Bharat Rakshak

Shiv, Just like you psikoed TSP I would request you to do the same to US. There is an urgent need to understand this. Please consider and oblige.

ramana

Ramana - I am more like a freak than an engineer. I get sudden pisko flashes. I rarely sit down and analyse bit by bit. But when I have collected up enough pisko flashes it begins to make sense so I will give it a go. Sometimes when you second guess others' thought processes you come up with a very odd way of seeing things.

I will try and explain that. For example Anant says:


We are constantly banging our heads on this thread bout how the US can defeat Pakhanaland and when they might do that. But it strikes me that this is the thought process of a bunch of people who are getting provoked by Pakistan and feel the urge that Pakistan should be "bashed up"/"punished" to solve the problem. But if you go back right through the history of Pakistani reactions and statements over the years you find that for some entities (Like Pakistan) actual military defeat and even loss of territory, failure of goals after they start war and even hunger and suffer8ig among people is never ever called defeat.

The analogy here (for the purpose of pisko analysis) is like a small built guy who is irritating you - maybe trying to pinch your wife/girlfriend's bottom. Imagine you take this guy and thrash him till you are satisfied that he has been punished. This guy is lying on the floor groaning - and he says "I won. Nyahahahaha!" You are not a murderer. You will not kill him - so the guy recovers from the thrashing and shamelessly continues what he was always doing. This analogy cannot really be applied to nations - but it has a pisko dimension that I will explain.

I think people (eg BRFites and some in the media) are getting irritated by Pakistan's behavior and wanting to see Pakistan thoroughly bashed up. If India is not going to do it we hope the US might do that. This says more about our thoughts than what the US (or GoI) might be thinking. The point is that a pisko analysis of Pakistan is already available to US leaders, if not Indian leaders.

For the US the problem is that they know damn well that small military defeats meted out to Pakistan will not be called defeats by those leaders who survive those defeats. In fact the Pakis will provoke some minor confrontation and back down from that confrontation to prove to their own people that they can stand up to a superpower. That is exactly what the Paki military is doing. The bin Laden raid was a classic case. The US smartly shoved an ungli up but look how the Pakis army has reacted? They dismissed that with a few excuses and are now "warning" the US and even hinting (constantly via various spokespersons) that they have nuclear weapons and that "the US would not dare attack us. We are not Iraq or Kosovo". The language is one of "daring the US". "I dare you to knock this chip off my shoulder"

A US leader who is provoked by such theatrics into starting an all out war to punish Pakistan will find that he is hitting Pakistani people and Pakistani soccer ball factories and and any defeat that fails to remove the military leaders will be declares as a Pakistani victory and ability to "fight a superpower to a standstill". But if Paki leaders challenge and dare the UIS and the US does not respond, Pakistani leaders will still say "We won. The US is too scared to attack us. We are a nuclear power"

On BRF the next question we ask is "Why does the US not just remove the Paki leaders?". This again tells me more about our mindset than what US leaders think. We labor under the illusion that the US can do anything easily. We are allowed to be stupid, but the US is not that stupid. US leaders are not that stupid.

"Removing leaders" is less easy than people might imagine. By nature military leaders/potentates/dictators retain power by having a very powerful and loyal groups around them. Usually violent men or gang leaders themselves whose life and luxuries are provided by the leader in exchange for allegiance. this is totally different from democracies. The Pakistani military is no different. Just see how long it too and how many power had to get involved to take out one Gadhafi and that was in Europe's backyard. A direct military attack on the Pakistani military leaders will be a prolonged and costly affair. The usual argument that is posed here is "So what? the US can afford it and the US can do it". That may be true but the US does not do it because of a simple fact that has been written about by a large number of American scholars on Pakistan. The Pakistani army, like all powerful oligarchies has been careful to remove all other possible centers of power who can grab power from them. Any time a political leader becomes too powerful or popular he or she is removed from power by the army. So if you remove the Pakistan army you have no powerful "national" leadership in Pakistan. That will ensure that Pakistan will most likely break up into multiple small fragments in civil war.

For us on BRF - we would be happy to see the whole Af-Pak region sink into a chaotic morass. In fact Pakistani leaders are promising the US that this is exactly what will happen if they are removed from power. Imagine an area the size of Afghanistan and Pakistan together under Taliban control with lots of infighting and factions. They would serve as an area where the Dawoods and Shezads of the world seek shelter. Sooner or later other nations will get provoked into war. India would have to take military action. Perhaps the USSR again. Perhaps even China. All these powers are kept at bay by the presence of a powerful central Pakistan governing body - the Pakistan army. The US knows this and for that reason the US has no interest in taking down the Pakistan army. Everyone knows that if the US stops supporting the Paki army, India or the US can take it out.

The US has tried to impose puppet leaders on various nations in opposition to other leaders. But you cannot foist a puppet leader who is unpopular. The US tried to impose Benazir Bhutto. Guess what happened? So the US continues to woo the Pakistani army and has no realistic solutions. Attacking and taking out the Paki army is one thing they will not do. They will, like Indian leaders, sit back and philosophically accept it as Paki military leaders crow that they challenged the US and got away.

The final solution is looking like something that does not involve war. War is only advantageous to the Pakistani army. If there is no war they win. If they are defeated the other party (USA/India) cannot win. Real life Catch 22.

I still would like you to try for an old friend's sake.

Do you think the TSP understands the US power shakers due to their long contact and games them?

See the Bolton outburst on fauxnews?
Who is his audience?
What ticked him off?
Who and what was he reassuring?

Shiv:

Fantastic analysis! Before the OBL raid, TSP was portayed as a ally. Then suddenly the raid and the media brings up all kinds of cases of paki murder and back-stabbing since 2001 ! So now the aam US public knows, but it hasn't sunk in to every cab driver/college students head. Anyway, the fact that if TSPA would be "vitrified" (I love that terminology by Cosmo) then the Taliban would be next in line to inherit the crown jewels has been mentioned (even on the news). Even then.....you have convinced me that the next war with TSP will only be nuclear, or nothing else and more of the same as the last 20 years. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

For the US, its going to be more about the economy and ending the wars, no matter who the next POTUS is, Iran Pakistan, NK will be a distant third or fourth priority. China will be second.

Also US collects and recalls old insults and grievances which are trotted out after the deed is done. Recall the Pearl Harbor Infamy, the recollection of what Gaddafi did or say many eons ago!

ramana garu
There is a difference between pisko-analyzing US and Pak. Pakistani Military is the only entity which guides the country. We understand Pakistani military,we understand Pakistan. OTOH,US has various "factions", The White House, State Department, The Pentagon, CIA etc.. all have their own agenda and act accordingly. There are lot of voices and have varying degree of weight which depend on "who owes whom". It is a "soup" and the taste of soup depends on which ingredient dominates on that day. Once we understand these underlying dynamics, we understand US.
My 2 paise!

Thanks for the input. My request still stays for we need people to understand the super power and its different factions that appear to act differently. Need to find the common thread to reduce mis perceptions.

For example draw two sets of concentric circles: one for political organs of power and then another for society and see how they map to each other like in conformal mapping.

ramana off the cuff the impression I get about the US is that it's leaders could, like other human leaders, suffer from the "foibles"/weaknesses" as anyone else. But the US leadership is supported by a very competent bunch of scientific advisors who use robust science in their advice on gambles.

To use an unrelated analogy - people had figured out that it would be possible to fly heavier than air machines, but it took a refinement of science to make it work. The US actually was the place where that was done first and the same USA actually continues to use science to improve and expand on possibilities by using experimentation and modelling for research.

When it comes to dealing with other countries the US again has advisors who study those countries and the important people in depth. Leaders are analysed for their history, their background, their weaknesses, their strength, their political enemies. The nation is studied in depth. It is no coincidence that some of the most useful country information you can get on the internet is the CIA factbook.

Before I do anything to pisko anyone, leave alone the US, it is important for me to be very clear about any biases I may have in my own mind about the person I want to pisko. Those biases will make me reach false conclusions unless I test each observation that I make to see if I am applying my biases in my judgement. As far as I can reach into my own mind, i have certain biases about the US. Although the US currently seems far more powerful than the British empire ever was, I think the US actually never achieved the power and reach of the British Empire and will not get there. I have what I think are logical reasons for saying this. Without going into too much detail I will only say that the US just appeared and peaked at a time in history when it was possible for the US to do that, but it will never be able to win the kinds of victories that the British empire won. They were able to rule and suppress rebellion with only a small overseas contingent - a fact that is much more difficult in modern times. It is still possible but there will be human and material cost in doing that and that cost is increasing.

The world is divided up into two sets of people. One set believe the US is invincible. The other set are looking at the limits of US power. Mango Americans can believe that the US is invincible, but US leaders have to be acutely aware of the limits of US power, and I believe they are. They are aware of the limits of US power because they have very good advisers who are able to tell them what is possible and what is not possible. But the advisers are also acutely aware of the strengths and weaknesses of others. That knowledge enables the US to do things that others might not be able to do. So US behavior in the world is an indicator of how strong the US thinks it is vis a vis other powers. It is important not to be fooled by US nuclear weapons. Too many people look at US nukes and the US "first use if necessary" policy and imagine that the US will actually use them. But that too is a separate subject.

So predicting how the US will behave depends a lot on how you view the US. If you view the US as invulnerable, with unlimited resources, and as willing to nuke anyone, the predictions you make about US behavior will be different than if you see US power as limited and US willingness to use nukes as a partial bluff. One extreme of US behavior would be mindless nuking of another nation or a violent attack with disregard for loss of US or other lives.The other extreme would be negotiation and the payment of money to the most offensive groups to maintain friendship and good relations with them.

Logic says that US behavior is dictated by what the US sees as being most advantageous to US interests. If the US violently attacks one country, but negotiates and bribes another country, it means that the US sees that particular behavior as being in its interests. Now go back in history and see how many countries the US called "ally" whom the US has later attacked and subjugated? (The US failed in Iran) I can think of none. How many countries has the US attacked first and brought into line with US interests easily without a prolonged war and great loss of life? Kosovo? How many countries has the US attacked an won after a very costly war? (Japan? ) With how many countries has the US fought a costly war and lost eventually? (Vietnam?) A study of these things give an idea of "how the US thinks". I am sure the Pakistanis have gamed this out and have a fairly good idea that the US will not attack them as long as mainland America is safe from attack planned in Pakistan.

JMT

The following list of videos - 1 to 6 of a BBC prog on Pakhanaland are as appropriate here as on any other Shitistan thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YFbnpyiceY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDuJJ5T5bTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Hqx1T8zC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuVON8uSkYs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMndWdiyf2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghQeJ_-5UNM

Watching them this morning I had ramana's question about US piskology in my mind. I have stated before that there are similarities between Pakistan and the US. This seems unbelievable, but I think there are, and will explain. Clearly there are some aspects of US behavior that Pakis - especially the Paki elite have copied, rather than the US copying Paki behavior.

The US, I was told in years gone by, really cares for its citizens. If a person carrying a US passport is so much as touched in any part of the world, the US will step in with all its armed might and teach the offending nation a lesson they will never forget. Or so I was told. And there was proof of this. Plenty of proof. Carter goes all teh way to China to secure the release of 2 US citizens who were imprisoned there. And look how the US stood up for Raymond Davis! Wow! Tha's a superpower talking.

But beyond this hype, the US has a dirty side that is very very Pakistanian. The above stuff is for show. To keep the world believing in the mythical power of the USA. In the US itself, there are some very clear lines. There is a US "elite". A class of wealthy Americans who run and own things whose power extends way beyond what the average American citizen gets to experience. Their presence in America is not noticed or highlighted because the average American is moderately well off. But their impact and greed has become more visible after the economic downturn, during which the poor of the US have become visibly poorer, but the wealthy and powerful are carrying on like there is no tomorrow.

We have often spoken about a fabulously rich Pakistani elite, who, incidentally, like heir American counterparts enjoy immense power and perks in Pakistan. This elite do not give a rats ass about the mango Pakistanian, whose personal life condition gets worse by the year. These Pakis are recruited as soldiers and cannon fodder, to die for America and for Pakistan. And you know what? The videos above showed me how the US "ruling elite" care very little about the fact that their soldiers actually die. Oh yes they care more than Pakis, but they do not care enough to pull the Pakis down and protect American lives. In other words the deal, the covenant if you like, between the USA and Pakistan is an agreement between the ruling elite of the USA and the ruling elite of Pakistan where mango citizens of both countries are allowed to be killed for favors that the elite do to each other. This is very clear from one of the above videos. it is clearly stated that the loss of American soldiers' lives cannot be put as a bigger loss than losing the support of Pakistan. And the "Support of Pakistan" is in reality the support of the Pakistani elite.

There are, of course, vast differences between the US and Pakistan. But no matter what happens in Pakistan, the same elite are in power. Hey, but isn't that true for the US as well? This is why it is so difficult for Pakistan to be punished. The deal is between an American and Pakistani elite, who both occupy a fairly high level of wealth and influence in their respective countries.

This brings me to another question which is totally off topic. Most people won't even want to think about it. What would the USA look like as a failed state - maybe 150 years from now. Some other time. Some other thread.

@Shiv ^^^. No 'country' is different now, in the past or the future. It has and always will be the "Bread and Circuses" model. The US model is only different in the sense that it always brings in new immigrants at an even lower socio economic status to uplift the previous under layer. The Euro model was to keep existing peasants down.

BTW. Admins: we should make those six You Tube links permanent for the TSP thread.

shiv saar,

The good senator Senator Carl Levin said that if there is a choice between lives of American soldiers and a strategic alliance with Pakistan he would choose the former. That could have been a Freudian slip! Perhaps in the halls of power in America, it really is an issue of discussion, and Senator Carl Levin spilled it out in the public domain.

It is quite another thing whether he would really favor lives of American soldiers over Pakistani allies! That could be a lie, or that could be something he would wish to believe, or it could be his level of frustration, or it could really be his true views. That does not matter.

What matters is that that exactly is the issue before the American Elite - Lives of American soldiers vs. Pakistan as an ally! As you have put!

I am starting this thread so folks can understand the US and where it comes from. The reason the title has a suffix is there was an earlier version which got sadly deleted some time back.
I plan to transfer the related posts that are scattered in other threads. Please keep it civil and no trolling.

Thanks, ramana

Cosmo - while I was typing my post above this is exactly the response I expected. i was going to post a counter and had it ready in my mind but thought I would wait for the first person to blurt it out, as you have done.

The argument that "every country works this way", i.e. the powerful elite reach deals with each other is very similar to the Pakistani argument "every country has terrorists and every country faces terrorism, but Pakistan has made the most sacrifices". This is both a very obvious and a very compelling argument to make.

May I ask you, what is wrong with the argument that Pakistan faces terrorism like anyone else, and that they too have terrorists like anyone else, or that they have sacrificed the most? Can you post a counter argument to that? Actually the Pakistani argument is perfectly correct. It's only that they create the terrorists themselves. And they claim to suffer from that and claim to be making big sacrifices fighting them.

Now to come to your argument that "no country is different". Yes that is perfectly true. But only Pakistan and the US have reached a Machiavellian agreement to create violent armed groups to kill third parties which will benefit the respective elites of the US and Pakistan politically. Even when this agreement resulted in teh deaths of their own people the US and Pakistani elites do not mind much. they do mind a bit but not that much. Only when it gets out of hand does the spat come out in public.

The US Pakistan relationship is actually a falling out between thieves and criminals. Both the US elite and the Pakistani elite are greedy criminals who use the "cover and deniability" posed by the "state legitimacy" of the other country to do their dirty work. It is easy for us to believe that the Paki elite are criminals. It is less easy for us to believe it about the US. But they are. Just clever criminals who cooperated with equally clever Pakistani criminals in a glorious syndicate that has now gone sour. That is why the Pakistanis are so cocky and that is why the US looks so stupid and helpless.

In a very broad sense the entire American system is an international criminal enterprise that uses force to grab resources and enforce certain rules. if you follow American rules, you survive, but you must not try to get ahead of America, if you oppose America, you do so at your own risk. But Pakistan is different. Pakistan is a co criminal. It will be a tougher nut to crack than other countries.

USA/Canada have the largest source of fresh water. With its population being 34 Crores and Canada being 3 crores. 37 crore people are sitting on the more resource rich land than

1. China 100 Crore people.
2. India 100 Crore people.

so USA has a potential access to live in a relative economic prosperity for next 100 years.

Western and Eastern Europe has its population growth in negative. USA and Canada have kept up their population growth through selective immigration (educated healthy young professionals).

so!! now the question becomes
1. When will the European population in USA becomes on par with non-european (Chinese, Indians, Africans, rest) population?

2. How would rest of the countries see USA when "Gora USA" becomes "Kala USA".

I feel that even if there is a relationship between Pakistani elites and American elites, then it would be restricted to American "security elites" and not across the board elites.

Most elites in the West are in the business of making money, and though there is money in war, only a small subsection of the elite can really hope to profit from it. The elite class in the West is a lot vaster than those who are in the business of security and war!

I could imagine that a bigger section of the American elite would be far more networked with the Japanese, Europeans, Gulf Arabs, Chinese and Indian Elites, etc. Now that India is importing weaponry from Americans, there would be a lot more networking with the American MIC as well!

Not kala USA, in fact hispanic USA. That is if we can agree that the hispanic are "almost" white and not kala. In the next 30 years the hispanics will become the largest population group in the US and Spanish will become the most widely spoken language in the US as a natural consequence.

A thought on the overall "understanding US" part, it is to be remembered that the US's alpha male mindset is driven by a deep sense of inferiority that they do not have a glorious history going back many thousand years. All the major world players like the Greeks, the Egptians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Persians have had histories going back a long time and even the Soviets could claim that they had quite a long history keeping in the mind that Central Asia has been peopled for a long time and has quite some antiquity with advanced civilizations. The Americans however, look back at an Germannic Anglo-Saxon ancestry which by all standards was never an ancient culture or one that could claim many "firsts" until the latter half of the second millenium, the Indians and the Chinese already had gone past their peaks when the anglo-saxons came into theirs. Many futile attempts were made to appropriate the Greek and the Italian histories as their own but the funny thing was that the Greeks and the Italians were never considered fully white until the earlier part of last century and that both these cultures in their heyday considered the Germannic tribes as uncivilized and technologically inferior barbarians . More troubling is the fact that new scientific studies have revealed that there were significant gene inputs from migrating middle easterners who brought farming into the Germannic populations and also that the Aryan invasion theory is rubbish! All in all, the Anglo Saxons have no pre-Christ glorious history to look upto and their claims to greatness begins much after all other great civs, hence the Americans are new kids on the block and thus "overnight rich". No wonder we see self-proclaimed outbursts on American media of America being the "greatest democracy", "greatest military force", "freedom bulwarks" etc etc. Their mindset pretty much goes like "FIne, we may not have a history to boast of but we sure will make sure we have generated enough good history to be proud of sometime in the future for our descendants".

Now, a people of this mindset meets another similar people --> yup, the Pakistanis. Pretty much everyone here in BRF has debated to death the mindset of the Pakis having the feeling of "We are different from India and part of the ummah". Their efforts to make their artificial culture seem real has led to such comical rubbish as "the first Pakistani walked on the shores of Indus 160,000 years ago blah blah".

In analyzing and understanding the US and the Pakis, I feel this thought line of recognizing that both nations seek to legitimize a lack of good history and overcome a sense of inferiroity with outright bravado and alpha male behaviour.

Brown is the final color world wide.
But White Hispanics are very aggressive and they are filling the leadership space in US now in most profession like - medicine, corporate and mfg.

They are? I am yet to come across a Hispanic who is in white collar job, I must say, even when I spent some time in the south west coast. Or did you refer to something specific when you say "White Hispanic" and that is different from the mango abdul hispanic?

Yes there is a difference in the attitude of the White Hispanics and the mango Hispanics will listen to them.
I had a ex IBM executive from Colombia and when he talked in the restaurants the waiters completely followed his instructions. Their behavior changed.

Many have anglo names nowadays but when they speak spanish you can see the difference in the words they use and the style of spoken speech.

YogiG & Acharya , You are ahead of the rest. Please wait till the subject develops.
THanks

To me, it seems that in the short to medium term, the US has been overcome by extreme greed. Now please don't get me wrong. It is not my intention to give a moralistic lecture about the ills of avarice and lust. For too many years I have been told off by being asked the following counter questions on the subject of consumption and the USA:

1. "Oh so you think living in poverty, hunger and penury like most Indians is somehow desirable and superior to what the US has achieved?"
2. "India is poor, hungry and stinks because of this idiotic need to be moralistic. It is a coutry for losers. Come to America where the action is, and where merit is recognized?"
3. "Do you seriously think that you can compare a country where everyone shits out in the open with a nation that put a man on the moon and claim some moral superiority for the former"
4. "I notice that Indians who did not make it to the US have this deep sense of inferiority that makes them be critical of the only nation in the world that has achieved anything significant in the last 5000 years"

No. I can offer no arguments about the "superiority" of India over the US. maybe it would be easier to talk about it if I started by saying that the US is perfectly right in doing what it is doing, because that is what a lot of people want to hear, and will not argue with it. But that brings me to a definition of what the US is doing.

Basically the US is living on borrowed time. The US certainly became a superpower by dint of merit and hard work of many pioneers and later migrants, but there was an element of fate or chance there. The time was right in history for a nation to rise like the US. The US's enormous power developed at a time when every other power on earth was down and out or just plain "underdeveloped" and living with 12th century standards.

That enabled the US to grab access to the resources of the huge part of the globe. This resource grabbing came riding on the back of the fact that the US had the most powerful surviving navy, and the new technology that had come into being - aircraft. Fundamentally what this means is that while most of us (eg BRFites) have benefited by working or having relatives in the US (who send money and gifts) - every US citizen is using up the world's resources in greater proportion than is available for everyone on earth. That is why we read ridiculous statistics about the per capita consumption of anything in the world as being huge for the US and relatively small for almost anyone else - especially China and India.

Once you live a lifestyle like you lead in the US, you would be insane to demand less. For example, who would want to go back to a place with no car, swimming pool, air conditioning or toilet? But retaining that lifestyle means that the US must keep on using resources sourced from other parts of the world in humongous disproportionate amounts. This was easy in the 1940 and 50s. Most nations did not need those resources, and those that needed them did not have the power to buy them or grab them by overseas deals and overseas bases the way the US was able to do that. That is gradually changing and nations around the world are increasing both their demand and backing that demand with military power.

Now if you look at what is expected of a leader (a politician) in the US, you find that Americans expect him to ensure that their lives and prosperity are not diluted or degraded in any way. But America is already consuming more resources than most other people put together. It is totally unacceptable to reduce that demand and degrade American lifestyles. Theer are few options available. At least two of those options are being followed by America.

The first option is to keep itself so overwhelmingly powerful militarily that it can prevail in any war over resources - or in any war needed to protect the "American way". the "American way" and "Freedom" are all euphemisms for the American way of life - which si consumption and wealth far above what the world can sustain.

The second option is easier and has been the option followed by many civilizations through history. That is to ensure imbalances so that some powerful people in society continue to maintain their wealth and lifestyles with no dilution in their "freedom", while others in society are deprived and have less.

In the first option - all Americans are wealthy at the expense of keeping non Americans poor and wanting. With the second option, America becomes like hundreds of previous civilizations where some people are wealthy and powerful and a huge majority are poor.

Pakistan is an extreme example of option 2 - where a wealthy oligarchy lead lifestyles comparable to wealthy Americans living among a mass of poor service providers. America too may be heading that way. But the elite of Pakistan are very dangeros. they can cause wars and strife that kill hundreds if not thousands of others. So too one can expect a wealthy American elite to be the creators of wars and strife that kill hundreds or thousands.

I was recently looking at some Wiki stats of the origins of Americans. Without doing all the referencing again let me quote some stats off the top of my head

Americans are of:
English, German, French, Italian and irish origin - Approximately 60%
Mexican: maybe 20-25%
Black - 10%
Others: the the remaining percentage.

Pakistan is 60% Pakjabi
What is the percentage of "forward communities" in India?

If, as Cosmo said. no country is different, then which way is the US heading?

Shiv:

The US is also quite forward thinking regarding consumption. Basically two types of consumption, energy and material goods. In Energy, the US now imports less than 25 percent of its energy (primarily oil) from overseas and around 11% from the ME. Consumption of oil has levelled off and with the efforts in alternative energy, the US should be self sufficient in around 10 years if not less. If I recall this was over 50% imports 5 years ago. India and most other countries import over 70% currently, and that is a huge risk.

Plus new finds of oil in tar sands and shale plus huge natural gas fields discovered in the last 5 years means no more reliance on energy from overseas, and are stated to last well over 100 years. It will be India, China (mainly) and EU that will be still dependent on overseas oil, and their appetite is growing.

The US average mileage for cars will be 1/2 of what it is today in 15 years, and people are moving to fewer cars per capita gradually.

A lot of manufacturing from China is going to start returning back to the US starting 2012. It is China who's economy is suspect now (mainly debt and over building of un-affordable properties) and can trigger a war, which is worrisome to the US. This will probably be good for the US economy in the short run but eventually lead to inflation.

The American way of life also means free trade and globalization. We should not ignore that; there was no other reason and one would think it would be suicidal for employment in a rich country to start shipping jobs to poorer developing countries. If this is explained by the case 2 scenario you mention, then a elected government in the US can level things by taxation, and things are headed that way to a degree, no matter what happens down the road.

Just some facts. It is not all ulterior motives. Now I'll take my rose colored glasses off!

By "Understanding the US", I am assuming we intend to understand the GOTUS aspect and hence dissect why a policy or political decision has been taken.

The US is a "soup" and its taste depends on which ingredient dominates its taste on that day.

I will first attempt to explain all the ingredients which go into the soup.

There are several major ingredients we need to understand.

1. The Executive Branch
2. The legislative Branch
3. The Judiciary

The Congress (legislative) has the power to create law, the executive (President) can veto any legislation -- an act which, in turn, can be overridden by Congress. The President nominates the judges to the nation's highest judiciary authority (The Supreme Court), but those nominees must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court, in its turn, has the power to invalidate as "unconstitutional" any law passed by the Congress

It is a kind of checks and balances.

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The "Congress" is the legislative branch of the US Federal government which comprises of "the House of Representatives" and the "Senate".

The US Congress can
(a) Collect taxes, lay roads,appoint local courts
(b) Declare War
(c) Raise and maintain the armed forces of the country among many other duties

There are 435 "districts" in the entire US and there is one person who represents each district. hence 435 Representatives in the "the House of Representatives".
There are 50 states in US. Each state is has two senators. hence 100 Senators.
All of the above are regularly elected.

Now both "Representatives" and "Senators" have different powers.

Senate has the power to appoint people like the Supreme court judge,important military officers, Secretary to a department, Ambassador to other countries etc..
All legislative bills for the purpose of raising revenue must originate in the "House of Representatives".

Congress also has a an oversight on all the departments and can question any department of its performance including that of the office of the President. They are by all means very powerful.

The next ingredient is the Executive Branch

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The executive power of the federal government rests with the President of the United States. Each state in US is allocated a number of seats based on its representation in both houses of Congress and these people form the electoral college who elect both President and Vice-President. These executive powers are delegated to other cabinet members,secretaries and officials.

The President is both the head of state and government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat.

The President may sign legislation passed by Congress into law or may veto it, preventing it from becoming law unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to override the veto. The President may unilaterally sign treaties with foreign nations. However, ratification of international treaties requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. The President may be impeached by a majority in the House and removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

The Vice President is President of the Senate,He or She can become President upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President.

The Secretary of State is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Department of State, the most senior of all federal executive departments. The Secretary of State is the third-highest official of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States, after the President and Vice President. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in the presidential line of succession and order of precedence. The Secretary has many duties and responsibilities. The Secretary serves as the President's chief adviser on U.S. foreign policy and as such negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements, personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies, conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs, and is responsible for the administration and management of foreign embassies and consulate offices. Foreign trade missions and intelligence assets report directly to the Secretary of State. The Secretary is also responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. government overseas.

The day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the various federal executive departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of national and international affairs.
The heads of the 15 departments, chosen by the President and approved with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate, form a council of advisers generally known as the President's "Cabinet".
In addition to departments, there are a number of staff organizations grouped into the Executive Office of the President. These include
the White House staff,
the National Security Council,
the Office of Management and Budget,
the Council of Economic Advisers,
the Council on Environmental Quality,
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The employees in these United States government agencies are called federal civil servants.

There are also independent agencies such as
the United States Postal Service,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
United States Agency for International Development.
In addition, there are government-owned corporations such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

The next Branch is the Judiciary

I will continue this post soon

Pakistan is a dishonest ally of the US but it is still an ally whether you like it or not.

Does the US have any other ally nation aside from pakistan in this region? NO!

It the US gives up(dis-ally's) it's leverage hold on pakistan then it has nothing. Something is better than nothing.

Jeopardizing all ties with PA not only removes all US leverages from south-asia but it also makes the US more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

For once, BR members should recognize the irritation capability of pakistan not just to india but also to the west also. The irony is that the western organization(the UN) helped create pakistan. Because pakistan is a nation only because the UN recognizes it as a nation.

nvishal this thread is not about TSP and US. Thanks, ramana

Altair good first cut at the model. What you have given is the silo/org chart version of the US: separation of Church and State, division of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary, the four estates: President, Congress, Military, Press und so weiter. All this we are taught in history books and popular debate.

This silo model doesn't explain what we see as the end results.

One thing I read (will post the stats later) is that in most resources USA achieved significant levels of recycling. IIRC it recycles >60% household steel, timber, glass, plastic etc., Only the high end projects like bridges, hi-tech equipment use new steel.

My prediction (as far back as 2004) is that USA's future exports will primarily be in the fields of food-products, renewable energy, and industrial tech that supports renewable economy. I seriously doubt US would be using anything more than its proportional net resources (after deducting recycling) in 20-25 yrs.

ramana garu,
I will get to that. This is the actual "Structure" and whosoever wants to influence the policy of GOTUS must do so in the boundary conditions set by the US Constitution.If there is a manipulation of the system it will set-off an alarm somewhere.
So, in order to understand this complex and dynamic structure we must first understand all the components in the system. Once we understand all the boundary conditions we can understand who is manipulating the system and from where.

Perhaps,This is similar to air crash investigation. Every single component must be dissected. It is painstaking but will yield results. It just needs some time.

My approach is purely technical. Correct me now itself so that I can better spend my time and analyze in the right way.

Very nice posts, Shiv ji. Plenty to read and learn.

This new BBC documentary and overall US behaviour reminds me of this scene from Casablanca!!!

Altair, Thanks for stepping up. Yes the idea is to use modern analysis techniques based on evidence to draw the picture and less emotion.

Anant,

US' vulnerability to energy supplies has to do with two things:
1. The sheer volume of their need.
2. Alternative energy is viable only when oil prices are high.

Moreover, biofuels are currently consuming 1/3 (120 million tonnes) of their foodgrain production. Any spike in global food prices can send that self sufficiency into a tailspin.

Shale oil extraction costs USD 30-40 per barrel, and it is polluting like hell. No alternative energy is viable for investors is oil price is below USD 50-60. And soon.

Please check the oil import stats for US. And check the composition of their imports, IIRC it is more of distilled products not petroleum.

Only a small fraction of manufacturing will return to the US from Panda...if things get expensive in Panda than there are always other countries..

The total oil reserve of canada may well be an order or 2 of magnitude above saudi arabia...but how much of it is recoverable is the question... A lot of hype was created bout north dakota's reserves being 30 times larger than arctic wild-life refuge...but less than 1 % of that can be recovered...

India to has huge shale oil in the North east..(is that why panda is so badly after arunachal ? )

However US has a reasonable oil security...It imports mainly from south america rather than mid-east... and bio-fuels is a growing enterprise....(thats what impresses me the most)...

it was not suicidal for American companies to ship jobs to Panda...They have made historic profits... The "financial crisis" in the Khanland is greatly exaggerated... I don't see any crisis apart from in TV...

US produces surplus electricity ...surplus food etc....yet their are some nagging questions...

It has had a negative real growth rate in the last 10 years...

US -GDP 2000 11.5 TRILLION

2011 14.5 TRILLION...

Consumer prices base 2000--- 218 %

So its GDP at base 2000 is 7.25.trillion...down from 11.5 trillion base 2000....

http://www.economywatch.com/economic-st ... Year_2000/



Now the only reason why some of the goods have been kept cheap is by getting them made abroad.... if that trend reverses US will have an impossible time coping with inflation...

Relationship of TSP and US was not the point I was making.

The US are not so pragmatists as they like us to believe. At tactical level, yes.

You would think that they would give up their strategic designs if it stands to bring some pain to their homeland but I think we are getting to see a change in their line of thinking especially the way they are handling afpak. They too have begun adopting china and india's rationale of "cost benefit". The US was never challenged and brought to this level in the last 100 years. I think the US has realized the irritation capabilities of jihadi terrorism and agreed upon a tentative human cost. The problem for india is that jihadi terrorism has not convinced the US to give up its strategic ambitions; the US is ready to accept a cost(jihadi strikes at homeland) provided if it fulfills its strategic plans.

Interesting observations.

If you take the "evolution" of the US in the last 75 years or so and speed it up so you can watch it fast then I see the following changes:

1. The US had "tightened its belt" a great deal during WW2 and put in a lot for it war effort.
2. In the post war period - the war industries and baby boom led to a manufacturing and economic boom. Cheap oil got the US hooked to the car. Cities were built such that people lived way out in the suburbs and motored in. The country was interconnected by highways designed for motor transport. Cheap oil meant that the US could keep atrategic bombers in the air 24x7 ready to attack the USSR and taht was done for decades. This was the USA that I grew up learning about and to admire.
3. The 70s, the oil shock, Vietnam and the hippie generation brought in the "soft USA". No draft. Hate the army. No need to go and die in outside wars. technology boom to overcome the oil shock with fuel efficient engines. No change for the American way other than no wars, more peace along with prosperity.
4. The last 2 decades have seen the USA that lowered its guard with too much free trade losing out to other nations in manufacturing get into too many wars. (Iraq and Afghnaistan). The people in the US have now started to feel the pinch and I am now hearing things that I have never heard about USA in the past. For example I hear of the person who decides that it is just not worth it to travel 10 miles up and down by car to buy a bag of diapers for the baby. This person is definitely "tightening his belt".

But the same time I heard this story, I also heard of the bosses of that loss making bank - was it Lehman, who flew in private jets to Washington and got government support. There is now a "differential pinch" on Americans like never before. That sets up a bigger barrier between eilte and mango. As a digression - there is an almost exact parallel in India. The Reddy brothers would travel for lunch or dinner from Bellary to Bangalore in one of their three their private helicopters, in a drought ridden area of a state where farmers in debt commit suicide.

The children of the American elite are not signing up for the volunteer military. Mango American is doing that. The elite dictate the foreign policy while mango helps to implement it and may die for America. The US is IMO entering an "interesting" phase in its history. "Globalization" actually helps an elite to live anywhere and earn money anywhere. it does not help mango quite as much. Protectionism may help mango American, but makes America "less competitive", reduces elite and shareholder profit.

It is at this stage in its history when Pakistan, Iran, NoKo and China are challenging America and asking "Wtf you gonna do? Nuke us?"

Great Quote!

So far on this thread only the material side of US is being analyzed. Does its actions has any religious and western race supremacy based structure is at work is not yet analyzed. Probably it will come as this thread progresses.

Without proof here is my take:
(1) Inspite of visible liberlism and secularism, US is an intelligent and outright christian country
(2) The tactics of its military and foriegn policies are derived from ten comandments and other sections of bible.

So the tactics of " when the things are going good " and "when the chips are down " should be infered from the past such behaviors of other christian states. Germany is the model that current western civilization will be adopting. Germany was extremely rich and talented with most of the scientists too. It lost its economy after first world war and yes it still had the scientists and research. Hitler took a cruel path with race and religious supramacy theme and revived its economy before going down to co-religious anglo-saxons.

However, in the current scenario the fight for the west and white race is not co-religionsts like German Vs Anglo. It is west Vs the rest. It will be naive to think that west or just say America is going down. The Hitler factor of the west will rise and it may not be exact replica but it will be based on the current global mould.

In the context of Af-Pak-China, even if US pack bags and go, there is a huge gain for America. Over half a century US has helped to create an un-destroyable jihadi engine in the region. The mess/poooo will only hit India and this helps keeping an emerging/growing and not-too-dependent economic power such as India stuck in defensive mode for another half century (probably) and that is check-India without any further investment.

The war or terror is a spectacular success (depends on how you read it). The forthcoming sunni-shia conflits are also west's making and a lot of wepons for oil purchases across the sunni-shia countires will keep its economic engines running while the juggernaut of christian crusade against Islam will continue.

Regarding China, it is the so called stupid globalization that will checkmate the Chins. They have a vast south american and latino-baby producing machines that will be used to bring the blue collar work near home.

The so called America and west are going down is a temporary phenomenon and probably it is a shifting time.

If nothing works they have the Hitler model. The correct word is "cruelity" and that is what is at works.

Mupalla I don't disagree but will digress briefly from the subject because you have raised a minefield of an issue. If you argue that the "character" of the US is decided by its religious-cultural background (I agree) then you will also have to agree that the "character" of India comes from its religious cultural background. India will never be a USA. We will absorb and accommodate rather than shout, boast and fight.

But I think that in the long term the US might fail if it does not start a Hitler like war. A failed USA would be Pakistan^400. Not likely in my lifetime - but could happen towards the end of my children's lifetimes. If we look at the long term, it is better to dismantle US nuclear weapons and remove nuclear weapons from every country in the world. The US is too high on its successes of the past century and there is no guarantee that it will last. But the weapons will last.

People who immigrated from Europe in the 13 colonies were the first to revolt against the King of Britain. See this in the light of the the fierce struggle for Independence of 13 colonies in 1770s by a miniscule population against british crown when East India company was fighting battles against Nawab and Zamindars trying to occupy India for the crown.

USA is not black (10%), Hispanics (25%), Whites (60%) rather., huge majority of people are MIXED., who say "I am 1/8 german, 1/12 british, 1/10 black, 1/8 indian, etc." They don't vote along their "color lines as world see them".

East India company wanted over taxed Tea from India for the 13 colonies but they not only destroyed these ships at boston harbour but switched over to drinking cofee., such was aversion to Tea that till date more americans drink coffee than tea (now it is slowly being switched back with iced tea, etc).

Original colonies were supplying Cotton, Tobacco (connected with slave trade too) to Europe via East India company but then stopped selling to Manchester and started selling to factories in New York. East India company and crown switched to Indian cotton.

The whole world has been connected via trade from centuries. USA developed due to its isolation and fierce Independence. It is because of its resources that a paper seller like Edison can invent light bulb (as well as D.C) and cycle repairmen like wright brothers can make an airplane not to talk about contribution of Tesla and others. How about recent innovations like cars, computers, internet, plastic, medicine, military and space travel? It is my opinion that the government, culture and prosperity of USA gives people time, money and motivation to innovate towards collective human progress.

They way current population and immigration is trending I think that 100 years from now US population will be around 1 billion with majority being Asians (Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Viatnamese).

In 1999 I posted the following message on a bulletin board:



Three years later an anonymous Italian guy wrote this reply:


Two months later the world changed. But it did not change at all did it?

Projected population in 2050 is about 500 million...

It will not be an Asian majority...it will be a black/hispanic majority...Why I clubbed the 2 is for a reason...Presently they form the poorest and least educate class in the country..And judging by their family values I seriously doubt them as a whole will be able to climb up the social ladder.. Upward mobility is tough in the US... There as estimated to be 1 crore illegal immigrants from Mexico in the US...And if you look at the green card data their is a 20+ year waiting period for a mexican or a phillipino...


PIO's may be the richest minority ...Yet Indians only occupy 1 % of the US... Data from UNCIS shows that their is a declining trend for petitioning of relatives to the US among the Indians and Pandalanders in the recent years..If you look at the priority dates for family based petitions these are the same for Indian/China and the rest of the world these days...that from phillipines and Mexico are 10 years behind India/china and the rest of the world.. 5-6 years ago when i my card I distinctly remember PDs of India being behind rest of the world...
There were 60k r2iers last year itself... The rapid decadal growth in the PIO population can be attributed to the silicon valley boom in the late 90's ... I don't see any further booms happening...
IMHO Indians will always remain a minority in the US...Though it will come close to the number of jews..

Mango Khanlanders will club Indians along with Jews for being rich , clever baniya....(just like mango paki's do now.. )

By 2050 I predict that US will be an extremely unstable state with crime rate even higher than now... I see no signs of the general black or Hispanic population..with estimated 5 million waiting immigrants and huge number waiting to cross the border I assume that poverty will greatly rise... Once they have huge numbers they ll be dominant electorally..and will further demand eaing of immigration laws which will add to the influx... Unless of course mexico grows more prosperous than the US...

@shiv
Completely agree with the "tightening of belt" opinion and globalization.

Pearl harbour was a military action. 9/11 was done by a rag tag army of civilians. Times have changed. The new threat could only termed as the cost for living in globalized times.

Elitism is a reality in every world and it exists everywhere. The trickle down effect might be more or less.

@Muppalla
There's a "the world is our's to expend" mentality followed by most americans. There is an obvious religious undertone to it. You can see it in their colonization past(manifest destiny). You can see it in their dietary habits(what a person eats is directly proportional to his/her beliefs). Dropping nukes on civilian population.

How do they reconcile with all this tainted history? Think about it.