We live in crazy times. In The Fourth Turning, William Strauss and Neil Howe spoke of the cycles of history, and it sure looks like they were right. They observed that every four generations, about 80 years, we forget the lessons of the past and start fighting. Why? Strauss and Howe speculated that no one is alive who remembers how stupid that was the last time we went nuts.
In this country we are at each other’s throats, itching to go for our enemy’s jugular vein, even though our enemies are our fellow Americans. We are struggling with external enemies. In particular, we are arguing with China over trade issues, border disputes, and over Chinese responsibility for the Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Other nations are little different. Pick almost any nation. With a little effort you can find both internal feuds and feuds with neighbors. China, as it happens, is one of our world’s most deranged nations. China is a totalitarian state, a government with its boot on the necks of the Chinese people. That government depends upon a growing economy to pacify the Chinese people, and that economy is stumbling. To assert its legitimacy, that government also depends upon an aura of competence. Yet its handling of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated its incompetence. Moreover, the government of China has managed to thoroughly frighten and antagonize every one its neighbors, especially another large nation, India.
INDIA CHINA: EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL recounts recent events on the border between China and India. Is war looming between these two nations? In the immediate future? Perhaps. Thus far neither nation looks like it wants to fight. However, WWI started almost by accident. An assassin’s bullet set off a chain of events no one could stop. WWII started with a miscalculation. A tyrant, Adolf Hitler, underestimated the resolve of his opponents. That was 81 years ago.
Desperate to distract the increasingly dissatisfied people he rules, Chinese president Xi Jinping could easily do the same thing Hitler did. He could order his forces to attack, and he too could find he has enemies won’t give up. This scenario becomes especially likely if the Chinese leadership begins to discern that time is working against its drive for world domination, that those it wishes to conquer have already begun to prepare for war. Therefore, please consider reading INDIA CHINA: EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL and some of the articles below.
- Why India and China Are Sparring (foreignpolicy.com)
- Delhi is unlikely to opt for an escalation with China that affects its economy (indianexpress.com)
- A China–India Border Clash as Beijing Aims for Regional Hegemony (nationalreview.com)
- China and India move troops as border tensions escalate (theguardian.com)
- China is reportedly adding troops on the Ladakh border and India is matching up to it (businessinsider.in)
- China-India border: Why tensions are rising between the neighbours (bbc.com)
Could the USA be dragged into a conflict between China and India? Probably. If China becomes too ambitious in its objectives, then we may have to act to protect our interests in the region. That includes supporting our allies, including India, so that China cannot intimidate them into passively accepting its domination. When we do react to Chinese aggression, China will have to decide whether or not they want to attack our military forces. In fact, it is entirely possible China may engage in brinksmanship and threaten cities in the USA.
Crazy? Sadly, people sometimes tend to be that way.
Citizen Tom 
Why trade ban on China is a Bad Idea.
https://theliberacy.com/2020/06/30/why-trade-ban-on-china-is-a-bad-idea/
I’ve asked myself why the Chinese, or more precisely the Chinsese communist party has ramped up the provocations, the bullying and the saber rattling lately.
I’ve come to the conclusion that it is because of all of the following reasons:
– The Chinese economy was in bad shape even before the Wuhan virus hit.
– The rest of the world is preoccupied with their own problems (impact of the virus, economic problems etc.)
In other words: Bullying your neigbours and squeezing out concessions in order to keep your grip on power while the world is less inclined to deal with external problems.
Increasing China’s stature and national greatness might compensate for the economic pain and the incompetence of China’s rulers. That is, I suspect, the motivation behind China’s behaviour.
However, fighting external enemies and playing to nationalistic sentiments by showing military strength works only if you win against the external foe.
It does not work if you lose or if you achieve just a stalemate paid by the massive loss of people and resources.
Examples:
Argentina’s General Galtieri saw an easy way to kling to power by achieving an easy military victory when he invaded the Falkland islands.
Bringing the Falklands back to Argentina was a very popular goal.
Just a few days after Argentina lost the Falklands war, Galtery was booted from power.
Mussolini’s failed attempts at conquering Greece and parts of North Africa (at great human costs) did not increase his popularity.
Quite the contrary. He ended up shot and hung upside down.
My guess is that China is not ready for an all out war with India. India is no pushover and a full scale war with India is much too risky.
Don’t forget. India is a nuclear power.
That said, China is a great danger for the world.
The idea that economic interdependence and economic considerations would prevent wars is not a new one. In fact, that was the thesis of Norman Angell’s book “The Great Illusion” (published 1910).
His thesis and similar articles in “The Economist” were proven wrong just four years later when world war I started.
What we can learn from WWII is, that economic, financial power is the basis for military power.
In hindsight it was sheer lunacy that the axis powers Germany and Japan started a war against the Brits, Russia and the USA when the USA alone was an unrivaled industrial power with the highest production of oil and other resources needed to win a modern war.
At the end of WWII the USA’s GDP was greater than the economies of UK, France, Italy, USSR, Germany, Austria and Japan combined.
Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the attack on Pear Harbor, had lived in the USA and he knew that Japan had no chance of winning a long war against the US. The only chance was a quick knockout punch.
While Japan never recovered from the loss of its aircraft carriers at the battle of Midway, the US kept building carriers at a stunning rate.
In the beginning of WWII the US had 7 carriers. At the end of the war the US had 28 aircraft carriers.
Hitler, in contrast to Yamamoto, was a complete madman. Germany did not have the logistics and the resources to beat the USSR.
Why did Hitler attack the USSR? He did not attack the USSR as a distraction from internal problems or because the German people were dissatisfied.
Quite the contrary. After his spectacular victories especially in France, he was at the zenith of his power. No one in the German military dared oppose him.
In the view of many Germans he had “restored Germany’s honor” and he had rectified the perceived humiliation of the Versailles treaty .
Hitler attacked the USSR because of his crazy ideas he had layed out many years before in his book “Mein Kampf”.
Xi is evil but he is no madman. China will only start a bigger war if all the pieces are in place.
For the moment, the only way a bigger war can start, is by accident and the US is as far as I know not bound by treaty to defend India.
The US could help India the same way the US helped the Brits before it entered WWII itself.
@artaxes
Interesting, thoughtful comment.
I expect Xi is as mad as Hitler was, but I have no idea just how mad Hitler was.
The urge we have to do evil is not sane. When a man seeks to become a tyrant that is insane. However, such insanity is not what secular psychology would call insanity. Our urges to evil are bereft of Godly wisdom, but they are not incoherent thoughts. Whereas we we should focus on God, our evil thoughts are self-centered.
Was Hitler a military genius? I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I also doubt Germany’s general staff had given much thought to the logistical support required an invasion of Russia. Napoleon’s failure should have alerted both Hitler and the German General Staff to the danger, but Hitler and his followers probably believed their own racist propaganda.
In the end the logistical problems defeated the Nazis, but those problems did not cause that defeat. The Russian army stood its ground because the Germans abused the Slavs. Thanks to the Nazis racial and cultural arrogance, the Russians discovered they hated the Nazis more than they did their Communist overloads. Therefore, after they had been driven deep into their own territory, the Russians rallied and fought, Deep within their own territory, especially in winter, the Russians had the advantage.
@Tom
I won’t argue with you that evil is insane.
Evil has no reason or logic. That’s why true evil cannot be understood and that’s why it is so scary.
My point was, that Hitler didn’t have to attack the USSR in order to keep his power.
He did it for purely ideological reasons.
When I’m talking about a madman, I’m talking about someone who is detached from reality.
One can be evil and still have a grasp of reality. One can be evil and still be logical in the pursuit of one’s evil goals.
That was clearly not the case with Hitler.
Hitler could have used the Ukrainians who had been murdered by the millions by Stalin as allies but he didn’t.
The whole point of his war against the USSR was to create “Lebensraum” (living space) in the east by exterminating the Slavic population or by driving them away.
Unlike the war in the west the war in the east was from the outset a war of annihilation.
It’s the height of insanity that the nazis used much needed railway wagons to transport Jews and other people to the death camps instead of using them to supply the front.
Even so, in my opinion the USSR would have won anyway for two reasons.
The USSR had many more divisions than the Germans and they could raise many more new divisons than the Germans.
Because of the higher Soviet industrial capacity and because the factories had been disassembled and reassembled in the east far beyond the reach of the German air force the Soviets could produce many more tanks and fighter planes than the Germans.
Soon they had ten thousands of new T-34 tanks wich were superior to most German tanks.
The use of thousands of American lend lease trucks was also very helpful.
If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend these 3 videos:
Why Hitler Lost the War: German Strategic Mistakes in WWII
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: Why Germany Lost – Education (2001)
How the Red Army Defeated Germany: The Three Alibis – Dr. Jonathon House
As for Xi, I don’t know him and I can’t see inside his head but judging from the actions of the Chinese so far, I don’t think that Xi is a madman in the sense I’ve described.
@artaxes
When we don’t try to perceive the truth from God’s point of view, we don’t have much hope of seeing the truth.
@Tom
Could it not also work the other way round?
That by seeking the truth we find God.
Jesus said: “I am the truth”.
So far, I have seen nothing in this world that makes God a liar.
Does not faith eliminate the need to establish truth? In fact, in the absence of truth all we have is some level of faith… hence religion.
Seems to me God neither tells the truth nor lies given He is alleged, through teachings, to be omnipotent.
Not wishing to get into some religious debate, but seems like as soon as the reality of trying to determine some level of truth in man’s daily existence we immediately compare it to a theocratic faith truth, which is on a whole different level. Trump lies.. his defenders say he doesn’t and in doing so claim that it’s all fake news. Not sure how that translates to some struggle for Biblical truth.
@doug
“In fact, in the absence of truth all we have is some level of faith… hence religion.”
Are you aware that proof and truth are not the same?
Something can be true, even if there is no proof (yet).
If your defintion of faith is the belief in something that is not proven, then according to your definition, science is just another faith/religion for the simple reason that science is on a fundamentional level based on assumptions that can never be proven.
“Seems to me God neither tells the truth nor lies given He is alleged”
So are atoms too. They are alledged. Have you ever seen a single atom?
“Not wishing to get into some religious debate”
Then stay the hell out of our religious debate.
People who don’t want to make statements don’t make statements about not making statements.
“.. theocratic faith truth …”
Another strawmen argument. There is nothing theocratic about religious discussions.
Theocratic means that the state forces you to live according to a certain religion.
The right word here is: theological.
“Trump”
Dude, you’re sick.
I’m sure, you would manage to somehow bring Trump up in a discussion about the anomaly of H2O and the second law of thermodynamics.
Please seek professional help.
You are either incapable of abstract thinking or you have other serious psyhiatric problems.
Seems to me, you suffer from compulsive behavior.
Dude….
I didn’t say a thing about “proof”.
I didn’t say a thing about “science”..
I did say “theocratic” and meant it that way.
I did say I didn’t wish to debate religion… hence a person “might” interpret that as just getting some feedback. Which you did actually provide.. and in fact, we have not been having a religious debate at all.
I was commenting at all on your observation in not seeing anything in the world to suggest God is a liar. The statement suggests that “the other” could be possible.. to which I was “observing” that it is not possible if we accept the teachings. Regarding “truth”.. I was suggesting that humans for the most part accept a truth when it’s convenient, or we change it around to fit. Expediency.
Yep.. I’m sick.. and you aren’t?
1. You’ve had way to many religious “arguments” and have a chip on your shoulder.
2. You have to be right.
3. You’re afraid.
@doug
Dude,
“I didn’t say a thing about “proof”.
I didn’t say a thing about “science”..”
You said: “in the absence of truth”
If you did not mean truth to equal proof then it’s even worse and your statements make even less sense because truth is never absent. Truth simply is.
“I did say “theocratic” and meant it that way.”
If you mean it, then your statement is even more idiotic since neither I nor Tom were talking about state enforced religious behaviour.
That’s the classic strawman argument. Attack a statement your opponent never made.
“I did say I didn’t wish to debate religion”
No, you only wished to talk about faith, God, theocracy.
Dude, you are even more ridiculous than I thought possible.
It’s like saying: “I don’t want to talk about sex. I just want to talk about foreplay, orgasms and kisses”.
“to which I was “observing” that it [God is a liar] is not possible if we accept the teachings”
Actually it is possible. If there are two statements that are mutually exclusive then either one or both of them are false but they can never be both true.
“I was suggesting that humans for the most part accept a truth when it’s convenient, or we change it around to fit. Expediency.”
You are extrapolating from yourself. That may be true for you. For myself I can say. No, I don’t want to believe in lies. What’s the point?
No, we can’t change the truth into a lie or the lie into truth.
“Yep.. I’m sick.. and you aren’t?”
No, I’m not. At least I don’t suffer from the same disease you suffer from.
“1. You’ve had way to many religious “arguments” and have a chip on your shoulder.”
Any evidence for that?
“2. You have to be right.”
I love to be right but I don’t have to.
“3. You’re afraid.”
Afraid of what?
“I didn’t say a thing about “proof”.
I didn’t say a thing about “science”..”
You said: “in the absence of truth”
If you did not mean truth to equal proof then it’s even worse and your statements make even less sense because truth is never absent. Truth simply is.
• Truth is an interpretation of a given reality… or perceived reality, which itself can then bias truth as a perception If truth falls out of a tree in the woods and no one around perceives the event through the senses, truth may still exist but is irrelevant.
“I did say “theocratic” and meant it that way.”
If you mean it, then your statement is even more idiotic since neither I nor Tom were talking about state enforced religious behaviour.
That’s the classic strawman argument. Attack a statement your opponent never made.
• Hence your example of tossing into the mix here “proof” and “science”.
“I did say I didn’t wish to debate religion”
No, you only wished to talk about faith, God, theocracy.
Dude, you are even more ridiculous than I thought possible.
It’s like saying: “I don’t want to talk about sex. I just want to talk about foreplay, orgasms and kisses”.
• Some might contend that foreplay, orgasms, and kisses is the road to sex. Seems more valuable to discuss the route to take to get to the destination than the destination itself.
“to which I was “observing” that it [God is a liar] is not possible if we accept the teachings”
Actually it is possible. If there are two statements that are mutually exclusive then either one or both of them are false but they can never be both true.
• They can never both be true at the same time perhaps although both can be individual possibilities.
“I was suggesting that humans for the most part accept a truth when it’s convenient, or we change it around to fit. Expediency.”
You are extrapolating from yourself. That may be true for you. For myself I can say. No, I don’t want to believe in lies. What’s the point?
No, we can’t change the truth into a lie or the lie into truth.
• Oh but we can certainly change the ”perception” of truth to look like a lie.. generally by playing on bias.
“Yep.. I’m sick.. and you aren’t?”
No, I’m not. At least I don’t suffer from the same disease you suffer from.
• On the surface that is very true.
“1. You’ve had way to many religious “arguments” and have a chip on your shoulder.”
Any evidence for that?
• Your reply to me in the beginning.
“2. You have to be right.”
I love to be right but I don’t have to.
• I understand the context in which you just mentioned that… yet I find the general idea.. “I love to be right…” as a philosophical observation, which was not your intent, I know. But in general terms.. do we really “love” to be right or is it more along the lines of “we love to be accepted”? Of course when we are doing or creating we prefer knowing the how and why to get it done. But in interactions with others where we might exchange opinion, perspectives, and thoughts like what we are doing.. is being right the important goal? Who then determines “correctness”? A universal acceptance? I like your reply in spite of the unintended meaning.
“3. You’re afraid.”
Afraid of what?
* A shift in your reality.
@doug
You wrote:
“I didn’t say a thing about “proof”.
I didn’t say a thing about “science”..”
You said: “in the absence of truth”
If you did not mean truth to equal proof then it’s even worse and your statements make even less sense because truth is never absent. Truth simply is.
• Truth is an interpretation of a given reality… or perceived reality, which itself can then bias truth as a perception If truth falls out of a tree in the woods and no one around perceives the event through the senses, truth may still exist but is irrelevant.
“I did say “theocratic” and meant it that way.”
If you mean it, then your statement is even more idiotic since neither I nor Tom were talking about state enforced religious behaviour.
That’s the classic strawman argument. Attack a statement your opponent never made.
• Hence your example of tossing into the mix here “proof” and “science”.”
Response:
That is complete nonsense, mumbo jumbo, psychobabble and utter rubbish.
You make up your own defintion of the word truth.
Truth, Merriam-Webster definition:
Definition of truth (Entry 1 of 2)
1
a
(1)
: the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(2)
: the state of being the case : fact
(3)
often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b
: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
truths of thermodynamics
c
: the body of true statements and propositions
2
a
: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b
chiefly British : true sense 2
c
: fidelity to an original or to a standard
3
a
: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
b
archaic : fidelity, constancy
4
capitalized, Christian Science :
Your idea that truth is an interpretation is equivalent to the statement: “There is no absolute truth.”.
If it is absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth, then the statement is false.
If it is not absolutely true, that there is no absolute truth, then it is possible that there is absolute truth.
The statement is again, false.
Checkmate.
Ever heared of logic?
That’s why postmodernism is selfdefeating.
You wrote:
““to which I was “observing” that it [God is a liar] is not possible if we accept the teachings”
Actually it is possible. If there are two statements that are mutually exclusive then either one or both of them are false but they can never be both true.
• They can never both be true at the same time perhaps although both can be individual possibilities.”
Response:
Completely irrelevant. If someone makes two mutually exclusive statements, he does not tell you the truth because at least one of the statements is false.
I see no need to address the rest of your mumbo jumbo which is nothing more than a failed attempt at saving a lousy argument.
Of course it’s easy for you to lie to yourself if you have such a completely meaningless and “flexible” concept of truth.
Only losers who feel the need to lie to themselves fear a “shift in reality”.
In any case, your arguments are so weak that i cannot fear them even if I tried. I’m only amused and have to laugh really good.
Ah well… you are far too omnipotent for me.
@Doug
@artaxes
I am not going to referee, but I would observe that neither of you guys is going to persuade the other by browbeating him. Since I expect you already know that, I expect you are just enjoying yourself. Please keep it clean. Nothing below the belt.
Ok, dad.
@Doug
There basically two way people use the word faith. Sometime we speak of our faith, that is, our religious belief. The second usage refers to our faith in what we know to believe true. I can know how to swim, but if I am unwilling to get into deep water I don’t have much faith in my swimming ability.
I have faith in Jesus Christ because I have proven to myself that He is God. My faith is based upon reason, not wishing.
Sounds ok to me. We all gotta find the moral center in our own ways.
@Doug
Doesn’t work too well when we do what seems right in our own eyes. Read the Book of Judges. That book describes what happens.
Consider how the Apostle Paul described the situation.
Do you love your neighbor as much as you love yourself? Then the law is written on your heart. In any event, we are better off reading the Bible and praying for God’s help for the wisdom to do the right thing.
I agree…we are better off reading the Bible…………… rather than using it for a photo op prop in the shadow of a boarded up church for a backdrop.
@artaxes
Well, Doug won’t think I am being rough on him anymore.
I hope youn enjoyed the Show ;). Unfortunately, I need some sleep. It’s past 3 am here.
Tom,
The Chicago Tribune wrote an article today about the 80-year prediction subject today in relation to the rioting.
I wrote a post in reply related to King Solomon’s prediction about the riots if interested,
https://rudymartinka.com/2020/06/01/which-type-is-rioting-king-solomon-blog/
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Well sheesh Tom, we’re all busy trying to have a proper civil meltdown here and you go and interrupt us with foreign affairs! It is exceeding difficult for me to pay attention to China right now when we are all under a curfew because the Antifa “anti fascists” are busy protesting the inevitable results of having their own guys in power.
@insanitybytes22
I am tired of the stupid riots. When people either burn up or allow others, like Antifa, to burn up their neighborhoods, I move onto other problems. If they cannot see the idiocy in that, what can I do?
Cynical? I suppose so, but neither blacks or white Liberal Democrats are innately stupid. I am not responsible for their conduct; they are.
Of course, I understand something about the power of a corrupt news media and a public school system under the domination of Liberal Democrat public employees unions. I was raised in this country too. Still, we all have the capacity to think, and I cannot make people unafraid to think for themselves. Only our Lord can do that. So, please forgive me for moving onto something else. All I know to do about such obvious stupidity is pray.
To paraphrase Joe Biden, “Well I tell you what, If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you don’t know which political party is still obsessed with racism.”
Doug, You stated
” It becomes largely a battle of leader personalities and less about the citizens themselves..”
I agree and am thankful we have Trump as out leader, For some reason his personality has avoided the need for more USA troops being engaged in shooting wars..
Regards and goodwill blogging.
Well.. in that we differ greatly regarding anything he’s doing being related to “leadership”. Whether he has done anything meaningful over the long term as it relates to our military on foreign soil may take a while to determine.
Tom,
Not too sure about if the 80-year prediction is valid anymore when it applies to China and India. The reason is because both now possess nuclear weapons.
They may engage in minor border conflicts and politicians may chest pound threats, but if either are invaded and have their backs to the wall, they will use the nuclear weapons in my opinion.
However, based on the last twenty years of various nations conflicts, especially in the Mid-East, 80 years was far too short a prediction, in my opinion.
Wish every nation who read up on King Solomon who was wise enough to avert engaging in a war during his 60 year reign in far more turbulent times.
Frankly, my opinion was he built a strong defense of chariots instead of nuclear weapons, and he promoted trade agreements with his neighbors to make it beneficial not to engage in a war with Israel.
He also believed in feeding his enemies so they would be less likely to want to war with the hand that fed them.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
Nuclear weapons play into this, but I don’t think the matter of how they would be used is straightforward. During WWI both sides tried gas (or chemical) warfare. During WWII, no one used such weapons. Yet the delivery systems were much improved. So, such weapons would have been much more effective. Nevertheless, both sides engaged in otherwise ferocious warfare, sometimes obliterating entire cities.
I think Trump is trying to implement your advice from King Solomon, but don’t tell Doug I said that. Poor Doug will have a conniption if anyone says anything so obvious about Trump.
Ha! 🙂 Well, Trump is obvious only to himself.
China is definitely on the move and I believe wanting to start a war. It’s very disconcerting, not the least because of the other bad actors that will take its side.
Nah.. nothing even close. They have their own issues with Hong Kong spreading.. their own pandemic… and besides that, they are too entwined economically with us and vice versa. Heck, half the businesses over there are of U.S. origin. Old Xi simply wants to bolster China’s image as a world power. They have a lot of soldiers for a frontal assault in waves.. but no one wins those wars anymore. Barely two aircraft carriers… small navy in general. They aren’t even saber rattling, in my opinion. Worth watching for sure… but not likely to cause anything…. for now. We have other things to fear more… if fear is what you’re looking for…
I’m not so sure about that Doug, as Xi is of the old communist warrior breed and doesn’t much care for civil norms like human life and keeping good relations for business purposes. We shall see though whether it’s mere saber rattling. The realist in me says no.
@Tricia
@Doug
@Scatterwisdom
Xi doesn’t truly answer to the Chinese people. The Chinese people did not elect him, and most of the information they have is party propaganda (kind of like an American who only listens to CNN and MSNBC).
Trump, on the other hand, is accountable. Because their sons and daughters fight in them, the citizenry doesn’t like war. Business interests don’t like war because the chaos is bad for business. The mass media discourages warfare because their advertisers cannot sell anything to citizens soaked with taxes to pay for a warfare. Even the defense industry doesn’t like a big war. What is the point of making money if the enemy is bombing you?
Too bad Herr Hitler isn’t around to ask him that.
@Tom
You should go and see the movie “Wag the Dog”. Then you’ll know the “benefits” of a war. Few if any means are better at uniting a people than a common enemy. It worked for Hitler, when Poland “attacked” and Germany had to defend itself so ferociously, that German troops ended up almost in Moscow, before the troops could stop themselves. Having the American devils to defend against work for Teheran, and Erdogan is happy for any enemy distracting from the pile of rubble he built in his country.
@marmoewp
I am a retired military officer. I have never seen combat, thankfully, but I don’t need to see another damned Hollywood production about war. I have laughed at the silliness of their productions enough already. It has been years since I bothered watching a movie or television show, and I don’t regret it.
Please read my comment again. Then consider your examples again. The United States still remains a constitutional republic. We Americans have been known to fight ferociously, but our leaders have great difficulty finding any benefit in starting a war. That has happened, but not very often, thankfully. Generally, when we go to war, it is in self-defense, or someone has a lot of explaining to do. Ask George W. Bush about Iraq’s WMD.
@Tom
“Wag the Dog” is not a war movie, but a satire, where POTUS starts a fictional war campaign to distract the population from a sex scandal and to shore up support in the run up to his reelection attempt. It premiered a month before the Monica Lewinski scandal broke.
@marmoewp
So? Was the movie a satire on Hollywood?
I am sure there are a few decent people in Hollywood, but they don’t run the place. So, think about what you are suggesting. Why would I go to Hollywood for guidance about politics? What special knowledge do the folks in the entertainment industry have about politics. They know how to draw attention to themselves? Are you familiar with the word “exhibitionist”?
What does the Hollywood crowd know about distracting us from a sex scandal? Seriously? Hollywood?
Yet you want me to watch “Wag the Dog”? I have been hearing the name of that movie referenced for years. All you have done is told me more about the movie than I ever wanted to know.
I’m older and pretend to be wise hence my “realism” is more.. real; until it isn’t.
A fairly good breakdown of “war” threats, although at any given point in time the threats are within, and between, the leaders themselves. Who plays the aggressor and who plays the peacemaker? Who saber rattles and who negotiates? Who chooses neutrality and who threatens the use of nukes? It becomes largely a battle of leader personalities and less about the citizens themselves.. who themselves would likely be the ones doing the fighting, either defensively or offensively. So if you want a fair idea of the role players in a possible war role evaluate the leadership personalities.
Perhaps the greater question might be… if we are speculating… which of the world leaders would you prefer having to avoid a war?
@Doug
You turn everything into an idiotic attack on Trump. That’s obsessive behavior. It is not rational. It is such irrational behavior that leads to conflict.
It is a fact that countries where the People have a large say in the government generally avoid warfare. There are exceptions, but authoritarian states are usually much more combative.
Cold War is over, Tom. We are all economically connected.. damn that globalism!
@Doug
When Hitler and Stalin started WWII, Europeans were all economically connected.
War is stupid. If people were wise, we would not fight each other. Look at your endless tirades against Trump. If you are right, the people who voted for Trump are mindless, war fighting idiots. If you are wrong, then the people on your side are.
We agree!! Was IS stupid!
Now tell me.. what’s it called when Trump takes vindictive action against his “enemies”.. real or imagined? A political war?
Be patient. His version of “total war” will peak just before the election as he gets more boxed in.. and continue when he loses.
@Doug
I am not arguing with you about Trump anymore.
You surrender?
(Of course you didn’t.. and I fully agree with the frustration.)
@Doug
I am just not arguing with you about Trump anymore. With respect to Trump, you are behaving like a troll. When you badger me for supporting Trump, I am just not going to respond.
You want to talk about issues? Fine. You want to complain about Trump? I don’t care.
I understand completely.
@Doug
@Liz
You understand completely? No. You are just posturing, or we would not have gotten to this point.
https://citizentom.com/2020/05/28/ruling-by-decree-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-93610
No need to read into anything, Tom. You’ve reached a point.. don’t care for my continued lamenting on the subject of Trump and given I’m a guest in here.. I understand completely. I’m not posturing about anything.
@Doug
You are still welcome. Just not going to respond to comments on Trump.
“War”.. not “was”