21-Jul-18 World View -- The Trump-Putin private meeting was almost certainly about China

[John]

21-Jul-18 World View -- The Trump-Putin private meeting was almost certainly about China


Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on everything imported from China

** 21-Jul-18 World View -- The Trump-Putin private meeting was almost certainly about China
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e180721


Contents:
Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on everything imported from China
China's Foreign Ministry gives a vitriolic response to Trump
The Trump-Putin private meeting was almost certainly about China
North Korea denuclearization talks appear to be falling apart


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Donald Trump, China,
Xi Jinping, Hua Chunying, South China Sea,
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague,
World Trade Organization, Larry Kudlow,
Russia, Vladimir Putin, Helsinki, Genghis Khan, Mongol Empire,
Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, North Korea, Kim Jong-un

[Guest]

Will Trump just ignore North Korea for now and plan to destroy both in the coming nuclear war? If Russia is now on board, why are they still supplying North Korea. You are amazing, Cassandra...

[Guest 2]

John, I agree with Guest's "Cassandra" appelation. The herald of bad news is never welcomed and, in these days of feelings-oriented garbage, sometimes with stones. Situations that will require action are particularly unpopular and largely denied.
China is in active aggression mode on many levels. America is deeply involved. Businesses such as Walmart and Amazon are in it up to their necks. Never ever was nor will there ever be any hope that rocket boy will denuclearize. 3D chess only works when both opponents are playing in the same arena.

[zzazz]

Well, as usual the GD analysis has the suspicious smell of BS, but it is clear that China is building its defenses. So maybe Trump and Putin are plotting some kind of first strike---Trump is stupid enough for that, but I doubt Putin is. Your theory that Putin is burning to get even with Genghis Khan is beyond ludicrous.

[John]

> Well, as usual the GD analysis has the suspicious smell of BS, but
> it is clear that China is building its defenses. So maybe Trump
> and Putin are plotting some kind of first strike---Trump is stupid
> enough for that, but I doubt Putin is. Your theory that Putin is
> burning to get even with Genghis Khan is beyond ludicrous.

The reason that generational theory analysis always works correctly is
because of idiots like you.

[CH86]

Well, as usual the GD analysis has the suspicious smell of BS, but it is clear that China is building its defenses. So maybe Trump and Putin are plotting some kind of first strike---Trump is stupid enough for that, but I doubt Putin is. Your theory that Putin is burning to get even with Genghis Khan is beyond ludicrous.

Where Your wrong here is in presenting the notion of a "defensive" China, China is being aggressive, however john's interpretation how china would prosecute a war is largely ridiculous. Nations when they attack do so where they are strongest and where their enemy is weakest. China if it attacks, will do so in a conventional Military vs Military clash because that would maximize china's superiority in manpower as well as offer communist party leaders and top generals prestige targets for conquest as well. Also the CCP power base would be able to be mobilized prior to taking sufficient damage, note that in modern China, the CCP's main bases of support among Chinese is located in the cities, not in the countryside, the rural Chinese are in fact discriminated against in the modern Chinese system. The US and Russia together account for 90 percent of the world's nukes, the nuclear arena therefore is China's weak point, not it's strength. John's Notion that Urban Chinese would rebel against the CCP and fight alongside the US with the Enemy being the CCP supported by Rural Chinese is nonsense. Finally regarding the internal policy of Xi's dictatorship, Xi aspires to be a modernizer, he and his cohorts are not leading a "back to the land" movement, they envision an urban/industrialized China. This will result in further sanctioned discrimination against the rural Chinese peasant class.

Regarding North Korea the notion that NK would not launch in invasion of South Korea but fight a war with the US without South Korean participation in the war is nonsense. Without South Korea and the North Korean goal of one day returning to and conquering the south, without SK participation, a NK vs US war would be pointless.

[Guest 2]

CH,
You have that other-worldly quality that is so valued by Hollywood straight-to-DVD film makers.
Both Xi and Kim suffer from inate oriental visions of grandeur. Hirohito was apparently no historic object lesson to either man. Yamamoto spent time in the West, but the Japanese did not listen.
Kim has not sufficient vision nor weapons to attack SK first. He is a one man show. Barry had his pen and phone: Kim has his red button and cigs.
America has a huge concern. Have the barry military staff officers and strategists been replaced by pro-American experienced MEN? McMasters was a huge mistake. We fought on Korean and Vietnamese soil by their rules. The results were not fine. Erik Prince knows the ropes. The Pentagon better get organized and move beyond toy tanks and pool cues. I know vets' areas that are more battle ready. (And you better believe that among the 50,000,000 illegal invaders are bad actors on the home front.)

[CH86]

CH,
You have that other-worldly quality that is so valued by Hollywood straight-to-DVD film makers.
Both Xi and Kim suffer from inate oriental visions of grandeur. Hirohito was apparently no historic object lesson to either man. Yamamoto spent time in the West, but the Japanese did not listen.
Kim has not sufficient vision nor weapons to attack SK first. He is a one man show. Barry had his pen and phone: Kim has his red button and cigs.
America has a huge concern. Have the barry military staff officers and strategists been replaced by pro-American experienced MEN? McMasters was a huge mistake. We fought on Korean and Vietnamese soil by their rules. The results were not fine. Erik Prince knows the ropes. The Pentagon better get organized and move beyond toy tanks and pool cues. I know vets' areas that are more battle ready. (And you better believe that among the 50,000,000 illegal invaders are bad actors on the home front.)

And those delusions will convince them to take on the US military. We've fought the Norks before, we know their tactics. Also the NKs and NVA used guerrilla tactics because the war was being fought on THEIR soil. Note that when North Vietnam was able to defeat the south and win the vietnam war, they did so by switching to a conventional invasion strategy, the first attempt in 1972 failed but the second invasion in 1975 succeeded. In an aggressive war the Norks would have to cross borders to fight, guerrilla tactics are useless in an aggressive war. If Kim is not a threat to SK, then he is not a threat to the US (a Much stronger country). Your Making the mistake of "fighting the last war" (vietnam and 9.11/afghanistan). When China massed troops at Doklam, how come we saw no inkling of this "people's war" strategy. It was obvious that had China attacked India, it would have been soldiers targeting soldiers. Why are the PLA amphibious forces and the KPA configured perfectly for war in Taiwan and south Korea respectively if they are not planning to have the battlefield be located in those areas? Regarding Hirohito, Kim would be violating that lesson by going to war in the first place, I'm just suggesting how he would go to war. There is no evidence backing up your proposed enemy strategy. There is no evidence for the theory of Kim and/or Xi preparing for an invasion of the US.

[Guest 2]

CH:
A basic in military strategy is that each side knows the enemy's identity. The guerilla tactics used by both Koreans and Vietnamese were offensive. Their goals were not to hold positions but to drive the allies out. The Chinese involvement in Korea was straight forward manpower. In Nam, Laos and Cambodia were staging areas. America has a real problem with presidents who make war with only short range goals. Iraq is a more recent example of declaring victory when in fact the battle was merely half over. If Stormin' Norman ever fesses up, we will all know the skinny. I was a Military Case Worker during Gulf 1 and know our state of utter unpreparedness. Only the grit and unity of American forces won the initial phase. America is now fragmented, recovering from 8 years of barry's treason and in no position to fight ground war on several continents. We are undermanned in Afghanistan.

[CH86]

CH:
A basic in military strategy is that each side knows the enemy's identity. The guerilla tactics used by both Koreans and Vietnamese were offensive. Their goals were not to hold positions but to drive the allies out. The Chinese involvement in Korea was straight forward manpower. In Nam, Laos and Cambodia were staging areas. America has a real problem with presidents who make war with only short range goals. Iraq is a more recent example of declaring victory when in fact the battle was merely half over. If Stormin' Norman ever fesses up, we will all know the skinny. I was a Military Case Worker during Gulf 1 and know our state of utter unpreparedness. Only the grit and unity of American forces won the initial phase. America is now fragmented, recovering from 8 years of barry's treason and in no position to fight ground war on several continents. We are undermanned in Afghanistan.

The North Koreans lost when they used guerrilla tactics in 1950, the Chinese when they entered the war later were using conventional Offensive invasion tactics, that what caused the stalemate. The NVA Lost when they used guerrilla tactics culminating in the bloodbath of Tet 68, the Viet Cong were largely wiped out by that battle. The Vietnamese won the war Later on when they switched to "bum-rushing" South Vietnam with traditional invasions culminating in the fall of the south in 1975. Note that Vietnam used regular offensive strategies later on when they invaded Cambodia in 1979 and both sides were fighting a regular war during both the Sino-Vietnamese campaign of 1979 and the long running skirmishes during the 1980s.

Regarding Afghanistan, the administrations never made any real attempt to wage a proper campaign there. They used afghan troops at Tora Bora, not American ones. I know it must irk you boomers whenever someone mentions these facts, but the problem in the Afghanistan war was that of the political leaders will and interest(or lack of) in victory, not with US capabilities. Our Leaders were never really interested in winning in Afghanistan.