The nation 'Germany' eats the nation 'China' would mean Germany becomes chinese. Or 'elsewhere' becomes Chinese.

Maybe you think of the world as a house with many different rooms and these rooms are nations? Than please think there are no empty rooms. And the look of every room can be changed. Now if a tenant moves from one room to another - who's room is it? You might say it's the room of the owner. Yes. But if you knock on the door who will open? Who will use the furniture, who will cook? So what is the ownership regarding the living? It's the rent. It's the money that makes the ownership.

And that's all a nation consists off today - money.

  Edited November 15, 2015 by fantozzi  

[Dreadnought 8,226]

This doesn't make any sense.

Muslims aren't leaving the middle east because western powers took their food and oil. They're leaving because radical islamic terrorists are turning it into an unlivable hellhole. There are plenty of rich Muslim countries with an abundance of oil and food (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan), but Muslim refugees are fleeing to European countries because those countries have welfare programs and are welcoming. European countries also have religious and social freedoms that the nations these people are fleeing don't have. There is plenty of living space around the world, so why are they going to Europe? Why not China? Russia?

If the US drops bombs on China they'll be at war with China. Won't China also bomb the US. Would Americans flee to China? Why would the chinese want to flee to a country that is bombing them? Even if the majority population in the US became chinese, it wouldn't become China - it would still be The United States. Nationality is far from irrelevant, especially in the world of today. It most certainly isn't an outdated concept. A nation is more about it's laws and values than the kind of people that live there.

 

If one looks around at The Ukraine, Syria, North Korea, and China -- we may be living in an age of "coming" dictators. 

What do you mean by that?

Yo, guy --

I'm not at all sure how my original comment could elicit "fantozzi's" response -- I think he misunderstood the purpose of my comment -- hence, how did all this get started?

But --

I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you say.  The residents of Syria, and the Middle East in general, are fleeing the region because it is impossible to have any sort of life there.  If you can actually go to sleep at night, you're never sure you will wake up the following morning.  A variety (you need a score card to keep track of the players) of religious sects, political factions, warlords, and foreign military forces are running around the region dropping bombs or shooting at someone.  A simple, peaceful, man can't even feed and protect his family -- of course he has to get out of the region.

Again, you are correct.  The refugees do not run to other Arab states because they wish to escape the religious and political persecution they find there.  Arabs, in general, do not show great tolerance toward refugees coming into their land unless they are of the same religious sect.  Arab governments do not welcome anybody that might threaten their hold over their people and their territory.  Unless you pray like them, and bend to their rule -- you will not be welcomed.  Not to overstate the obvious, but Russia and China are openly hostile to Muslims -- no need to even think about going there.  I can only assume Snowden went to Russia because they were the only ones that would take him!!  (I recently heard in the news that he has spoken with the US State Department about working out some sort of deal to come home.  Must be getting lonely -- Vlad must be neglecting his propaganda pet!)

The reasons you state for the refugees heading for Europe are largely true.  Religious and political freedom may not be top of their list -- but the chance to live and work in a place where people aren't dropping bombs has to be #1 !  The fact that Europe, to some degree, has extended the hand of friendship is another reason.  Most of the refugees I've seen interviewed on TV are looking to get a new start in life in a place with a future.  They see no future in Syria, etc.  Many of them are trying to reach Great Britain because they would get a better reception there.  Germany has been very kind, but there is growing sentiment against further immigration.  Europe, however, is the logical migration destination because the Aegean Sea is the only obstacle to "walking" to where they want to be.  Don't forget, Europe has been the scene of vast historical migrations in the past.  But, taking into account the horrific tragedy in Paris, immigrants may soon be unwelcome anywhere in the world.  How can you tell a terrorist from a refugee?

Yes -- a nation is far more than the people that live there.  The US is a classic example of "a nation of immigrants".  I suppose "fantozzi" could be right about a nation literally being inundated in refugees -- which causes a change in those values.  A rough guess says that any country would have to accept more than 50% of it's own population in refugees before you reach a tipping point.  BUT -- It is not likely that any nation will accept that many refugees.  In the US -- you can come here -- but you have to become an American if you want to stay.  We enjoy or freedoms because we broke away from the feudalistic systems of The Old World.  We would hardly allow Muslims -- or anyone else -- to change our system of government.  We will not be absorbed -- we will do the absorbing, thank you!

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?"

That was your question, and that was what I logged in to answer -- so many, many words ago.

Hemingway's world contained Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Tojo -- warlords and dictators that proved to be capable of plunging the world into a Second World War AND a Cold War.  Fifty years of conflict (1939 -  1989).  Wars that were waged by totalitarian states against democratic or parliamentarian systems.

My theoretical question is; Are WE faced by Putin, Assad, Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong-Un, Xi Jinping -- AND Islamic Militants??  And what does that mean for the next 50 years?

Ta --

P.S. Thanx for dropping by my CJ!!

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Hemingway's world contained Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Tojo -- warlords and dictators that proved to be capable of plunging the world into a Second World War AND a Cold War.  Fifty years of conflict (1939 -  1989).  Wars that were waged by totalitarian states against democratic or parliamentarian systems.

My theoretical question is; Are WE faced by Putin, Assad, Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong-Un, Xi Jinping -- AND Islamic Militants??  And what does that mean for the next 50 years?

Ta --

P.S. Thanx for dropping by my CJ!!

These dictators are different though. They don't have their minds set on military domination of the world. I believe Putin is smart enough to not want all out war with Europe and the United States. All Putin wants is for Russia to project the same power globally that the US does. Russia is also a potential ally against ISIS, so is Assad. Kim Jong-un is like a small dog that likes to bark really loud as people pass by, but he's mostly harmless to everyone outside of NK. Xi Jinping is just the President of China, he's not a dictator in the purest sense. China is authoritarian, but it is hardly seeking to dominate the world militarily. Iran is opposed to ISIS and they are also a potential ally. All that "wipe Israel of the map" talk is mostly hot air. Do you think Iran would actually commit suicide as a nation just to get rid of Israel? So I would disagree that this is an 'age of "coming" dictators. Hemingway, in his time, saw the rise of many. We do not see that same rise in this current era.

Islamic Militants are probably the biggest threat right now, but as far as I can tell (and someone can tell me if I'm wrong) ISIS has yet been able to set up a functioning state. It works in their favor to have decentralized leadership, but at the same time it prevents them from becoming an actual nation. They're never going to get their Caliphate. They're too crazy for their own good.

 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

I'm no military expert, but it seens, there's something going on:

http://hm.bigpond.com/articles/World/2015/11/17/France_to_deploy_aircraft_carrier_1089920.html

(according to french media it left this morning)

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/18/world/politics-diplomacy-world/putin-orders-russian-ship-join-french-flotilla-syria-strikes-says-u-s-sparing-islamic-state-targets/

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/17/438062/US-aircraft-carrier-Truman-Middle-East-

EDIT, Update:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-warship-set-to-support-french-carrier-group-on-isil-mission

  Edited November 18, 2015 by fantozzi  

[Sabretooth78 808]

"The US is sitting on two chairs."

Pretty much.  Wonder how we're going to continue hiding that in a year's time when our favorite scapegoat is out of office.  Then again, we've had situations before where our incredible adept populace has conveniently ignored the hypocrisy when "their guy" does the same thing but suddenly it's all right.  See, for example, the Bush II-era anti-war democrats and the "with us or against us" pro-big government republicans.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Isn't the U.S. Sixth fleet deployed in the Med?  It wouldn't surprise me if we got another 'Barbary Pirates' cleanout operation in the middle east.  If those people can't govern themselves, why not occupy them (horrors!), and pacify the area.  When we are done playing little boys with firecrackers and get out the big guns, this could be ended fairly quickly.

I am expecting the Russians to dump some tank brigades in there as soon as they have fitted them out for the climate and terrain.  Support from the sea by the allies would certainly be a help in interdicting the whole area allowing only food shipments.  A full embargo, land and sea is needed to cut off all supply to the warring factions.  At the same time, let's make sure we cut off any flow of funds in that direction as well.

ISIS is losing.  The evidence is the soft-target attacks.  Let's see how many of these 'radicalized traitors' we can round up everywhere.  No more kid gloves.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

"The US is sitting on two chairs."

Pretty much.  Wonder how we're going to continue hiding that in a year's time when our favorite scapegoat is out of office.  Then again, we've had situations before where our incredible adept populace has conveniently ignored the hypocrisy when "their guy" does the same thing but suddenly it's all right.  See, for example, the Bush II-era anti-war democrats and the "with us or against us" pro-big government republicans.

Yo, "tooth" --

You're a man after my own heart !!

Yeah -- Republicans LIKE small government.  If they keep it small, then only the "fat cats" get to run it.  But they're also for BIG government, in the sense that they like to keep the BIG power in the hands of those fat cats!!

Too bad Bernie doesn't stand a chance!

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Isn't the U.S. Sixth fleet deployed in the Med?  It wouldn't surprise me if we got another 'Barbary Pirates' cleanout operation in the middle east.  If those people can't govern themselves, why not occupy them (horrors!), and pacify the area.  When we are done playing little boys with firecrackers and get out the big guns, this could be ended fairly quickly.

I am expecting the Russians to dump some tank brigades in there as soon as they have fitted them out for the climate and terrain.  Support from the sea by the allies would certainly be a help in interdicting the whole area allowing only food shipments.  A full embargo, land and sea is needed to cut off all supply to the warring factions.  At the same time, let's make sure we cut off any flow of funds in that direction as well.

ISIS is losing.  The evidence is the soft-target attacks.  Let's see how many of these 'radicalized traitors' we can round up everywhere.  No more kid gloves.

Give 'em H***, Nonny !!!

The embargo idea is good -- very good.  But Obama doesn't seem interested. 

After the Paris attacks, the French hit a 160 truck convoy of oil being smuggled out for sale -- and obliterated it.  Then the story comes out that we knew about those smuggling convoys for a long time.  Why didn't the US hit them?  These guys make 140 million a month smuggling this stuff.  Why not destroy the oil before they purchase weapons that kill people? 

And who's buying the oil and selling them guns?  We need to shoot at them a little as well.  The boys that play with Isis need to feel some old-fashioned heat.  I'm beginning to think that a punch in the nose is waaay better than 6 months of negotiation. 

We don't seem to be taking this thing seriously.  If Napoleon were alive, he'd tell you just how serious an armed conflict really is!

And -- yes.  The French have the right idea.  They're going around France rounding up everybody that might cause a problem.  Instead of being unable to watch them -- put them in prison where you can really keep an eye on them.  Isis doesn't play with kid gloves -- we shouldn't either.  No more "Mr. Nice Guy".

My question is -- when does the rest of Europe wake up and start thinking like adults rather than scared children?  They need to kick in with planes, troops, weapons -- whatever it takes -- to squelch this Jihad crap just like they did back in the 14th and 15th Centuries.  Instead they're like the group locked in a room with a crocodile -- they're all looking at one another, hoping the croc will eat them last!  Time to come out fighting rather than wait around to be a crocodile's desert!

Yes- the 6th Fleet is in the Med.  And if we'd put it on "maximum effort" with conventional weapons, it would only take about two weeks to make a giant smoking hole out of Syria!!  We might not exterminate Dash / Isis / or whatever the H*** they call themselves, today -- but we could hurt it so badly that the local military could deal with what's left.

And we need to do it -- NOW!  Enough is enough.

BTW -- drop by and look at my CJ.  I value your opinion, sir.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am not much or a war hawk, but this ISIS crowd is coming too close to home.  You know how it is with us beavers:  You get us in a corner and we come out all teeth.  An outfit like that can't continue to exist without people trading with them.  I think we need to arrange for them to have nothing to eat but the oil they can't sell any more.  If others starve to death as well, let's say that those who stay in ISIS-held territory are either too apathetic to care or support them.  Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, eh?

Time for a world-wide crackdown on arms dealers, both illegal and legal.  If you are on the up and up and selling arms, it had damned well better be to a legitimate customer.  Any front organizations found need to be obliterated.  The easiest way to shut this down is to stop their money.  Greed drives everything.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

I am not much or a war hawk, but this ISIS crowd is coming too close to home.  You know how it is with us beavers:  You get us in a corner and we come out all teeth. 

On the other hand I notice a different thing: people start to talk with each other. They getting closer to each other. As if those who were sitting in their own den doing their own business found something to share. Maybe there is also a positive aspect in ISIS - they do every thing to unite the world. At least it seems to me there is more will to act united then half a year ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/18/asia/isis-hostages-china-norway/index.html

http://www.thestatesman.com/news/world/india-china-to-form-ministerial-mechanism-to-tackle-terror/105110.html

 

EDIT, update:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/isis-world-powers-plan-united-nations-security-council-resolution-to-declare-war-against-group-in-a6741181.html

  Edited November 20, 2015 by fantozzi