Originally Posted by Normal

PTB? What does that stand for?

Powers That Be.

Originally Posted by Normal

PTB? What does that stand for?

How long have you been on the Internet?

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

How long have you been on the Internet?

Since about 1997-1998............never came across that one.

Originally Posted by Normal

Since about 1997-1998............never came across that one.

Your geek culture credentials, please.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Your geek culture credentials, please.

Having been on the internet since 96 or so (AOL 3.0 for a while--then got bored with it), I recognized that.

~Chas'88

There are simply WAY too many TLA's and FLA's.

Originally Posted by TnT

There are simply WAY too many TLA's and FLA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_TLAs

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

http://www.netlingo.com/acronyms.php

Originally Posted by TnT

There are simply WAY too many TLA's and FLA's.

Yes, I agree, Mr. TnT

(at least you define yours at the bottom; way to go)

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Your geek culture credentials, please.

Well, I'm a Millennial, so I basically grew up with the Internet............I was 10 years old in 1997, but nobody else we knew had it at the time. Not any of my friends, my parents' friends, or my relatives. In my corner of the world, the Internet wasn't truly mainstream until about 2000 or so. Besides, it wasn't that exciting or interesting to me at 10-11 years old, but by the time I got to high school I was much more interested in it. I was never a techie in any way, shape, or form. I've always felt like technology more or less kind of got thrust onto me, because I usually feel like I can do just as well without it. I especially felt that way when the Internet became a "thing" in the late 1990s.

So, uh, I was going to wait a little longer on this one, but events are moving fairly swiftly at this point. From April of 2013, from this very thread:

Ukraine will come apart in the next 10 years, split between Catholic Ukrainian speakers and Orthodox Russian speakers (with Orthodox Ukrainian speakers in the middle), and Russia will get involved.

One 4T attribute that I've been skeptical of happening for this Crisis is the "total war" attribute that previous 4Ts have had. But given what's happening in Ukraine now, even I'm starting to worry a bit.

I still don't necessarily think it's the most likely outcome. On the other hand, I can't help but think of this everytime I hear somebody say that it is impossible.

Countries that the USA could have a war with: China, North Korea, Iran. (This list is the most important reason to keep Boomers away from foreign policy). At best these would be nasty wars, and I don't think the USA would be triumphant or unscathed.

What are TLAs and FLAs?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

What are TLAs and FLAs?

Three Letter Acronyms. Four Letter Acronyms.

Not mocked, because it's Tim.

(quote-Jordan) Which goes with my thesis that this is going to be a messy couple of turnings. Conflicts will break out on some of the following fault lines:

(my estimate as of now)
NK/SK maybe, but not too likely
Japan/China possibly
US/China no
Taiwan/China not likely
Israel/Arabs may be settled in 2017
Turks/Kurds nothing unusual
Israel - US - Gulf States (GCC) / Iran no
Greeks (Golden Dawn) / Turks no
Russia/FSU likely
India/Pakistan possibly

My guess is it won't be a single unified AxisvsAllies bit so much as a linked series of regional conflicts with overlapping participants. You could end up with awkward bits like US troops based out of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf attacking/occupying Iran while Israel is fighting Arab militants in Egypt and the Levant, or Japanese intervention in Asian conflicts like NK/SK arousing nationalist memories of WWII amongst nominal "allies".This would lend itself to a "mixed" outcome, where some participants could "win" and some "lose", even if they're on the same "side".

Combine this with potential civil wars in countries like Thailand and Burma along with rising xenophobia in Western Europe and it will probably seem less like a war than an endless series of meaningless atrocities.

Historians will probably record it as a "Time of Troubles", rather than WWIII.

That seems likely, but I think there will be one or two crises that dominate events in 2020-21.

My latest edition (subject to revision )

Diplomacy will probably postpone any major world conflict until June 28, 2020, when Mars enters Aries, but after that the danger of war is acute. Germany and China could be in crisis mode by August, and the USA and Russia will be at odds. On September 9, Mars turns stationary-retrograde in Aries, in square to Saturn and Pluto. If we haven't learned the ways of peace, then this will certainly be the time for a major war, and this chapter will end much the way that I (successfully) predicted that the Millennium would begin.
In fact, not long after Mars turns stationary-direct in Aries (same as before Pearl Harbor) on November 14, we could see another "day of infamy." (Indeed, indications are that Japan could be involved this time too.) This confrontation may be the ultimate challenge to some powerful peoples' desire to master and plunder the resources and peoples of Earth. It may also be the greatest challenge to the New World Order established in the 1990s, which probably means Russia will be involved, and USA cooperation with Russia will be at issue. Many nations will now see the need for restructuring this world order. It is likely the USA will play only a supportive role in this conflict at first, though Uncle Sam may strike out at its "disobedient" neighbors. But whatever happens will be the opening salvo in a struggle in which the continued existence of the United States will hang in the balance.

(this last sentence does not mean the USA's existence will be threatened by war with other powers, but by internal dissension, in which other powers may intervene)

As we gaze deeper into our crystal ball, our prophetic vision needs to be 20/20 to see beyond the year 2020. Yet it's clear that a crucial turning point in American history lies just past that imposing marker of time. As a new score of years opens, Americans may be counting their blessings that they don't live in the Middle East, Russia or Africa, where rumblings of war will be getting louder. Yet in due course these troubles abroad will help trigger troubles at home, and meanwhile Americans with investments abroad will be counting their losses.

So, in spite of its domestic conflicts, foreign affairs won't leave Americans alone in the 2020s. The war likely to break out at the end of 2020 will certainly demand attention. The Fall Equinox chart puts Mars right near the Descendant (house of war) in Washington DC. The USA might take an aggressive stance toward the troublemakers, but because it is consumed at home, it will not be able to put any swords behind its words. The chart indicates that Russia and West Africa (e.g. Ghana, Libya) will be targeted for these troubles. Then, a month after Mars in Aries turns direct, in square to Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto no less, a powerful solar eclipse on December 14 looms over the world. The following month will be dangerous. The chart shows that the Middle East (probably Syria), India, China and even Japan may get involved. Just like the phrase in the Bible, wars and rumors of wars could erupt in diverse places.

(that last sentence does seem in accord with Jordan's prediction)

"Countries that the USA could have a war with: China, North Korea, Iran. (This list is the most important reason to keep Boomers away from foreign policy). At best these would be nasty wars, and I don't think the USA would be triumphant or unscathed."


I've already offered up a solution that would eliminate war vs. the first two: Strike an admittedly Ribbentropian bargain with China, consisting of them looking the other way while we take care of business in North Korea, and in return we look the other way while they take care of business in Taiwan.

So that leaves Iran.

Detente with Iran.

North Korea is China's unofficial red headed stepchild. NK gets to throw tantrums that stoic China could never get away with. China would not be thrilled about imperialist running dogs projecting power by it's back doorstep.

Iran is a huge country on difficult terrain with nationalistic ambitions that go far beyond Islam. The ayatollahs are backed by more pragmatic generals who would love to see a new Persian Empire acquire new oil reserves and colonies in the Gulf (the Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf for the opposite reason).

There is a sizeable Persian minority in the Gulf states that has been causing trouble in recent years. Saudi is not at all thrilled about this. So the idea of an Iran war has huge implications that go far beyond Ahmedinejad's (sp?) saber rattling about Zionism. Which huge chunks of the Muslim world agree with anyway (they say the Ashkenazim are "not real Banu Israil" - despite their own Hadith that describe lightskinned Jewish people in the time of Muhammed - before Khaybar).

Its a multipolar world, no longer the stability of the Cold War era. Small powers are much more important than they once were. And now there is China, etc.

Eric,

What's funny is that, once again, beyond methodology (and occasionally tone) we don't actually disagree all that much. 2020 or 2024 are the years I expect things to really kick off, due to the way election cycles/power transitions are lined up in the major (potential) belligerents. The recent Sunflower movement in Taiwan, protesting further economic rapprochement with China, the plunging popularity of the Kuomintang, and comments by Xi Jinping suggesting that this can't be put off forever, are the types of things I was looking for to see if this crisis was going to include a resolution of the PRC/ROC split. Not to mention the still simmering conflict in Eastern Europe, the election of a nationalist in India, brewing genocide in Burma, coups in Thailand, etc. Also, world-systems theory has been suggesting a new hegemonic transition war in the 2020s since at least the 90s, with 2025 looking like the year of peak conflict.

So like I said, we're really not that far off.

'58 Flat,

I doubt very seriously that the Chinese would tolerate American troops toppling even a recalcitrent client state right on their border. Nor do I believe that the American government would be willing to abandon Taiwan and with it US hegemony in the Western Pacific. Taiwan is the buckle of the first island chain, and without it China can never be a naval power of note.

Anc mariner,

It is inaccurate to say that there is a large ethnic Persian minority in the Arab part of the Gulf. There is, on the other hand, a large Arab Shia population in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia's Eastern province (historical Bahrain), the merchant class of Kuwait, and close connections to the Ibadis in Oman.

Ethnic Persians, OTOH? Not so much. A few hundred thousand. There are far more Arabs in Iran than there are Persians in the Arab world, even when including Iraqis of Persian heritage.

Also, I think you overplay the "lightskinnedness" of Jews in their relation with their neighbors. There are plenty of "white" Arabs in the Levant and the Maghreb, and plenty of swarthy Mizrahim and Sephardim in Israel. Not to mention Karaites, Indian Jews, Yemenites, and others. I used to get my hair cut in NYC by a Bukharan Jew who spoke mainly Russian and looked Pakistani.