Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

30-Dec-13 World View -- Saudi Arabia pledges $3 billion to Lebanon's army to buy weapons

Suicide bomber at Russia's Volgograd station sends Putin a message

** 30-Dec-13 World View -- Saudi Arabia pledges $3 billion to Lebanon's army to buy weapons
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e131230



Contents:
Suicide bomber at Russia's Volgograd station sends Putin a message
Saudi Arabia pledges $3 billion to Lebanon's army to buy weapons


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Russia, Volgograd, Vladimir Putin,
Doku Umarov, Chechnya, Stalingrad,
Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, France, François Hollande,
Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Mohammad Shatah

At least two congressmen have seen the 28 pages of redacted material from a 9/11 report that would indicate that Saudi Arabia leadership had much more to do with the twin towers attack than previously reported. If this is a fact, it would suggest that Saudi Arabia is responsible for far more American deaths than Syria and that we directed our entire 9/11 response against the wrong country. I think neither the Republicans or Democrats have attacked the right party to include the Serb/Bosnian war. It seems both political parties are more interested in supporting the Saudis as the Saudi's support the US dollar in the petro trade. Is that our response to the entire muslim world...support the Saudis political agenda as long as they support the dollar in the petro trade? Is that why US diplomacy is moving us away from Israel and even shutting down the Vatican embassy?

Nobody is claiming that the Obama administration is supporting Saudi
Arabia these days. Obama isn't doing what the Saudis tell him to do.
Obama is doing whatever the Russians tell him to do.

I agreed with the American bombing of the Serbs. I just wish they had bombed them in 1991, then the Balkans could have avoided the mass rape, torture, and genocide.

I have never believed the Internet conspiracy theories about the Saudis and 9/11. It just wasn't in their interest to see the Sunni ME destroyed and handed over to the Shia.

Guest wrote: > I agreed with the American bombing of the Serbs. I just wish they
> had bombed them in 1991, then the Balkans could have avoided the
> mass rape, torture, and genocide.

The bombing would not have prevented the crisis war. A generational
crisis war is an elemental force of nature that must reach a climax.
The only reason that the bombing worked when it did was because, by
that time, the crisis war had run its course.

Actually the Russians may do to the Saudis what we should have done. There was a piece by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge that reported that Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan made a guarantee to Putin that the winter Olympics at Sochi would not be attacked as they controlled the Chechen groups threatening the games. This was to be in return for Russia selling out the Syrian regime. With the latest bombings in Russia I would think that Putin might provide a lesson to the Saudis and Obama about the threat made by the Saudis. Perhaps Obama is hoping the Saudi threat works....but then the Saudis may be betting their entire oil infrastructure on that outcome. How many MIGS does it take to erase that infrastructure?

Bandar was just shooting his mouth off. Bandar can provide money to
Umarov, which Umarov will gladly accept, but there's no way that
Umarov is going to take orders from Bandar.

John wrote:

Guest wrote: > I agreed with the American bombing of the Serbs. I just wish they
> had bombed them in 1991, then the Balkans could have avoided the
> mass rape, torture, and genocide.

The bombing would not have prevented the crisis war. A generational
crisis war is an elemental force of nature that must reach a climax.
The only reason that the bombing worked when it did was because, by
that time, the crisis war had run its course.

However the final outcomes could be different or at least minimized in some situations. If the UN had not embargoed weapons for the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, the war would have ended much earlier and a lot of deaths would have been avoided. I'm not saying the Serbs wouldn't have tried, but the the war would not have been so one-sided: a virtually defenseless Muslim and Croat Catholic population vs. the Serb controlled JNA (Yugoslav National Armed forces). If the US had entered the war in 1939, the war would have ended earlier and lives would have been spared. At a Teddy Roosevelt seminar one of my university professors attended in the early 90s, a speaker stated that if Teddy Roosevelt had been president in 1914, there would have been no World War One.

I think you generally right, regarding your generational dynamics theory, but I don't believe people should allow or inadvertently assist (via one -sided embargoes, etc.) one side to slaughter the other. I don't believe intervention is always possible, but limiting one side's ability to defend itself (Bosnia) is not a solution.

Guest wrote: > However the final outcomes could be different or at least
> minimized in some situations. If the UN had not embargoed weapons
> for the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims, the war would have ended
> much earlier and a lot of deaths would have been avoided. I'm not
> saying the Serbs wouldn't have tried, but the the war would not
> have been so one-sided: a virtually defenseless Muslim and Croat
> Catholic population vs. the Serb controlled JNA (Yugoslav National
> Armed forces).

I agree with this from two points of view: Intervening in a crisis war
might make a political difference at the time of the intervention, and
it might make a difference in the way historians look back at the war
later.

However, the conclusion, "the war would have ended much earlier and a
lot of deaths would have been avoided" cannot be reached. There is no
way to tell whether a given intervention will prevent deaths or create
more deaths or shorten the war or lengthen the war or have no
substantive effect whatsoever.

It's like the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory -- a butterfly
flapping its wings in China might cause a hurricane in North
America, or might prevent a hurricane that would have occurred
otherwise, or might have no effect whatsoever on the North
American weather.

Guest wrote: > If the US had entered the war in 1939, the war would have ended
> earlier and lives would have been spared.

How could you possibly know this? If the US had entered the
war in 1939, perhaps Russia would have come in on the side of
the Nazis, and the war might have lasted longer with many
more deaths.

Guest wrote: > At a Teddy Roosevelt seminar one of my university professors
> attended in the early 90s, a speaker stated that if Teddy
> Roosevelt had been president in 1914, there would have been no
> World War One.

Total utter nonsense.

Guest wrote: > I think you generally right, regarding your generational dynamics
> theory, but I don't believe people should allow or inadvertently
> assist (via one -sided embargoes, etc.) one side to slaughter the
> other. I don't believe intervention is always possible, but
> limiting one side's ability to defend itself (Bosnia) is not a
> solution.

This illustrates the problem with what you're saying. You say that
limiting the ability of one side to defend itself in a crisis war is
not a solution, but you also say that you want to shorten the war and
save lives. Well, it seems "intuitively obvious" to me that limiting
one side's ability to defend itself would, in fact, shorten the war
and save lives. So which do you want?

John

I agree, it is difficult to predict how think might have turned out; however, I think simply allowing one side to be slaughtered is not the solution. At least allow both sides to fight fairly. I think just resigning oneself to genocide and mass rape is not just immoral, it's ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to intervene, but at the very least, don't stop people from defending themselves.

The UN seems to cause more harm than it prevents. The UN embargo on the Croats and Bosnian Muslims was shocking and criminal. The UN aided genocide. (As it apparently did in Rwanda as well.)

As for the 1914 comment, The speaker talked about how T.R. intervened in the 1905 Morocco Crisis, and that supposedly stopped a potential European wide war. (The argument was more detailed then that, but it seems fairly reasonable.)

As regards to WW2, well perhaps you are right. Or, perhaps you wrong. The Teddy Roosevelt argument was that if America had let it be know before war had broken out that it would be sided against the Germans (in either conflict), then war could/would have been prevented. I don't think the argument is complete rubbish. But, perhaps I am wrong.