Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

LATEST: The newly updated CDC guidelines don't require testing at the end of isolation because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tells @GMA

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1476189028982702080

The general vibe of the outlets running this story is that it basically invalidates 90% of the protocols they have been forcing on people. Thoughts?

[FullMoon]

LATEST: The newly updated CDC guidelines don't require testing at the end of isolation because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tells @GMA

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1476189028982702080

The general vibe of the outlets running this story is that it basically invalidates 90% of the protocols they have been forcing on people. Thoughts?

Thoughts? Why are the citizens of a free country complying with their own destruction? The 'pandemic' has been something quite different than media and politicians have tried to paint it as. Absolutely far too many inconsistencies, outright lies and a cultish adherence to pseudo science by those who haven't the faintest of scientific understanding. Jumping from one wrong idea to another while in the process ruining a whole generation, the economy and social fabric. If that was the goal, then it's been a smashing hit!

[Navigator]

Are you kidding me? First off, this treaty would make all previous
illegal acts legal. So Crimea would legally be part of Russia.

And then, once Nato has made all the concessions, Russia would just go
ahead with its invasion anyway.

Putin and the Communists can always count on being supported by useful
idiots in the West.

I think that Putin has maneuvered NATO into talks at the time of his choosing (10 January) and with the agenda of his choosing.

I think he is doing it for the benefit of his domestic audience. I think he feels that he needs to "show" his domestic audience that he "tried hard" to negotiate with the west, but that they just wouldn't hear it, and are adamant about compromising Russian security.

He could then start something and say to his own people "I tried to negotiate, but they would just not compromise regarding any of my **reasonable** demands" (**reasonable** in this case being sarcastic from my point of view).

I also believe that Putin and Xi are coordinating things so that the US will be under pressure from as many quarters as possible at once, so that they can either cause us to submit (their dream) or have us too spread out to intervene anywhere effectively. This of course will only be made worse by the almost complete incompetence of Biden administration in Foreign Affairs and (even worse) Military Affairs.

Next point, if there is a war in Ukraine that lasts longer than a couple of weeks, I believe that Putin will put Russia on a complete war footing, meaning mobilizing all industrial production to war fighting, and in doing so, he could rapidly outpace NATO in munitions production and reserve training/mobilization that he could then use effectively against NATO (that certainly won't take such measures).

[DaKardii]

Are you kidding me? First off, this treaty would make all previous
illegal acts legal. So Crimea would legally be part of Russia.

And then, once Nato has made all the concessions, Russia would just go
ahead with its invasion anyway.

Putin and the Communists can always count on being supported by useful
idiots in the West.

It's debatable whether Russia would be obligated to give Crimea back to Ukraine if this agreement is ratified. On May 27, 1997, Crimea was Ukrainian territory and Russia had no military presence there. So it's possible to interpret the agreement (if ratified) as requiring that AT MINIMUM Crimea be de-militarized. However, because the agreement does not address changes in territory made on or after May 28, 1997, it's also possible to interpret the agreement a (if ratified) as permitting that Crimea remain Russian territory even if it's de-militarized.

On another note, it's all but certain that the agreement (if ratified) would require that Russia remove all troops from Eastern Ukraine, which would all but guarantee a defeat for the pro-Russian rebels. For this reason, the rebels are very likely to oppose this agreement and perhaps even take escalatory measures to prevent its ratification.

[DaKardii]

I think that Putin has maneuvered NATO into talks at the time of his choosing (10 January) and with the agenda of his choosing.

I think he is doing it for the benefit of his domestic audience. I think he feels that he needs to "show" his domestic audience that he "tried hard" to negotiate with the west, but that they just wouldn't hear it, and are adamant about compromising Russian security.

He could then start something and say to his own people "I tried to negotiate, but they would just not compromise regarding any of my **reasonable** demands" (**reasonable** in this case being sarcastic from my point of view).

If Putin wants to "show" the world that he "tried hard" to negotiate with the West, then he's doing so out of his own moral code, not to satisfy his political base. Many of Putin's supporters are even more radical than Putin himself, and couldn't care less if Putin tried any sort of negotiations. They want war no matter what, and they would stop supporting Putin the minute a peaceful settlement became a real possibility.

At heart, Putin is not an imperialist. He's just an extremely corrupt kleptocrat who hides behind a saintly religious image, much like a mob boss. He wasn't even that openly nationalistic until around 2007, a whole eight years after he first came to power. And in my opinion he only became openly nationalistic because the Russian people as a whole were becoming openly nationalistic. As is the case with all countries in the years preceding a crisis war, the people led and the leader followed.

I also believe that Putin and Xi are coordinating things so that the US will be under pressure from as many quarters as possible at once, so that they can either cause us to submit (their dream) or have us too spread out to intervene anywhere effectively. This of course will only be made worse by the almost complete incompetence of Biden administration in Foreign Affairs and (even worse) Military Affairs.

In the cases of both Ukraine and Taiwan, weather will be a determinant factor in whether or not an invasion is successful.

Because of the phenomena known as "Rasputitsa," where travelling across anything that's not a paved road is difficult due to either rainfall or melting snow, Russia will only be able to launch a quick and successful invasion of Ukraine during the winter and summer months (i.e. late December through early March and late June through early September). Meanwhile, weather patterns in the Strait would permit China to launch a quick and successful invasion only in the months of March through May and September through October.

Based on the above, there are only two times of year where we could see simultaneous invasions of Ukraine and Taiwan. The first is early March, and the second is early September.

[Cool Breeze]

LATEST: The newly updated CDC guidelines don't require testing at the end of isolation because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tells @GMA

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1476189028982702080

The general vibe of the outlets running this story is that it basically invalidates 90% of the protocols they have been forcing on people. Thoughts?

Thoughts? Why are the citizens of a free country complying with their own destruction? The 'pandemic' has been something quite different than media and politicians have tried to paint it as. Absolutely far too many inconsistencies, outright lies and a cultish adherence to pseudo science by those who haven't the faintest of scientific understanding. Jumping from one wrong idea to another while in the process ruining a whole generation, the economy and social fabric. If that was the goal, then it's been a smashing hit!

Indeed, as I had always said. A lot of my references to correct predictions get moved to "my" topic thread, lol.

FullMoon has it.

[John]

** 30-Dec-2021 World View: Justification for war

> My standard for the legality of American wars falls upon three
> questions. First, was the war a domestic or foreign conflict?
> Second, if the conflict was foreign, then was military action
> authorized by Congress? And third, for post-WWII foreign
> conflicts, was military action authorized by the UN Security
> Council?

> By these standards, here are my opinions on whether the following
> armed conflicts involving the US were legal. Only wars with over
> 1,000 US casualties are included.

> Northwest Indian War (1785-96): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.

> War of 1812 (1812-15): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

> Second Seminole War (1835-42): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.

> Mexican-American War (1846-48): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

> Civil War (1861-65): Legal if you consider it a purely domestic
> conflict; illegal if you consider it a war between two
> countries. Not authorized by Congress.

> Frontier Indian Wars (1865-98): Legal only for conflicts which
> occurred on established US territory, as conflicts on no-man’s
> land were not authorized by Congress.

> Spanish-American War (1898): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

> Philippine-American War (1898-1913): Legal. Purely domestic
> conflict.

> World War I (1917-18): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

> World War II (1941-45): Legal. Authorized by Congress.

> Korean War (1950-53): Legal under international law, but illegal
> under US law. Military action was authorized by the UN but not by
> Congress.

> Vietnam War (1955-75): Legal under US law only from 1964-73, when
> the Congressional authorization was in effect. Illegal under
> international law, as military action was not authorized by the UN
> at any point.

> Gulf War: Legal. Authorized by both Congress and the UN.

> War in Afghanistan: Legal under US law but not under international
> law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.

> Iraq War: Legal under US law but not under international
> law. Authorized by Congress but not by the UN.

This is a very interesting analysis, but I do believe that it has to
be expanded. Possibly the most obvious thing is that it would have
been unthinkable not to respond to the 9/11 attacks. The whole
country was traumatized, and the situation could not have been
resolved any other way besides war.

So the point is that when a country is attacked, then it has the right
to respond, without having to ask permission. So self-defense is one
issue.

Another issue is America's role as "policeman of the world." You can
look at America's post-WWII wars -- Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan,
Iraq -- and they were all for the benefit of someone else, not for
America. By contrast, Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine were
for the benefit of Russia, to gain territory, to try to restore its
colonization of these countries.

> It's debatable whether Russia would be obligated to give Crimea
> back to Ukraine if this agreement is ratified. On May 27, 1997,
> Crimea was Ukrainian territory and Russia had no military presence
> there. So it's possible to interpret the agreement (if ratified)
> as requiring that AT MINIMUM Crimea be de-militarized. However,
> because the agreement does not address changes in territory made
> on or after May 28, 1997, it's also possible to interpret the
> agreement a (if ratified) as permitting that Crimea remain Russian
> territory even if it's de-militarized.

> On another note, it's all but certain that the agreement (if
> ratified) would require that Russia remove all troops from Eastern
> Ukraine, which would all but guarantee a defeat for the
> pro-Russian rebels. For this reason, the rebels are very likely to
> oppose this agreement and perhaps even take escalatory measures to
> prevent its ratification.

There isn't a snowflake's chance in hell that Putin would agree to
give Crimea back to Ukraine, even if he signed that agreement.

You're assuming that Russia would actually do what it agreed to. As
I've previously said, both Russia and China view international
agreements as a means to have veto power over American and Western
foreign policy, while they do anything they want. Russia and China
will violate international law at will, and they will ignore any
agreements or treaties they've signed, but they would demand that
Western countries remain bound by those agreements.

As I said, just signing that agreement would be a major geopolitical
victory for Putin, and a defeat for the West, because Putin could
claim that the West had agreed that Crimea was part of Russia.

[Jubal Early]

So America is rolling towards nuclear war? Okay. I am grateful to read this site. I would rather know the truth. Stockpiling food and ammo really doesn't mean much to me. Living through a nuclear war is not something I really want to do. I will take whatever God gives me.
Thank you, John and Navigator. And a few others on this board.

[FullMoon]

So America is rolling towards nuclear war? Okay. I am grateful to read this site. I would rather know the truth. Stockpiling food and ammo really doesn't mean much to me. Living through a nuclear war is not something I really want to do. I will take whatever God gives me.
Thank you, John and Navigator. And a few others on this board.

Just store some food. As much as you can. Unless you've suffered starvation previously and aren't worried about what you'd do when that time comes.

[Cool Breeze]

So America is rolling towards nuclear war? Okay. I am grateful to read this site. I would rather know the truth. Stockpiling food and ammo really doesn't mean much to me. Living through a nuclear war is not something I really want to do. I will take whatever God gives me.
Thank you, John and Navigator. And a few others on this board.

Jubal-icious!

Happy New Year to all!