Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John:
I do not know, but I hope not, things can get nasty if the situation is just right, kind of like an avalanche, it just keeps piling up until it lets go. I hope you are right that Europe stays green, Yellow would indicate a risk of war or internal conflict ( civil war or revolution). And then there is Nigel Farage's comments, May 9,2012 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nigel-far ... it-iceberg
I guess it may be a matter of semantics. However if one were to consider the blood that flowed from the war in Yugoslavia, --- would you consider Europe at that time to be green, yellow or red?
Or does the area of the blood letting determine the status?

No, I still believe that the top risk is currently in the Middle East. The last spurt of violence between Israel and the Palestinian territories stopped about 3 years ago. I still think it's extremely risky with the Arab Spring going on and it's one reason why we haven't intervened in Syria.

I've actually talked to a couple of people from Israel online, looking at websites, youtube, etc. What I'm noticing is a lot of fear on their part, feeling like if they don't do something, their country will be destroyed. They're worried about who's taken power in Egypt, meaning that they consider themselves surrounded. I've heard a similar sentiment among Palestinians. As worried as I might be about China, I would put the risk slightly lower for them.

Btw, I looked through the earlier archives and it sounded like WWIII was expected by the 2007-2008 time frame.

The conflict risk graphic is supposed to be my assessment of the
likelihood of a war in each region in the next 6-12 months. I just
don't consider it likely that there'll be a war in Europe in the next
6-12 months.

Do you disagree?

Sorry, I guess the question should be the volume of blood. Blood flows every day, but at what point does it become a torrent for change.

gerald wrote:So, as long as the blood is not flowing to bad it is OK?

There's blood flowing in every town and country in the world.
What's your point?

So, as long as the blood is not flowing to bad it is OK?

gerald wrote:So in other words Europe goes from green to red?

Not necessarily. There might be some minor border flareup that
will raise tensions, in which case Europe will go from
Green to Yellow.

Or there might be a political rise of some Hitler-like figure in
one of the 27 countries.

John

So in other words Europe goes from green to red?

Dear Gerald,

gerald wrote: John in light of recent events in Europe such as the following
comments, and the marching song, do you think maybe it is time to
change Europe from green to yellow on your conflict risk level
chart?

This is something I've been debating for months. I'm going to wait
until something military happens before making the change.

John

Dear Trevor,

Trevor wrote: > A question: how would we have fought WWII if it was a non-crisis
> war for us? Say we were on the WWI timeline, the previous crisis
> ending around 1925, with the U.S. just beginning its awakening
> period. How would we have fought it under those circumstances?

Well, it's always difficult to discuss counterfactuals, because often
the counterfactual assumptions could not have occurred, and once you
assume something impossible, then you can draw any conclusions you
want.

The best way to try to answer this question is to look at how America
fought other non-crisis wars -- Spanish-American war, WW I, Korean
War, Vietnam War, Iraq War -- and try to apply those behaviors to
Americans in WW II.

John