Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Please refresh my memory. What was the US agenda in Vietnam?

I recall the elder 2 elder generations using dominoes as an analogy that if S Vietnam fell that we'd end up with a bunch more commie regimes.
The GI's and Silents ran the Cold War.


The Boomers + Hanoi Jane were protesting said war as unnecessary at best and evil at worst. I also remember draft card burning ceremonies + "hey, hey ho, ho, we won't go" protest signs on the TeeVee with Walter Cronkite at supper time.

Rags as a kid figured out it was a proxy war with Chairman Mao + Soviet Union on N. Vietnam side and the US of course on the side of S. Vietnam. So , depending on which generation's attitude, the agenda was different.

Now... as for Rag's idea of the agenda, that would be to stuff $ into the pockets of the MIC. [Agent orange, bombers, napalm, and ordinance cost $] Now, of course if you're a kid and see 3 elder generations bickering at suppertime, it's easy to get the idea that all 3 are acting stupid.
You see, a kid will filter out the noise of the bickering and attempt to see why something is REALLY happening that makes sense. That's why I'm stating that MIC featherbedding is the real reason for said war. That reason is logical and makes perfect sense, especially to pecuniary Nomads.

Let's start with this historical excerpt:

> The Soviet Union and Europe after 1945

> Continental Europe emerged from German domination in 1945,
> shattered and transformed. After the German surrender, Great
> Britain, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union divided
> Germany and Austria into four occupation zones, each to be
> administered by one of the victorious powers. The cities of Berlin
> and Vienna were similarly divided and occupied.

> With the acquiescence of the western allies, the Soviets
> re-annexed eastern Poland, Bessarabia, and northern
> Bukovina. Though the Soviet Union also annexed the Baltic states,
> those annexations were never recognized by Britain or the United
> States. Poland annexed Pomerania, Silesia, and southern East
> Prussia; the new German-Polish border lay along the line of the
> Oder and Neisse Rivers. The Soviets attached northern East Prussia
> with the city of Koenigsberg to the Russian SSR (Soviet Socialist
> Republic). As a provision of the Treaty of Friendship signed
> between the Soviet Union and the restored state of Czechoslovakia,
> the Soviet Union annexed interwar Czechoslovakia's easternmost
> province, Transcarpathian Rus.

> Soviet authorities were determined to establish regimes in eastern
> Europe that were friendly or subservient to the Soviet Union. Even
> before the Germans surrendered, Soviet occupation troops assisted
> local Communists in installing Communist dictatorships in Romania
> and Bulgaria. Indigenous Communist movements established
> dictatorships in Yugoslavia and Albania in 1945. In 1949, the
> Soviet Union established the Communist German Democratic Republic
> in its occupation zone of Germany, as the western allies promoted
> a German Federal Republic in the western zones.

> http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article....uleId=10005506

• You're right that the "domino theory" was America's
  principal "agenda" for pursuing the Vietnam war. The domino theory
  had come true in Eastern Europe, and Americans were afraid that it
  would be repeated in Asia.
  
• John Kerry and Jane Fonda thought that America was worse than the
  Nazis. If you want to worship them, then be my guest. Today, John
  Kerry and Barack Obama apparently still believe that America is worse
  than the Nazis. Obama barely ever seems to let a day pass when he
  doesn't incite black violence against the police.
  
• America has NEVER gone to war with the agenda of "stuffing
  dollars" into pockets. If you believe that's the ONLY agenda for the
  Vietnam war, then I assume you must also believe that when the
  government builds a school or hospital or highway, then the ONLY
  agenda is to make money for the construction firms. Or you must also
  believe that the only purpose of social welfare programs is to "stuff
  dollars" into the pockets of social workers.

The only way we could have won in Vietnam is if we had invaded North Vietnam, this would have likely required operations in southern china as well. The globalists who had already came to power starting with LBJ refused the carry out the necessary measures to win the war. This was most obvious in the "rolling thunder" air campaign when our leaders refused to bomb certain enemy targets when intelligence indicated that soviet advisors were stationed there. This was a prime example of the beltway elite's incompetence in that the bases known to have soviet advisors stationed there were taken off the target list. If I was president I would have made the soviet advisors high priority targets in the air campaign. Now during the current generation we see the boomer equivalent leaders being even more retarded with their globalism. As I have mentioned numerous times before when boomer neocons and neoliberals refused to carry out massed nuclear strikes against Muslim cities and population centers after 9/11.

Ever since WW1, first the progressive/Missionaries then later the GIs and now the Silents and boomer leaders have been doing everything they could to shove globalism and unnatural peaceloving multiculturalism down our throats. The reason anti-establishment candidates both on the left and on the right are flourishing now is the populace is tired of being ruled by these weaklings. To make matters worse boomers seem to be trying to find ways to "skip" over the cohorts born from the early 1960s to early 1990s when the time comes that they eventually have to hand over power, preferring it seems to delineate power and responsibility directly to cohorts born from the mid-1990s to early 2000s.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Let's start with this historical excerpt:

• You're right that the "domino theory" was America's
  principal "agenda" for pursuing the Vietnam war. The domino theory
  had come true in Eastern Europe, and Americans were afraid that it
  would be repeated in Asia.

Well, if the parties actually believed the domino theory was true to the extent that commie regimes were a clear and present danger then atomic warheads or firebombs should have been used on Hanoi. If you're going to fight a war, then fight it. Again, as a kid, if I saw Hanoi going up in flames then I'd judge the party prosecuting the war as competent. Half assed effort does nothing. It's the same as now, we do shit half assed and of course nothing works. If we take that to say Syria, no you don't go looking for "moderate rebels", you put boots on the ground and arm the boots to the teeth. Wars are all about killing people and breaking things. Wars should never be prosecuted to execute regime change because you're going to kill women, children, men, folks' sons, folks' daughters, folks' parents, etc.

• John Kerry and Jane Fonda thought that America was worse than the
  Nazis. If you want to worship them, then be my guest. Today, John
  Kerry and Barack Obama apparently still believe that America is worse
  than the Nazis. Obama barely ever seems to let a day pass when he
  doesn't incite black violence against the police.

Obama's foreign policy isn't so hot, but at least he got the Obama Care. It's not the best since Medicare for all (including Federal Employees, Congress, and himself should have been done.) IOW, every retired person from POTUS on down gets the same health plan. We could then dispense with the VA and Medicaid, etc. And yeah, the Healthcare.gov website is awful. Here's what I would have done.

Afghanistan. Stay Out! It's the graveyard of empires.
Iraq. Also stay out. Iraq isn't a country, it's a polygon with assorted tribes of differing religious/ethnic backgrounds. The Kurds are Indo-European, not Arabs for example. Kurdish and English are related languages, while English and Arabic are not. If said polygon isn't run with iron fist it flies apart just as it did. The only other option would have been to partition it into 3 new countries aligned with ethnic boundaries. You'd have to do that if Saddam did get to uppity.
Syria. Minority ruling a Majority. I think a mafia style hit on Assad would have worked better.
Libya Nothing. It has the same problem as Iraq. It's a tribal area and without a strongman, the place flies to pieces.

Btw, I used the word "Hanoi Jane" as a pejorative and I have my own reasons to dislike Kerry. He's a haircut in search of a brain.

• America has NEVER gone to war with the agenda of "stuffing
  dollars" into pockets. If you believe that's the ONLY agenda for the
  Vietnam war, then I assume you must also believe that when the
  government builds a school or hospital or highway, then the ONLY
  agenda is to make money for the construction firms. Or you must also
  believe that the only purpose of social welfare programs is to "stuff
  dollars" into the pockets of social workers.

There's lots of stuffing wrt MIC:
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/04/21/f35...t-development/

I don't know why the hell you even brought schools and highways.
1. Local governments fund schools or should. As for the Federal government, the department of education should be abolished.
Education should never, ever be a function of the Federal government.
2. I never alluded to the fact that road contractors are part of the MIC. National Roads + Interstates are a proper function of the Federal government along with Amtrack.
3. It's nice when you conflate my attitude on the MIC to everything else, John. You really should know better than to write emotion laden screed like that.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> The only way we could have won in Vietnam is if we had invaded
> North Vietnam, this would have likely required operations in
> southern china as well. ... If I was president I would have made
> the soviet advisors high priority targets in the air
> campaign.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

> Well, if the parties actually believed the domino theory was true
> to the extent that commie regimes were a clear and present danger
> then atomic warheads or firebombs should have been used on
> Hanoi. If you're going to fight a war, then fight it.

Both of you guys have been in the Fourth Turning Forum since
2006. Surely in nine years you must have learned something about
the dynamics of an Awakening era.

What both of you are doing is confusing motives with implementation.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that the motive for the Vietnam War
was the domino theory, but then to say that in a generational
Awakening era, implementing a victory in Vietnam was politically
impossible. That's the way Awakening eras work. You can have a
failed implementation even though the original motives were
benevolent.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

> I don't know why the hell you even brought schools and highways.
> 1. Local governments fund schools or should. As for the Federal
> government, the department of education should be abolished.
> Education should never, ever be a function of the Federal
> government. 2. I never alluded to the fact that road contractors
> are part of the MIC. National Roads + Interstates are a proper
> function of the Federal government along with Amtrack. 3. It's
> nice when you conflate my attitude on the MIC to everything else,
> John. You really should know better than to write emotion laden
> screed.

There was nothing emotion laden about it. Obviously I didn't
make myself clear. Let me try again.

Every government policy has both motives and implementation, and
you're confusing the two. Every government policy has some benevolent
motives, or it wouldn't be tried. Also, every government policy has
winners who make money from the government policy.

So what you're doing is saying, "I like Government Policy P, and so
I'm going to say that the motives for P are beauty and love and
happiness and so forth." Then you say, "I hate Government Policy Q,
so I'm going to say that the motives for Q are to make money."
That's hypocritical reasoning, because whether someone makes
money from the policy is completely irrelevant to the original
motives.

So what I'm saying is that you obviously have adopted the liberal
hatred of the Vietnam War, and that's OK, but it's not logical to take
the next step and say that therefore the motives were to make money.
The motives for the Vietnam War were the domino theory.

Or, alternatively, if you're going to ascribe such venal motives to
the Vietnam War, then logic requires you to ascribe similar venal
motives to policies that you like -- e.g., the only purpose of social
welfare programs is to "stuff dollars" into the pockets of social
workers.

There's nothing emotion laden about this. You've reached an illogical
conclusion about the Vietnam War ("I hate it, so it's about money"),
and unless you're a hypocrite then you have to reach similar illogical
conclusions about other things, such as social welfare ("I love it,
but it's all about money anyway").

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Both of you guys have been in the Fourth Turning Forum since
2006. Surely in nine years you must have learned something about
the dynamics of an Awakening era.

What both of you are doing is confusing motives with implementation.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that the motive for the Vietnam War
was the domino theory, but then to say that in a generational
Awakening era, implementing a victory in Vietnam was politically
impossible. That's the way Awakening eras work. You can have a
failed implementation even though the original motives were
benevolent.

There is nothing in actual history that support your view. Generational Dynamics at least as it's currently constituted is nothing but Baby boomer establishment orthodoxy in that wars should be fought for "regime change" rather than to punish and destroy the enemy. The Globalist, especially in their silent and boomer generation incarnation subscribes to a worldview that revolves around their own selfishness. The reason criticisms of the boomer generation tends to revolve around boomer "selfishness" is that they as a generation simply refuse to allow the natural order of things to assert itself. Like when 9/11 occurred the terrorists attacked because they believed we would either not fight or that we were only capable of landing a glancing blow against them, the nuclear destruction of Muslim cities and population centers would have reestablished "the natural order" of US military supremacy in the middle east, as well as instilling a respectable "balance of terror" among world's nation. But the selfish boomers because they did not want to kill "innocent" muslims and decided only to fight "the guilty", as a result we ended up fighting some idiotic nation-building campaign instead of taking the gloves OFF. Because as a generation, our boomer leaders generally believe in the view that "all people are basically the same" and that dictatorial regimes commit atrocities because the dictator is evil, not because that the people in the country might have utterly foreign views regarding human rights than we do. As a result our policies tend to be focused on nation-building and "regime-change" rather than actually fighting all-out when we get involved in a war. Likewise boomers want us to get involved in Syria to "help the innocent people there" even though we would have no tangible benefit from it. Yes the Syrians would benefit but not us, therefore how does intervention serve our interests?

Gen-X and Gen-Y tend to look at the boomers obsession with "Human Rights" and "Globalism" with embarrassment. We tend to see other countries as perceiving our government's obsession with human rights to be a sign of weakness on our part. Hence the view that I and many other Millies and Xers that the nuclear bombardment of the middle east after 9/11 would of cured many of our foreign policy problems that we have had since the berlin wall came down. We deeply resent boomers attempts to remain in power so that US policy would still be focused on "globalism" and "human rights" long past their expiration date. The reason Candidates like trump are popular, is that we want to establish the form of government and the military policy/configuration we would have implemented had the boomer establishment had not been constantly interfering with our attempt. That way we would not have to elect a neocon like bush have a liberal congress to keep him in check and later we had Obama as president but needed a neocon congress in order to prevent him from trying to shove his liberal peacenik ideology down our throats, likewise with the Clintons before bush II. With trump or some other similar leader we would have our rightful form of government unencumbered by boomer "checks and balances". We would finally be able to implement positive reforms and implement fundamental policy change--meaning that we change the fundamental character of our country that we show to the world, THAT is why many support the views that trump advocates.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> There is nothing in actual history that support your view.

Are you joking???? I'm sure I could point to hundreds of government
policies that had great motives but failed implementations. In fact,
that's true of almost every government policy, whether domestic or
war. There's tons of actual history that supports all of my views.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Are you joking???? I'm sure I could point to hundreds of government
policies that had great motives but failed implementations. In fact,
that's true of almost every government policy, whether domestic or
war. There's tons of actual history that supports all of my views.

An expansion during Vietnam was only impossible if one stuck to the checks and balances of the executive and legislative branches. That being said that wasn't even the main part my previous post which mostly concerned the ideological difference between the average boomer and the average Xer and millie. Take for example the president is forced to take the nation into war, Lets say that two viable options appear in how to conduct policy:

Option A: which would bring about the eventual defeat of the aggressor, however we would have to remain involved in order stabilize the region afterwards.

or

Option B: Which brings the defeat of the enemy much quicker, however the methods employed here would result in a much larger number innocent civilians are killed, however the US would be able to shape the post-war status quo to its advantage much more than in option A. However mainstream opinion would generally consider Option B "beyond the pale".

Boomers as a generation are "Option A" people they refuse to even contemplate an "option B" along the lines indicated above unless they in a situation where there is no other real choice. This is not the Case for Xers and at least earlier millies; we are on the whole are very much "option B" people. Implementing "option B" poses no problem for us. We generally consider boomers "option A" preferences to a sign of their incompetence and weakness as leaders, even viewed sometimes a simple selfishness on the boomer's part. Hence the boomers after 9/11 implemented "Option A" nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq and international action against terrorism, and refused to implement "Option B", the nuclear bombardment of the Middle east followed by full-scale ground invasion.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> That being said that wasn't even the main part my previous post
> which mostly concerned the ideological difference between the
> average boomer and the average Xer and millie.

That isn't true. It was a purported description of Generational
Dynamics, and it was pretty much all gibberish. If you want
to comment on the ideological differences between Boomers
and others, that's fine, but don't festoon Generational
Dynamics with your ramblings.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Both of you guys have been in the Fourth Turning Forum since
2006. Surely in nine years you must have learned something about
the dynamics of an Awakening era.

Yes, and it doesn't differ much than ...

Originally Posted by me @ age 8, circa 1970

I recall the elder 2 elder generations using dominoes as an analogy that if S Vietnam fell that we'd end up with a bunch more commie regimes.
The GI's and Silents ran the Cold War.


The Boomers + Hanoi Jane were protesting said war as unnecessary at best and evil at worst. I also remember draft card burning ceremonies + "hey, hey ho, ho, we won't go" protest signs on the TeeVee with Walter Cronkite at supper time.

What both of you are doing is confusing motives with implementation.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that the motive for the Vietnam War
was the domino theory, but then to say that in a generational
Awakening era, implementing a victory in Vietnam was politically
impossible. That's the way Awakening eras work. You can have a
failed implementation even though the original motives were
benevolent.

Yeah, and circa 1980, my cohort had a saying. "'Nam was a political war". Of course by "political" we're now talking how the GI's wanted one policy and how to implement it, which was vociferously opposed by Boomers. The Silents sort of split the difference.
The "Generation Gap" = adults squawking like hens in a henhouse with fox on the loose.


* dumb-dumb award for adult generations circa 1970. It's little wonder Xer's have such a low opinion of the awakening.

There was nothing emotion laden about it. Obviously I didn't
make myself clear. Let me try again.

Every government policy has both motives and implementation, and
you're confusing the two. Every government policy has some benevolent
motives, or it wouldn't be tried. Also, every government policy has
winners who make money from the government policy.

Let me try again as well. I split government spending into categories.
1. Proper expenditures for that level of government.
2. Improper expenditures for that level of government.
3. Expenditures that should not be made period.

So, here again are some examples.
1. MIC expenditures which are solely for the defense of the US territory. Border control, weapon systems for domestic defense only, Social Security, SNAP
2. Improper Federal spending. Department of Education. Education is to be handled by the several states, period.
3. Invalid spending. Bank bailouts, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, etc. Corporate welfare, corn subsidies which go to make people fat via high fructose corn syrup on energy negative gasohol.

So what you're doing is saying, "I like Government Policy P, and so
I'm going to say that the motives for P are beauty and love and
happiness and so forth." Then you say, "I hate Government Policy Q,
so I'm going to say that the motives for Q are to make money."
That's hypocritical reasoning, because whether someone makes
money from the policy is completely irrelevant to the original
motives.

No it isn't hypocritical, sorry. I just have clear ideas on what things should be funded and by which level of government. It's a shame politicians can't lay out budget priorities.

So what I'm saying is that you obviously have adopted the liberal
hatred of the Vietnam War, and that's OK, but it's not logical to take
the next step and say that therefore the motives were to make money.
The motives for the Vietnam War were the domino theory.

No, as per above with paraphrase. 'Nam was the penultimate issue adult generations were squawking about circa 1970 when I became world aware so to speak. Said squawking looked real stupid to an 8 year old kid which in turn made the issue being squawking about also look stupid

Or, alternatively, if you're going to ascribe such venal motives to
the Vietnam War, then logic requires you to ascribe similar venal
motives to policies that you like -- e.g., the only purpose of social
welfare programs is to "stuff dollars" into the pockets of social
workers.

The above does not made sense. I fail to see why deciding which policies / motives are worthy to myself are worthy or shit matters wrt "venal". I just ascribe that to which policies I prefer to be part of the overall fiscal policy to be enacted vs. which things I think should be scrapped as rubbish. Most voters except "values voters" do that.

There's nothing emotion laden about this. You've reached an illogical
conclusion about the Vietnam War ("I hate it, so it's about money"),
and unless you're a hypocrite then you have to reach similar illogical
conclusions about other things, such as social welfare ("I love it,
but it's all about money anyway").

Nope, Nam was special because it had money + lots of squawking that happened to be a supper guest every day for an 8 year old.
The thing you should know is I'm time traveling back to 1970, so you're arguing with an 8 year old! Kids do the darndest things.

And of course it's this silly 2T stuff that made me welcome the upcoming vice laden 3T.



Stuff like poker junkets and college dorm drinking came in circa 1980.

What Xers and Millies hate is boomers intense opposition to real reform. Boomers while they might oppose conservative or liberal positions based on their political platform they usually acknowledge their opponents position. Boomers however refused to even consider implement the political and military reforms that Xers and Millies offer: like changing our doctrine and rules of engagement so that we no longer have to avoid foreign noncombatant losses. Reforms of the executive and legistlative organs of government so that the government can implement mass deportations of illegal immigrants and refugees. Or implementing reforms reversing multiculturalism and neoliberal decadence.

*** 2-Nov-15 World View -- Erdogan's party in Turkey wins landslide victory

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Erdogan's party in Turkey wins landslide victory
• How Turkey changed in five months

****
**** Erdogan's party in Turkey wins landslide victory
****


A Turkish woman casts her vote on Sunday in Ankara (AP)

In parliamentary elections on Sunday, Turkey's Justice and Development
Party (AKP), the party of Turkey's strongman president Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, made an unexpectedly good showing. AKP captured 316 seats in
the 550-seat parliament, meaning that AKP can govern by itself without
having to form a coalition with another party.

Although it was a landslide victory for Erdogan, it was not the
super-landslide that he had once been hoping for, which would have
given AKP the ability to change the constitution to increase Erdogan's
powers.

Sunday's election reversed the losses that AKP suffered in the June 7
election, where AKP unexpectedly lost its parliamentary majority. In
that election, AKP got 41% of the vote, and lost a lot of votes to the
Kurdish anti-government far-left Peoples’ Democratic Party's (HDP),
which got 12% of the vote. ( "8-Jun-15 World View -- In major election setback, Turkey's Erdogan loses support as Kurds gain seats"
)

After the June 7 election, Erdogan called for a new election, gambling
that a new election would let him regain his parliamentary majority.
The gamble paid off.

The new election reversed that situation after June 7. AKP got 49% of
the vote, while HDP's results fell to 10.7% of the vote. However, HDP
leaders are breathing a sigh of relief, because if their vote share
had fallen below 10%, then according to the constitution they would
lose all their seats in parliament. As things stand, they still have
59 seats. Zaman (Istanbul) and BBC and CNN

****
**** How Turkey changed in five months
****

The months between the June 7 election and the November 1 election
have been some of the bloodiest in Turkey's recent history.

One reason that the Kurdish party HDP did so well on June 7 was that
they promised the voters that they would disarm the Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK), which is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, Europe
and the United States. However, once the election ended, they
reversed that promise.

Turkey went into a spiral of violence. A July 20 terrorist attack in the city of attack on Suruç
killed 33 people, mostly young pro-Kurdish activists. After
that, a two-year-old ceasefire agreement between the PKK and the
government broke down, and Erdogan declared war on the PKK. ( "9-Sep-15 World View -- Turkey slips into chaos as violence spreads across the country"
)

But that wasn't the worst of it. On October 12, Turkey went into a
state of shock after a massive terrorist attack at a "peace rally" in
the capital city Ankara that killed 97 people and injured hundreds
more. It's being referred to as the worst terrorist massacre in
Turkey's history, or as "Turkey's 9/11." ( "13-Oct-15 World View -- Turkey is seen as increasingly unstable after Ankara massacre"
)

In that atmosphere of increasing chaos in Turkey, millions of Turkish
voters decided that they really want a strongman in charge, and they
voted for Erdogan's AKP party.

Erdogan is looking strong for another reason. As the refugee crisis
in Europe continues and grows, European officials are increasingly
seeing Turkey as their only hope of bringing the situation under
control, which means that Erdogan will be negotiating with Brussels
from a position of strength.

There are some real questions now about what will happen next.
Erdogan has gotten his landslide, and a mandate to stop the violence.
This could take the form of increased warfare with the PKK, or
increased warfare with the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL
or Daesh) in Syria.

Syria is getting very crowded. The Russians have been moving in, and
in the last week it was announced that Iran is sending in soldiers,
and the US is sending in 50 special forces. Erdogan does not want to
see any of Bashar al-Assad, the Kurds, or ISIS to be successful in
Syria, and he may decide that his new mandate gives him the right to
join the party. Hurriyet (Istanbul) and Sabah (Istanbul) and Zaman (Ankara)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Justice and Development Party, AKP, Peoples' Democratic Party, HDP,
Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, Suruç, Ankara, Syria, Russia, Iran,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> What Xers and Millies hate is boomers intense opposition to real
> reform. Boomers while they might oppose conservative or liberal
> positions based on their political platform they usually
> acknowledge their opponents position. Boomers however refused to
> even consider implement the political and military reforms that
> Xers and Millies offer: like changing our doctrine and rules of
> engagement so that we no longer have to avoid foreign noncombatant
> losses. Reforms of the executive and legistlative organs of
> government so that the government can implement mass deportations
> of illegal immigrants and refugees. Or implementing reforms
> reversing multiculturalism and neoliberal decadence.

Why doesn't it bother you that once the Xers and Millies get their
way, they start the next world war?

*** 3-Nov-15 World View -- Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) continues plan to exterminate Shias

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) continues plan to exterminate Shias
• Pakistan's LeJ anti-Shia terror group may have links to ISIS
• History of sectarian violence in Pakistan since Partition

****
**** Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) continues plan to exterminate Shias
****


The death of LeJ's leader Malik Ishaq in July (Pakistan Today)

On October 22, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a Shia mosque in
Balochistan in southwest Pakistan as worshippers were gathering,
killing 10 Shia Muslims. On October 23, 27 Shias were killed and
dozens wounded in a suicide attack on a Shia procession in a city
north of Karachi.

The Sunni terror group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) claimed responsibility
for both attacks. I've written about LeJ many times. The group is
dedicated to the extermination of all Shias in Pakistan, especially
Shias in the Hazara ethnic group. In June 2011, LeJ wrote an open
letter to the Shia Hazaras, declaring:

<QUOTE>"Our mission [in Pakistan] is the abolition of this
impure sect and people, the Shias and the Shia Hazaras, from every
city, every village, every nook and corner of Pakistan. Like in
the past, [our] successful Jihad against the Hazaras in Pakistan
and, in particular, in Quetta is ongoing and will continue. We
will make Pakistan their graveyard — their houses will be
destroyed by bombs and suicide bombers... Jihad against the Shia
Hazaras has now become our duty... We will rest only after
hoisting the flag of true Islam on the land of the pure –
Pakistan.<END QUOTE>

LeJ has conducted 49 sectarian (Sunni versus Shia) terrorist attacks
so far in 2015, down from 92 incidents in 2014. However, the number
of fatalities has increased from 210 in 2015 to 251 in 2015, according
to the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP). Daily Times (Pakistan) and South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP)

****
**** Pakistan's LeJ anti-Shia terror group may have links to ISIS
****

Officials in Pakistan are increasingly concerned that the so-called
Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) has established or is
establishing a foothold in Pakistan. Questions have also arisen about
whether Pakistani terrorists groups might have participated in
anti-Shia terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Recent evidence has emerged that Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ) has had a
working relationship with ISIS, and almost became a full-fledged
branch of ISIS in Pakistan.

In May, we reported on a horrific attack on Ismaili Shias in Karachi.
Terrorists in Karachi attacked
a bus full of Ismaili Shias, killing 45, and left behind leaflets
accusing Shias of "barbaric atrocities," and warning of the "Advent of
the Islamic State!"

At the time of the attack, Pakistani officials ruled out ISIS
involvement. But since then, Evidence has emerged that the attack was
conducted by LeJ working with ISIS.

The link to ISIS was LeJ's leader, Malik Ishaq. According to new
evidence, Ishaq was all set to join ISIS in August. But as we
reported on July 29, LeJ's leader Malik Ishaq was killed in gunfight,
along with 13 others including
his two sons, while he was in police custody. It's believed that the
gunfight was a setup by the police to allow them to kill Ishaq, rather
than return him to jail.

It's not known whether LeJ has continued to develop links with ISIS,
but Pakistani officials now say that Ishaq's death has ended the
possibility of LeJ becoming a branch of ISIS, for the time being.
Express Tribune (Karachi) and OpEd News

****
**** History of sectarian violence in Pakistan since Partition
****

One of the worst wars of the 20th century was the bloody genocidal war
between Hindus and Muslims that followed Partition, the 1947
partitioning of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan. The
scale of civilian displacement from their homes was so massive that it
was called by some an "exodus of biblical proportions," since it
forced millions of Hindus in Pakistan to flee to India, and millions
of Muslims in India to flee to Pakistan.

At the time of the Partition war, Muslims in the new state of Pakistan
were generally united against the Hindus, and sectarianism among the
Muslims wasn't a major issue at that time.

However, Hindus and Shia Muslims have been allied in wars against
Sunni Muslims since the seminal Battle of Karbala in 680. So the fact
that there was an alliance of convenience between Sunni and Shia
Muslims in 1947 does not mean that such an alliance was going to last.

There were incidents of sectarian strife during the generational
Awakening era in Pakistan, and they began to become serious in 1979,
and have escalated continuously since then. At that time, Pakistan's
government introduced "Islamicisation" of Pakistan. Shia Muslims
resisted this process, calling it the "Sunnification" of Pakistan,
since based on Sunni law. As Shias protested, the more they were
targeted.

The first suicide attack against Shias was carried out in July 2003
when three armed terrorists, including a suicide bomber, attacked a
Shia mosque in Quetta, the capital of the Balochistan, during Friday
prayers, leaving 53 dead and 57 others critically injured.

The same is the story of all non-Sunni Muslim minorities in Pakistan,
including Christians. These minorities are targeted not only by LeJ,
but also other terrorist groups associated with Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP
- Pakistan Taliban).

The question always arises -- why doesn't Pakistan's government put a
stop to these attacks? The reason, according to many Indian analysts
but denied by Pakistani politicians, is that the country is not being
run by the civilian government, but by the army and by Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, and that the ISI is actually
funding and supporting LeJ and other TTP-linked terrorist groups to
perform these terrorist attacks. Hudson Institute and South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) and Daily Times (Pakistan)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Pakistan, Lashkar-e Jhangvi, LeJ, Malik Ishaq,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Shias, Hazaras, Ismaili Shias, Karachi, Partition, India,
Battle of Karbala, Hindus, Tehrik-e-Taliban, TTP, Pakistan Taliban

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The only way we could have won in Vietnam is if we had invaded North Vietnam, this would have likely required operations in southern china as well. The globalists who had already came to power starting with LBJ refused the carry out the necessary measures to win the war. This was most obvious in the "rolling thunder" air campaign when our leaders refused to bomb certain enemy targets when intelligence indicated that soviet advisors were stationed there. This was a prime example of the beltway elite's incompetence in that the bases known to have soviet advisors stationed there were taken off the target list. If I was president I would have made the soviet advisors high priority targets in the air campaign. Now during the current generation we see the boomer equivalent leaders being even more retarded with their globalism. As I have mentioned numerous times before when boomer neocons and neoliberals refused to carry out massed nuclear strikes against Muslim cities and population centers after 9/11.

(fake surprise) OMG! Bombing bases with Soviet advisors stationed there? Wwwwwwwwwwwhy ... that might have caused the Soviets to actually DECLARE war against us instead of fighting dirty! Can't have that! (/fake surprise).

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Why doesn't it bother you that once the Xers and Millies get their
way, they start the next world war?

Should we sit and wait for the next WW to come to us or should we bring it?

Imagine what a 21st Century Pearl Harbor equivalent is going to look like. This is nothing new. Every credible exchange scenario indicates that he who shoots first wins.

*** 4-Nov-15 World View -- Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday
• China asserts a 'bottom line' to US in South China Sea

****
**** Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday
****


Xi Jinping (left) and Ma Ying-jeou

According to a surprise announcement on Tuesday, China’s President Xi
Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou will meet and talk in
Singapore on Saturday.

This will be the first time that leaders of China and Taiwan have met
since Mao Zedong's Communist Revolution, China's massive civil war
that climaxed in 1949, when Mao's forced the Nationalist (KMT) forces,
led by Chiang Kai-shek, to flee to Formosa (Taiwan), passing through
Hong Kong, in 1949.

China has always considered Taiwan to be a province of China, but
feelings on Taiwan hardened against China considerably in 1989, when
Taiwan's population watched in horror as China's security forces
brutally massacred and killed thousands of innocently protesting
students in the Beijing's Tiananmen Square massacre. This triggered a
Taiwan student movement called "the Wild Lily rebellion," and led to
the creation of a new political party, Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP), which explicitly favored independence.

DPP has been in power in Taiwan for about half of the last 15 years,
and whenever they're in power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in
Beijing totally freaks out, issuing one threat after another, saying
that it Taiwan makes even one tiny step in the direction of
independence, the China will declare war.

However, the KMT have been in power in Taiwan since 2008, and
relations between Taiwan and China have been relatively calm. The
2008 election was followed in China by the horrible Sichuan
earthquake, which began a period of international good will directed
at China, including a thaw in relations with Taiwan. Taiwan's new
president, Ma Ying-jeou, called for seizing "this historic opportunity
to achieve peace and co-prosperity, under the principle of "no
unification, no independence and no use of force." The two countries
have followed an ambiguous 1992 agreement that said that there's only
"one china," but does not explain what that means. (See "Taiwan / China relations thaw in wake of election and earthquake"
from 2008.)

The first signal that this calm in relations was about to end was
KMT's disastrous losses in local elections across Taiwan
in November of last year. The election
occurred just weeks after the start of the massive Hong Kong
demonstrations, after China reneged on its promise, at the time Hong
Kong reverted to China in 1997, that Hong Kong would have full, free
elections. Many Taiwanese suddenly realized that their freedoms were
similarly threatened, and that Beijing could never be trusted not to
renege on any promise it made.

A presidential election is scheduled for January 16, and polls
indicate that the DPP is going to return to power, and with it, a more
pro-independence stance by the government. It's believed that
Tuesday's "thaw" in relations, announcing the meeting between Xi and
Ma, is related to the January 16 election. But what's the purpose?

One possible purpose is to bolster KMT's election fortunes. But
that could just as easily backfire, as KMT's opponents point
to China's interference in Taiwan's election.

Another possibility is that the two will announce some major new
China-Taiwan pro-unity initiative, and get it committed before DPP
takes power in January. Or, perhaps the purpose of the meeting is for
Xi to make some kind of military threat. When Xi took office in 2013,
he said that the situation with Taiwan could not go on much longer,
with the implication that China was preparing to use military force to
take control of Taiwan. So anything is possible. Focus Taiwan and
AFP

****
**** China asserts a 'bottom line' to US in South China Sea
****

At a meeting of Southeast Asia defense ministers in the Association of
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), both the US and China asserted their
positions with regard to the South China Sea.

More than half the world’s merchant tonnage through the South China
Sea, and China would be able to harass or target any country's
commercial shipping. China has been annexing regions in the South
China Sea that have historically belonged to other countries, and
continues and uses belligerent military operations to enforce its
seizures. China has claimed the entire South China Sea, including
regions historically belonging to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines. China's claims are rejected by
almost everyone outside of China, and China refuses to submit them to
the United Nations court deciding such matters, apparently knowing
that they would lose.

China has used land reclamation projects to build a chain of man-made
islands in international waters around the Spratley Islands, and
apparently plans to use them as military naval bases. Recently, the
US challenged China by sending a surveillance ship to within 12 miles
of China's man-made islands, triggering a furious response from
China's Ministry of Defense.

At the ASEAN on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is quoted as
reiterating previous statements that "The United States will fly,
sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all
around the world."

China's defense minister Chang Wanquan was quoted as saying:

<QUOTE>"But that said, we need to do things that help us
defend our sovereign territory and I need to be very clear to you
that there is a bottom line to this."<END QUOTE>

It's not "very clear" what the "bottom line" is, but China has
repeatedly threatened to take military retaliation for future US
surveillance activities. Reuters


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Taiwan, Xi Jinping, Ma Ying-jeou,
Mao Zedong, KMT, Kuomintang, DPP, Democratic Progressive Party,
Chiang Kai-shek, Tiananmen Square massacre, Wild Lily Rebellion,
Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN,
South China Sea, Ash Carter, Chang Wanquan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

*** 4-Nov-15 World View -- Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday
• China asserts a 'bottom line' to US in South China Sea

****
**** Presidents of China and Taiwan to meet in Singapore on Saturday
****


Xi Jinping (left) and Ma Ying-jeou

According to a surprise announcement on Tuesday, China’s President Xi
Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou will meet and talk in
Singapore on Saturday.

This will be the first time that leaders of China and Taiwan have met
since Mao Zedong's Communist Revolution, China's massive civil war
that climaxed in 1949, when Mao's forced the Nationalist (KMT) forces,
led by Chiang Kai-shek, to flee to Formosa (Taiwan), passing through
Hong Kong, in 1949.

China has always considered Taiwan to be a province of China, but
feelings on Taiwan hardened against China considerably in 1989, when
Taiwan's population watched in horror as China's security forces
brutally massacred and killed thousands of innocently protesting
students in the Beijing's Tiananmen Square massacre. This triggered a
Taiwan student movement called "the Wild Lily rebellion," and led to
the creation of a new political party, Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP), which explicitly favored independence.

DPP has been in power in Taiwan for about half of the last 15 years,
and whenever they're in power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in
Beijing totally freaks out, issuing one threat after another, saying
that it Taiwan makes even one tiny step in the direction of
independence, the China will declare war.

However, the KMT have been in power in Taiwan since 2008, and
relations between Taiwan and China have been relatively calm. The
2008 election was followed in China by the horrible Sichuan
earthquake, which began a period of international good will directed
at China, including a thaw in relations with Taiwan. Taiwan's new
president, Ma Ying-jeou, called for seizing "this historic opportunity
to achieve peace and co-prosperity, under the principle of "no
unification, no independence and no use of force." The two countries
have followed an ambiguous 1992 agreement that said that there's only
"one china," but does not explain what that means. (See "Taiwan / China relations thaw in wake of election and earthquake"
from 2008.)

The first signal that this calm in relations was about to end was
KMT's disastrous losses in local elections across Taiwan
in November of last year. The election
occurred just weeks after the start of the massive Hong Kong
demonstrations, after China reneged on its promise, at the time Hong
Kong reverted to China in 1997, that Hong Kong would have full, free
elections. Many Taiwanese suddenly realized that their freedoms were
similarly threatened, and that Beijing could never be trusted not to
renege on any promise it made.

A presidential election is scheduled for January 16, and polls
indicate that the DPP is going to return to power, and with it, a more
pro-independence stance by the government. It's believed that
Tuesday's "thaw" in relations, announcing the meeting between Xi and
Ma, is related to the January 16 election. But what's the purpose?

One possible purpose is to bolster KMT's election fortunes. But
that could just as easily backfire, as KMT's opponents point
to China's interference in Taiwan's election.

Another possibility is that the two will announce some major new
China-Taiwan pro-unity initiative, and get it committed before DPP
takes power in January. Or, perhaps the purpose of the meeting is for
Xi to make some kind of military threat. When Xi took office in 2013,
he said that the situation with Taiwan could not go on much longer,
with the implication that China was preparing to use military force to
take control of Taiwan. So anything is possible. Focus Taiwan and
AFP

****
**** China asserts a 'bottom line' to US in South China Sea
****

At a meeting of Southeast Asia defense ministers in the Association of
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), both the US and China asserted their
positions with regard to the South China Sea.

More than half the world’s merchant tonnage through the South China
Sea, and China would be able to harass or target any country's
commercial shipping. China has been annexing regions in the South
China Sea that have historically belonged to other countries, and
continues and uses belligerent military operations to enforce its
seizures. China has claimed the entire South China Sea, including
regions historically belonging to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines. China's claims are rejected by
almost everyone outside of China, and China refuses to submit them to
the United Nations court deciding such matters, apparently knowing
that they would lose.

China has used land reclamation projects to build a chain of man-made
islands in international waters around the Spratley Islands, and
apparently plans to use them as military naval bases. Recently, the
US challenged China by sending a surveillance ship to within 12 miles
of China's man-made islands, triggering a furious response from
China's Ministry of Defense.

At the ASEAN on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is quoted as
reiterating previous statements that "The United States will fly,
sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all
around the world."

China's defense minister Chang Wanquan was quoted as saying:

<QUOTE>"But that said, we need to do things that help us
defend our sovereign territory and I need to be very clear to you
that there is a bottom line to this."<END QUOTE>

It's not "very clear" what the "bottom line" is, but China has
repeatedly threatened to take military retaliation for future US
surveillance activities. Reuters


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Taiwan, Xi Jinping, Ma Ying-jeou,
Mao Zedong, KMT, Kuomintang, DPP, Democratic Progressive Party,
Chiang Kai-shek, Tiananmen Square massacre, Wild Lily Rebellion,
Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN,
South China Sea, Ash Carter, Chang Wanquan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Just like the embarrassing EP3 incident where the Communist Red Chinese attacked us in international airspace. Bush performed the worst during his entire presidency when he "regretted" our normal and legal military activities for no other reason than appeasing multinationals who've been committing treason for years in ongoing dealings with the criminal Beijing regime and its adjuncts among Chinese "corporations."

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Just like the embarrassing EP3 incident where the Communist Red Chinese attacked us in international airspace. Bush performed the worst during his entire presidency when he "regretted" our normal and legal military activities for no other reason than appeasing multinationals who've been committing treason for years in ongoing dealings with the criminal Beijing regime and its adjuncts among Chinese "corporations."

To make matters worse the beltway elite under Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama continued to keep harping "human rights". Now This would have been great if our policy was to fully oppose our most likely potential adversaries; But that has never been the case since the boomers took over. Instead we have the corporations committing treason by setting up shop in china, India, Russia and elsewhere with the connivance of the beltway. If one opposes Chinese/Russian policies toward "human rights" then that opposition should be conjunction with a general full-scale opposition to those powers. If we're not going to oppose their policies than we should keep our mouths shut then if we're not going to do anything about it. Instead we give and take money from both countries and keep harping about "human rights" while conducting appeasement at the same time, thus making us look like decadent weaklings. Boomer leadership in general is a prime case of the weak leading the strong, the boomer way of governing is in direct contradiction to human nature.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

To make matters worse the beltway elite under Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama continued to keep harping "human rights". Now This would have been great if our policy was to fully oppose our most likely potential adversaries; But that has never been the case since the boomers took over. Instead we have the corporations committing treason by setting up shop in china, India, Russia and elsewhere with the connivance of the beltway. If one opposes Chinese/Russian policies toward "human rights" then that opposition should be conjunction with a general full-scale opposition to those powers. If we're not going to oppose their policies than we should keep our mouths shut then if we're not going to do anything about it. Instead we give and take money from both countries and keep harping about "human rights" while conducting appeasement at the same time, thus making us look like decadent weaklings. Boomer leadership in general is a prime case of the weak leading the strong, the boomer way of governing is in direct contradiction to human nature.

Obama's an Xer.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Obama's an Xer.

That's debatable, he was born in 1961 so his cohort is very cuspy. But he has followed Clinton-bush policies (albeit with a left flavor) and his advisors are mostly boomers (in this case from the boomer-left mostly). Every president since roughly LBJ, especially after about Reagan has followed some form of neoliberal globalism. A comprehensive reform is desperately needed.

*** 5-Nov-15 World View -- Bombing of plane in Egypt threatens Russia's Syria strategy

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• US, Britain suggest ISIS bomb brought down Russian plane in Egypt
• Plane bombing threatens Russia's Syria strategy

****
**** US, Britain suggest ISIS bomb brought down Russian plane in Egypt
****


Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh Red Sea resort

American and British government officials are saying off the record
that suspicions are growing that the Russian passenger plane that was
blown out of the sky in Egypt on Saturday was brought down by a bomb
planted by the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh).

The plane, a Metrojet Airbus A321 Russian airliner, took off on
Saturday from Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport on a flight to
St. Petersburg, Russia. It crashed shortly after takeoff, leaving
widely scattered debris across a large region of the Sinai desert.
Sharm el-Sheikh is Red Sea resort very popular with British and
Russian vacationers, with palm trees lining beautiful beaches.

Initial claims on Saturday by an ISIS-linked terror group that it had
"shot down" the plane were rejected by both Egypt and Russia, and are
still rejected, since there's no evidence that any missile strike was
involved. It's now believed that the plane was brought down by a bomb
planted on the plane before it left the airport. The bomb's explosion
may have been triggered by an isometric pressure switch that reacts
when air pressure indicates that the plane is at a specific altitude.

If it turns out to be true that an ISIS affiliate bomb brought down
the Russian airliner, it would be a huge coup for ISIS, which will
have succeeded at a task that al-Qaeda has failed to do, despite
repeated attempts since 9/11. Al Ahram (Cairo) and VOA

****
**** Plane bombing threatens Russia's Syria strategy
****

The likely possibility that an ISIS-linked bomb brought down Russia's
Metrojet Flight 9268 is going to throw Russia's Syria strategy into
chaos, because of the justified perception Sunni jihadists targeted a
Russian plane in revenge for Russia's military intervention in Syria.

I've written numerous times about the insanity of Russia's military
intervention in Syria. I wrote in "13-Sep-15 World View -- Russia opens a dangerous new chapter in Syria and the Mideast,"
that Russia's military deployment
would trigger nationalistic and belligerent responses from Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf nations, from terrorists in al-Qaeda linked
Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front) and ISIS, and from the Recep Tayyip
Erdogan government of Turkey.

In particular, it would be viewed by Sunni jihadists of a repeat of
the 1980s Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which they saw as a
Christian invasion of a Muslim country. Westerners have almost no
memory of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but it was a monumental
event in the Muslim world. Since it came at the same time as the
Iran/Iraq war and the civil wars in Lebanon and Syria, it was as
significant to the Muslim world as World War II was to the West.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought up the rise of modern Sunni
jihadist movements, including the leadership of Osama bin Laden and
the formation of al-Qaeda. So the invasion runs very deep in the
psyches of Sunni Salafists and jihadists. The new Russian
intervention in Syria is as significant to them as it would be to the
West if Hitler rose from the dead and invaded France again.

So it's quite plausible that either ISIS or al-Qaeda specifically
targeted a Russian airliner in revenge for the intervention into
Syria.

More and more Russians are questioning the wisdom of the Syria
intervention. Many reports indicate that Russian soldiers do not wish
to fight there. The Russian population will tolerate the Syria
intervention as long as they can be convinced that it consists of
nothing but airstrikes.

That conviction was going to change anyway as more and more coffins
with dead Russian soldiers return from Syria. But the destruction of
a Russian airliner and its possible link to the Soviet intervention
into Syria, is going to turn Russian public opinion against the
intervention, and force a change of strategy. CNN and Russia Today and Al Ahram (Cairo)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Egypt, Russia, Metrojet Airbus A321, Flight 9268,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Sharm el-Sheikh, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 6-Nov-15 World View -- Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Doctors prepare to strike UK's National Health Service
• Veterans' medical services continue to worsen since 2014 scandal
• Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009
• Kentucky's new governor Matt Bevin promises to end Obamacare abuses
• Four more Obamacare co-ops collapse in the last week
• Obamacare 'risk corridors' are also collapsing financially

****
**** Doctors prepare to strike UK's National Health Service
****


Sign announcing the closure of Kentucky's Nicholas County Hospital because of Obamacare-related bankruptcy (USA Today)

Members of the UK's far left British Medical Association (BMA) labor
union will vote on whether to go on strike on November 18 against the
National Health Service (NHS). The vote was called after the union
rejected a last-ditch pay offer by the UK government that increased
pay by 11% and reducing the maximum work hours per week to 72 from 91.

As I wrote in "5-Aug-15 World View -- Britain's National Health Service (NHS) faces existential financial crisis"
, UK's government-run single-payer health
system is facing a financial disaster, with a deficit of over $3
billion in 2015-16, and growing rapidly. Furthermore, with so much
money involved, the NHS is filled with criminality and fraud. As a
result, the NHS faces cutbacks on staffs, increases in waiting times
for appointments that are already measured in months, and cutbacks in
services.

Because the NHS bureaucracy is so old and bloated, and because the
services are "free," costs can only be controlled by rationing,
queuing, reduced quality and artificial cost suppression. UK's
doctors earn far less than doctors in other countries, and UK
specialists earn about half of what they do in America. As a result,
UK's homegrown doctors have left to work in other countries, and NHS
has had to import 28% of its doctors from abroad, usually from poorer
countries where low UK salaries look attractive. Oxford Mail and Telegraph (London)

****
**** Veterans' medical services continue to worsen since 2014 scandal
****

The American version of Britain's NHA is the Veterans Administration
(VA), a government-run single-payer system providing "free" medical
services to veterans. Last year, a major scandal found major fraud
and criminality in the VA healthcare system, with VA offices
systematically lying about waiting times and treatment outcomes.

Since then, billions of dollars have been poured into the Veterans
Administration, but as in the case of the NHS, the extra tsunami of
money is disappearing, and services are continuing to get worse. At
the Phoenix VA medical center, which was the epicenter of the 2014
scandal, appointment times and fraudulent activities continue to
worsen, with the center using complicated wait-time calculations to
obscure ongoing appointment delays.

According to one whistleblower, "The reality is veterans are waiting
months -- three, six months at a time, sometimes more -- for care at
the Phoenix VA" -- and this includes critical health procedures, such
as colonoscopies.

In August, more than 8,000 requests for care had wait times longer
than 90 days at the Phoenix VA, and even those figures are low because
deceptive methods for measuring wait times.

Even worse, whistleblowers continue to receive vicious retaliatory
treatment for complaining. The Veterans Administration is no longer
in the news every day, but the fraud and criminality is just as bad,
and probably worse. CNN and Military Times and CNN (13-Apr-2015)

****
**** Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009
****


Inflation rate following the imposition of wage-price controls on August 15, 1971 (Source: econreview.com)

In July, 2009, when Obamacare was first announced, I wrote that Obama's health plan is a proposal of economic insanity.
I compared it to President Richard Nixon's
wage-price controls, and I predicted that it would just as much an
economic disaster as Nixon's price controls.

Nixon's price controls were imposed in 1971 because the inflation rate
was around 4%. The purpose of the price controls was to lower the
inflation rate to 2%. It took three years for the inflation rate to
surge to 12%.

In 2009 I said that Obamacare was no different, at its core, than
Nixon's price controls, and that the same kind of disaster would
recur. I repeated that comparison many times. ( "1-Dec-13 World View -- Obamacare: 500M lines of code, $500M, only 60% completed"
) Obamacare was
imposed in 2013, and now it's in its third year, Obamacare prices are
surging.

For the first two years, Obamacare premium price hikes were very
modest, just as the inflation rate was very modest in the first two
years of Nixon's price controls.

But now, for 2016, Obamacare premiums are skyrocketing, again like
Nixon's third year. 231 insurers requested double-digit percentage
premium price hikes for 2016, as opposed to just 121 in
2015. Furthermore, the magnitude of the hikes will be much greater in
the upcoming year. A whopping 126 plans aimed for a minimum 20%
premium hike, 61 plans attempted to justify a 30% premium boost, 26
policies are targeting a 40% price jump, and a dozen plans actually
requested a 50%-plus premium jump for 2016.

Taking all plans into account, premium prices are rising 20.3%, much
worse than the 12% disaster following Nixon's price controls.

Administration officials are bragging that Obamacare premium costs for
the cheapest plan, the Silver Plan, increased only 7.3%. (I recall
similar deceptions argued by Nixon's supporters in the 1970s. That's
like saying that the inflation rate may be 12%, but the price of
tomatoes only rose 7%.) When you look at the entire Obamacare
marketplace, premium prices are rising 20.3%. Forbes and Daily Caller

****
**** Kentucky's new governor Matt Bevin promises to end Obamacare abuses
****

In what is being called a bellwether election, a Tea Party Republican,
Matt Bevin, this week unexpectedly won the election for governor on a
platform that included repeal of Obamacare.

The mainstream media are appalled. Here's what left-wing writer
Jordan Weissmann wrote in Slate:

<QUOTE>"Kentucky voters elected Republican businessman Matt
Bevin as their new governor on Tuesday, which sadly means a whole
lot of people are probably about to lose their health
insurance. The Tea Party favorite has promised to roll back pieces
of the Affordable Care Act that have helped slash Kentucky's
uninsured rate by more than half according to Gallup, the biggest
drop of any state in the country since the law's major planks were
implemented.

Oh well. 'Twas a happy story while it lasted."<END QUOTE>

I can only think that Weissmann is a recent college graduate, that he
majored in something like sociology or women's studies, and that he
can't even spell the word "economics."

Obamacare has been an unmitigated financial disaster for Kentucky, as
I described in my August article, "Healthcare.gov -- The greatest software development disaster in history", which I posted after months of extensive research.

I wrote extensively about what happened to Kentucky. Here's a short
list of the devastation:

• Kentucky hospitals are losing $1 billion because of
  Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.
  
• Most newly insured -- 75% -- use Medicaid, which only pays 82% of
  the actual medical costs, and updates are not keeping up with
  inflation. This is costing hospitals an additional $135 million per
  year.
  
• Since the onset of Obamacare, bad debts have increased by $200
  million, largely because patients can't afford the $10,000+
  deductibles.
  
• For every $100 that Obamacare collects in Kentucky, it has to pay
  out $121 to deliver the care. That alone explains why Obamacare is a
  financial disaster for Kentucky.
  
• Some Medicaid plans pay hospitals on $50 for an emergency room
  visit, even though the services cost thousands of dollars. As a
  result, emergency rooms are going to have to restrict accepting some
  patients on Medicaid.
  
• Because of Obamacare, there was a 10% reduction in statewide
  hospital workforce, for a loss of 7,700 jobs. Nearly 2/3 of the lost
  jobs were for rural hospitals. Some hospitals will be forced to
  close.

Matt Bevin won because he wants to bring this disaster under control.
Obamacare acolytes like Weissmann are appalled because they're too
stupid to understand simple economics. Louisville (Ky) Courier-Journal and USA Today (8-May-2015) and Slate

****
**** Four more Obamacare co-ops collapse in the last week
****

As I wrote two weeks ago
when the
Colorado Obamacare health insurance co-op collapsed, these co-ops are
almost unbelievably hare-brained entities designed to be non-profit
and provide competition to the evil corporate insurance companies.
(Read my August article for
further details on Obamacare co-ops.)

Co-ops have been paying out $1.10 to $1.60 in benefits for each dollar
they received in insurance premiums. They got away with this because
they were supported by federal Obamacare slush funds - which are now
running out.

During the last week, co-ops collapsed in four states: South Carolina,
Utah, New York, and Michigan. There are 23 Obamacare co-ops in all,
and that makes 12 of them that have collapsed. California Health Line

****
**** Obamacare 'risk corridors' are also collapsing financially
****

Another hare-brained Obamacare scheme is the "risk corridor" program,
which is supposed to collect excess profits from profit-making
insurers, and give the money to insurers losing money. As jaded and
cynical as I am, this thing is so incredibly stupid, even by Obamacare
standards, that I can barely believe it. Once again, read my
August article for further
details.

Just in time for this article, Standard and Poors said on Thursday
that the risk corridor program is facing a massive cash shortage, with
only $1 to cover every $10 in claims.

Once again, it's time to recall the words of that great Obamacare
architect, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, who said: "Call it the
stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was
really, really critical to getting the thing to pass." He wasn't
talking about me. He was talking about Obamacare supporters. And he
was absolutely correct. The Hill


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Britain, National Health Insurance, NHS,
Veterans Administration, Obamacare,
Richard Nixon, Nixon's price controls,
Kentucky, Matt Bevin, Obamacare co-ops, Obamacare risk corridors,
Jonathan Gruber

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

*** 6-Nov-15 World View -- Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Doctors prepare to strike UK's National Health Service
• Veterans' medical services continue to worsen since 2014 scandal
• Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009
• Kentucky's new governor Matt Bevin promises to end Obamacare abuses
• Four more Obamacare co-ops collapse in the last week
• Obamacare 'risk corridors' are also collapsing financially

****
**** Doctors prepare to strike UK's National Health Service
****


Sign announcing the closure of Kentucky's Nicholas County Hospital because of Obamacare-related bankruptcy (USA Today)

Members of the UK's far left British Medical Association (BMA) labor
union will vote on whether to go on strike on November 18 against the
National Health Service (NHS). The vote was called after the union
rejected a last-ditch pay offer by the UK government that increased
pay by 11% and reducing the maximum work hours per week to 72 from 91.

As I wrote in "5-Aug-15 World View -- Britain's National Health Service (NHS) faces existential financial crisis"
, UK's government-run single-payer health
system is facing a financial disaster, with a deficit of over $3
billion in 2015-16, and growing rapidly. Furthermore, with so much
money involved, the NHS is filled with criminality and fraud. As a
result, the NHS faces cutbacks on staffs, increases in waiting times
for appointments that are already measured in months, and cutbacks in
services.

Because the NHS bureaucracy is so old and bloated, and because the
services are "free," costs can only be controlled by rationing,
queuing, reduced quality and artificial cost suppression. UK's
doctors earn far less than doctors in other countries, and UK
specialists earn about half of what they do in America. As a result,
UK's homegrown doctors have left to work in other countries, and NHS
has had to import 28% of its doctors from abroad, usually from poorer
countries where low UK salaries look attractive. Oxford Mail and Telegraph (London)

****
**** Veterans' medical services continue to worsen since 2014 scandal
****

The American version of Britain's NHA is the Veterans Administration
(VA), a government-run single-payer system providing "free" medical
services to veterans. Last year, a major scandal found major fraud
and criminality in the VA healthcare system, with VA offices
systematically lying about waiting times and treatment outcomes.

Since then, billions of dollars have been poured into the Veterans
Administration, but as in the case of the NHS, the extra tsunami of
money is disappearing, and services are continuing to get worse. At
the Phoenix VA medical center, which was the epicenter of the 2014
scandal, appointment times and fraudulent activities continue to
worsen, with the center using complicated wait-time calculations to
obscure ongoing appointment delays.

According to one whistleblower, "The reality is veterans are waiting
months -- three, six months at a time, sometimes more -- for care at
the Phoenix VA" -- and this includes critical health procedures, such
as colonoscopies.

In August, more than 8,000 requests for care had wait times longer
than 90 days at the Phoenix VA, and even those figures are low because
deceptive methods for measuring wait times.

Even worse, whistleblowers continue to receive vicious retaliatory
treatment for complaining. The Veterans Administration is no longer
in the news every day, but the fraud and criminality is just as bad,
and probably worse. CNN and Military Times and CNN (13-Apr-2015)

****
**** Obamacare prices skyrocketing in 2016, as I predicted in 2009
****


Inflation rate following the imposition of wage-price controls on August 15, 1971 (Source: econreview.com)

In July, 2009, when Obamacare was first announced, I wrote that Obama's health plan is a proposal of economic insanity.
I compared it to President Richard Nixon's
wage-price controls, and I predicted that it would just as much an
economic disaster as Nixon's price controls.

Nixon's price controls were imposed in 1971 because the inflation rate
was around 4%. The purpose of the price controls was to lower the
inflation rate to 2%. It took three years for the inflation rate to
surge to 12%.

In 2009 I said that Obamacare was no different, at its core, than
Nixon's price controls, and that the same kind of disaster would
recur. I repeated that comparison many times. ( "1-Dec-13 World View -- Obamacare: 500M lines of code, $500M, only 60% completed"
) Obamacare was
imposed in 2013, and now it's in its third year, Obamacare prices are
surging.

For the first two years, Obamacare premium price hikes were very
modest, just as the inflation rate was very modest in the first two
years of Nixon's price controls.

But now, for 2016, Obamacare premiums are skyrocketing, again like
Nixon's third year. 231 insurers requested double-digit percentage
premium price hikes for 2016, as opposed to just 121 in
2015. Furthermore, the magnitude of the hikes will be much greater in
the upcoming year. A whopping 126 plans aimed for a minimum 20%
premium hike, 61 plans attempted to justify a 30% premium boost, 26
policies are targeting a 40% price jump, and a dozen plans actually
requested a 50%-plus premium jump for 2016.

Taking all plans into account, premium prices are rising 20.3%, much
worse than the 12% disaster following Nixon's price controls.

Administration officials are bragging that Obamacare premium costs for
the cheapest plan, the Silver Plan, increased only 7.3%. (I recall
similar deceptions argued by Nixon's supporters in the 1970s. That's
like saying that the inflation rate may be 12%, but the price of
tomatoes only rose 7%.) When you look at the entire Obamacare
marketplace, premium prices are rising 20.3%. Forbes and Daily Caller

...

And

When Collapse Is Cheaper and More Effective Than Reform

November 5, 2015

Collapse begins when real reform becomes impossible.
We all know why reforms fail: everyone whose share of the power and money is being crimped by reforms fights back with everything they've got.
Reforms that can't be stopped by the outright purchase of politicos are watered down in committee, and loopholes wide enough for jumbo-jets of cash to fly through are inserted.

The reform quickly becomes "reform"--a simulacrum that maintains the facade of fixing what's broken while maintaining the Status Quo. Another layer of costly bureaucracy is added, along with hundreds or thousands of pages of additional regulations, all of which add cost and friction without actually solving what was broken.

The added friction increases the system's operating costs at multiple levels. Practitioners must stop doing actual work to fill out forms that are filed and forgotten; lobbyists milk the system to eradicate any tiny reductions in the flow of swag; attorneys probe the new regulations for weaknesses with lawsuits, and the enforcing agencies add staff to issue fines.
None of this actually fixes what was broken; all these fake-reforms add costs and reduce whatever efficiencies kept the system afloat. Recent examples include the banking regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 meltdown and the ObamaCare Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Back in 2010 I prepared this chart of The Lifecycle of Bureaucracy: as bureaucracies expand, they inevitably become less accountable, less efficient, more bloated with legacy staffing and requirements that no longer make sense, etc.
As costs soar, the bureaucracy's budget is attacked, and the agency circles the wagons and focuses on lobbying politicos and the public to leave the budget untouched.
Since accountability has been dissipated, management becomes increasingly incompetent and larded with people who can't be fired so they were kicked upstairs. Staff morale plummets as the competent quit/transfer out in disgust, leaving the least productive and those clinging on in order to retire with generous government benefits.
In this state of terminal decline, the agency's original function is no longer performed adequately and the system implodes from the dead weight of its high costs, lack of accountability, gross incompetence, inability to adapt and staggering inefficiency.


I've covered this dynamic a number of times:
Our Legacy Systems: Dysfunctional, Unreformable (July 1, 2013)
The Way Forward (April 25, 2013)
When Escape from a Previously Successful Model Is Impossible (November 29, 2012)
Complexity: Bureaucratic (Death Spiral) and Self-Organizing (Sustainable) (February 17, 2011)
This generates a ratchet effect, where costs increase even as the bureaucracy's output declines. The ratchet effect can also be visualized as a rising wedge, in which costs and inefficiencies continue rising until any slight decrease in funding collapses the organization.
Dislocations Ahead: The Ratchet Effect, Stick-Slip and QE3 (February 14, 2011)
The Ratchet Effect: Fiefdom Bloat and Resistance to Declining Incomes (August 23, 2010)

The net result of the Ratchet Effect and the impossibility of reform is this: it's cheaper and more effective to let the system collapse than squander time and treasure attempting reforms that are bound to fail as vested interests will fight to the death to retain every shred of power and swag.
Since the constituent parts refuse to accept any real reforms, the entire system implodes. We can look at healthcare, higher education and the National Security State as trillion-dollar examples of systems that become increasingly costly even as their performance declines or falls off the cliff.
This is the lesson of history, as described in the seminal book The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization.
Collapse does not need to be complete or sudden. Collapse tends to be a process, not an event.
Collapse begins when you can't find any doctors willing to accept Medicaid payments, when the potholes don't get filled even when voters approve millions of dollars in new taxes, and when kids aren't learning anything remotely useful or practical despite the school board raising tens of millions of dollars in additional property taxes.
Collapse begins when real reform becomes impossible.

Wrt Obamacare et. al. We have the following bureacracies as such:

[VA,CHIP,Medicaid,Medicare,government at all levels healthcare, and private insurance companies] <- first set of bloated bureacracies. Obamacare is essentially private health insurance companies by proxy.

[Trial lawyers + Big Pharma + a set of regulations] <- cost drivers

As for the set of bureacracies, all should be collapsed into just single payer, Medicare. There is no reason why government employees and other fat cats deserve better health plans than what I have. Part D of Medicare should be removed and any use of a health facility needs some sort of co-pay to discourage infinte demand from "free" services. The co-pay can of course be indexed to income. I don't have a problem with that.

Now to the second set of "problems".
a. Trial Lawyers : implement loser pays and restrict class action stuff on FDA approved medical chemicals / devices.
b. Big Pharma. No more crap like the recent purchase of some generic drug and jacking the price up several 100%. This practice is just flat out rent seeking. If Big Pharma has some new drug, then sure, a profit of some sort is OK.
c. Regulations: Any regulation that has nothing to do with safety or fraud prevention needs to go.

The above are real reforms, not simulacra reforms. With that said, if aforementioned reforms are not done and we just get simulacra, then yup, healthcare provision will crash and burn. I think the same would go for the UK's NHS as well.