5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
John
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby John » Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:22 pm

5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Concerns grow over China's debt strategy for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)


** 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e180805.htm#e180805



Contents:
China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting
Concerns grow over China's debt strategy for Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN,
Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam,
China, Asia-Pacific, Indo-Pacific, India, Mike Pompeo,
Sri Lanka, Kenya, Djibouti, Malaysia, Pakistan

shoshin
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby shoshin » Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:36 am

What are the chances that climate change makes large swaths of China uninhabitable (as it is starting to do with much of the US)? Population moves North, riots ensue, take over of Korea, etc.

Just riffin' here...

Guest

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:23 am

Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.

Silent Guest 2

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby Silent Guest 2 » Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:05 pm

Guest, I do sense sarcasm. We geezers are the nationalists. My opinion of globalists is unfavorable.
John laid out the Chinese MO. That this invited suicide has been repeated is on a par with open borders. Paying for one's own demise either once or twice is mind boggling.

CH86
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby CH86 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:19 am

Guest wrote:Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.


Boomers are evil because they openly impose multilateralism and America as "peaceloving democracy" and "defender of the little guys of the world" without having been given consent of the people to do so. In doing so they abandoned the cardinal principle of the American democracy they claim to cherish: that of consent based government. If boomers had remained within the bounds of governance outlined in the constitution, instead of the decline that has occurred since 9/11 instead something like this would have happened.

1) We would have deployed Americans to ground war in the middle east after 9/11 with carpet bombings and possibly even use of tactical nukes against the Muslims. Troops unshackled by boomer tyranny would have forced a conventional decisive battle by first utilizing blitzkrieg tactics and second, when Islamist attempted insurgent tactics, it would have been countered by mass reprisals (think of troops lining up whole villages of civilians and shooting them with the bodies then buried in pits). This combination would have quickly eliminated Islamism as a major threat. American Troops and equipment would have led the offensive in Afghanistan, for example, instead of using afghan forces.

2) The West would have never implemented NATO expansion (it was the boomers who supported and defended NATO expansion), so relations with Russia and relations with those Russians who actually matter (the military/KGB/FSB class) would have been much better. Also Russian-Chinese relations would have been much worse without the boomers (without NATO expansion, Russia would have no need to cozy to China as a Hedge against the US).

3) We would have either went to war with North Korea OR signed a permanent treaty with them back when the NORKs first announced that they would build Nukes and no longer observe the armistice back in 2002 (I mention a treaty as a possible alternative to war because they also asked for a permanent peace treaty around this time). A War would have eliminated the North Korean threat.

4) With the US clearly still ascendant, China would have been more peaceful toward us, However without the boomer policy of the US holding countries in various flash-points away from each other, India and Pakistan would likely have gone to war with each other long ago. This however regrettable would not have negatively impacted the US or US prosperity because with the government looking out for Americans and not non-Americans, we would not have been involved. We would have been selling surplus Armaments to all sides to India, Pakistan and China and companies and entrepreneurs would have been getting rich doing so. The Armaments industry would have been flourishing because we would have been selling arms to both sides instead of supporting embargo whenever a war not involving the US broke out. With the Armaments industry and military-industrial complex flourishing, the manufacturing industry would have been flourishing; or if not flourishing, at least manufacturing would have been in much better shaped than what it became historically.

In short the boomers can claim their beliefs and actions are positive from a purely event based analysis and in short term analysis; However when you compare events implemented and reacted to under the boomers control with how those events WOULD have occurred had the boomer either had not been there or wasn't being controlling: The negative effects of the boomers influence on society and world events becomes blatantly obvious.

Guest

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:55 am

CH86 wrote:
Guest wrote:Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.


Boomers are evil because they openly impose multilateralism and America as "peaceloving democracy" and "defender of the little guys of the world" without having been given consent of the people to do so. In doing so they abandoned the cardinal principle of the American democracy they claim to cherish: that of consent based government. If boomers had remained within the bounds of governance outlined in the constitution, instead of the decline that has occurred since 9/11 instead something like this would have happened.

1) We would have deployed Americans to ground war in the middle east after 9/11 with carpet bombings and possibly even use of tactical nukes against the Muslims. Troops unshackled by boomer tyranny would have forced a conventional decisive battle by first utilizing blitzkrieg tactics and second, when Islamist attempted insurgent tactics, it would have been countered by mass reprisals (think of troops lining up whole villages of civilians and shooting them with the bodies then buried in pits). This combination would have quickly eliminated Islamism as a major threat. American Troops and equipment would have led the offensive in Afghanistan, for example, instead of using afghan forces.

2) The West would have never implemented NATO expansion (it was the boomers who supported and defended NATO expansion), so relations with Russia and relations with those Russians who actually matter (the military/KGB/FSB class) would have been much better. Also Russian-Chinese relations would have been much worse without the boomers (without NATO expansion, Russia would have no need to cozy to China as a Hedge against the US).

3) We would have either went to war with North Korea OR signed a permanent treaty with them back when the NORKs first announced that they would build Nukes and no longer observe the armistice back in 2002 (I mention a treaty as a possible alternative to war because they also asked for a permanent peace treaty around this time). A War would have eliminated the North Korean threat.

4) With the US clearly still ascendant, China would have been more peaceful toward us, However without the boomer policy of the US holding countries in various flash-points away from each other, India and Pakistan would likely have gone to war with each other long ago. This however regrettable would not have negatively impacted the US or US prosperity because with the government looking out for Americans and not non-Americans, we would not have been involved. We would have been selling surplus Armaments to all sides to India, Pakistan and China and companies and entrepreneurs would have been getting rich doing so. The Armaments industry would have been flourishing because we would have been selling arms to both sides instead of supporting embargo whenever a war not involving the US broke out. With the Armaments industry and military-industrial complex flourishing, the manufacturing industry would have been flourishing; or if not flourishing, at least manufacturing would have been in much better shaped than what it became historically.

In short the boomers can claim their beliefs and actions are positive from a purely event based analysis and in short term analysis; However when you compare events implemented and reacted to under the boomers control with how those events WOULD have occurred had the boomer either had not been there or wasn't being controlling: The negative effects of the boomers influence on society and world events becomes blatantly obvious.


You forgot to give this essay a title. I'll give it one right now: "How to lose a war'

You're welcome.

CH86
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby CH86 » Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:04 am

Guest wrote:
CH86 wrote:
Guest wrote:Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.


Boomers are evil because they openly impose multilateralism and America as "peaceloving democracy" and "defender of the little guys of the world" without having been given consent of the people to do so. In doing so they abandoned the cardinal principle of the American democracy they claim to cherish: that of consent based government. If boomers had remained within the bounds of governance outlined in the constitution, instead of the decline that has occurred since 9/11 instead something like this would have happened.

1) We would have deployed Americans to ground war in the middle east after 9/11 with carpet bombings and possibly even use of tactical nukes against the Muslims. Troops unshackled by boomer tyranny would have forced a conventional decisive battle by first utilizing blitzkrieg tactics and second, when Islamist attempted insurgent tactics, it would have been countered by mass reprisals (think of troops lining up whole villages of civilians and shooting them with the bodies then buried in pits). This combination would have quickly eliminated Islamism as a major threat. American Troops and equipment would have led the offensive in Afghanistan, for example, instead of using afghan forces.

2) The West would have never implemented NATO expansion (it was the boomers who supported and defended NATO expansion), so relations with Russia and relations with those Russians who actually matter (the military/KGB/FSB class) would have been much better. Also Russian-Chinese relations would have been much worse without the boomers (without NATO expansion, Russia would have no need to cozy to China as a Hedge against the US).

3) We would have either went to war with North Korea OR signed a permanent treaty with them back when the NORKs first announced that they would build Nukes and no longer observe the armistice back in 2002 (I mention a treaty as a possible alternative to war because they also asked for a permanent peace treaty around this time). A War would have eliminated the North Korean threat.

4) With the US clearly still ascendant, China would have been more peaceful toward us, However without the boomer policy of the US holding countries in various flash-points away from each other, India and Pakistan would likely have gone to war with each other long ago. This however regrettable would not have negatively impacted the US or US prosperity because with the government looking out for Americans and not non-Americans, we would not have been involved. We would have been selling surplus Armaments to all sides to India, Pakistan and China and companies and entrepreneurs would have been getting rich doing so. The Armaments industry would have been flourishing because we would have been selling arms to both sides instead of supporting embargo whenever a war not involving the US broke out. With the Armaments industry and military-industrial complex flourishing, the manufacturing industry would have been flourishing; or if not flourishing, at least manufacturing would have been in much better shaped than what it became historically.

In short the boomers can claim their beliefs and actions are positive from a purely event based analysis and in short term analysis; However when you compare events implemented and reacted to under the boomers control with how those events WOULD have occurred had the boomer either had not been there or wasn't being controlling: The negative effects of the boomers influence on society and world events becomes blatantly obvious.


You forgot to give this essay a title. I'll give it one right now: "How to lose a war'

You're welcome.


I'm not sure what you mean here, the policies that were historically implemented and are currently in place are a textbook Example of "how to lose a war". My proposed alternative policies that would have been implemented had America been unencumbered by boomer tyranny would have led to a speedy, decisive victory.

FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby FishbellykanakaDude » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:45 am

CH86 wrote:
Guest wrote:Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.


Boomers are evil because they openly impose multilateralism and America as "peaceloving democracy" and "defender of the little guys of the world" without having been given consent of the people to do so. In doing so they abandoned the cardinal principle of the American democracy they claim to cherish: that of consent based government. If boomers had remained within the bounds of governance outlined in the constitution, instead of the decline that has occurred since 9/11 instead something like this would have happened.

1) We would have deployed Americans to ground war in the middle east after 9/11 with carpet bombings and possibly even use of tactical nukes against the Muslims. Troops unshackled by boomer tyranny would have forced a conventional decisive battle by first utilizing blitzkrieg tactics and second, when Islamist attempted insurgent tactics, it would have been countered by mass reprisals (think of troops lining up whole villages of civilians and shooting them with the bodies then buried in pits). This combination would have quickly eliminated Islamism as a major threat. American Troops and equipment would have led the offensive in Afghanistan, for example, instead of using afghan forces.

2) The West would have never implemented NATO expansion (it was the boomers who supported and defended NATO expansion), so relations with Russia and relations with those Russians who actually matter (the military/KGB/FSB class) would have been much better. Also Russian-Chinese relations would have been much worse without the boomers (without NATO expansion, Russia would have no need to cozy to China as a Hedge against the US).

3) We would have either went to war with North Korea OR signed a permanent treaty with them back when the NORKs first announced that they would build Nukes and no longer observe the armistice back in 2002 (I mention a treaty as a possible alternative to war because they also asked for a permanent peace treaty around this time). A War would have eliminated the North Korean threat.

4) With the US clearly still ascendant, China would have been more peaceful toward us, However without the boomer policy of the US holding countries in various flash-points away from each other, India and Pakistan would likely have gone to war with each other long ago. This however regrettable would not have negatively impacted the US or US prosperity because with the government looking out for Americans and not non-Americans, we would not have been involved. We would have been selling surplus Armaments to all sides to India, Pakistan and China and companies and entrepreneurs would have been getting rich doing so. The Armaments industry would have been flourishing because we would have been selling arms to both sides instead of supporting embargo whenever a war not involving the US broke out. With the Armaments industry and military-industrial complex flourishing, the manufacturing industry would have been flourishing; or if not flourishing, at least manufacturing would have been in much better shaped than what it became historically.

In short the boomers can claim their beliefs and actions are positive from a purely event based analysis and in short term analysis; However when you compare events implemented and reacted to under the boomers control with how those events WOULD have occurred had the boomer either had not been there or wasn't being controlling: The negative effects of the boomers influence on society and world events becomes blatantly obvious.


This is a lovely example of an alternative history, where the "one thing" that is changed to "make for an interesting story" is the substitution of "one personʻs ambitions" for the actual contextual forces in play at the time.

The entire point of GD is that it is not one personʻs idea of what SHOULD happen that affects global events, but rather the gestalt of huge masses of people that determine them.

I must, at this point, restate my personal beliefs as regards history: There is no arguing with history! That which happened must have happened, and it is the only thing that COULD have happened. The world is as it must be, and is the best possible case of what it could be.

We may not know, at any one point in time, how "now" is the best (or "least worse") case of all the possible cases, but it is. Iʻm open to disagreement on this, but since history cannot be changed, and there is no way of truly evaluating what "might have been" over "what is", Iʻll leave it to whomever to prove their case that some "shoulda happened" world is actually better than "what is". :)

The "obsession" with the "Boomers are pure evil" meme is an interesting point of view to use as a springboard for fascinating fictional writing, which is what is illustrated above! The author could use it to create some REALLY fascinating novels.

But as a worldview per se, it may not be overly healthy for the "author", as it creates a rather strong sense of "tyrannical barbarism" in the author that isn't properly tempered by a sense of the way the world actually works.

And THAT is the downfall of nearly all "alternate history" conjecture (as well as tyrannical "government", which is merely "personal alternative history" that tries to extend itself into reality).

Commands to "do the Fuhrer's bidding" are not followed, or are subverted, because "the Fuhrer" is never quite as powerful or persuasive as he (or she) thinks he is.

..but I'd LOVE to see some nifty dramatic writing based on the memes of the Ubermensch! Go for it! :)

Aloha a nā mahalo! <shaka nui!>

CH86
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby CH86 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:47 am

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
Guest wrote:Where is CH5?

I thought for sure he would have complained by now that this policy represents the tyranny of Boomers (who are inherently evil) over the generations of younger Americans, who all without exception are isolationists and would oppose any involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.


Boomers are evil because they openly impose multilateralism and America as "peaceloving democracy" and "defender of the little guys of the world" without having been given consent of the people to do so. In doing so they abandoned the cardinal principle of the American democracy they claim to cherish: that of consent based government. If boomers had remained within the bounds of governance outlined in the constitution, instead of the decline that has occurred since 9/11 instead something like this would have happened.

1) We would have deployed Americans to ground war in the middle east after 9/11 with carpet bombings and possibly even use of tactical nukes against the Muslims. Troops unshackled by boomer tyranny would have forced a conventional decisive battle by first utilizing blitzkrieg tactics and second, when Islamist attempted insurgent tactics, it would have been countered by mass reprisals (think of troops lining up whole villages of civilians and shooting them with the bodies then buried in pits). This combination would have quickly eliminated Islamism as a major threat. American Troops and equipment would have led the offensive in Afghanistan, for example, instead of using afghan forces.

2) The West would have never implemented NATO expansion (it was the boomers who supported and defended NATO expansion), so relations with Russia and relations with those Russians who actually matter (the military/KGB/FSB class) would have been much better. Also Russian-Chinese relations would have been much worse without the boomers (without NATO expansion, Russia would have no need to cozy to China as a Hedge against the US).

3) We would have either went to war with North Korea OR signed a permanent treaty with them back when the NORKs first announced that they would build Nukes and no longer observe the armistice back in 2002 (I mention a treaty as a possible alternative to war because they also asked for a permanent peace treaty around this time). A War would have eliminated the North Korean threat.

4) With the US clearly still ascendant, China would have been more peaceful toward us, However without the boomer policy of the US holding countries in various flash-points away from each other, India and Pakistan would likely have gone to war with each other long ago. This however regrettable would not have negatively impacted the US or US prosperity because with the government looking out for Americans and not non-Americans, we would not have been involved. We would have been selling surplus Armaments to all sides to India, Pakistan and China and companies and entrepreneurs would have been getting rich doing so. The Armaments industry would have been flourishing because we would have been selling arms to both sides instead of supporting embargo whenever a war not involving the US broke out. With the Armaments industry and military-industrial complex flourishing, the manufacturing industry would have been flourishing; or if not flourishing, at least manufacturing would have been in much better shaped than what it became historically.

In short the boomers can claim their beliefs and actions are positive from a purely event based analysis and in short term analysis; However when you compare events implemented and reacted to under the boomers control with how those events WOULD have occurred had the boomer either had not been there or wasn't being controlling: The negative effects of the boomers influence on society and world events becomes blatantly obvious.


This is a lovely example of an alternative history, where the "one thing" that is changed to "make for an interesting story" is the substitution of "one personʻs ambitions" for the actual contextual forces in play at the time.

The entire point of GD is that it is not one personʻs idea of what SHOULD happen that affects global events, but rather the gestalt of huge masses of people that determine them.

I must, at this point, restate my personal beliefs as regards history: There is no arguing with history! That which happened must have happened, and it is the only thing that COULD have happened. The world is as it must be, and is the best possible case of what it could be.

We may not know, at any one point in time, how "now" is the best (or "least worse") case of all the possible cases, but it is. Iʻm open to disagreement on this, but since history cannot be changed, and there is no way of truly evaluating what "might have been" over "what is", Iʻll leave it to whomever to prove their case that some "shoulda happened" world is actually better than "what is". :)

The "obsession" with the "Boomers are pure evil" meme is an interesting point of view to use as a springboard for fascinating fictional writing, which is what is illustrated above! The author could use it to create some REALLY fascinating novels.

But as a worldview per se, it may not be overly healthy for the "author", as it creates a rather strong sense of "tyrannical barbarism" in the author that isn't properly tempered by a sense of the way the world actually works.

And THAT is the downfall of nearly all "alternate history" conjecture (as well as tyrannical "government", which is merely "personal alternative history" that tries to extend itself into reality).

Commands to "do the Fuhrer's bidding" are not followed, or are subverted, because "the Fuhrer" is never quite as powerful or persuasive as he (or she) thinks he is.

..but I'd LOVE to see some nifty dramatic writing based on the memes of the Ubermensch! Go for it! :)

Aloha a nā mahalo! <shaka nui!>


But in other countries Russia, China, Iran and others, generational decisions are being taken by not just boomers but the equivalents of Xers, Millies and Homies/pivotals. Thats Not whats happening in the west, here in the west generational decisions are being implemented by boomers and solely by boomers who deliberately excluded the other generations. Hence the young have not been allowed to have their generational "vote" on issues. In Russia and China all four generations are shaping the decisions the Chinese and Russian governments are making. Here in America only the boomers are shaping those decisions really. What the young is demanding is that all four generations shape the decisions of America just like they do in Russia and China.

FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: 5-Aug-18 World View -- China mocks America's 'Indo-Pacific' strategy at ASEAN meeting

Postby FishbellykanakaDude » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:22 pm

CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:blah blah blah...


But in other countries Russia, China, Iran and others, generational decisions are being taken by not just boomers but the equivalents of Xers, Millies and Homies/pivotals. Thats Not whats happening in the west, here in the west generational decisions are being implemented by boomers and solely by boomers who deliberately excluded the other generations. Hence the young have not been allowed to have their generational "vote" on issues. In Russia and China all four generations are shaping the decisions the Chinese and Russian governments are making. Here in America only the boomers are shaping those decisions really. What the young is demanding is that all four generations shape the decisions of America just like they do in Russia and China.


I think you're quite incorrect.

Those who "take (make?) generational decisions" are those with the power to do so.

That's that way it works, according to the "typical power dynamics" of the society involved.

If you, for example, don't like the presently exhibited "normal power dynamics" of "the west" then you're perfectly welcome to try to change those dynamics,.. within or not within the "law" of the land.

I'd love to see how you'd go about changing those norms within the law, and it'd also be interesting to see where you might "dare" to resort to making changes outside the law, if you deemed that necessary.

Your "complaint" that "your people" (age cohort) are being denied some "power" that they have, is obvious nonsense, because if they DID have the power (and the will to use it) then they'd use it!

Those with "the power" use the power. Those without "the power" won't.

Your basic "problem" is that you don't belong to the "population" that you think you do, and that you think you represent.

You can try to whip up "your people" to be more like yourself, but until there is some "critical mass" within "your people" that already think like you do, you won't have any effect whatsoever.

The masses LEAD movements, they don't follow "politicians" like yourself. And yes, you are a politician, because you're a minority trying to "push" a majority to do something. That is the definition of a politician.

The "successful" politician, of course, doesn't actually lead. He follows while appearing to lead, and is paid quite well for pulling off the illusion.

When the genocidal resentful mass DOES come to power, you can have all the "fun" you like for a short while, until the mood changes to disgust and revulsion at such (likely somewhat necessary) "fun".

You are correct that sometimes "tempered genocide" is the knife necessary to correct an "evil malady" (actively acquisitive megalomaniacal genocidal madmen) in a surgical manner, but short of solving the "living memory" problem that causes the GD Cycle, there is no "human nature change" solution (where people accept a perpetual tyranny) to our cyclic nature of war and peace.

You give MUCH too much credit to the "generational egalitarianism" of Russia and China et al. Those statements of yours are beyond laughable, of course, but not much of a surprise since you "look up to them" so. :)

Utopians, of any stripe, are ALWAYS so damned amusing!

Aloha dude! <shaka nui!>


Return to “Weblog News Comments and Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests