5-day ceasefire in Turkey
As I wrote recently, I don’t trust most analyses of the Turkey vs. Kurds situation right now. I’m not just talking about the left, either.
Just as one small example, we have this article in the WSJ yesterday, with the headline “Turkey Rejects U.S. Call for Immediate Cease-Fire in Syria: Turkish troops pursue their offensive against Kurdish forces, as Russia fills void created by U.S. departure from the region.”
Leaving aside the fact that if there were only 50 troops there who were withdrawn in the first place, as I’ve seen reported in most venues, then it’s hard to see how their withdrawal could leave such a big void – we have the fact that today Mike Pence announced Turkish agreement with a five-day ceasefire. Of course, the WSJ was not incorrect in its earlier reporting, because Turkey did reject a ceasefire. But that was yesterday, and today is today, and everything is provisional.
I would love to find an objective and knowledgeable source to analyze what these latest developments mean, but so far I’ve turned up nothing I trust. However, it is my observation, based on previous evidence from turmoil Syria, Libya, and similar places, that the different factions are all tainted to greater or lesser degrees and we often back people who turn out to be enemies greater than those we don’t back.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act. But what is the best action?
Given all those caveats, I’ll quote from one of today’s articles:
After more than four hours of negotiations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Pence said the purpose of his high-level mission was to end the bloodshed caused by Turkey’s invasion of Syria, and remained silent on whether the agreement amounted to another abandonment of the U.S.’s former Kurdish allies in the fight against the Islamic State.
Turkish troops and Turkish-backed Syrian fighters launched their offensive against Kurdish forces in northern Syria a week ago, two days after Trump suddenly announced he was withdrawing the U.S. from the area.
Pence and Secretary of State Mile Pompeo lauded the deal as a significant achievement, and Trump tweeted that it was “a great day for civilization.” But the agreement essentially gives the Turks what they had sought to achieve with their military operation in the first place. After the Kurdish forces are cleared from the safe zone, Turkey has committed to a permanent cease-fire but is under no obligation to withdraw its troops.
In addition, the deal gives Turkey relief from sanctions the administration had imposed and threatened to impose since the invasion began, meaning there will be no penalty for the operation.
Kurdish forces were not party to the agreement, and it was not immediately clear whether they would comply. Before the talks, the Kurds indicated they would object to any agreement along the lines of what was announced by Pence. But Pence maintained that the U.S. had obtained “repeated assurances from them that they’ll be moving out.”
Ankara has long argued the Kurdish fighters are nothing more than an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which has waged a guerrilla campaign inside Turkey since the 1980s and which Turkey, as well as the U.S. and European Union, designate as a terrorist organization.
See what I mean? Are the Kurds PKK and what are they aiming for? What have the Kurds actually told Pence? And why assume that sanctions are off the table forever just because they are off the table for the moment? One thing I’ve learned is that Trump is not shy about applying economic pressure to get what he wants.
I believe that what we are seeing now in Turkey is the tip of a very considerable iceberg. Whether the Trump administration is doing good here or bad (or something in-between, which is more likely) remains to be seen.
One thing the anti-Trump people seem to be doing is championing the idea of intervention here, whereas before they were shrieking “get out of the Middle East!” for years and even decades. But consistency is not their strong suit (except, of course, for consistency on their opposition to whatever the right is doing). Trump, on the other hand, has been consistent, in that it’s always been part of his campaign promises to do this sort of thing.
As for my own opinion, right now it’s watchful waiting.
The relatively small number of US troops involved here is the tell that people are being dishonest. If you saw some of the coverage of this you would think we had 10,000 troops there or something.
The left is just doing their same old ‘if Trump’s for it we are against it’ game and many of the old neocon crowd can’t be honest and say they kind of wanted an attack on these troops so Trump would forced to get more involved.
I feel very confident that Trump has broad support on this issue out in the real world.
And if Trump did up the troop levels the left would criticize to no end and when it became a quagmire the old neocons would just say he didn’t go big enough.
I have some disagreement with Trump on a few things( often tactics as much as anything) but he is right about this. Those troops there are a trap.
“hard to see how their withdrawal could leave such a big void”
Granted.
On the other hand an appropriately trained US serviceman spotting with radio coms to attack aircraft on station (think B-52s if you like) can bring an awfully heavy presence hurtling effectively groundward, as a couple hundred Russian mercenaries learned to their misery last year. US capabilities are often outsized to a mere troop count.
We went in without Congressional authorization, under Obama. Under Trump, we were able to clean out the ISIS cancer. What’s our strategy and goal for remaining? If this weren’t so serious it would be funny to see anti-war Dems suddenly all-in on a Syrian occupation force.
I would love to find an objective and knowledgeable source to analyze what these latest developments mean, but so far I’ve turned up nothing I trust.
no (direct) comment… you wouldnt listen to anyone who actually did
You would want the answer you want that would ignore the reality in favor of political things and other commentary.. you would not look at a map, and figure out things from the position of the actual thing you want to know about…
then there is the issue that the whole of it is not something you respond to when it comes up, its never a discussion. so if someone tries to show how whatever in the press is just noise to make cash, and you can SEE it, and you can pick up on the phraseology used that confirms it… its not discussed enough to be clear enough that it becomes a perspective.
for instance… anyone here who did their licks as an officer and knows tactics and strategy not get what trump does? you all hate those tweets, but like any good military man he is forcing his opposition to hop from one foot to the other foot and make sure they never have peace long enough to balance and launch a real thing over these fallen rotten cherries.
pretty simple… but it would completely ignore all the bs that makes this entertaining enough to come and read… it would break it down into psychology and tactics and expressions of such, and not policy and morals, or ethics or truths..
but it would explain why others would ahve fallen and he is coming up roses…
cant even visualize how being honest is beneficial ESPECIALLY if everyone else thinks otherwise… the least of which tactically is that they are trying to go to the easy short cut of pinning the tail on the donkey… but with an honest person you cant believe is honest, what are you looking for? a needle in a haystack without knowing there is a needle in the first place?
he got them to waste all the years building up an argument or position
they are in shambles because they went for the shortcut that didnt exist and not the long cut of actually out-competing him on ideas, actions and more..
thats accidental for a guy that went to military academy and learned all these things i am talking about, as my son did, and i did for fun?
in order for you to understand this you would have to go back and understand the layout… the things i stopped talking about as no one wanted to know it as it was developing… i even complained they would want to later.
go figure… when your ahead, everyone things your in the wrong place
that is till they catch up… (and remember too)
Beware overlapping and converging interests, which are diverse and bipartisan. Still, optimistic skepticism.
That said, Erdogan should be acutely phobic of a Libyan solution, if Democrats returns to power. Also, there are precedents, rationalized by appeals to empathy, and social justice ethics (relative injustice), to carve Turkey, and establish Kurdovo.
you have to go back to Bush and understand the strategy of the buffer zone… the one country line in the sand.. you turned down that in the past… you can look it up from when i posted it..
why do you have to do that? because that lays out the prevention of the change in states and games that are now in play because that buffer zone failed and was prevented internally and externally from being finished.
and so.. the positives we had with the countries that were finally going to be somewhat free and protected went up in a poof… they had to go back to kissing asses and vacillating to survive.
The point with the troops you dont get has to do with the near 50 year assumption of how to stop fighting by having your troops there so if they get killed you have a war
thats pretty much the rule… its even why the US didn’t intervene in some things as the chances of a shootout between Russian and us troops directly in those uniforms (not on loan in planes, etc)… would presume a war
IF you study the conflicts from the other side you dont like to even talk about… you would see that this is the foundation that any politics has to deal with, not the other way around, with the conflicts watching out for the politics…
as long as US troops were there in turkey… forces were limited by not wanting to kill any by accident and not knowing where they were… so not knowing what they could and could not do safely once they got into an area covered by that.
putin called it a buffer zone.. (one of those clues that let you know what they are thinking about even if they are telling you the political and moral brouhaha you want and expect and feel comfortable with). the sattelite soviet countries were a buffer… we took the idea from russia… or Bush did.
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, afghanistan, pakistan, india…
almost all of them… except one was nearly completed..
but our own side helped the door stay open… which is why pressure shifted to the saudies… who are also caught between arock and a hard place in terms of who do they serve… do they serve the state that gave them the power and all that for ibn al saud? or the one that would protect them and let them have autonomy? they navigate a very think passage
but if this open door was closed by bush.. you think these otehr places in play right now would have enough weapons and munitions to wage war? how many years before did it require to ship it all… if you cant use sea or air, which you cant, as that is easy to monitor… then how do you do it? over the land bridge through all those countries you cant understand why they are such problem palces..
every one of them are in line from russia to these areas
so what is all this about? natural gas..
once the greenies (as gorbachev pointed out) did their thing
gas is a big deal in europe… but russia has/had a near monopoly
want to guess what country those pipelines went through
want to guess which country was annexed in part to make sure that would stay that way? that our president looked the other way to?
and what about around that conflict area..
well.. there is a pipeline that is supposed to come from these lower states
and it has to go through the upper ones to get to europe…
so, there is a conflict as russia doesnt want the price of gas to drop
they dont make things, they sell their raw materials.. which is also why the US and others are not supposed to sell. and why africa never gets a break given how rich it is..
so there is a conflict… and its even more complicated given that there is a third player that can really upset the applecart.. they are closer… they can potentially get around turkey… and they have more gas than anyone in the levant.
thats all i will say as there is no way for me to actually ahve the space to even set up the story with the facts of the fields, the gas, the new weapons and more..
a lot easier to listen to tlaking heads that obfuscate there is an economic war over the delivery of resources and that all these states are playing games. the last thing they want is a public that might actually be aware enough to actually push their leaders to some action that the people playing dont want.
so the politics keeps you away from influenceing the game…
it doesnt explain it. it doesnt really matter as it barely tracks the reatlity in it
but the money does.
take a look at this map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_gas_field#/media/File:Levant_Basin.png
kind of revealing isnt it?
oh… even more revealing is if you put on this the isreal pipeline that was supposed to be open but goes through turky (the turkey isreal pipeline)… and is not… then the one that goes around.. the iran-iraq-syria pipeline.. the qatar-turkey pipeline… the arab gas pipeline…
and dont forget the isreal cyprus pipeline which seeks to bypass turkey and avoid being stopped by the conflict.
all to protect the gas pipeline network for the EU
or rather those that supply that network
https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/A-gas-pipeline-network-of-the-European-continent.jpg
the northern lights and yamal europe system
soyz system
blue stream
brotherhood system
blue gas stream
gas west pipeline
and more proposed…
and if you look…
the proposed want to deliver gas along the same route out of turkey
no way i can reveal enough in a post that would be cut down for being too long
there is too much not on your radar or discussed previously
one last thing… in about the same time frame
there will be a conflict in the china sea..
cause the set up as i told you years ago, was that long ago
and so slow you didnt want to see the pieces being moved
and the game forming..
ever wonder why people get lost in the forest?
when they turn around they are looking at the other sides of everything and reversed…
want to know why people dont want to see it before the conflict
they are used to looking backwards to analyse thigns
and that dont give you a view going forwards
any more than going forwards gives you the backwards view
so you get lost
you cant convince the myopic that your hyperopia and that you actually see things they dont…
Note the House voted 354-60 [139 Republicans] opposing the withdrawal. The 139 Republicans are not all anti-Trump and most don’t [and didn’t] insist we leave the Middle East. I think we should be able to agree the Middle East is a tinderbox and that leaving them to destroy themselves [a sentiment I have read] does not help the world.
Also while it is 50 troops now another 1,000 troops will leave soon. But those 1,000 are not now enough to stop Turkey. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the troops remaining in the country were caught between Turkish forces and the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces]. “And so… we have American forces likely caught between two opposing advancing armies, and it’s a very untenable situation,”
I understand wanting to get out but Trump’s reasoning is not always sound. He tweeted that it’s ‘7000’ miles away, which is a populist response but if anyone thinks about it they would see that we have a lot of important assets and allies ‘7000’ miles away – including Israel. So distance is just a number. It’s a small world now.
“you cant convince the myopic that your hyperopia and that you actually see things they dont…”
It’s also hard to convince people when you write like e.e. cummings after a mild head injury.
Mike
As the dgr says, it’s complicated. Mix religious and tribal animosities that go way back with the desire/need to control energy resources and you have a stew of interests that only King Solomon could make sense of. And maybe not even him.
Just the number of different Islamic Muslim factions that are opposed to Assad is mind boggling. Most of them care only about furthering their religious goals and getting rid of Assad, but would also like a piece of the energy pie, if they could get it.
Russia sees what could happen to their energy markets if stability reigned and pipelines could be built. The Saudis and other Arab oil kingdoms have to protect their energy interests. Let us not forget the Shiites in Iran who want mostly to destroy Israel and the U.S., but also depend on energy for most of their wealth. And Assad. He just wants to survive and has done a pretty good job of it with the help of Iran and Russia.
Turkey wants to protect itself from the terrorism of the PKK Kurds and would like pipelines to run through their lands for the fees they could charge. Then there are the Kurds, a Muslim group that has many factions with different goals. They mostly want a Kurdistan where they can sort out their differences without outside interference. (Which probably means a certain level of violence until the winner emerges.) Last, but not least, are the ISIS Wahhabis. They’re down, but they still have a goal of spreading fundamentalist Islam by the sword and they have not forsworn that goal.
In the meantime there’s the U.S., who, since the end of WWII, has tried to keep the oil flowing out of the ME. And done a pretty good job of it. But we have been under attack by the Iranians and the Wahhabis for many years. Their use of 4th generation warfare has been difficult to combat. We’re organized to fight armies and navies, not suicide bombers. And we have not yet found a good answer except for Special Forces. The recent discovery of vast new reserves of oil and gas in the U.S. has strengthened our hand, but other countries still need ME oil, making it still an important area for the world’s economy. We have interests there. If nothing else, we would like to eliminate or blunt the threat from Iran and the Wahhabis.
Have mistakes been made in the past? Yep. Will mistakes be made going forward? Yep. There are no easy solutions.
Of course, it will all be mute after 2030 when the world is going to melt down. Yes, it’s true! I have it on good authority. None other than AOC herself told me. 🙂
Remember that much of the actions to harm Papadopoulis were related to his efforts to get a pipeline from Israel to Greece avoiding Turkey. It wasn’t all about Trump.
It seems like Trump is not deserting the Kurds so much as telling them to get out of cloud cuckoo land and decide what you really want, then set your priorities and negotiate to get a good deal. He has done the same thing with Europe and NATO. He seems to realize that we are not just protecting our friends, but we are enabling them to fantasize. I don’t know how effectively Pompeo’s team will be able to get this message to Erdogan, Assad, and the Kurds, but we can all hope and keep our fingers crossed.
There’s that word “allies” again. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I don’t mind repeating an idea. As noted by others, an alliance is a formal agreement with reciprocal responsibilities. The U.S.. relationship with the Kurds, and with Israel as well, has been a one way journey. We are aligned when their interests are at risk. Any other time we are on our own.
And finally, one more time, careless use of such words takes a toll. It is also dishonest, when thrown into an analysis or political screed (but I repeat myself) simply as an excuse for criticism. The reality is that if the Kurds are an ally, we have an ethical and legal obligation to defend them. If they are just a friend, we may, or may not, have a moral obligation depending on circumstances.
I wonder if anyone would have even taken note of the number 50 if Limbaugh had not brought it out.
Sdferr, certainly trained tactical air controllers can bring heavy firepower to bear; on the other hand they cannot defend themselves adequately. Would we really go to war if, horrors, there were an accident, or misidentifacation involving our men? We did not go to war with Israel over Liberty. We did not go to war with NKorea over Pueblo. The list is actually quite long. Trip wire is a catchy, meaningless term.
It seems to me that in the case cited (Russian mercs) air power was the defense. But I don’t know what you’re assuming of me when you start talking about “trip wire”, something I never spoke of. Nor was I speaking of “going to war”. I was attempting to fill in for neo what seemed to be missing.
Take another case if you wish: early offensive moves with Northern Alliance against Taliban-al Qaeda in Afghanistan 2001/2.
There is a strange lack of real reporting from the region. I expect that some reporters will be flown in, but they won’t know anything and will probably be led around by the nose by whichever side they are with. At this point all I have are my own conjectures, probably no worse and no better than the “news”.
MBunge, at least that was constructive..
in all the years here, i enjoyed that..
sorry, i am writing fast, on the fly, and not revising..
however, that tends to keep the length down
can you imagine all the potential increases that revision can add?
oh… there goes that old head injury…
🙂
for those that have no idea what MBunge meant..
M. L. Rosenthal wrote in The Modern Poets: A Critical Introduction: “The chief effect of Cummings’ jugglery with syntax, grammar, and diction was to blow open otherwise trite and bathetic motifs through a dynamic rediscovery of the energies sealed up in conventional usage…. He succeeded masterfully in splitting the atom of the cute commonplace.”
[dont forget the head injury part.. its important… ]
“has a fine talent for using familiar, even almost dead words, in such a context as to make them suddenly impervious to every ordinary sense; they become unable to speak, but with a great air of being bursting with something very important and precise to say.”
its probably good that he didnt live to see most of the quotes about his style
🙂
Artfldgr:
You often misrepresent both my position and that of the majority of other commenters here.
Why, for example, did you indicate that you think people disagreed with you that there “will be a conflict in the China sea”?
And you also wrote in this thread (the first sentence in the following quote is you quoting something I wrote in the post):
I listen to people who say what I don’t want to hear all the time, and I think much of the content of this blog (including in particular my change story) demonstrates that.
Nobody “knows what it means”. Not really. Even the Israelis don’t agree on what it means for Israel, and they live nearby under an existential threat of Muslim / Arab / Iranian violence and attack.
Those who say they know, with or without good reasons for the claim, are welcome to analyze / pontificate about what it means. But none are trustworthy predictors about the future. Too many other actors.
Not mentioned here is the prisoners of ISIS, being held by the Kurds. Or maybe recently escaped? or semi-released? (Perhaps ) We left the prison unlocked — look! They’re escaping from prison! Shoot them!
I expect most of the prisoners will be “illegally” executed by Kurds or others. None of the survivors want ISIS survivors to be hanging around, making the complex talks even more complex. Trump’s hands will be “clean” of this war crime.
The Kurds seem to be allying with Assad & Russians now, to stop the Turks — who seem to be getting a tolerable buffer zone, which they said they wanted.
Trump avoids US casualties.
Maybe the Kurds, using Assad, using Russians, against the Turks, means the Turks do NOT go more with the Russians? Or, maybe the Russians go with Assad against the Turks, but also go with the Turks against the Kurds?
The energy gas fields are certainly a big strategic and economic issue, but local conflicts and revenges and “reparations” from previous injustices dominate the emotions of most locals.
It’s not clear, to anybody, what’s the best way to get peace. Since America is unwilling to exert power to dominate, pacify, and semi-colonize the area in order to enforce Western norms, pulling troops out is the best way to minimize short term US casualties. There is no obvious superior goal for Trump.
And of course, Trump promised to do this in his campaign, so naturally all the lying politicians are against Trump for keeping his promise! making it a bit tougher for them to make dishonest promises.
The Syrian Kurds are reportedly now talking with Syria and were not before. That is the only way they can get an autonomous region and AFAIK that is the only practical solution.
From what I have read, the Kurds are not united in any meaningful way and there are no Kurdish leaders who can commit to anything and have it come to pass. If this is true, and it seems likely to be true or we would have seen some Syrian Kurdish demands in the news, their situation has improved.
I think Trump will come out of this in good shape.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/texas-rally-crowd-chants-bring-them-home-in-support-of-trumps-foreign-policy/
Supporters of President Donald Trump chanted “Bring them home!” and “USA!” after he spoke about his foreign policy views.
“American combat troops should not be at the center of ancient sectarian conflicts all over the world; bring our soldiers back home!” he said
At least one analysis of the Trump 2016 victory noted that in those Midwest swing state counties where there had been more US casualties, Trump got a bit higher % votes. America First – not US soldiers dying in “Endless Wars”.
The world could use a world policeman, but the US Democrats are unwilling to allow the US to effectively stop bad guys by huge amounts of killing them. Fighting, but not to win, is again becoming a losing political strategy.
No surprise that Romney (whom I mostly liked and supported, but that’s changing) seems to be supporting Endless War, now. With many other Dems.
The SETA Foundation at Washington D.C. — Event Summary: Turkey’s Military Operation in Northern Syria
}}} But consistency is not their strong suit
Well, TBH, for the Left (which is not one-to-one with “Anti-Trump”, but does generally refer to the “war no more” crowd where the ME is considered, to which you refer), consistency is really more of an Uno card in the Pinochle deck they use to play Spades…
I just got a mail from the consulate to avoid Cologne tomorrow because of 2 big demos. I tried to check it out, and it seems like it might be Turks supporting Erdogan. That a**hole has been trying to whip up German Turks for years. But there are also Turkish Kurds here. I’ll keep you posted.
“The Syrian Kurds are reportedly now talking with Syria and were not before.”
If by Syrian Kurds you intend the YPG/PKK command in northern Syria with which the US was instrumentally allied by the Obama administration and inherited by the Trump admin., then no, this simply isn’t true.
Going further back though — into the 1980/’90s time period — Bashar’s pops Hafez and the PKK were both clients of the Soviets and used in collaboration against the Turks (i.e., NATO powers generally). The Turks expect Bashar to act the same, using the PKK inside Turkey.
And now the Turks see the PKK once again poised on their border, only stronger now; on the verge of establishing a statelet carved from northern Syria with US help, arming, training, equipping; yet still maintaining good relations with the Assad regime, the Russians and the Iranians and their proxies (Leb. Hezbollah, etal.).
This is the Turks’ nightmare come true. This is what they told the US, over and over again they could not tolerate. And this is what they meant to stop.
Now in come the Russians after the US displaced, raising Russian flags in Kobani and all along the seam between the Turks and the PKK. Oh, goody!
Will Turk tanks attempt to roll over Russian Spetsnaz together with their Assadi ally and the YPG? Doubtful to be sure, but remaining to be seen. More likely, the Turks will come to some diplomatic accommodation with the Russians mediating with the PKK, await PKK attacks in Turkey itself, and learn along the way how little the US appreciates their security.
Good job, Obama.
I should add, the Euros are placing Turkey in an arms embargo, the US looks to follow suit. Sanctions are threatened where not actually imposed. From the Turks point of view the western alliance are looking like enemies rather than allies.
Why, for example, did you indicate that you think people disagreed with you that there “will be a conflict in the China sea”?
I dont know… maybe because i cant forget anything i read easily?
or anything anyone didnt say… i also notice…
I have spent my lifetime trying to figure out people rules and what they do or dont do and why, and do that so i can survive and flourish among people who are not aspergers and have a 175 (and no, its not fun guys to have that… you dont even get the girls, so i have no freaking idea other than base ego issues why anyone would care!) / even worse, you cant ask the subjects their reasonong. they are most likely not going to know how their neural net spit out the answer they were giving… some can, some can, most make up something that fits their action AFTER they take the action // this requires on top of all the other things i bring to the table, updating medical information as to how the brain works.. what new areas are known, and tons and tons of those wacko social experiments.
dont believe me? i used to design magic tricks for the stage as a teen when my moms friend did that for a living… if ya want to play with peoples heads, which i dont, and think its very wrong… you can sit at a table across from them, and when you pick up stuff and put it down, put it down a bit closer to them till it crosses the middle. watch how their personalities change… want to change it back? reverse the process and watch them change again..
do you think they would believe me, or think i misrepresent them?
oh, have we actually determined i am misrepresenting?
are you including in your assessment ONLY the information presented here in type? OR are you including things you know that i cant possibly know? are both views truthful as the rashoman effect?
i do not count null answers.. so if i post and no one protests i do not assume they agree… do you? we have to know that since we may both think differently in tons of these nuances…
i count lack of discussion with lack of interest or engagement..
and or potential conflict avoidance by not voicing disagreement
and for some odd reason, i think things like this are a disagreement with me that they dont even want to see or read or think about any position i am putting forth: “Darn, I have to post after artfldgr bloviations again.”
Today its easy to agree with me about the China sea..
were where you when there was nothing on the islands and i was commenting and trying to get something said? did you have a post on it? did you answer it? anyone add anything to the points i made?
no… 10 years later when its obvious you can say what you say
but are you looking at 10 years of it like i am?
I am often talking about things way before anyone is
I OFTEN see easily whats coming up the pike as if it arrives..
I even trade stocks and turned 13,000 to 135,000 in 6 years
its actually boring having no one to talk to when i see something
its even more frustrating when it has to do with business and i cant convince people that hover around me wanting me to tell them where to spend to make money.. they dont see it either… till its obvious..
one of the problems of the kind of memory i have is i normally have a much larger sample of things to base an opinion on… where do you think i can come up with all this stuff that is not common knowledge? even to get it on google, you have to know where to look and how the words and names changed over the past 1000 or so years.
now… another way i know things..
One of the fun things people do when they read, is they incorporate what they read into their more recent conversations. From turns of phrase to facts, and more…
given i remember texts i read, i actually can tell when people have read something recently by that effect!!!!!!!!!!! that’s how i know which people read the links i post
[a few times i posted wrong ones… if anyone followed them, they would go wrong and ask me to correct it… at one point i got annoyed and set up a forwarding.. ie. used another address to send you to an adress so i could tell if anyone used the address… google does this if you havent noticed its large strings]
could you imagine giving someone the answer to the question then they go back and keep discussing the wrong answer after knowing the other one?
sometimes this effect goes freaking wild… I hated the “busters” years which happened after ghost busters… its similar effect.. people saw the movie, it influenced them, and the influence is detectable.. hairdos… tattoos?
maybe i am not wrong.. maybe your not looking at what i am
for instance.. my mind has the text i wrote in it that you cut off that others may or may not have gotten to read… that alone can cause this problem.. my reality and what i think people saw or didnt see is different than yours or others as my text was cut off, and i dont know it, or which ones, and so i may sit waiting for a response on my argument on the china sea that i asked at the end.. and you censored it for length.
there are pages of arguments i made and never heard and i would not know if it was because people read it and didnt like it or you cut it and i didnt come back to find out and or didnt come back, read and figure out whats missing so i can then think about what people saw or didnt see
you would not bend on any argument that this was bad on many levels
welcome to bad..
oh.. and your second point.. you did not understand me
I listen to people who say what I don’t want to hear all the time, and I think much of the content of this blog (including in particular my change story) demonstrates that.
your thinking of listening to the unpleasant and i am thinking of how people avoid things that are not in their interest, and not necessarily unpleasant.
nuances and assumptions… interesting..
the answer is not unpleasant, its involved, complicated, takes room to even put forth.. may take graphics.. its in subjects that dont interest you… i know they dont interest as the links werent flowed the information people spoke didnt change, and so i figure disinterest rather than the “i will never read anyting you send me” kind of thing, which i have had people do because they like their lies (they are foundational to their world views and warm fuzzies)
now.. you go to google and try to find those discussions of the china sea
while your at it, you can go back and look at the line in the sand thing during bush before obama and see if that was mentioned.
its even harder that these were stored in google by the URLs…
its even harder that your stuff is now apearing in china..
so if you go there… maybe we get arrested?
this
leads to this: https://www.bjbrw.cn/2019/04/30/venezuelas-decline-the-military-hold-the-key/
notice the CN?
given i cant find the past articles to point out what it is i see or remember
and you cant prove you been misrepresented other than claiming it
which may or may not be true… as people lie to themselves all the time
and no one here has any personal connection to know anything other than whats typed..
its a wash.
and lets see what people say..
by the way, i am glad you listen..
but i been asking for understanding of what was said
not acknowledgement you heard it..
been college level reading since i was in 3rd grade..
which is why i like word games and languages (Even programming)
https://www.leadergrow.com/articles/306-listening-and-hearing-vs-understanding
To internalize a message, one must not only pay attention, but the information must sink into the brain enough for recall and action. Listening can be happening even though there is little comprehension. A typical example of this occurs when dealing with two people who have different primary languages.
[like my wife and myself.. oy the problems]
now.. once its internalized it becomes a part of you.. you would find it hard to claim 10 x 10 is 1000 if you were taught otherwise and thought others were..
Henry: Minnie, Cambiar las sábanas en número 23.
Minnie: What’s that Henry? I can’t understand you.
Henry: Oh geesh. I said, “Cambiar las sábanas en número 23.” Now, Minnie, did you understand me that time.
Minnie: Yes! You said, “Cambiar las sábanas en número 23.”
Henry: Very good! Well then, why don’t you do it?
Minnie: What does it mean, Henry?
conveying or lack of being able to has held me back.
There are many methods to help determine if a person has internalized a message, but each one has the potential to deceive or annoy either party.
really? what are they?
1 Repeat the information – yeah, you guys love if i keep throwing the china islands into other threads when there is no thread dedicated to actually talking about it when it meant something to talk about – same with the connection of the gulf war under bush to the current conflict all being GAS.
2 – Look for body language – not possible..
3 – Ask a question – and if i asked questions or assume people followed the links as they suggested i put it up instead of copy… woudl they be able to answer..
lets try.. What did Ruta experience on the day they found the horse?
you never read it.. you dont want to change your regard for anne franke..
so you cant answer that, and we cant have a common discussion over it
im boxed out of that unless i want to keep digging in the anne frank hole
but given the other book and a few things, why would i want to go backwards?
4 Parrot the information – care to try?
5 Ask for a demonstration? can you tell me about it?
6 observe the person over time – ding ding ding… can you get them to talk or focus on the subject that your saying they are not interested in? never..
7 – Write it down – did, but we dont know which was cut or not.. who saw the whole speech, half speech, or no speech and how all can claim to be listening.
There is no 100% sure way to confirm people got the message unless you want to devise some kind of written or online verification test.
there is a lot of this… in business management and social psychology
and would you believe magic and con artistry?
Artfldgr:
You may indeed (and in fact do indeed) have an excellent memory. However, you sometimes misunderstand what people mean, so you sometimes remember a position that someone didn’t take because you perceived it incorrectly to begin with.
I have seen (and sometimes pointed out to you in comments) many times you have misunderstood my point here on this blog. Some of the misunderstandings I haven’t pointed out, usually because I don’t have time or am not monitoring things that closely at the particular time. But it is not unusual for it to happen.
Bismarck said that if there is another great European war, it would be due to “some fanned foolishness in the Balkans”” We had unmanaged peace after 1918. After 1945, peace was policed. Seventy-five years of peace in Europe.
Thing is, if you do it right, nobody knows. and you look bad.
Given Trump’s reluctance to use force, as exemplified by the events following the shooting down of a US drone by Iran, he should go to Congress and ask for a mandate which should include precise mission goals. This will give Congress a chance to take back some of the power that was ceded to the Executive branch during the Obama presidency as well as bring accountability for the mission. All Trump has to do to scupper this initiative is to put in a proviso some degree of self-autonomy for the Kurds to right old wrongs. That is really what one of the problems is in that region – Kurds don’t have home.
Neo, you want a good source? Try these:
https://www.facebook.com/775423342/posts/10157748628503343?sfns=mo
https://www.facebook.com/FreeBurmaRangers/
Why would Trum need a 5 day cessation of attacks if he had planned for this all along?
Pretty bad construction schedule Trum. A lot can happen in modern warfare in 5 days.
neo on October 18, 2019 at 3:58 pm said:
If Art triggers himself, he’ll go on a Leftist diatribe talking about how I am a moron or stupid or ignorant. It’s how some people comfort themselves.
The five day “ceasefire” (it was never a ceasefire) is over. Pres. Erdogan met with Pres. Putin in Sochi today making an agreement which evidently goes thus:
1) The YPG/PKK will remove themselves to 32km from the Turkey-Syria border beginning Oct. 23 with 150 hr. deadline to completion.
2) Joint Turkish Russian patrols will travel within a 10km strip on the Syrian side of the Turkish border
3) This area will now be under the sovereign control of the Assad regime (which means designated mercenaries in practical terms, I reckon)
Here’s a map.
A general question: How come YPG/PKK would agree to move out of the Turk’s zone of concern now, rather than earlier when the US was involved?
Good question, sdferr! Any ideas?
Why yes, a guess sort of idea, as a matter of fact:
The Russians, unlike the US, can say to the YPG/PKK with whom they are quite familiar — if not cozy, even — “YPG,” the Russians can say, “move your asses now, or we will bomb you all to extinction just as we did the Sunnis in western Syria. Get our drift?”.
And thus Putin can do what Trump cannot.
“And thus Putin can do what Trump cannot.” – sdferr
Are you saying that Putin is Trump’s puppet??
LOL