Oh, OK so now it is "boomer" warmongering nonsense lol. So what was my nonsense when I opposed the war in Iraq? Was that "boomer nonsense" too?

Yes, because it is partisan bullshit.

Quite the contrary, I predicted an uprising in the former Soviet lands for exactly when it happened. Correct predictions are indeed typical for me. And admitting when I missed something, at least in full detail, is also typical of me. Making sweeping insults and generalizations is typical of you.

Nope, you're making stuff up, as usual. Please quote and date the prediction you made for an uprising in the FSU during early 2014.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yes, because it is partisan bullshit.

Oh, more of THAT nonsense! Opposition to war is partisan bullshit, and opposition to Obama's policy by a liberal (me) is partisan bullshit! Got it. And more of the nonsense from you that partisanship is bullshit, when the problem is that it is being imposed on us by one party. And more bullshit from you that partisanship can go away in any way OTHER than by the defeat of that party. Got it.

Nope, you're making stuff up, as usual. Please quote and date the prediction you made for an uprising in the FSU during early 2014.

I already posted that.

"Despite all the positive responses to the crisis that began in 2010, indications are that things will remain unstable through most of the decade. Stationary Jupiter at 10 (degrees) Cancer, T-squaring Uranus and Pluto, could bring discontent to a crescendo in Europe early in 2014 in ways reminiscent of the fall of 1989 (when Jupiter was also stationary at 10 degrees Cancer). Mars will also make this T-square into a Grand Cross and turn stationary in May. It certainly looks as if the revolutionary tidal wave could wash up quickly on American shores this time. Since the U.S. will still be the world's top cop and its primary immigration service as well, problems in other countries will cause problems in America. The 2014 uprisings could give further impetus to constitutional changes being debated during the decade in many nations."

E. Alan Meece, Horoscope for the New Millennium, copyright 1997, chapter 17.

As I mentioned here before, my prediction of "ways reminiscent of the fall of 1989" refers well enough to what everyone knows happened then, and where in "Europe."

Thank you. Tell you what, I'm going to ignore the absence of a crisis in 2010, the vagueness of the prediction, your surprise when the Ukraine stuff actually happened, or even another recap of how many predictions you made for the past few years actually came true. Which is to say, I am willing to pretend, for the sake of argument, that that wasn't a wild stab in the dark, and grant it as an actual prediction. Good job, Eric. Don't say I never gave you nothing.

Now, we both have predictions out on the board, made using our respective"methodologies" (astrology for you, educated guesses for me). I look forward to comparing the accuracy of them over the next few years. May the best woo win.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Little brushfire, ha ha. You call hundreds of thousands dead and a country destroyed a "little brushfire!" You are the ignorant, bloodthirsty one, continuing to support allowing the fire to burn up the people of Syria. Ambassador Ford is exactly right, and the policies he supports are exactly right.

Another conflagration like this is not due until Dec.2020; I guess you call that "a few more years." I think there will be some fighting in 2016 that could be notable (I forget now just where), but I don't think anything like what's happening in Syria will start somewhere else this decade. In 2017 the Arab Spring revolts have a good chance to wind down, and an agreement between Israel and Palestine has a chance then too. We may look back to July 2013 as the time when the process started.

The monster in Syria is probably among the deadliest tyrants of my lifetime. Some Communist conflagrations were worse, so far, as in China in the 1950s and Cambodia in the 1970s; at least insofar as they can be attributed to one tyrant. Unless you count Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon in Vietnam, or George W. Bush in Iraq. But these latter examples were not tyrants killing their own people in their own land; they were "imperialist" bloodbaths, which I strongly and loudly opposed. I am confident Obama and Hillary are wise enough because of these past US errors to avoid getting sucked in militarily in Syria, just because we send military aid to democratic rebels there.

And I can point out that I was ahead of other posters here in opposing the war in Iraq, and I am ahead of other posters here now in supporting aid to the Syrian Arab-Spring rebels.

But you ignore what must necessarily be the one fixed point in U.S. foreign policy: Anything that is good for the true "Axis of Evil" - the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood - cannot possibly be good for the United States, irrespective of any other circumstances.

And I opposed Desert Storm unless a plebiscite was held in Kuwait afterwards, giving the Kuwaiti people the option of jettisoning the emirate in favor of a democratic republic; I rhetorically asked, in a letter to the editor I wrote to one of the New York papers (can't recall whether it was the Daily News or the New York Post), or are glasnost and perestroika only for East Europeans?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But you ignore what must necessarily be the one fixed point in U.S. foreign policy: Anything that is good for the true "Axis of Evil" - the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood - cannot possibly be good for the United States, irrespective of any other circumstances.

"One fixed point" foreign policies will fail. There are many issues and people to deal with.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

...Now, we both have predictions out on the board, made using our respective"methodologies" (astrology for you, educated guesses for me). I look forward to comparing the accuracy of them over the next few years. May the best woo win.

-I'll save it for the archives!

26 MAR 2014:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The threat of which led to an agreement to remove chemical weapons. The grand trine worked!

29 APR 2014:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...line-now-what/

...so, at least not as early as Eric claimed...


And maybe these people are wrong (APR 2014):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5314585.html

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We've got a big astrological figure coming up around April 20, and it spotlights the USA again with Jupiter still in the zodiac region that indicates US involvement, and corresponds to most of its wars...

-So what happened on 20 APR?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-So what happened on 20 APR?

The Ukraine Crisis was at its peak, as Russian invasion threatened.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Ukraine Crisis was at its peak, as Russian invasion threatened.

-You typed that something would occur on 20 APR 2014 that corresponds with most of the USA's wars. The Ukraine Crisis does not fit that category.

In addition, your apparent astrological prediction that Syria would give up its chemical weapons seems to have been... flawed.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You typed that something would occur on 20 APR 2014 that corresponds with most of the USA's wars. The Ukraine Crisis does not fit that category.

It was a crisis that threatened the USA's relationship with Russia. I didn't say for sure we would go to war then. When I have said it's a sure thing, I have been right. April 2014 (and surrounding months) did correspond to a pattern in which the USA often goes to war; the Jupiter return. But the USA does not always go to war every 12 years when Jupiter returns to its US horoscope position. And though Mars was stationary in March and May, indicating violent outbreaks near that time, and in a grand cross around April 20, there were no Mars-Saturn or Saturn-Pluto aspects in that grand cross that typically indicate war between nations. Mars activated the current Uranus-Pluto square, symbol of revolution, not war; which is the symbol of the Arab Spring and the revolts around the world that it has inspired. So my prediction was that things would work out, but that a revolutionary war might occur. Peace and war at the same time. That's exactly what's happening.

In addition, your apparent astrological prediction that Syria would give up its chemical weapons seems to have been... flawed.

No, they are doing it. During the grand trine, events started which led to the agreement.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was a crisis that threatened the USA's relationship with Russia. I didn't say for sure we would go to war then. When I have said it's a sure thing, I have been right. April 2014 (and surrounding months) did correspond to a pattern in which the USA often goes to war; the Jupiter return. But the USA does not always go to war every 12 years when Jupiter returns to its US horoscope position. And though Mars was stationary in March and May, indicating violent outbreaks near that time, and in a grand cross around April 20, there were no Mars-Saturn or Saturn-Pluto aspects in that grand cross that typically indicate war between nations. Mars activated the current Uranus-Pluto square, symbol of revolution, not war; which is the symbol of the Arab Spring and the revolts around the world that it has inspired. So my prediction was that things would work out, but that a revolutionary war might occur. Peace and war at the same time. That's exactly what's happening.



No, they are doing it. During the grand trine, events started which led to the agreement.

Plus, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. In the case of Europe, I suspect the real sequence of events has barely begun. These are our mid 1930s, there is a long, painful, road ahead.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Plus, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. In the case of Europe, I suspect the real sequence of events has barely begun. These are our mid 1930s, there is a long, painful, road ahead.

A long road for sure. I think it will involve Europe mostly in the sense of the former Soviet part. But Europe is indeed having problems getting out of this financial crisis. My impression is that Europeans are too advanced socially and culturally to sink back into a 1930s-like guagmire. But it's true that reactionary and radical passions are heating up now. I think some European nations will be key players in the events of this 4T, and the next 2 turnings at least.

Today it looks like things may move toward peace in Ukraine. That is what I expected. But that doesn't mean there won't be more troubles there during this 4T, later on. I think the next serious troubles are due in April 2016, but they will be mostly middle-east troubles. Religion figures to play a key part. The Syrian mess and maybe other mid-east messes could come to a head then, and may well be resolved to some extent in 2017.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It was a crisis that threatened the USA's relationship with Russia. I didn't say for sure we would go to war then...

-There's always something going on somewhere which jeopardizes our relationship with someone. Not exactly actionable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...When I have said it's a sure thing, I have been right...

-Please provide an example that was actionable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... No, they are doing it. During the grand trine, events started which led to the agreement.

-If the Syrian government used poison gas to kill people after the agreement, then the agreement is not working.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-There's always something going on somewhere which jeopardizes our relationship with someone. Not exactly actionable.

Nevertheless, the USA has taken actions in this crisis.

-Please provide an example that was actionable.

I predicted several wars as documented on this page
http://philosopherswheel.com/predictions.html
based on the Jupiter return. I most clearly stated the prediction for 9-11 and the resulting war in this video, which you probably saw already.
http://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

-If the Syrian government used poison gas to kill people after the agreement, then the agreement is not working.

It's working; the Syrian government has turned over most of its chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nevertheless, the USA has taken actions in this crisis...

-Not anything approaching war.

If, based on your prediction, I had dropped everything in my life on the assumption that I'd be recalled to active duty, I'd be rather... disappointed (?) right about now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...I predicted several wars as documented on this page
http://philosopherswheel.com/predictions.html
...

The first thing I read is that Nixon will be impeached. He wasn't.

Your next prediction claimed that there would be "frantic swells of enthusiasm" in 1989 when "world government will be attempted." I remember neither any particular attempt to create a world government in 1989 (or 1988, or 1990). The closest thing was the so-called "New World Order" which hardly passes as "world government." And I certainly don't remember "frantic swells of enthusiasm" in its favor. Maybe the enthusiasm was restricted to the Meece household.

In the same paragraph we have the following:

The critical year will be 1993... The war that breaks out in this year could very well be WW III, but careful efforts may avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The world will nevertheless be engulfed in war for at least the next 10 years. Yet it will resemble the Napoleonic Wars rather than the World Wars I & II...

1993. "Engulfed in war?" Bosnia? Rwanda (the genocide didn't begin until '94)? Could you point me to the combat reactions reminiscent of Austerlitz or Trafalgar between 1993 and 2003? I'll even take the War of 1812. In reality, there was less killing after the collapse of Communism than before:

Originally Posted by RyanJH

This from a recent article in Foreign Policy (bolding mine).

Political scientist James G. Blight and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested earlier that year that we could look forward to an average of 3 million war deaths per year worldwide in the 21st century.

So far they haven't even been close. In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper. Far from being an age of killer anarchy, the 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace.

Armed conflict has declined in large part because armed conflict has fundamentally changed. Wars between big national armies all but disappeared along with the Cold War, taking with them the most horrific kinds of mass destruction...

Next, we have George H. W. Bush as a "demagogic hero"?! The 1987 stock market crash was huge, but we recovered quickly. Remember? I do. Most Millenials don't because it was a flash in the pan. And you didn't predict that crash, or any other market crash, or the 1990 recession in that section anyway. Just a "reckless and bumptious mood."

I gave up reading at that point.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...It's working; the Syrian government has turned over most of its chemical weapons.

-Let me get this straight. There is an agreement that Syria's Ba'athist regime give up chemical weapons.

After making the agreement, the Ba'athist kill people with chemical weapons, and no one takes action.

That means the agreement worked.

Any chance that this is how your plans for gun control will pan out?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

If the Syrian government used poison gas to kill people after the agreement, then the agreement is not working.

Hey, that's how he's getting rid of the chemical weapons!

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Hey, that's how he's getting rid of the chemical weapons!

-OK. I'll admit that that was pretty good...

I have to admit, contrary to my usual contention, that a foreign war may be involved in our 4T. I have usually said that a war starting in Dec. 2020 could involve the USA by 2025. The public may not support such a war though, and this could contribute to internal strife in the USA or foreign attacks at home. The Iraq and Afghan Wars I certainly view as 3T. The Afghan War was not even fought with US troops, during the 3T, and the Iraq War was entirely a war of choice, and not fought in a 4T way at least until the 2007 surge. The Afghan War was left for 4T president Obama to fight.

Now we are getting out, but more events have happened during the repeating 12-year Jupiter war cycle in 2013-14 that could erupt again one cycle later. That is how the cycle often works; events happen during a Jupiter return which prepare the way for a war next cycle. I made that pattern clear in my video. What we are seeing now is a revolution in Syria that Obama made a huge blunder with in not supporting. To that has now been added an ongoing rebellion and terror campaign in Iraq that seems about to divide the country, establishing a new Sunni Islamist emirate that could extend through Western and Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria. If this becomes a new base for anti-American terror campaigns, then the US government may have little choice but to get involved at some point. And this might not be popular.

I assume this would not happen until 2025, though; strange as that may seem now. Hillary Clinton does not seem destined to be the leader who would get us involved, although she would be inclined to start us down the road to involvement.

This game gets really old. Terrorists don't need countries. Osama was in Afghan against the Soviets, then he was in Sudan if memory serves, etc. If he weren't in the bottom of the sea "like Megatron" (to quote an amusing and telling Internet comment), he could be in any number of semi failed states or cosmopolitan countries with wealthy backers.

The problem with the multi-cultural demand to turn the world into a big Turkish bazaar, is that Turkish bazaars are chaotic places despite the best surveillance. They also foster ethnic kin networks that are almost impossible to penetrate by Western intelligence (Arabs, Kurds, Pasthun, etc are all really good at that: it's a Middle Eastern survival strategy -- corrupt as hell by Western European standards, but we ain't in Western Europe anymore, are we?).

That said, a Sunni Iraq would have no capacity to project military force to threaten Americans. It might try to start another war with Iran. 1980's redux? It could also threaten Israel, like Saddam openly did (probably up get populist kudos from the Arab masses of his multi-cultural quasi-secular Baathist state).

Good money though, for war profiteers. Good job opportunities for the metastasizing intelligence apparatus. And good for terrorists, who inevitably leverage this kind of crap to their advantage. Way to go, peeps.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

This game gets really old. Terrorists don't need countries...

-They do have to set up shop somewhere to maximize their effectiveness. You'll noticve the drop in AQ effectiveness after 2001.

Originally Posted by Anc' Mariner

...Osama was in Afghan against the Soviets...

-Only the tail end. He mostly fought the Afghan Communists, and then supported Jihad groups who fought the other Mujahideen groups who toppled the Communists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rs-george-will
The Benghazi committee should hear from Alan J. Kuperman... In his policy brief “Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene,” he says:

Qaddafi did not initiate violence against peaceful protesters. Rather, protesters initiated the violence that engulfed four cities. Media reports “exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing ‘more than 2,000 deaths’ in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period.” Furthermore, when the U.S. and a few other NATO nations intervened in March 2011, “Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead. . . . [The intervention] enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths.” The intervention encouraged peaceful protesters in Syria to use violence in the hope of attracting an intervention. This increased the rate of killing there tenfold...

Here is a question for Republican presidential aspirants:

...if you could rewind history to March 2003, would you favor invading Iraq?

Barack Obama is conducting the foreign-policy retreat he promised, that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated without apparent qualms, and that many Americans said they wanted until it began to make them queasy...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-They do have to set up shop somewhere to maximize their effectiveness. You'll notice the drop in AQ effectiveness after 2001.

H-m-m-m. You see remediation; I see a cancer metastasizing. ISIS doens't look much like a "drop in AQ effectiveness" to me.

Originally Posted by JDG 66 ...

-Only the tail end. He mostly fought the Afghan Communists, and then supported Jihad groups who fought the other Mujahideen groups who toppled the Communists.

This is a case of Bush the Elder getting his CIA buddies and the bin Laden family together to harass the Soviets. You can play it off, but the fact that the POTUS was the former head of the CIA and a personal friend of Osama's father makes the coincidence just a bit too cute.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rs-george-will
The Benghazi committee should hear from Alan J. Kuperman... In his policy brief “Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene,” he says:

Qaddafi did not initiate violence against peaceful protesters. Rather, protesters initiated the violence that engulfed four cities. Media reports “exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing ‘more than 2,000 deaths’ in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period.” Furthermore, when the U.S. and a few other NATO nations intervened in March 2011, “Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead. . . . [The intervention] enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths.” The intervention encouraged peaceful protesters in Syria to use violence in the hope of attracting an intervention. This increased the rate of killing there tenfold...

Here is a question for Republican presidential aspirants:

...if you could rewind history to March 2003, would you favor invading Iraq?

Barack Obama is conducting the foreign-policy retreat he promised, that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated without apparent qualms, and that many Americans said they wanted until it began to make them queasy...

'In other words, Obama is guilty, no matter what. If he had shit a solid gold brick, you would have whined about littering.

Kristallnacht, ISIS-style:

Shi'ite Nabi Jirjis Mosque, Mosul ---



Nothing new. This destruction of a synagogue was done on Kristallnacht in Eisenach, Germany, the town best known as the birthplace of Johann Sebastian Bach:



I see little moral or ethical difference. Do you?

America is on a collision course with ISIS even if America stands still.