Shifting strategic alliances

[BlandOatmeal]

BACK TO THE BEAUTY CONTESTS

Let's re-examine the various polls about which countries like which, in view of my rearrangement of the blocs. I'll start with Russia, at Global Opinion of Russia Mixed | Pew Global Attitudes Project

Russia is apparently well liked by

• the Greeks;

they are disliked by

• Turkey, Egypt, Japan and especially Israel.

To the rest, the Russians are so-so (not in any order):

• US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Czech, Britain, "Palestine", Lebanon, Tunisia, Philippines, Australia, China, Indonesia, S. Korea, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Mexico, El Salvador, Argentina, Bolivia, S. Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Uganda and Senegal.

On linked sites, we see that the Turks dislike the Israelites 75:1 and the Israelites dislike the Turks 53:3.

The Saudis are liked by

• Pakistan (95:0), Jordan (88:11), Egypt (78:19), Indonesia (82:10), Senegal and Malaysia (63:15); and they get so-so reviews from
• "Palestine" (52:43), Lebanon (51:49), Tunisia (40:45), Turkey (26:53) and Nigeria (24:51)

There is a 1-on-1 contest displayed, between China and the US at America

Pro-US:

• Japan (69:5), Italy (76:28), Israel (83:38), Philippines (85:48), S. Korea (78:46)

Pro-China:

• Pakistan (81:11), "Palestine" (47:16)

So-so (in order, pro-US to pro-China):

• Germany, Poland, Czech, France, Canada, Mexico, Spain, UK, Brazil, Chile
• Bolivia, Turkey, Nigeria, Lebanon, Indonesia, Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, Greece, Tunisia, Jordan, Malaysia, Egypt

Malaysia is 81:55 against us, Argentina 54:41, Nigeria 76:69 and Turkey 27:21. Do we really want to dump the Israelis, who prefer our company, to win so-called "friends" who don't like us?

On the same page, there are responses to the question, "Is China now, or will China eventually become, the world's leading superpower?" 2013 responses were (followed by % "yes"):

• Spain, France, Canada, Australia, UK, China, Germany,
• Greece, "Palestine", Poland, S. Korea, Czech, Venezuela, Pakistan, Chile,
• Russia, Argentina, Mexico, Italy, US, Kenya, Jordan, Bolivia, S. Africa,Tunisia, Israel, Lebanon
• Indonesia, Senegal, Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, El Salvador,Turkey,
• Malaysia, Uganda, Japan, Philippines

The countries are listed in order: Spain (71%) is the most optimistic about China becoming the world's superpower, and Philippines (22%) the least optimistic. Russia, Argentina and Mexico are 50:50 on the matter; and the US (47%) is less confident of its own continued prominence than the Russians. The Chinese themselves (66%) are rather upbeat about their ultimate victory. As a casual observation, those most involved with China are generally the ones least confident in her success.

The most important thing to me, in the above two polls, is the fact that Brazil and Mexico tilt more towards the US than to China. Malaysia and Turkey, also, though liking the Chinese more, are less likely to think the Chinese will become #1.

Even Obama has his popularity contest. In 2013, he was most liked in Germany (88%), then Philippines (84), France (83), Canada (81), Kenya (81), Senegal (78), Australia (77), S. Korea (77), Italy (76), Czech (75) S. Africa (74), Japan (70), Brazil (69), Uganda (62), Israel (61), and the US (57)

Those who liked him less than the Americans (who currently like him very little), were Chile (56), Spain (54), El Salvador (54), Indonesia (53), Malaysia (51), Poland (49), Mexico (49), Argentina (44), Lebanon (37), Greece (35), Bolivia (35), China (31), Russia (29), Turkey (29), Venezuela (28), Egypt (26), Jordan (24), Tunisia (24), "Palestine" (15) and Pakistan (10).

I highlighted the Side A players in blue. Again, I wonder why Obama prefers the Muslims , who seem to hate him, to the Jews, who seem to love him. In the case of Turkey, I question whether it should even be on Side A. Based on mutual affection (or lack thereof), I would place them with the Chinese -- from whom they also are buying their air-defense system, over NATO disapproval -- on Side E.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

HERE'S THE MAP

​

After wiggling and jiggling the data, to get a rough picture, I got the map above. The corresponding list is below. The "bomb" icons represent the world's nuclear states: Iran and Saudi Arabia have slightly different icons from the others, because they have not tested any nukes yet; they are just both a few weeks away from getting them if they need to (the Iranians, from their own stockpiles of fissile material, and the Saudis by delievery of weapons they've already bought from Pakistan). Notice that Turkey and some European countries also have "little bombs". They are custodians of dozens of tactical nuclear weapons, entrusted to them by NATO as a deterrent to attack.

The green squares on the map are significant ongoing or recent conflicts. Interestingly, NONE of those conflicts, in which tens of thousands died last year, are head-on conflicts between countries. They are all either gang rivalries, or assymetric warfare. Their distribution corresponds to George Orwell's "disputed" area in "1984". Also as in 1984, there are a prominent "Eurasia" (Russia) and "Eastasia" (China), along with an "Oceania" that is more powerful that Orwell ever imagined. In addition, there are some regional powers: Israel, Saudi Arabia and India.

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Is., South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, St. Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu

• Side B: Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Palestinian Authority, Russia, Serbia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela

• Side C: Bahrain, Brunei, Comoros, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Gaza, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, U Arab Emirates, Yemen

• Side D: Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Laos, Maldives, Mauritius, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam

• Side E: Angola, China, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, DR Congo, Congo R, Ecuador, Mongolia, Myanmar, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side F: Cyprus, Israel

I probably misplaced a country or two. That happens. If you want to tie this in with the OP, President Obama is Emperor and Grand Poobah of Side A, shown in blue. In courting the favor of the Russians (red area, Side B) and Iranians (brown, Side E), he has alienated the orange and green areas, representing Sides F and C, centered on Israel and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, he has been "pivoting to Asia" in an effort to isolate the West's economic rival, China (Side E, in brown). This isn't rocket science; it's pretty straightforward. The only hard part, has been working out the details and presenting them.

We just got another heap of snow dumped on us, and it's chilly in the house. If this global warming keeps up, we'll all freeze to death!

Shalom shalom.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

MORE REFINEMENTS

Having posted the map, I want to refine it as much as possible, while I'm still able to edit it. Before I do, here's an update on the situation in Syria:

Front lines by 27th January, 2014.
SRC: Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So far, I've decided to relocate Iran, Iraq and Eritrea in the China group, as this fits not only their tremendous trad with that country, but also some UN votes over the past two years. I have also moved Vietnam, Thailand and Laos from the Indian sphere to the US sphere; and Cambodia likewise from the Chinese to the US. This also reflects the tremendous trade these countries do with the US, Japan, S. Korea, etc., along with their military connections. I would put Indonesia on Side A as well, were it not for their repeated tiffs with Australia. The archipelago's trade with India is meager, compared to that with Japan, Singapore and South Korea; but at least India and Indonesia get along.

​

Someone asked me a while ago, what my "point" was in this exercise. My point is to get as accurate a picture of the present situation as possible. During the Cold War, it was relatively easy to see who was aligned with whom, because the major power blocs then were connected with ideologies ("Communist", "Anti-Communist" and "uncommitted"). Today, we have power blocs that largely resemble those in the Cold War days; but today, there is no ideological identification: The contest is simply over raw power.

This is the Religious Education Forum; and my personal interest in these matters is that I might better understand how prophecies apply to my life. The Bible talks about and end-times world power, that everyone on earth will fear and worship. Perhaps the following list of nominal GDPs will help the reader decide who that is:

US-Europe & sphere (Side A) $53,911,659
Russia & sphere (Side B) $3,165,678
Pakistan-Egypt & sphere (Side C) $2,393,457
India & sphere (Side D) $2,789,647
China & sphere (Side E) $9,685,355
Israel & sphere (Side F) $263,837
​

It's a close call. Which do you think it is?
​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

MORE EDITS

I see that my editing time has run out, so I apologize if the map no longer corresponds to the text. I was looking over the UN General Assembly votes for 2012 and 2013, and decided that some shifts were required. Russia, for instance, actually voted more like the US in 2013 than it did like any of its SCO allies. Therefore, I have moved some of those allies onto more appropriate sides: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Syria and Venezuela are now grouped with China, and Algeria and Suriname are grouped with Europe & Japan. The US voted so differently from everyone but the Israelis, that I grouped those two together (along with Canada) and separated them from the Europeans & Japanese. The map now looks like this (s/a on other posts, since the refering link has changed as well):

​

Their nominal GDP has thus changed to:

Europe & Japan sphere (Side A) $36,022,914
US & sphere (Side F) $18,307,114
Russia & sphere (Side B) $2,192,179
Pakistan-Egypt & sphere (Side C) $2,489,449
India & sphere (Side D) $2,789,647
China & sphere (Side E) $10,408,330

That is a significant change. It acknowledges the extremely close relationship the US has with Israel in political outlook. Israel certainly is dependent on the US, in that America's veto power in the UN Security Council is the only political obstacle to her being attacked, Kosovo-style and Libya-style, on some pretense (and the UN spends MOST of its time fabricating such pretenses). On the other hand, the US is a pariah of its own accord, because of its immense power. In the 2013 UNGA votes concerning nuclear proliferation, the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel were opposed by the entire world. It is understandable why they should stick together: Without the edge given them by nuclear weapons, the balance of power would shift back to approximately what it was before WWII: Germany would again challenge the Russians, British and French; and the Chinese would no doubt go to war with Japan. Israel, of course, would be annihilated by its genocidally-bent neighbors.

In terms of Bible prophecy, these findings pose a problem. Zechariah 14 says that ALL the nations of the world would attack Israel. Either that is hyperbole, or "all" includes the US. It's hard to imaging an Israel backed by the US, being attacked in such a manner.

I am continuing to edit the map, and there will probably be more changes.
​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE BEAST OF 11 FEBRUARY 2014

The book of Revelation talks about an end-time "beast", who would be the great power during those days. As it says,

Rev 13
[3] ...and all the world wondered after the beast.
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

There are many popular prophecies circulating the world, saying who the coming "beast" will be; but unless they consider the above, they are off course: We know who the "beast" is, in any particular age, by seeing whom the readers of the Bible would consider the most powerful empire of their day. From the list below, it is clear that this is the United States:

World Allied Groupings, by GDP:
Europe & Japan sphere (Side A) $36,022,914
US & sphere (Side F) $18,307,114
China & sphere (Side E) $10,408,330
India & sphere (Side D) $2,789,647
Pakistan-Egypt & sphere (Side C) $2,489,449
Russia & sphere (Side B) $2,192,179

It also says of the beast, that an alliance of some ten kings shall "have one mind" and "give their power and strength unto the beast".

Rev 17
[8] The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
[9] And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
[10] And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
[11] And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
[12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Let's look again at the list:

World Allied Groupings, by GDP:
Europe & Japan sphere (Side A) $36,022,914
US & sphere (Side F) $18,307,114
China & sphere (Side E) $10,408,330
India & sphere (Side D) $2,789,647
Pakistan-Egypt & sphere (Side C) $2,489,449
Russia & sphere (Side B) $2,192,179

It's easy to see, who the group of nations are today that "have one mind" and "give their power and strength to the United States."

This is the "Current Events" forum, so I am only considering the events of TODAY. IF "the beast" were alive today, it is clear that he would be the leader of the US; and that the "ten horns" would be a closely-allied group of countries in Europe & Japan. (By the way, this would debunk popular prophecies that claim Russia and/or China are the beast). Just look at the numbers.

There is a good map on the Web, which puts the great powers of the world in perspective. It is a map of energy consumption -- an item which correlates closely with a country's raw power: not exactly (China comes out almost as big as the US, which isn't the case with GDP or military power), but close enough:

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/1/15/899162-132664126929828-Jon-Springer_origin.png

My main concern is that it be small enough to fit on the page... It isn't, so the link will have to do. The largest COUNTRIES, corresponding to the chief energy users, are the US, China and India. "Runners up" are Japan and S. Korea, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Brazil. For purposes of this discussion, we are NOT interested in COUNTRIES, but in a closely-knit GROUP of countries. That group is, of course, Europe -- with its focus on the western half of Europe. This is the location of the "ten horns" mentioned above.

These ten "horns" or "kings" are not necessarily the most POWERFUL countries in the world, for an analogous prophecy in Daniel says,

Daniel 2
[40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

I quoted a little more than was needed, so you could see that the "ten toes" of Daniel 2 correspond with the "ten horns" of Revelation. They clearly refer to a powerful ALLIANCE of nations -- not a UNION (cleaving to one another) but an alliance (of "one mind", in Rev. 17).

Notice that this alliance is to arise out of the "fourth kingdom", which , chronologically, was the Roman Empire. In identifying these ten, therefore, I will confine myself to countries that (1) have a long history of using the Roman alphabet and (2) have a long history of identification with the Roman church. Moreover, I will construct my list according to how much of "one mind" these countries are, and according to how long they have "given their power and strength" to the US (i.e. have given their armed forces to an American-dominated command).

On that last note, we should go back to WWII; for it was here that the countries of Western Europe submitted their armies to US command (under Gen. Eisenhower). This would be the Supreme Headquarters s Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF):

​

The countries in that group included (besides the US):

1. the UK
2. Canada
3. Free France
4. Poland (exile govt.)
5. Norway (exile govt.)
6. Australia
7. New Zealand
8. Netherlands
9. Belgium

-- Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The next time a major alliance of European countries was formed, led by the US, was the Korean War. The major contributors to that effort (again, besides the US) were:

1. South Korea (47,000 KIA)
2. UK (670-1,078 killed)
3. Turkey (717-720 killed)
4. Canada (291-310 killed)
5. France (288-290 killed)
6. Australia (265-339 killed)
7. Greece (169-170 killed)
8. Columbia (140 killed)
9. Ethiopia (120 killed)
10. Netherlands, Thailand, Belgium, Philippines

Of the "Roman" countries, the ones in both the above are:

1. the UK & dominions (Canada, Australia)
2. France
3. Netherlands
4. Belgium

These countries, along with the US, went on to form the nucleus of NATO. Its founding members were (besides the US):

1. the UK & dominions (Canada)
2. France
3. Netherlands
4. Belgium
5. Denmark
6. Iceland
7. Italy
8. Luxembourg
9. Norway

Greece and Turkey (non-Roman countries) joined in 1952, and

• (West) Germany

joined in 1955. Others have joined since then, but these were the core "ten". If Canada is counted separately, then the ten (incl. Canada) were on board right from the start, in 1949. The timing of the "beast" prophecy could therefore be any time since 4 April, 1949. Curiously, this was less than a year after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

The US, NATO and Israel are all still with us today.

DISCLAIMER: I have simply listed the COUNTRIES identified with "the beast" and his allies, as they exist today. I have NOT claimed that the CURRENT President of the United States is "the beast" -- in fact, I doubt that he is, and I'm not even sure "the beast" is a person: the scriptures may refer to our worshipping of big governments in general, to solve our problems.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

MORE CALCULATING... PRINCIPLES AND INTEREST?

I've been drawing interest in the bank, at around 0.25% interest, than I have in the matters I'm discussing here -- matters concerning people dying by the tens of thousands, and constructing nuclear weapons with which to destroy entire nations. Interesting.

I've been continuing to refine my calculations, mainly because this is a pursuit that I'm interested in. On average 12 people look at every post; so I will do this for your benefit as well.

I've always been interested in that "beast" thing. I didn't know, until I did the last post, that NATO was formed by exactly ten members, plus the US. For the sake of the prophesies I related, that would identify those ten as the ten horns. There are other prophesies, though, which suggest other players. For this reason, I take the "ten" to be a fluid entity. It should include Germany and Austria, for instance:

Daniel 7
[8] I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

​

When did this "plucking" take place? The only time I can find, was the end of WWII. At that time, the governments of Germany, Austria and Italy were destroyed completely. All the other nations of Western Europe managed to continue throughout the war: The Poles had Anders' Army, and a government in exile in London; the Dutch continued to hold out in Suriname, and the Belgians in the Congo, etc.; but those three former great powers were left with their leaders killed, parties disbanded and government turned over to SHAEF. If Germany and Austria are to be included, though, Canada would have to be excluded -- and perhaps Iceland. I rather prefer that grouping.

The main prophetic significance of all this, is that the "beast" exists today, in a clearly identifiable form: The "ten" represent NATO and the European Union, and the "little horn" is apparently the US. We therefore LIVE IN the beast, just as God's people in former times lived in the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires. God doesn't tell his people to leave this beast, because doing so would essentially require leaving the world. He does strongly suggest, though, that we not worship the beast out of fear (or admiration) of its power: We are to fear God, and God alone, according to the Bible. That's my take on the prophetic implications for Bible-believers, something even these strongly disagree on.

I think I was wrong in the OP. I now see that the terrorists and gangsters, who are causing most of the death and destruction around the world, are not to be compared with the strategic blocs. Since those blocs compete mainly with "soft" power, moreover (votes in the UN, trade, etc.), they need to be considered separately from those other killers, and by different criteria. Also, rather than three competing blocs, I now seem to have increased the number to five.

One thing I was certainly right on in the OP, which some seemed to think was "fantasy", was the fact the Saudi Arabia has clearly separated from the West and is heading "East". I said it was to China, and the following article points to India and Japan. We'll see...

Is Saudi Arabia heading East?
Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi
Published — Wednesday 12 February 2014

"...Of particular importance are the planned visits of Crown Prince Salman, deputy premier and minister of defense, to Pakistan, India and Japan later this month. The defense minister’s deputy, Prince Salman bin Sultan, had also visited Pakistan last week, demonstrating the importance of the region to Riyadh..."

-- http://www.arabnews.com/news/524591

At the moment, China is backing the Iranians and Syrian President Assad, enemies of the Saudis. However, compare the following trade statistics. They are from 2012, and China's share of trade has surely increased in the meantime:

Saudi trade, total:

European Union 14.7%; USA 13.9%; China 13.6%; Japan 11.4%; South Korea 8.9%; India 7.6%

-- http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_113442.pdf

Granted, Indian and Japanese trade (together) with Saudi Arabia is greater than that with China. I stand corrected. As things stand right now, I have the Saudis and their allies forming a bloc of its own -- a bloc roughly equal in GDP with Russia and also with India.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

If anyone's noticed, I changed the map again. A big problem with doing sincere, open-minded research, is that your opinions get re-shaped as you go. We now have SIX blocs, with the addition of a trans-Pacific "purple" bloc. These countries are connected with one another by trade.

​

Here's the updated GDP figures:

1. US-Japan & sphere $29,731,168
2. W. Europe, Brazil & sphere $23,354,706
3. China & sphere $10,145,855
4. Indonesia & sphere $2,455,762
5. Pakistan-Egypt & sphere $2,416,723
6. India & sphere $2,011,722

I notice that the "purples" (Group 4) are the only ones without nuclear weapons. If you've lost the drift of what I'm talking about here, this is a listing of groups of countries, based, more or less, on how well they work and play together (or don't), based on a rough formula considering UN votes, trade and military connections, as well as on recent developments.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE POLITICS OF SEX

I've spent much of the past day, trying to figure out how to color East Africa on my map. It seems that Ethiopia, which is on the verge of becoming the first country to recognize the neighboring Republic of Somaliland, has joined with Kenya in sending troops to Somalia. That would tend to put Ethiopia, Somaliland, Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia's friendly neighbor Djibouti all in the same color.

Another news item for Ethiopia, is the protest by Ethiopia AND Kenya against Uganda, because Uganda has sent troops to support the government in South Sudan. That would put those two countries into a different color from Ethiopia -- but who gets which color?

Consider a third bit of news: US President Obama has decided to meddle into African internal politics, threatening hostile diplomatic action against Uganda if they do enact legislation curtailing the activities of homosexuals. Because the US is heavily involved militarily in East Africa, especially in Djibouti and neighboring countries, that might put those countries into the "US" group (orange, on my map). On the other hand, because those countries, and all Africa, vote against us so much in the UN, and because we do little trade with the region, the color ought to be blue (Europe) or light blue (India). If it is blue, moreover, then perhaps Uganda ought to be a different color; and if so, WHAT color?

To get some insight into the matter, I've looked up the UN voting pattern on a pertinent issue: homosexuality. Here it is:

​

The map is a few years old, when this matter was taken up by the UNGA. Note that Uganda was in red then, along with all of East Africa as well as virtually every country with a significant Muslim population. The areas in grey, which abstained on the vote, included Russia, China, India and parts of Africa that are today close trading partners of China. It seems ironic to me that Mr. Obama, who is generally trying to withdraw from the world and especially trying to disengage from the Muslim world, should be so adamant at stirring up trouble over this issue in Uganda -- essentially trying to pressure Uganda into joining the "green" bloc in the map above.

If this is an indication of things to come, perhaps I should now consider homosexuality to be a major factor in the politics of the world to come. If this is so, then I should separate the "red" countries from the map above, from the "blue" group (Europe, etc.) in my own map, to form what? A group of their own? Before I do that, I ought to at least tentatively group them with India. That begs the question of what to do with Uganda and her friend South Sudan. At least tentatively, I will put them in the group with China.

Let me just check, first, to see what ties Uganda has with China. How's this:

Chinese investments in Uganda now at sh1.5 trillion [over US$596m]
By Pattrick Jaramogi

-- Chinese investments in Uganda now at sh1.5 trillion

and this:

West envious of China’s influence in Uganda
Publish Date: Feb 09, 2014
By Innocent Anguyo

“Scores of rich countries especially those in the west are envious of China’s budding influence in Uganda and largely Africa wielded through soft power displayed by aid without strings attached and robust investments.”

-- West envious of China

It seems that there's more than meets the eye, to Mr. Obama's sudden calling as a missionary of Sodomy. The new map:

​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO THE UN

I just did something of a study of voting patterns in the UN over the past couple of years using a sampling of 32 votes on various matters. I was surprised at the groupings I found:

Group I: North Korea
Group II: Pakistan, Iran and Syria
Group III: Russia
Group IV: US, UK, France & Israel
Group V: the rest of Europe, Japan and S. Korea
Group VI: everyone else, including China & India

That's it. I guess that sums up how power is brokered in the world, though I take Group VI with a grain of salt: China, India and Brazil, etc. may vote alike in the UN, but they are unliekly to form an effective military alliance. Just for fun, let's see how the power stacks up:

Group I (N. Korea):

• experimenting with nuclear weapons
• no carriers; no ballistic misslle submarines
• no overseas bases
• no UNSC veto power

Group II (Pak-Iran-Syria):

• Pak had a few dozen nukes, and Iran is working at getting some
• no carriers; no ballistic missile submarines
• no overseas bases
• no UNSC veto power

Group III (Russia):

• several thousand nukes, plus ballistic missile submarines
• one conventional carrier
• naval bases in nearby Ukraine and Syria; shared air base in Tajikistan
• UNSC veto power

Group IV (US-UK-France-Israel):

• several thousand nukes, plus ballistic missile submarines
• 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers, in service, plus 14 conventional carriers
• Air, land and sea military bases all over the world
• three UNSC vetoes

Group V (Europe, Japan, S. Korea):

• several dozen tactical nukes on loan
• six conventional carriers
• Japanese anti-piracy base in Djibouti
• no UNSC vetoes

Group VI (China, India & the rest of the world):

• a few hundred nukes, plus some ballistic missile submarines (competing)
• five conventional carriers (in competing countries)
• India shares an air base in Tajikistan with the Russians.
• one UNSC veto

It looks like Group III can do pretty much whatever it wants; but Groups III and VI can cause trouble.

The setup doesn't look too different from the Congress of Vienna, nearly 200 years ago, when Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Russia met in councils to decide the fate of the world.

BTW, in defining these "groups", I am not implying that they somehow compare with one another in military or economic strength. Obviously, Groups I & II, the world's "rogue" states, do not fit this way with the others. The above groups are based on the votes of these countries for various General Assembly resolutions.

I hope the readers have been able to follow my thinking in this exercise. I began this thread, trying to make sense of the various "sides" in the sprawling Middle East conflict. I deduced, several posts ago, that none of the bloodshed involves major state actors fighting one another; instead, it looks more like gang in-fighting on a massive, deadly scale. In fact, the more I look at it, the fighting doesn't even look like a proxy war -- such as the Vietnam War and Afghanistan 1970s-80s were proxy wars between the Soviet Union and the US.

Having figured this out, I sought to envision the world as regional powers, such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, vying for power and influence. That led me to making a list and a map.

Having done these latest calculations, I'm starting to see the world from a different angle: Instead of seeing it from the viewpoint of millions of suffering people, dodging bombs and warding off hunger and disease, I see it more the way the leaders see it: Obama, Hollande and Cameron huddling together to make their plans, then sending off messengers to lesser beings like Putin, Merkel and Netanyahu to keep them informed. It's a picture that looks a lot like First Century Rome, with Obama Caesar having power an order of magnitude above all competitors.

I hope you're all impressed, as I am, at how very few players actually control this game. I may go into it in finer detail; but the raw outline shows that there is only one superpower in the world today, to compare with the Roman Empire in the days of the Book of Revelation; and that superpower is the President of the United States. End-time prophecies should therefore be adjusted accordingly.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

POWERLETS OF THE GREAT POWERS

Here's a little more detail. Biblically, I expect the end-time "beast" (probably Obama or a successor) to be the leader of a ten-horned coalition. One thing I found in the present research is that NATO was formed by the US plus ten(+) founding members, all of them from countries with their roots in European aristocracy:

1. Belgium, 2. Canada, 3. Portugal, 4. UK (House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha),
5. Denmark, 5*. Iceland, 6. Norway (House of Oldenburg*),
7. France (formerly House of Bourbon, then of Bonaparte 1830-70)
8. Italy (House of Savoy until 1946),
9. Luxembourg, 10. Netherlands (House of Orange)

* Iceland was part of Denmark until 1944, when it became a republic. Portugal's monarchy was overthrown in 1910, and France's in 1848

That suffices, for identification purposes. NATO needn't contiually consist of these members; they simply need to have submitted their power and authority to the beast (the US). I used to be vexed, trying to identify European POWERS with this ten-horned entity; but the Bible doesn't say they were individually all powers; in fact, it says they are partly strong and partly weak. Iceland and Luxembourg therefore qualify, along with the rest. As I detail the power of this end-time entity and its components, therefore, I will not try to divide the creature according to the ten founders.

Group IV (The US, France, UK and Israel), has the following major conventional assets:

A. The US:

Overseas military bases:

• Japan (more than 50,000 personnel, plus the 7th Fleet and 3rd MEU)
• Germany (more than 30,000 personnel, including some 20 major facilities)
• UK (~11,000 professionals)
• Italy (four bases; about 23,000 people)
• Turkey (two air bases)
• S. Korea (28,500 personnel in several bases)
• Afghanistan (major presence, being withdrawn)
• Australia (multiple bases: see map, below)

• Bulgaria, Israel, Kosovo, Greece, Spain, Portugal
• Persian Gulf: Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar
• British Indian Ocean Terr. (Diego Garcia)
• Brazil, Cuba (Guantanamo)
• Djibouti and some 50 points of presence in Africa
• Guam, Greenland
• Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Singapore

B. UK: bases in

• Falkland Islands
• Gibralter
• Cyprus
• Brunei
• Germany
• Diego Garcia
• Kenya, Sierra Leone
• Canada
• Afghanistan

C. France: bases in

• UAE
• Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Niger, Ivory Coast,Senegal
• Cameroun, CAR, Gabon, Chad
• Djibouti, Mayotte
• Fr. Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Pierre & Miquelon
• Fr. Polynesia, New Caledonia, Reunion

D. Israel: no official overseas bases.

No other country has the reach of this group. Besides these fixed bases, it has at its disposal aircraft carriers with essentially unlimited range, that house cities of personnel and equipment.

Group IV (Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan, S. Korea, etc.) votes in the UN as though they were an entity with its own foreign policy. It is that, but with great restrictions; for not only is it linked to the US, Britain and France through NATO and bilateral alliances, but it is a host to their military. I'll repeat what I said before, from Revelation:

Rev 13
[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

There is only one power in the world today, that matches that description.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
​

I apologize for my long absence from this thread. What has happened, frankly, is that the world situation has been changing so fast, I can't keep up with it. I started out the thread, as a means of collecting my own thoughts and the thoughts of others in order to make sense of what seemed like an ever-increasingly complex potpourri of wars and alliances. In recent weeks, however, two things have shattered my illusion that some sense can be made of these conflicts: (1) the spectacle of two recently united, then split, al Qaeda-affiliated groups suddenly going after each other, tooth and nail, in Syria and Iraq, and (2) the senseless resurgence of a rapidly internationalizing civil war in newly-independent South Sudan. Add to this the French having to reluctantly get involved trying to contain a budding bloodbathe in CAR before their troops have even fully left Mali; Afghanistan facing the prospect of an accelerated return to chaos after the Americans leave before the end of this year, and a situation in Ukraine that looks ominously more like that in Egypt than in a European state; and the cookie seems to be crumbling everywhere.

I've noted with alarm in the past year, the fact that the US can no longer effectively back up ANY foreign policy militarily -- that it has abandoned the East Mediterranean not only to the Russians, but to the Russians AND Chinese; that it has had to whitewash every one of its "red lines" with Iran and Syria; that it will probably do no more to help the Ukraine than it did to help Hungary in 1956; that the British voters won't even back their own elected government to supply token forces to support us; and that the Germans and others seem to be abandoning even the appearance of being willing to actually fight to defend themselves. Now I note that the trend is continuing and even accelerating; with the difference that I am no longer alarmed: We are sinking into world-wide chaos, because this is apparently what the world wants. For those of us who trust in God, our redemption draws nigh -- exactly as the Bible said it would.

The current state of the US Military is summarized below:

America's Defense Death Spiral
Dakota Wood --March 2, 2014

-- Commentary: America's Defense Death Spiral | The National Interest

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SEX REPLACES NEWS AS "CURRENT EVENTS"

Just an observation: I notice that my thread is the only one of several recent threads on CE, that is discussing news that is not directly connected with sex.

CHINA REPLACES IRAN AS AMERICA'S CHIEF BOGEYMAN

The following is personal, since much of my family lives in China:

​

What's really unnerving to me, is the fact that (1) these beauty contests seem to reflect headlines, and nothing deeper into news articles, and (2) secondary election years show a decided rise in bogeyman ratings: the 2006 Congressional election (Republican landslide) and the 2012 Presidential election (Anti-Mormon victory). It also seems a little strange, to me, that Pew Research didn't even bother with this question during the years between these election campaigns. Did the increased polling reflect an all-court press in the media, to rattle sabers? If so, then I wonder if this year marks the beginning of saber-rattling against China.

A parting observation on this poll: I wonder if the lack of popular bogeymen in 2007-2011, and especially in 2014, has something to do with the the reason sex has replaced actual news as "current events".

Ezekiel 16
[48] As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
[49] Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
[50] And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

When the bogeyman of "fear of war" is absent from the people, I imagine idleness increases, and with it an abnormal preoccupation with sex. As they say, "When the cat's away, the mice play".

I think it's also curious, that we live in times when world-wide calamity is bound to happen "suddenly" (as in, "nuclear war"). This echoes what the scriptures predict will happen in the last days -- and, of course, is similar to what happened to Sodom.

1 Thes 5
[1] But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
[2] For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
[3] For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

"NONALIGNED" FOLKS -- A RACIST TIME BOMB?

So much for the signs of the times. I've still been working, on trying to sort out the current world alignments. It's an easy task when there's a war going on, but more difficult during this "peacetime".

I did notice that the anti-American AND anti-Israel votes in the UN all come from the "Nonaligned" bloc, roughly analogous to the "Third World" and the "Group of 77" and curiously similar to a map of "Nonwhites". The underlying reason, is that the "Group of 77", etc. were united, at their founding, by the pseudo-noble cause of "Anticolonialism" (which appears to be a synonym for "Hate Whitey", by the look of the map below). When the last whimper of real or presumed "colonialism" fell, with the Black takeover of South Africa, the "nonaligned" people needed a new bogeyman, which they found in The US and Israel -- and generally, in anything white. Here's the map:

The "Group of Seventy-seven" (2008) -- Group of Seventy Seven: Definition from Answers.com

"On the map, founding and currently participating members (as of 2008) are shown in dark green, while founding members that have since left the organization are shown in light green. Currently participating members that joined after the foundation of the Group are shown in medium green."​

Notice that Russia (= "Whitey") is excluded from the group, along with the Americans, Europeans and Jews; but the Chinese are "in" -- along with India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran -- namely, with the world's newest nuclear weapon states and wannabes. Do I see a race-oriented time bomb, literally, in the making?

Nonaligned Nations Back Iran’s Nuclear Bid...
By THOMAS ERDBRINK
Published: August 31, 2012

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/w...egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html

We'll see how it all comes out.

Shalom shalom

P.S. "Whitey" is North European; Latinos and Iranians are exempt in racist circles. Also, the Japanese are "White" in Third World stereotypes, because they are allied with the Americans. I never said this was "science" -- it's just what easily-swayed masses fall for.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

NEW STRATEGIC REACH FOR RUSSIA, CHINA, TURKEY AND ISRAEL

Military, Resources February 27, 2014
China plans airbase in Zimbabwe near the Marange diamond fields
Source: Zim

China plans airbase in Zimbabwe near the Marange diamond fields

The news of the agreement to set up the first Chinese military airbase in Africa comes amid increasing bilateral cooperation between Zimbabwe and China – notably in mining, agriculture and preferential trade. China is the only country exempted from the indigenisation laws which force all foreign investors to cede 51% of their shareholding to carefully selected indigenous Zimbabweans.

-- China plans airbase in Zimbabwe near the Marange diamond fields | StratRisks

Russia Seeks Access to Bases in Eight Countries for Its Ships and Bombers
February 28, 2014 - 5:09 AM
By Patrick Goodenough

Russia says it is negotiating with Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Algeria, Cyprus, the Seychelles, Vietnam and Singapore about access to facilities that can be used by its navy and strategic bombers. - See more at: Russia Seeks Access to Bases in Eight Countries for Its Ships and Bombers | CNS News

-- Russia Seeks Access to Bases in Eight Countries for Its Ships and Bombers | CNS News

Djibouti, China sign security and defence agreement
GeoPolitics, News February 27, 2014
Djibouti, China sign security and defence agreement

Under the partnership, Djibouti has offered military facilities such as a home port to the Chinese navy,

-- Djibouti, China sign security and defence agreement | StratRisks

[Note that Japan also uses Djibouti naval facilities, and the US has a major base in that country. Though Djibouti is a small country, it sits strategically at the mouth of the Red Sea, commanding major shipping lanes].

Somalia, Turkey sign bilateral military agreement
February 28, 2014

...Turkish and Somali military experts will train the soldiers inside the country, he said. In addition, Turkey will build military bases and reconstruct old camps, including the Hiil Weyne training camp on the outskirts of Mogadishu...

-- Somalia, Turkey sign bilateral military agreement - Sabahionline.com

Energy Security: Israel Deploy Jet Fighters to Cyprus, as Bilateral Relations Enter a ‘New Phase’

Israeli, Cypriot, Turkish and Palestinian offshore exploration areas and oil/gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean. Source: Economist

In recent years, with the simmering tension with Turkey growing into a conflict over rich offshore reservoirs of oil and gas, Cyprus’ security requirements are growing. In addition, the tension in Syria and potential friction with Lebanese elements also have their effect on the island’s security...

​

In addition to joint exercises Israel has also applied to Cyprus in a request to establish an operational support site in Paphos. RIEAS reports. In addition to supporting military jets during exercises over the mediterranean, the site could be used to support patrol aircraft and helicopters operating on maritime surveillance flights over the Israeli and Cypriot Aphrodite and Leviathan exploration areas located mid-way between Cyprus and Israel.

-- Energy Security: Israel Deploy Jet Fighters to Cyprus, as Bilateral Relations Enter a ‘New Phase’ | StratRisks

While the Israeli navy is out-gunned by the Turks, the Israeli Air Force is an adequate deterrant to Turkish aggression against Cyprus. Having use of air facilities in Cyprus will greatly enhance this deterrance. For a Biblical reference on the coming Turkish attack against Israel, cf. Ezekiel 38-39.

BTW, the map is inaccurate: The "West Bank" and "Gaza" are fully Israeli territory, having been part of the original British Mandate set aside for a Jewish Homeland. Jordan and Egypt briefly occupied the two areas, respectively, after a war of aggression; and Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Nevertheless, no legitimate authority has ever ruled in the area since the departure of the British, leaving Israel as the de facto Mandate authority responsible to guarantee Jewish settlement per the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

Northern Cyprus is Turkish-occupied territory, illegally taken by Turkey from Cyprus in a war of aggression. They have no legitimate claim to the offshore petrolium reserves around ANY part of Cyprus.

The Golan Heights are also improperly designated on the map. They are the prize of war after wars of aggression against Israel in 1967 and 1973.

 

[Falvlun]

I wonder how the rest of the world feels about the OP's claim that the president of the U.S. is responsible for everything that happens anywhere.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I wonder how the rest of the world feels about the OP's claim that the president of the U.S. is responsible for everything that happens anywhere.

Hello, Favlun.

Hello, I'm right here -- I am the "Original Poster", and I never claimed that the US President is responsible for everything that happens anywhere. Please re-read the posting, so you can understand it better. I will quote here, what I actually DID say about my elected President:

SHIFTING STRATEGIC ALLIANCES

The world political map has been, since the ascension of Barack Obama to the throne of America, undergoing a paradigm shift -- or, alternatively, a series of paradigm shifts. Some of the major movements are...

I am talking about changes that happened under Mr. Obama's watch, framing the remark in this way to make sure that the reader knows I am not blaming Mr. Bush for Mr. Obama's mistakes. Anyone with common sense knows that B. O. is not responsible for everything happening in the world.

You do realize, I hope, that this thread is not about Mr. Obama, but about the shifting of Strategic alliances in the world since 2009 -- and particularly in the past year or so. To someone who has followed world events over the past several years, as I have, these changes are nothing less than astounding. Understanding what, exactly, has been happening has been a more difficult matter. In fact, if you have not read through my posts yet, as it seems you have not, I want to apologize in advance that they are such a hodgepodge of a "stream of consciousness". The problem is that I have been trying to figure things out as I type, often thinking out loud. That ought to reflect just how much has changed, and how quickly. If the "rest of the world" hasn't commented much, I hope it's simply because they, too, are as perplexed about these things as I am.

Concerning Mr. Obama's part in all this, he certainly bears his share of the responsibility; and it is an enormous share: He is, after all, the leader of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. I see people on RF talking about "Big Business", etc., and how responsible they are for everything happening today; yet these same people often ignore the fact that the US Government is the very biggest business in history. If Bill Gates had as much money at his disposal as Mr. Obama does, for instance, he would control not only Microsoft, but every major company in the world -- and he would have the nukes, bombers, ships and tanks to make every decision stick.

So far as I can figure it out, I think the most momentous strategic decision Mr. Obama made, was allowing the Russians to physically take control of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea before having brought Iran to bear over its nuclear program. That happened just over a year ago; and I followed the action, ship by ship. By Spring of last year, our national fiscal philandering had caught up with us to the extent that we were scrapping a damaged, almost new, state-of-the-art nuclear submarine rather than repairing it because we simply didn't have enough in the coffers to cover the cost. At the same time, some of our aircraft carriers were sitting at dock in Norfolk because we couldn't afford to hire the crews to man them.

By the time Mr. Obama was spouting big words about "red lines" in Syria last August and September, the Russians -- and, as if to rub it in, the Chinese as well -- simply surrounded our skeleton fleet near Syria with a display of firepower twice as big as our own.

You seem very concerned about who gets the blame for the direction we have been moving. I have given my opinion, OBLIQUELY, IN PASSING, about who should get the most blame -- namely, the person in charge; but I'm not awfully concerned about whom either you or the "rest of the world" chooses to blame. What concerns me is the changes themselves, and trying to keep track of them. If I seem to ignore playing this "blame game", that is why.

I've posted a "magic map" several times here, outlining the most powerful blocs in the world -- "magic", in that it keeps changing, like a Harry Potter picture. I've been spending much of my time, lately, trying to update that map. The main problem is that "spheres of influence" do not mean the same thing that they did, say, in the period between WWI and WWII. The "Nonaligned" nations, for instance, led by India, definitely control the UN General Assembly; but that international forum has little practical power. The US and Russia, on the other hand, have enough power to wipe out most of humanity; but until they actually EXERCISE this power, it does them little good. Their key to staking out and maintaining a "sphere of influence" consists of periodic shows of force -- like the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Georgia, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine. (Lately, the Russians have been the hands-down winners in this game). Another way of defining "spheres of influence" is in matters of commerce. Here again, things are different from what they used to be: The Dutch used to have monopoly control over South Africa, and later over Indonesia; but today, they and the Chinese and Japanese, etc. are all competing side-by side in the same markets. In South-Central Africa, the Chinese are definitely dominant; yet it is the US that is militarily the most active there.

Representing all this on a map can be dodgy, and it's impossible to adequately portray the details of what's going on. The broad scope is obvious, though: The world is controlled by the US and its President, with countries like Britain, France, S. Korea and Japan as his junior partners. The Chinese, on the other hand, hold us hostage commercially, because we depend on them for nearly all our non-military goods. The Russians, meanwhile, have physical veto power over us in the form of mutually assured destruction. It's important that I make this matter clear, so people do not persist in fantasies; and the very biggest fantasy in all the world is that tiny Israel, a country so small it does not even appear on many maps, somehow controls the world.

Thank you for posting.

Shalom shalom

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE CHINESE WAY OF IMPERIALISM

The following is a good description of Chinese global imperialism, from a US perspective:

China moves against U.S. pivot to Asia with stepped up military, diplomatic economic ties to Americas
BY: Bill Gertz June 7, 2013 5:00 am

-- China moves against U.S. pivot to Asia with stepped up military, diplomatic economic ties to Americas | Washington Free Beacon

There is an interesting contrast between China and the US. On the one hand, China is a steadily growing economic giant, due to surpass the US in a few years as the world's paramount economy. Such a growing economy necessarily depends on energy (read, "Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Central Asia") and minerals (read, "Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Central Asia". During the early years of the Industrial Revolution, countries like the UK and Belgium took care of these matters by conquering and administering large chunks of the earth. China, on the other hand, is able to elbow its way into control of resources without having to administer anything: The Global Economy opens all its doors for it, and the US-funded UN and other organizations do the administering for it. China's modus operendi is thus different from, say, the British East India Company; but the results are the same: a de facto world empire, even though it's not de jure.

President Obama and his fellow planners have talked about a "pivot to Asia", as some sort of basketball move. Here's what that "pivot" means: It means trying to constrain Chinese expansion in Asia, by shoring up ties with countries like Japan, Korea, Australia and India. China, meanwhile, will continue to expand its empire -- as it must, in order to sustain an economy containing over 20% of the world's people. The simultaneous constraint and expansion will cause a "bulging out" of the Chinese sphere of influnce into Latin America (where it has owned the Panama Canal since 1999 and plans to build a new canal through Nicaragua), Africa (where it is the largest trade partner of mineral- and oil-rich countries such as Zambia, DR Congo and Angola) and the Middle East (where it recently completed a joint naval exercise with the Russians).

From a Biblical standpoint, the US "pivot to Asia" in order to constrain China is causing the effect of a "pivot to the Middle East" by China. Right now, that pivot is felt most strongly in places like Iran, Oman, Yemen and Sudan. This is happening at the same time that the Russians are rebounding from their Cold War defeat and expanding militarily into the eastern Mediterranean. The effect of this "double squeeze" is increased pressure on US allies Turkey and Israel, the principal antagonists of Ezekiel 38-39, and also on economically struggling Egypt, the star player of Isaiah 19. Think of it as forefinger Russia meeting thumb China, to squeeze the pimple of the Middle East. The US-led NATO giant (the "beast" of Revelation), meanwhile, is welling up from underneath, to push back. The result will be the POP! of Zechariah 14.

I can see that all of this will probably take several years. Before the "pop" can take place, there has to be a resurgence of Antisemitism in the world to drive what is left of the Diaspora back to Israel. The people of the world are obligingly carrying this out, especially on the Internet. The result might not be an increased Jewish migration to Israel. For the most part, in fact, I suspect it will take the form of a complete apostasy of non-Israeli Jews, in which Jews deny the existence of God and trust in the American-led earthly power.

The church, meanwhile, is also likely to apostacize, for this is also prophesied to be in the cards. All this has been happening lately, at an alarming rate; so it's time to, as Jesus told us, "Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh".

There you have it. I don't think Mr. Obama will be orchestrating this thing; and as you can see by my analysis, I don't expect the Russians and Chinese to be the main actors: They will be squeezers; but we Americans will be the Merchants of Tarshish, the "Beast that comes out of the sea" (the Mediterranean). Obama has just continued Bush foreign policy -- tweaking it, by substituting drones for "boots on the ground", etc., but otherwise seamlessly continuing it (even retaining Bush appointee Bob Gates as Defense Secretary). I expect Obama to have a successor, possibly Republican, who will do the same.

That successor might be the "Little Horn" that Daniel talked about, with the mouth boasting great things. We'll see him with our own eyes. In fact, WE'LL VOTE FOR HIM! Exciting, huh?

 

[Assad91]

Lol. Can't believe the OP claims there is an American-Iranian alliance and that Saudi is out of the picture.

I think you're a good comedian.

 

[Assad91]

I love conservative propaganda.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Lol. Can't believe the OP claims there is an American-Iranian alliance and that Saudi is out of the picture.

I think you're a good comedian.

Hi, Assad

I was reacting to recent US moves, which seemed to be going in that direction. The jury is still out concerning Iran. It's definitely to their advantage to play along with the US, then spring their nuclear weapon "jack in the box" on the world at a time of their choosing. It's a very dangerous game they've chosen to play. All this macho sabre-rattling on their part may be great for local consumption, especially if the US lifts sanctions and the people no longer have to suffer for it. Unfortunately, as I said, it is a very DANGEROUS game involving the threat of exterminating the Jewish people. The Israeli leadership takes such "games" seriously, and this may prove lethal for Iran.

Concerning the Saudis, they are very much still on the "outs" with the US. Their most recent major policy move has been to outlaw HAMAS, and to back this up by isolating pro-HAMAS Qatar. The US, on the other hand, along with Turkey, seems to still be stuck with a heart throb for the Muslim Brotherhood and its HAMAS affiliate -- a policy difference with the Saudis that will not easily go away. Ironically, this makes the Kingdom's enemies virtually identical to those of Israel in a part of the world where "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If this weren't mixed with a visceral hatred of Jews in the region, I would look at this as a cause for rejoicing.

I really like the Saudis and other Arab monarchs, because they simplify politics to its personal essentials. The Royal Family, particularly the king, EXPECTS the US (particularly Obama) to live up to its promises; and when there is a breach of trust, it sticks. George W. Bush understood this, and acted accordingly. Obama, on the otherhand, appears blissfully ignorant of these things. Many Americans and others have wondered why we went to war with Saddam Hussein, for instance, instead of against our greater enemy, Iran. It's because Saddam had tried to kill "W"'s father. It was personal, flat-out; and the Saudis fully understood this. Likewise, King Abdullah never forgave Obama nor forgot how he stabbed Mubarak in the back -- and stood to do the same to Abdullah, given the chance.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I love conservative propaganda.

Call it what you will. I love straight talking Shi'ite propaganda too. I hate politically-correct, mealy-mouthed oatmeal, despite my handle.

Shalom shalom