At U.N., Haley says U.S. is ‘prepared to do more’ in Syria

“It could be that Russia is knowingly allowing chemical weapons to remain in Syria. It could be that Russia has been incompetent in its efforts to remove the chemical weapons,” Haley said, echoing similar comments made by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Thursday. “Or it could be that the Assad regime is playing the Russians for fools. Telling them that there are no chemical weapons, all the while stockpiling them on their bases.”

It seems to me that these are the kinds of questions Trump’s State Department should have been asking, and getting answers for, before a strike than after. If these are important questions, if they had actually asked them, why couldn’t they have waited for an answer, and would they have still bombed if these question had been answered?

Obviously, while they are asking these question, which may determine the appropriate US response, more people may have been gassed, but it might also mean there would have been a possibility that Russia would take action against Assad after realizing they have been fooled or Russia’s personnel are incompetent.

Of course if Assad’s story is correct, i.e. the sarin gas was produced by the insurgents and released when Assad bombed, there most likely would have been no more people dying from a sarin gas leak, unless there were many manufacturing areas that had remained hidden from the Russians and everyone else.

But asking these question and receiving answers to them is now pretty much a waste of time. The world now knows that the US will be willing to commit thousands of troops and trillions of dollars, without any answers to these, or perhaps any, questions.

But thanks U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley. Your questions may be  a dollar short (59 million) and a day late, but they should count for something, as Trump, although not very presidential, has shown he is a man of action, which is something.

Source: At U.N., Haley says U.S. is ‘prepared to do more’ in Syria

Iran’s leader says never trusted the West, seeks closer ties with China

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for closer economic and security ties with China, saying Iran had never trusted the West, as the two countries agreed to increase bilateral trade more than 10-fold to $600 billion in the next decade.

Truly a relationship made in heaven. The USA would have had to create this relationship, if it didn’t just all happen by itself. 🙂

The reason is this:

It sounds to me like

China is the epicenter of the looming crisis. China in today’s cycle is what US housing was during the financial crisis in 2008. In 2008, China reacted quickly, resorted to fiscal stimulus, which saved the boom and even amplified it. In addition, however, the liquidity from the QE-program in the US flooded into the country, which even accelerated the uptrend – in terms of credit growth and investment, the boom in China grew into the biggest excess in the history of mankind.

and Iran could use all the excessive commodities it can now buy, as sanctions are lifted, and its economy becomes a player in the developing market.

It’s a relationship made in heaven, because China’s relationship with Turkey is strong enough that they hold combined military exercises and strong enough with Russia that there is much in integration at their border regions, and Iran is basically at war with the Arab Sunni kingdom.

Whither that “Kingdom” is heaven, has yet to be seen.

 

Source: Iran’s leader says never trusted the West, seeks closer ties with China – Yahoo News

Pattern Recognition: Entryways

Eventually Washington realized that a road that could be used to speed troops’ journey north could be used equally to speed troops’ journey south.

I am not a military person, so I am not sure what Washington’s strategy for invading Canada turned out to be, but I imagine that he decentralized his expeditionary forces along the border, and made every effort to win the hearts and minds of the locals. This strategy is also what I think the people on Thoughtfaucet are recommending Zillow implement.

Zillow, the real estate portal, purchased Diverse Solutions.

A portal is an entryway, but, in this case, I don’t think Zillow is local. It may be that the portal is located between two markets, one local one foreign, and the foreign investors behind global players such as U.S. Bank, the bank I tried to go through in mortgaging my property, are view by the locals as taking over.

As a global player, U.S. Bank wanted nothing to do with me, even when we offered a CD that would cover the mortgage. I was only “saved” by a local financial entity.

But the banks, such as U.S. Bank, did go for the high valued property, as that which we had to sell to settle my wife’s estate. And I think they got most of the high-valued property for a song.

From that song and dance my wife had to go through in selling her mother’s house, it sounds to me like the locals used the portal as a “Bayley Hazen Military Road” for quick access into the money market of a foreign country, but now the locals are angstiest. They didn’t learn from Washington, and now the flow has reversed.

So, if my assessment of Washington’s action to implement his strategy for invading Canada was correct, Thoughtfaucet are calling on Zillow to decentralize, and win the hearts and minds of the locals (real estate sales force). Once they win the hearts and minds of the local, Zillow won’t be viewed as an existential threat.

Web technologies such as that provided by Diverse Solutions and others, can very easily become a means for real estate agents to submit data directly to Zillow should trouble ensue with more formal access to the various MLS databases. In some ways, it might turn out to be more efficient for Zillow for this to occur anyway.

So in the end (a narrative to get from here to there using the ways and means outlined in the quote above) Zillow hires a gatekeeper, such as those on Thoughtfaucet, to open or close the portal like a faucet and, according to the magnitude of the perceived threat (small), everyone lives happily ever after.

The foreign object is now local (at least next to the border), and the locals could take advantage of the foreign object’s position in the world, a position that is getting stronger as the square foot of living space gets smaller due to climate change.

There is so much movement in the world, due to climate change, that the locals could ask, why not let at least some of that movement land here (local)?

Maybe because “here” is where politics and diplomacy starts, and our area might not be ready for either.

Nice!

Wait! Invade Canada????

via Pattern Recognition: Entryways – Thoughtfaucet.

A Good Business Model Builds Barriers Not Fences

People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News

“The local amber operators live in the Baltiysk area, they know the place and the people, and in a variety of ways they take the local population’s interests and needs into account. They ran the district council, but nobody claims they were doing a bad job of it,” says Vladimir Abramov, an independent political expert. “They were mostly members of United Russia and big supporters of Putin.”

So the businessmen put the military structure (which had basically dissolved) to work manufacturing a product positioned in the world’s market, and Putin’s culture followed those businessmen back to their town and voted. It voted to make a decision, but not to change a position. In other words, they are still with Putin and the system seems to be working.

But did the businessmen create barriers that controls the velocity between those in the town and those in the global market, or did they try to build a fence around the town and whose gate only opens to the few?

For me a gate, which is what every good fence needs, is no good unless it’s there as an ornament. Those in the know (know how to open gates) seem to build close to the gate, and, in a way, those building close to the gate are in charge of the structure. I am just saying, I think those living close to the gate can become barriers too easily jumped over and too limiting in letting the few move around the barrier that represents, in this case, those voting. On the other hand, the town is dealing with a natural resource similar to oil, so maybe a closed system is not too bad, as long as the gate is well guarded. As we have seen in the Ukraine, if those guarding the gate are weak, the system doesn’t last long.

If including the military culture within a Capitalistic system creates fences or barriers, I don’t know the answer. The system inside the Russian town maybe Communistic or not, but the financial advantage in the world goes (so far) to the Capitalists.

But this business model the Russian businessmen of the town used is very similar in structure as what the Chinese used in Pakistan. In the Chinese system it seemed to be a winning strategy, but since I last looked, I don’t know if the Chinese model built barriers or fences.

In the Chinese model, they hired all ex-military higher-ups to run their manufacturing and the Chinese kept their economy going by keeping their people working. The business model had, what is called, a Cheap Trick. A Cheap Trick is basically a structure-building narrative with an advantage. The advantage in this case was that the military leaders took charge of the Chinese (I am thinking mostly Chinese workers) manufacturing facilities after serving in the Pakistani military as generals. Normally such a thing would raise some eyebrows with thoughts of nationalizing the manufacturing in Pakistan.

But the move in hiring these ex-generals were thought to be on the up and up. There was no pretext to hide this fact locally, nationally, and globally, and the global Capitalist responded favorably.

Perhaps in the successful Chinese model some events could give us clues as to what kind of structure we are dealing with inside the model’s environment. Maybe one event,  The Red Mosque Massacre, could show us either barrier or fence building.

After the inhabitants of The Red Mosque made a violent attack on a Chinese massage parlor (Who knew massage parlors were even available in Pakistan?), the Pakistan Government responded to the Chinese request, to protect Chinese citizens, by making the inhabitants of the mosque, who were mostly the women who perpetrated the attack on the massage parlor, a target to be massacred.

So in that instant, there was mostly fence building going on, as the Pakistani Army, in effect, isolate the Chinese from the people inside the mosque and surrounding environment.

On the other hand, as the article points out, nobody seems to be jumping over the Putin barrier, so maybe the Town’s model will be just as successful, as that used by the Chinese in Pakistan, but at a smaller magnitude per event.

via People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News.

Pro-democracy army officer joins Chinese military top brass

“‘The secret of the United States’ success is neither due to Wall Street nor Silicon Valley, but its long-surviving rule of law and the system behind it. A bad system makes a good person behave badly, while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most urgent thing; without it there can be no sustainable growth.’”

via Pro-democracy army officer joins Chinese military top brass « China Daily Mail.

So China just needs to see how Wall Street and Silicon Valley are acting good (all wealth going towards the center centralized 1%), and, like cell phones vs land-lines, jump a technology generation and build their own form of Democracy which gives 100% of control to the 99% voters.

Less than 25% will vote anyway (mostly against their own interest) and the 1% at the center will write the laws, so its not like the central committee will lose any power.

China: Thousands of protesters occupied Qidong government office

 “A mass of people broke into Jiangsu Province‘s Qidong City Government yesterday morning in protest of a waste water discharge project, which they claimed would cause pollution.”

Just another sign of the times for China.

According to separate media reports earlier, the incident concerns a Japanese papermanufacturer’s plan to build the outlet of its waste water at Qidong, Jiangsu.

Japanese? Hmmm. So what did the crowd look like?

The protesters are using sun umbrellas, and I am not sure what the strategy of the police is, to handout soft drinks?

I have never been to a Chinese protest, but I suppose much damage can be caused by those sun umbrellas.

Doesn’t smell like a meatball.

Via http://chinadailymail.com/

Strategy: Winning or Calculation?

Mark asks, on my twitter feed, a good question. I presume he made it after reading the post to the link in the tweet Critt also made on my feed:

Here is the post:

“What is strategy? A mental tapestry of changing intentions for harmonizing and focusing our efforts as a basis for realizing some aim or purpose in an unfolding and often unforeseen world of many bewildering events and many contending interests.

John Boyd

This quote comes from Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd, Frans Osinga. Pg.13.”

Via: http://crittjarvis.com/2012/06/boyds-elegant-epitaph-what-is-strategy/

While Boyd describes the essence of strategy, he does leave it open to Mark’s question. Is the essence of strategy about winning or is it in the calculations?

I don’t know Boyd that well to quote him accurately, but in essence he said that if you are not willing to take the steps to winning, then you should think about joining the other side. Clearly to Boyd winning is everything.

From Boyd’s quote: strategy is a bunch of steps structured as a mental tapestry that is mentally changing at different tempos and focus. At the end of the structuring process clarity is found in the forms created.

As the three domains of war are Honor, Interest, and Fear, out of the “many contending interests”, Boyd was building the structures for  the center domain “Interest”. Strategy builds a structure of form where none was before. Boyd was building interest out of human morality, and his Ends, Ways, and Means was through the OODA loop.

So the essence of strategy is not about winning, but about the calculations needed to create (build). In Boyd’s definition of strategy he is creating interest through calculations.

However, Boyd is not building a structure or domain to go to war on. To Boyd winning is everything which also means losing According to Boyd, winning might mean joining the other side, which, like the son of Genghis Khan found out, is losing.

With interest, the possibility of losing is taken out of the “bewildering events”, because a structure is created in the past (the beginning of the “End”) to build Honor on; and there is less to Fear, because a structure is also created in the future (the end of the “End”) that can be seen.

While building interest where interest was not before is a simple thought, I am sure that strategy is, in essence, simple.