18-Jan-14 World View -- Kerry says that he won't be fooled

[John]

18-Jan-14 World View -- Kerry says that he won't be fooled by Syria's Assad regime

Uganda enters the war in South Sudan

** 18-Jan-14 World View -- Kerry says that he won't be fooled by Syria's Assad regime
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140118

Contents:
Kerry says that he won't be fooled by Syria's Assad regime
Uganda enters the war in South Sudan
Hackers use a refrigerator for a cyberattack


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, John Kerry,
Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin,
Uganda, South Sudan, Salva Kiir, Riek Machar,
refrigerator

[Trevor]

It's not just that no one cares; it's worse than that. Quite a few people are actually supporting and encouraging Assad's atrocities, believing that he's a heroic patriot fighting against Al-Qaeda. It's a load of bull, but plenty believe it. Out of the few people who support intervention, most of them want to intervene on Assad's behalf, helping him and Russia crush the rebels.

However idiotic Obama and Kerry's statements might be, they're just doing what we want them to do.

[NoOneImportant]

Spot on analysis.

How discouraging; events beg the question: what sort of world do we live in?

Monsters like Assad are permitted to kill the innocent indiscriminately. Ya'alon - an Israeli politician - is forced to apologize for the unforgivable transgression of revealing, for all the world to see, the shallow self centered plan of a narcissist liar to jockey himself into a position where he – Kerry - might pursue and “steal” a Nobel Peace Prize from the hapless in Oslo who in recent years have chosen to cheapen a worthy award by giving it to the criminal, inept, and the unworthy.

As Kerry dishonored, and used Purple Heart(s) to exit Vietnam, so he believes that, with no, or little understanding of circumstances, past history, or events of the Middle East that he may force hollow “peace” agreements upon the unwilling, and more importantly, upon the undeserving, and thus snatch the Nobel Peace Prize, by doing exactly what he did in Vietnam – nothing other than gaming-the-system, that is by substituting the futile action of running, at random, hither and yon, for informed understanding and enduring principled agreement.

Kerry, for his own benefit, will sacrifice the Israelis; betray the world's interest by permitting Iran to obtain nuclear weapons; and BS Assad by warming over, and reiterating his moronic comments about Assad's flagrant murder of innocents of late October of last year thus engaging in adolescent bluster, and foisting upon Assad demands that he - Kerry - can't hope to enforce. Actions that no one else, at this point, will believe, or see as anything other than an underlying gross impotence, and weakness - doing nothing is better than betraying overt weakness.

Assad doesn't have to fool Kerry, he just doesn't have to attend Kerry's little get-together. What will Kerry do? Stamp his foot?

Do not believe that the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans are not watching what is taking place; and watch they do, with an intense interest.

Idiot, dope, dunce, moron, liar, fool – are all words that might be used to describe Kerry, but he cares not. For as Ya'alon noted: he is not in pursuit of peace, but is in the earnest pursuit of personal enrichment, and self aggrandizement.

The inmates are, in fact, running the asylum – 316 million people are forced to rely upon this man for their well being and safety. One can't help but wonder how something this incongruous could ever take place?

[gerald]

by NoOneImportant ---" One can't help but wonder how something this incongruous could ever take place?"

NoOneImportant --- It is quite easy to understand, those with morals and scruples are self limited in their actions and are therefore easily controlled by those without morals or scruples. To fight those with out morals or scruples it is sometimes necessary to use their tactics against them. For example Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India. Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. ( from Wikipedia ) -- Gandhi was able to gain independence from Britain using such techniques because Britain had morals and scruples ( yes what level can be debated ) However, nonviolent civil disobedience would not work against Nazi Germany, only overwhelming ruthless force would work.

The trick is knowing which action to take and when.

[John]

> Employing nonviolent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to
> independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom
> across the world.

Being the curmudgeon that I am, I always like to point out at times
like this is that there is no rational way that it can be claimed that
Gandhi won freedom and independence for India, except in the sense
that you can win freedom and independence for a tree by stuffing it
into a wood chipper.

What Gandhi did for India (and Jinnah for Pakistan) was to lead the
people into one of the greatest, bloodiest and most massive genocidal
slaughters in history, in the 1947 Partition.

[NoOneImportant]

John wrote:

What Gandhi did for India (and Jinnah for Pakistan) was to lead the
people into one of the greatest, bloodiest and most massive genocidal
slaughters in history, in the 1947 Partition.

Agreed John, but it was not done directly by the British.

[NoOneImportant]

John, as I sit here contemplating, and reflecting upon both your and Gerald's comments it occurs to me that, though this is more than just a bit off topic, a case might be made for the fact that the enmity the Indians displayed for the British was, at least in part, a surrogate for the deep enduring underlying animus that the Muslims and the Hindus held for each other. As the thinking might have been by both Hindu, and Muslim: '... the British must be gotten rid of so that we can "fix" those guys....' As, while present, it was only the British that held the two apart, and it was only the British that restrained and limited their, as you noted, crisis - think I got that right - generational conflict.

[gerald]

hmmmmmmmm, Interesting, unless I am totally uninformed about the British " leaving" that part of the world, the British did not engage in wholesale Nazi type activities against the people. The idea I was trying to illustrate was that people WITHOUT morals and scruples have to be dealt with differently then those WITH morals and scruples. And I would say this is especially true in politics, since politicians directly or indirectly have police powers and can enforce their will by force of arms. Politicians can be very dangerous.

[NoOneImportant]

Understand, Gerald. John's position, not desiring to speak for John, is, I believe, that the British morality, that caused them to leave India rather than engage in wholesale societal repression, resulted in a crisis conflict - so how compassionate, in actuality, were the British?

In my own life when confronted with a choice between a moral, or immoral action it will usually be my choice to be to execute the known moral action as opposed to executing an "evil" and thus avoid what may be a prospective future greater evil. Now having illustrated that digital choice, I have to acknowledge that the world isn't digital. That is, there are prospects that are possible, and then there are prospects that are assured. Britain, in the shadow of the liberation of millions of Europeans during and after WWII, really had no moral choice but to leave India - a fact that Gandhi used to great effect against the British - whether or not the British were aware of the coming genocidal Hindu/Muslim conflict or whether they were not.

[John]

I sometimes compare crisis wars to sex. Both are part of our DNA, and
both are essential for the survival of the human race.

You can frame this in moral terms. There's moral sex and immoral sex.
There are moral wars and immoral wars.

But none of it can be stopped, or the human race would not survive.