CH86 wrote:You admit the course of historical events. The problem in my frequent discussions with John, Yourself and Sue/Guest is that they basically state that whatever international alignments that existed in 1968 are the alignments that prefigure the Crisis war. Hence The Notion of Iran as a US ally, in 1968 Iran WAS a US ally and pro-western, yet such an assertion essentially ignores everything that took place after 1978 as irrelevant.
Uh,.. I've no great love for 1968. Just sayin'.
The reason I agree with China being the "Great (upcoming) Enemy" is because there are no other contenders for that position.
The reason I agree with Iran being an ally of "the west" is because it's the most plausible maximally interesting possibility, and that makes me happy (aka intrigued). Also, Iran is an effete "super country" that can't possibly tolerate being subsumed into a racially oriented one-party state like China.
The reason I agree that Russia will side with "the west" is that Russia and "the west" share "frontier asshole" tendencies that will draw us together in extremis.
The actual timing issues as to when the "great conflagration" will crystallize is handily explained by GD Theory's "generational proclivities" concepts.
Israel will obviously side with the west. Period.
The "sane" muslims will side with the west, as they have no other choice. They know their time for a "conquest of the dar al-harb" is long past, and it's better to NOT be a slave to the one-party state that China represents.
The "insane" muslims just want abject and total chaotic destruction, as that'll bring on the "glorious apocalypse" they're after, and will side with those promising the most destruction.
The Chinese won't be able to control their "rural folk", whom they truly don't give a crap about, and those people will simply be a weight on the Chinese war machine (as incompetent soldiers and rebels).
The point is that it's really a binary choice for all the party's involved. China or the West.
The energy supply (and therefore timing as well) is provided by GD forces, but the "side" on which to fall is dictated by "emotional affinities" of the "nations" involved.
Same is the Notion of ...
Remember that piece that John wrote about "Greek Tragedy"?
The tragedy is unavoidable. The audience is not there in hopes of "everything working out peacefully", but is there to watch the particular unfolding of the inevitable forces within the story, and to either learn how those forces work so as to postpone them for as long as possible, or to revel in the emotional power of the expression of those forces and "enjoy" being "a participant" in the drama, in hopes of being an ACTUAL participant in a similar real-life drama during their lifetime.
Tragedy is either cautionary or inspirational. Great lowest common denominator masses of people choose how to "act out" the old stories.
But the tragedies can not be denied or forever avoided,.. as the regretful can not well enough convince the naive to believe them.