https://youtu.be/5eqRuVp65eY?si=3fLT6S5q2OIUcu6r

The modern geopolitical Middle East is a creation/construct of UK & France (Sykes-Picot Agreement) post WW1.

I see the Middle East and Israel as a European project, with the enforcement component (liability) sitting on the US balance sheet. There seems to be growing recognition of this, hence the shifting strategy where US is exiting Europe/NATIO. US position in the Middle East becoming financially and geopolitically untenable - the Iranian damage-to/destruction-of M/E bases will be too costly to rebuilt.

Israel (as per recent Bibi 60minutes interview) is looking to financially detach from the US for support.

Europe has a major energy crisis evolving and limited options for diversity. LNG imports from USA are not financially or geopolitically viable. They cut themselves off from Russian gas, and the Russian state is publicly signalling they're unwilling to supply them and the M/E is on fire.

Even if the war were to end today, the structural damage to the artificial western-made Middle Eastern royal fiefdoms is over.

Europe will shoulder much of the burden created by this conflict.

A disaster from the first step.

But on a work trip I visited an Apple Store and tried out Apple Vision. I was quite honestly blown away by how capable and usable it was.

The price is clearly prohibitive, and as a general-rule-of-thumb avoid first-generation anything Apple.

I would happily work in a Apple Vision environment. However that weight and price needs to come down.

U.S. weapons supremacy is increasingly exposed as a marketing facade. Despite a $1T annual budget, the industrial base is so brittle that strategic missile stocks were nearly depleted within a month of engagement with Iran. To keep the gears turning, Washington is now cannibalizing the stockpiles of its own allies.

You could make the case that the F-35 isn't a weapon; it’s a sophisticated wealth-extraction tool designed to fleece the American taxpayer. While it excels at deleting defenseless targets in lopsided conflicts, its primary mission is maintaining the flow of capital into a bloated military-industrial complex that prioritizes contractor profits over combat endurance.

Yes, the U.S. possesses the most lethal tactical hardware in history, but its industrial backbone is currently ill-equipped for a prolonged, peer-to-peer war of attrition.

  - Korean War (North Korea/China)
  - Rating: Competent
  - Note: North Korea began with a well-equipped, Soviet-backed armor force; China followed with massive, highly disciplined infantry waves that effectively fought the UN coalition to a stalemate.



  - Vietnam War (North Vietnam/Viet Cong)
  - Rating: Technologically Incompetent
  - Note: While technologically outmatched, they demonstrated elite level unconventional warfare, logistical persistence (Ho Chi Minh Trail), and sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses.



  - Invasion of Grenada (Grenadian Military)
  - Rating: Poor
  - Note: A very small force with limited heavy weaponry and minimal organizational depth.



  - Invasion of Panama (Panamanian Defense Forces)
  - Rating: Poor
  - Note: Though professionalized to an extent, they lacked the hardware and air defense to resist a modern concentrated assault.


  - Gulf War (Iraq)
  - Rating: Competent (on paper) / Incompetent (in execution)
  - Note: Iraq held the world's fourth-largest army at the time with modern Soviet equipment, but failed significantly in command, control, and air superiority.


  - Intervention in Somalia (Local Militias/Warlords)
  - Rating: Poor
  - Note: Characterized by decentralized "technical" vehicles and light arms; effective only in urban ambush scenarios rather than conventional warfare.




  - War in Afghanistan (Taliban/Al-Qaeda)
  - Rating: Incompetent (conventionally) / Competent (insurgency)
  - Note: Zero conventional capability (no air force/armor), but highly capable at sustained, low-tech asymmetric warfare.



  - Iraq War (Ba'athist Iraq)
  - Rating: Poor
  - Note: By 2003, the military was severely degraded by a decade of sanctions and previous losses; it collapsed within weeks of the conventional invasion.


  - Military Intervention in Libya (Gaddafi Loyalists)
  - Rating: Poor
  - Note: Largely reliant on aging Soviet hardware and mercenary units; unable to project power against NATO-backed air cover.



  - War against ISIS (Insurgent State)
  - Rating: Poor (conventionally) / Competent (tactically)
  - Note: They lacked a traditional air force or navy but utilized captured heavy equipment and "shock" tactics with high psychological impact.

The threat to AI far exceeds any benefits I can see.

Sam Altman clearly has a long history of nefarious activity. But the underlying threat posted by AI to society, the economy and human freedom persists with or without his presence.

Wellington in particular has had a string of divisive mayors. Simply google the previous Mayor "Tory Whanau" for a never-ending list of controversy, incompetence and failure.

Previous socialist central government attempted to strip assets off the regional bodies and centralize them under a common scheme. Would have been successful, however a lot of race-based ideology was peripherally injected into the process which gave asset management an unaccountable and ultimately undemocratic race-based overlay which basically killed the idea (central govt were voted out).

Central Government also has a fairly miserable history of asset management before privatisation. It's a multi-decade process of slow erosion and precendent.

The intrusion of government and intrusion of identity politics seems to be the core issue. Failure to provide core services, failure to be competent but the conversation is almost always re-directed towards "racism" and identity as the root attributes. We had no trouble producing high quality functional and well managed assets before the arrival of modern identity politics. Bait and switch IMO.

https://www.6wind.com/vrouter-vsr-solutions/virtual-broadban...