Re: US strike options on TSP

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby svenkat » 30 Oct 2011 21:11

del
Last edited by svenkat on 30 Oct 2011 23:32, edited 1 time in total.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 30 Oct 2011 21:36

the hispanic population in US is about 16%. of these whites make about 50%. so non-white hispanics are still
less numerous than blacks and the white hispanics actually bolster the overall white population of US

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby SBajwa » 30 Oct 2011 21:55

I agree with Shiv that U.S is indeed a barbarian culture with mixed races/cultures/marriages ahead of the rest of the world. The whole world is becoming "mixture" now. Even in India north/south/east/west boundaries are diminishing in all facets of life (economics, social, etc). In next 50+ years the cultural lines (Punjabi, Tamil, Bengal, Marathi, Gujarati, Telugu,etc) will be lesser of a factor with families. I already see people have no issues as well as marriages are concerned between any class/caste/cultures. What is this going to lead?

Just google the number of Indians in USA and you get

2.8 million people in USA identify themselves as "Indians Only" -- probably recent immigrants.
3.1 million people in USA identify themselves as "Multiracial with one parent or grandparent being Indian" -- probably 3rd-4th generation of Indians

Both together gets to about 2% of current population.

and these trends are true for other races/cultures in USA. The point that I am trying to make is that come what may US is always going to be mixture of people from around the world while India is going to be mixture of people inside its boundaries.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 30 Oct 2011 22:22

sbajwa,

you are right about inter-caste and inter-regional marriages in India. Inter-religious is also happening but less. IMO
all this is good as it will lead to strengthening of the Indian identity.

i think the number of 3.1 million multi-racial people with indian blood is not correct. the numbers i have seen is 30%
mixed marriages for those born in US which is close to the numbers for other asian communities. but the numbers high. i
think it is higher than what it is in UK or Canada. Probably because there are concentrated communities in both UK and Canada
but the community in USA is very dispersed making it harder to find indian partners. the number of ethnic indians is around 2.8 million.

Coming back to the topic the US is neither a despicable villain nor an unblemished saint.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2011 22:39

A few expert articles on the topic:

CATO Institute site:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5867

What Is an American?

by Edward L. Hudgins

Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on July 3, 1998

This article appeared on cato.org on July 3, 1998.

We celebrate July Fourth as the day the Declaration of Independence created the United States. But in my heart I also honor July 15. On that day in 1930 Giustino DiCamillo, my grandfather, arrived here with my grandma, aunts and an uncle to start their lives as Americans. My mom was born the next year.

I never had the chance to hear my grandpop's deepest thoughts about his extraordinary journey and rich, long life, which ended when I was fairly young. But one way I can understand his character, and the character of my country, is to reflect on the question, "What is an American?"

An American is anyone who loves life enough to want the best that it has to offer. Americans are not automatically satisfied with their current situation. My grandpop wanted to be more than a poor, landless tenant farmer, no better off than his ancestors. Americans look to more than the next meal; they look to the future, the long term, a better tomorrow.

Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.

An American is anyone who understands that to achieve the best in life requires action, exertion, effort. Americans aren't idle daydreamers; they take the initiative. Fortune did not fall into my grandpop's hands. He had traveled to America several times before 1930 to find work, establish himself, and make it possible to bring over the family. He toiled for years to achieve his dream, but achieve it he did.

An American is anyone who understands the need to use one's mind and wits to meet life's challenges. How would grandpop secure the money necessary for his first trip to America? Where would he find a job and a place to stay? You don't need college to know that you have to use your brain as well as your brawn to make your way in America.

" The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans.'

An American is anyone who understands that achieving the best in life requires risks. Immigrants have no assurance of success in a new land with different habits, institutions and language. They leave friends, relatives and familiar places, often risking their lives to cross oceans and hostile country to reach their new homes. But they, like all Americans, understand that the timid achieve nothing and forgo even that which sustains us through the worst of times: hope.

The nature of Americans explains the precious opportunity that has drawn millions to these shores. The Declaration states that all men are endowed "with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Americans seek economic prosperity, leaving behind the resentment in other countries that is aimed at those who better their material condition. Throughout the world and throughout history, millions of individuals have endured poverty with dignity. But there is no inherent dignity in poverty. Individuals came to America to farm their own farms and run their own enterprises. My grandpop found work on streetcar lines so he could buy a house and provide a better life for his family.

Americans seek personal liberty, to live as they see fit, to worship as they please. Americans seek freedom from the use of power wielded arbitrarily by whoever holds the political sword. My grandpop no doubt did not want to be at Mussolini's mercy.

The Declaration -- and the Constitution that followed it -- created a political regime for individuals who wished to be united with their countrymen not essentially by a common language, ethnic background, or other accident of birth. Americans are united by a love of liberty, respect for the freedom of others and an insistence on their own rights as set forth in the Declaration.

Unfortunately, the American spirit has eroded. Our forebears would look with sadness at the servile and envious character of many of our citizens and policymakers. But the good news is that there are millions of Americans around the world, living in every country. Many of them will never make it here to the United States. But they are Americans, just as my grandpop was an American before he ever left Italy. And just as millions discovered America in the past, we can rediscover what it means to be an American. The principles of this country are no mere abstractions; they are written in the hearts of all true Americans. And it is the spirit of America, the spirit of my grandfather, that we should honor on July Fourth.


Akbar Ahmed in Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ahm ... 40790.html

While grappling with ideas for a book on American identity (Journey into America, Brookings Press, forthcoming) I've been trying to figure out what actually defines an American and would be grateful for any assistance by readers of this column.

The primary definition involves the legal citizenship of the United States. This ensures the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and, in turn, obliges the citizen to accept the philosophy underlying the Constitution. The concept and practice of checks and balances is fundamental to the Constitution. The citizen can also assume the protection of the military and the other security agencies from different kinds of threats.

Being a legal citizen is more than the acquisition of a passport, it is also the recognition of the ideas that were forged by the Founding Fathers of the United States. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin were extraordinary statesmen by any standards and had a collective vision of a new society in a new world. Jefferson's eloquence and imagination are clearly reflected in the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence. It is that Declaration that Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July with fireworks.

A more visible and therefore more obvious definition of Americanness comes from a sense of belonging to American culture. Movies, television shows, and sports create heroes, a language, and references for Americans. Expressions are picked up from television shows and become part of mainstream language. Bart Simpson's expression "eat my shorts" from the 1990s, for example, is now a recognized part of the American lexicon.

American culture was more unified in a general sense a generation ago when television was still a relatively new phenomenon. The glow of the Second World War and its victory still suffused the nation. Americans had fought a just war and triumphed over some of the most evil men in history. Americans saw themselves, and were largely seen by the world, as the good guys.

Today, American culture appears much more fragmented. There is a bewildering range of shows, music, religious and political discussions available to the viewer. There are equally bewildering role models. The excesses of the consumerist culture are embodied in figures like Paris Hilton, who is a caricature of herself.{The Islamist in him is speaking here! I mean about that icon.} Many people are seduced by the idea of consumption for the sake of consumption, excess for the sake of excess. This zeitgeist also feeds into the idea of being American, the notion that every American has the absolute right to do what they will of their lives.

America's fragmented culture also means that superstar politicians like Barack Obama are seen so differently by so many Americans. To some, he is almost Christ-like in his virtues and promise. To others, he is the Antichrist and is set to destroy America itself. The extremity of these opinions reflects the fragmented nature of America today. Different opinions in the arena of politics is the very essence of democracy and the debates between Jefferson and John Adams were as acrimonious as they are between Democrats and Republicans today. The difference is that after the bitter political exchanges, Jefferson and Adams could spend years as kindred souls, exchanging letters and ideas about a variety of subjects. The atmosphere around Obama today is becoming dangerously brittle and I suspect will become even more tense in the coming months as the economy and international affairs challenge him further. The debate around Obama then will expand beyond politics to the realm of the irrational and the subconscious which will include race and religion.

Great moments of achievement and catastrophe also bring Americans together. These special moments in a nation's life capture the imagination and focus on that special meaning of being American. These are the moments that Americans will remember and put away in their minds in the category of "where were you when...?" The moon landing forty years ago is one of those great achievements which only Americans were capable of pulling off and therefore it was a uniquely American achievement. Similarly the assassination of JFK in 1963, the American diplomats taken hostage in 1979, and the attacks of 9/11 brought the nation together in grief and shock.

There is a fourth definition which comes from non-Americans. Because America is a superpower -- currently the superpower -- it attracts both admiration and envy. Most foreigners, when asked to spot Americans in Paris, Cairo, or Delhi would say they are taller, fatter, and louder than anyone else. Even America's neighbors see it as bullying and arrogant. Ask Mexicans or Canadians what they think of America.

The question of defining a large country, indeed a continent, is a challenge. I have been traveling the length and breadth of the country with a team of young American researchers to discover the answer. What we found was a sense of vitality, openness to discuss issues, and belief in the vision of America inspired by the Founding Fathers. We also found uncertainty and anger.

I would very much like to read your ideas on what being an American means.


I can comment on that later.

Another essay:
http://www.victoriousamerica.com/rally/ ... -essay.htm

....
When the Puritans lived in England they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Church of England prohibited them from worshipping in their own way. There was no debate about the validity of the Puritan's doctrine. They were considered heretics by the absolute power and authority of the Church, exercising the power of the Status Quo.

The Church of England believed in Christianity. But was it the teaching of their founder to persecute others, lock them up and take away their freedom simply because their beliefs were different? In this case, if they had cared to see, their own professed beliefs would have acted as a mirror to expose their hypocrisy and evil.

Having the chance to resettle in America the Puritans acted. If they had stayed in England, the Church and the Government would have destroyed them because of their beliefs and because they did not have the support from the general populace at the time.

What happened to the Puritans and their choice to settle in America set in motion a wave of determination so great it not only became the driving force of the development and character of American society but it also became the impetus for the spreading of human rights and democracy worldwide.

Why was this force so powerful that nothing could stop it from displaying its indomitable resole in the human spirit? The Church of England tried to suppress the individual in their spiritual beliefs, their private domain, the seat of life where all people inquire about their own existence. It tried to imprison their mind, the seat of judgment which is the main driving force to discern good from evil. This triggered a chain reaction that would release the flow of individual rights, that would saturate the American psyche, thus becoming the driving force that would shape our history and become the standard of behavior to protect what is most noble in humanity.

Now the seed was planted, from that time on the given right of the individual to stand up and defend himself against any force or system that would subdue his rights was set in motion. This phenomenon where noble ideals continue to rise up even from the ashes of our own indignities is uniquely American. The fact that we continually champion the cause for individual rights under any circumstances is what makes our struggle so important to the world's social structure and its future.

As time continued, many other people came to this country, some for political reasons, some to escape prosecution and persecution, some for economic reasons, and many were forced to come here and be sold as slaves. Soon many different colonies were formed containing people from all parts of the globe, but still the English maintained an oppressive social and economic grip over the colonies. The colonists were an independent lot and there was no way they accepted the Church of England or the aristocratic social structure as something they could embrace.

This became apparent in the War of Independence, which produced documents such as the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These would confirm that the foundation of the country was the focus on individual freedom. This was a far cry from a monarch and aristocracy where the people were neither empowered by charter or even given the right to hold their own leaders accountable for their actions. Through this struggle a government was formed by the people and for the people where the leaders would be directly accountable to its citizens.

Jefferson stated in the past people were never empowered to censure or punish their leaders and those that would even raise their voice in protest were considered traitors.

This right is of central importance because it truly defines the core of our social and ethical system, which had set us apart from the rest of the world. The Constitution provided the separation of Church and State. Now the government became the blanket under which all people could have their own beliefs, the freedom to speak out without fear of backlash from any group, religious institution or the government itself.

The government was structured to protect and defend the rights of all the people. Thus it became the model that influenced thinking so deeply, that it would give rise to the movement of enlightened structures in both the secular and religious realm in the twenty first century.

This is in direct concurrence with the spirit and teachings of great religious leaders where the integrity of the individual is to be cherished and protected. These founding documents would be the foundation for the rights of each individual and would be the building blocks of a new emerging civilization where the people are empowered to keep those who are in positions of authority in check, in other words, to keep the status quo in check.......


Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 30 Oct 2011 22:45

i do not agree with the contention that the US is a barbarian culture. rather it is in the early stages of a still evolving culture. it is
a young civilization and its culture is going to evolve as a result of the inputs from different immigrating groups.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 30 Oct 2011 22:50

This is the defining essay on What is an American?
In his essays from an American farmer, Crevecoeur writes his ideas and hopes:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/CREV/letter03.html

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3046
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby vera_k » 31 Oct 2011 00:32

On the barbarian culture theme - there is a broad conflict within the country such that the barbarians are primarily limited to the southern states. Although these states lost the civil war, the pace of social change is slow enough that pre-civil war instincts are not too far below the surface. The country overall has chosen to be accomodating to this culture for the sake of national unity.

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby member_19686 » 31 Oct 2011 03:24



Note the quotes he gives from people across the political spectrum including Hitchens (who now sanctimoniously lectures about Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide etc).

Also to be noted is Mr. Stannard's mention of Christianity as one of the main driving forces behind the genocide in response to a question.

Related to this:
... 2) The leukosphere or white identity. In the 600s of CE the English king Oswald of Northumbria, a new convert to the religion of love decided to wage holy war on both other coreligionists like the British king Cadwalla and the heathen Saxon king Penda, a worshiper of Odin and Thor. Oswald was the victor of many brutal wars, killing Cadwalla in due course, though his holy war on the heathen Penda ended in him being hacked to pieces on the battlefield. His brutality notwithstanding he was made a saint as he had fought the heathens on behalf of the pretamata – a reminder of innate deception typical of these memetic diseases, the preta and the rAkShasa mata-s. About 100 years down the line came the dreaded German holy warrior Charles-I (Charlemagne) who imposed the religion of love with utmost brutality on other German people. Likewise, Charles waged holy wars to spread to spread the memetic disease of the pretamata to the western Slavs and the Avar khaganate. In the process practically exterminated the archaic Indo-European culture of the Germans and the western Slavs. He seems to have even found some kind of resonance with his fellow holy warrior from the religion of peace Harun al Rashid in Baghdad with whom he exchanged gifts. He is fondly remembered by the descendants of his victims as the “father of Europe” and his tall, fair, blond haired image still provides them with their ideal of a puruSha. These events encapsulate the emergence of the precursor of the identity under discussion. In essence, it was the artificial identity of the pretamata that was stuffed down the throats of the unwilling heathens of Europe. Subsequently, the same identity forged the European alliances against the Islamic Jihad. But over time it receded to the background with fragmentation and local identities taking precedence. Fast-forward several centuries ahead to when the United States was born. Its elite had their deep cultural moorings to England, despite seeking political independence from it. In its war of independence it had succeeded in no small measure due to the aid offered by France. Thus, in its very birth the US had links to European powers that had long been rivals. Within the North American continent it was at war with the natives and was being steadily settled by other European peoples. On the whole, the birth of the US was a success story – it had beaten the mighty English who were victorious against most other nations of the world. It had built a formidable navy in a short time and projected power far away in the North African coasts by smashing the Moslem fleet in the Barbary War. Its successes also lead to introspection about its own place in history and identity. Given its origins and peoples, it had no need to adopt a narrow identity pertaining to a particular European nation despite its links to Britain and France, but sought to forge a new one. In this situation, two things came to the fore – the sub-current identity of the pretamata, which had been submerged in fragmented Europe and the white racial identity. The former was particularly strong as they needed something to replace the regional allegiances of Europe to their respective kings. So the rAkShasa spelt with the capital G took the place of the king or Kaiser. The latter emerged as a result of their encounter with the “other” in the form of the natives of America who were locked in a life and death struggle with them and the slaves they had shipped in from Africa to ply on their fields. Their military triumphs against the natives, as well as elsewhere in the world, along with degradation of the Africans to a lowly position, gave them a feeling of a superior white identity. Indeed, even their great intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson, who advocated free-thinking on religion, upheld these core aspects of the developing identity. This becomes clear when one examines his “Indian Removal Plan”. His main idea was to enforce the pretamata on the natives at the expense of their own traditions and force them to adopt “Western European culture” and eventually assimilate into the white identity of the US. Failing this they were to be driven westwards or exterminated.

The events surrounding the American civil war, often acting in different directions, led to further strengthening and recalibration of the white identity. The civil war resulted in a strong sense of white identity being reinforced in the southern states. In the north while the prevailing mood was for universal rights it was not as if the white identity had been given up. In fact, non-English European immigrants, primarily Germans and Irish joined the union’s cause, providing it with the much needed manpower in the war against against the southern states. Now the important role played by these European immigrants meant that upon victory of the union they were to play a major role in the north. This again meant that the white identity was a more suitable one than an English one. In particular the Irish had earlier not been considered white enough, but now they slowly gained that status and reinforced a much wider identity based on generic adherence to the pretamata and being of lighter complexion. Even through the civil war battles to suppress and exterminate the natives of the land continued, further reinforcing the white identity as one of superiority, relative to the free tribes who refused to accept the white ways. The post-civil war period saw the rise of white movements that attacked blacks in the southern states. This resulted in blacks going north for finding better and safer work opportunities and fell in a competition with the Irish who occupied similar working class niches. This also contributed to the strengthening of white identity further. Finally, with the failure of post-civil war reconstruction and rise of racial tensions the white identity strengthened greatly and now resonated with the ideas of supremacy, which were also current in the German identity movements. However, its American flavor, instead restricting glory just for the Germans, extended it to all light-skinned people of European decent who followed the preta-mata. The strength of this identity in the US is attested by the opinions and actions of the post-civil war American president Woodrow Wilson and the roaring success of the blockbuster movie during his reign titled the “Birth of a Nation”. It also explains why the apparently genuine efforts of the American presidents like Grant and Coolidge to improve racial relationships and non-white rights were not very successful. Eventually, with the American victory in world war 2 and the conquest of Germany, this white identity (of course with the pretamata subcurrent) also came to guide the European unification and establishment of the leukosphere through the recognition of the white colonies of Australia, New Zealand and some degree South Africa as brethren.

Thus, rather than being something very deep and ancient, as some Hindus mistakenly believe, this identity is a rather shallow one of recent provenance. The shallowness of the white identity, like the modern German identity, is revealed by its need to appropriate other peoples identities and achievements as their own. The tale of how both these groups appropriated the ethnonym of my people does not need any further elaboration here. But we may turn to some other examples, namely the appropriation of Greek and Roman achievements as their own. For instance, in his work “Wisdom of the West”, Bertrand Russell appropriates Greek scientific and mathematical achievements as collective property of the west, and this indeed is the norm in modern America. Hitler thought that the yavana warriors in Thermopylae certainly had some German connection. During the height of the battle of Stalingrad he hoped his field marshal would not surrender but die fighting as a fitting enaction of the Spartans being hammered by the Iranians at Thermopylae. The same yavana-s were also claimed by the Americans who made a movie to mark their hostilities with the Islamic nation currently occupying the land of the Iranians of yore. They use terms like senate and senator emulating the Romans. Yet, no where do we find the Greeks or Roman claiming such a grand white identity. If anything Hellenistic civilization was destroyed by the founding principle of white identity, i.e. the pretamata, despite the valiant efforts of Julian (To realize the importance of the pretamata to this identity note the fact that Panjabi Americans, who might barely make the cut on the skin color metric, were still able to gain the admiration of those with leukotestate identity by converting to the pretamata).

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... dentities/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby shiv » 31 Oct 2011 07:24

vera_k wrote:On the barbarian culture theme - there is a broad conflict within the country such that the barbarians are primarily limited to the southern states. Although these states lost the civil war, the pace of social change is slow enough that pre-civil war instincts are not too far below the surface. The country overall has chosen to be accomodating to this culture for the sake of national unity.


While I have mostly seen the word "barbarian" used in pejorative - I think "barbarian" really refers to a culture that did not have the civilization that Rome had developed. It is a type of culture that, as described in my earlier quote, worships materialism, individualism and physical strength/prowess in war. No male child really looks macho in America unless he plays football. Even desi kids have to prove themselves in football.

The individualism and materialism is summed up ina quote from what ramana has posted above:
Americans seek economic prosperity, leaving behind the resentment in other countries that is aimed at those who better their material condition. Throughout the world and throughout history, millions of individuals have endured poverty with dignity. But there is no inherent dignity in poverty. Individuals came to America to farm their own farms and run their own enterprises. My grandpop found work on streetcar lines so he could buy a house and provide a better life for his family.

Americans seek personal liberty, to live as they see fit, to worship as they please. Americans seek freedom from the use of power wielded arbitrarily by whoever holds the political sword. My grandpop no doubt did not want to be at Mussolini's mercy.


In my view it would be a mistake to deny the word "barbarian" just be cause it is pejorative. Barlbarian is pejorative in the same way as "brahmin/bania" is in the Indian-Paki context. It would also be wrong to dismiss American culture, even if it is a barbarian culture as "wrong" just as it would be to dismiss all brahmans and banias as "wrong"

In my personal view - I find it easier to accept the possibility that the "barbarian culture" definition works and then to extrapolate and explore along those lines to see what are the possible advantages that accrue from that and waht are the possible long term consequences of having a huge barbarian culture underlying a nations' ethos.

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4474
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby gakakkad » 31 Oct 2011 09:24

Supratik wrote:the hispanic population in US is about 16%. of these whites make about 50%. so non-white hispanics are still
less numerous than blacks and the white hispanics actually bolster the overall white population of US



Mine was not in reference to the skin colour... but their socio-economic conditions and lifestyle.. Genetically speaking the terms "white-hipanic" or "blacks hispanics" are misnomers.. Its like calling fair skinned Indians "white indians" and dark skinned ones "black indians"... Its almost like saying that fair skinned Indians (even though of 100 % indic ancestry) contribute to the "white" population..

Hispanics like Indians have an extremely diverse genome. They are a mixture of the indigenous American population , southern europeans (from spain , portugal) and blacks...The mexicans are 60% indigenous population -40% europeans... The cubans are mixture of europeans ,africans and the indigenous population...since they have a diverse genome their skin tone distrbution will be similar to that in India...fair skinned ones , the dark ones and the in-betweens...The problem is that many of them(regardless of skin tone) live in ghettos and are quite poor... indulge in criminal activities due to poverty...and how high-school enrollment much lower than national average...Their numbers are increasing very rapidly...

At the end of the century I doubt there will be many Americans of 100% caucasian white descent...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>and these trends are true for other races/cultures in USA. The point that I am trying to make is that come what may US is always going to be mixture of people from around the world while India is going to be mixture of people inside its boundaries.

@ SBajwa--- The gene pool of India is at least as diverse (if not more) than the American gene pool...So even if Indians intermarry within its boundaries the gene pool will not stagnate..Indians have european (aryans) gene , black gene , mongoloid genes and probably some indigenous population at the time of aryan settlement (presence of Indians sub-continent specific M haplotypes along with european , african , persians markers in most of Indian population..Including surprisingly from nicobarese tribes who did not intermarry with the mainlanders) ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ SHIV-

There is one more thing that you should analyse here...

If you look at the spanish conquistadors...they intermarried with the indigenous population leading to the a mixture in south america...ie they dissolved themselves with the indigenous population...even though when they first arrived they were ruth-less.... but they did eventually mix with the locals..judging by the genetic composition of Mexican and most south american population
But if you look at anglo-saxon colonization anywhere...they almost wiped out the Indigenous population (america , australia) or subjugated it (like India or China)... they did not intermarry.. The number of Anglo-Indians in India is extremely small indicating that they rarely married with the Indians...

That may reflect cultural differences in Northern europeans and southern european population...

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 31 Oct 2011 12:36

it is hard to tell what is meant by white hispanic as it is self-defined. I would assume it would mean predominantly or
exclusively European with Spanish as primary or along with English the primary language.

Mexico is majority Mestito i.e. mix of white and native American

In North America they almost wiped out an entire race while in South America they almost wiped out their religion and culture.
I think the difference is that Anglo-Saxons judged people more on the basis of race (as we all know too well in colonial India)
and religion came second while with the Spanish and Portugese it was more about religion and next came race (as we all know
too well in Goa). This is all within the colonial context where the greater goal was to suck resources from the newly
invaded lands.

I think USA and other countries should be seen in the context of the earlier developments in human history perhaps going thousands of years back when tribes would invade or occupy land sometimes leading to replacement of the native population and with the spread of cultivation develop civilizations sometimes leading to Empires. Only because of modern technology things have happened fast and on a more grander scale. However, how lasting it will be remains to be seen. 300 years in human history is a short time.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 31 Oct 2011 12:56

OK, I got some idea of mixed Indian people in UK and Canada from wiki. It is about 10% in UK and 3% in Canada. Assuming
a significant Anglo-Indian community in UK the numbers are likely to be less than in the US where I have seen one study
with 10+% mixed marriages overall.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Venkarl » 31 Oct 2011 14:37

vera_k wrote:On the barbarian culture theme - there is a broad conflict within the country such that the barbarians are primarily limited to the southern states. Although these states lost the civil war, the pace of social change is slow enough that pre-civil war instincts are not too far below the surface. The country overall has chosen to be accomodating to this culture for the sake of national unity.


An African American friend lent this book by Thomas J Craughwell to me for few hours in an airport. A brief and quick read gave me an impression that almost the whole world's leaderships have their "bloody" roots to barbarians, huns, etc. Even in India Sonia and her children have that bloody connection.

P.S: I didn't read the whole book. I don't know the credentials of the author. I'll leave it to historians on BRF. Heavily OT. :)

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby abhischekcc » 31 Oct 2011 14:45

The article by Edward L. Hudgins posted by ramana shows that the essential character of what is an American, in the mind of the author - is essentialy a protestant work ethic.

---------

Only in India was the ruling class tamed by an intellectual class. In the other three civilisations of the old world:
1. The Arabs saw the advent and intellectuals over the ruling class and subsumation of the later in the former - which created Islam.
2. In Europe, the intellectual class has prostituted its talents to the ruling class, and European power structures became based increasingly on propoganda. They like to think that this is democracy.
3. In China, the intellectual class has always been persecuted and harassed by the rulers, unless they are also subsumed.

ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ManjaM » 31 Oct 2011 15:52

gakakkad wrote:
@ SHIV-

There is one more thing that you should analyse here...

If you look at the spanish conquistadors...they intermarried with the indigenous population leading to the a mixture in south america...ie they dissolved themselves with the indigenous population...even though when they first arrived they were ruth-less.... but they did eventually mix with the locals..judging by the genetic composition of Mexican and most south american population
But if you look at anglo-saxon colonization anywhere...they almost wiped out the Indigenous population (america , australia) or subjugated it (like India or China)... they did not intermarry.. The number of Anglo-Indians in India is extremely small indicating that they rarely married with the Indians...

That may reflect cultural differences in Northern europeans and southern european population...


The reason for this is that Spain was already immunised to foreign presence on their soil due to Arab/Moorish presence for many centuries (more importantly moors as rulers). Spain definitely had a recognition of "us" and "them" but it wasnt manifested in terms of a racial shock at discovering some new peoples. Anglo Saxon was a different kind altogether. They were insular in their own lands for so long that the shock of seeing a different peoples immediately started in them the desire to lord over all.
As an example, see how long it took US to have its first Black leader. Mexico had a black president in 1850 i believe and multiple mixed race presidents since then.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20491
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2011 16:59

Understanding the US? It is the US which needs to understand the world! We understand the US perfectly from its track record of warring in Korea,followed by Vietnam,followed by GW1,GW2,Afghanistan... and tragically many more to come.The key point here being that they were all foreign wars,not the US defending its own homeland! The US today ahs created enormous global chaos wiuth its interventionist policies and greed and lust for the wealth of smaller weaker nations especially those with energy resources,like common street thugs they mug and rape their victims and pretend that they are actually "protecting the innocents".What sh*ts!

The founding fathers of the US were magnificent in their vision-the Declaration of Independence being a vision of humanity as wise as any written for a state ever.Sadly,the successors who rule America today,should read the DoI carefully as well as the UN's declaration on human rights,the protocol to be followed for conflict solving,etc. and see how far they have strayed from the vision of their forefathers.

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby member_19686 » 31 Oct 2011 17:42

Part of the reason why Spanish and Portuguese intermarried was that it was primarily a male colonization for resource extraction and spread of Catholicism, especially among the Portuguese.

There were a lot more S & P men than there were women, so they intermarried or raped the black and native women.

The English colonization was different, the Puritans arrived with the intention of permanent settlement with their wives and families in tow.

But English men too had no problem raping Black and Native women and fathering children that way. Virtually every Black person in the US today has white ancestors unless he/she is a recent arrival from Africa.

On Indians, check:

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... -our-race/

gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4474
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby gakakkad » 31 Oct 2011 18:30

People fed up with the English society went the America to settle down..But they fought a war of independence with Britain...ie Anglo-saxons fighting each other... They were unwilling to let go Canada even , before the US threatened a military intervention..nglish and Americans are largely believed to "share" cultural roots yet 200 years ago they did not they did not want to be a part of the same country..Even though they had same race and looks...and "culture"...

Any piskologies ? What made a group of Anglo saxon break-up from their parent countries...Anything more insightful than the superficial reason that we read in the history books ?


From what I remember king george 3 passed some proclamation in which he prevented expansionism as he did not want to antagonize with the native americans...was this out of respect for human rights of the locals and genuine concern for sovereignty ? or was this just chankian ? or was it due to the fierce battle skills of the natives ?

whatever the reason was , AFAIK the prevention of expansionism hurt the phor-phathers of amreeka ... who was more cruel to the natives ? the english or the phor phathers ?

in the french and India war before the declaration , the belligerents on both sides included natives... How were the natives aligned ? was it a forced alignment like "the british Indian army ?"


Did the British take any precaution to prevent happening in India what happened in America ?

US was the first country to break free from the British empire....


PS- Whats with the present day fascination with britian... english music has been more popular than most american music over the past half a century ... People also seem to have a fetish for the British accent and often try to replicate it (only ending up parodying it)...

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby SBajwa » 31 Oct 2011 20:25

PS- Whats with the present day fascination with britian... english music has been more popular than most american music over the past half a century ... People also seem to have a fetish for the British accent and often try to replicate it (only ending up parodying it)...


Only among teens and early young who are trying to impress the opposite sex. Accent to well educated people does not mean a thing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby shiv » 03 Nov 2011 07:17

Cross post from Pakhanastan thread
Jarita wrote:Kind of grudging admiration for the Pakis for shocking these guys. major ego damage for these imperialists. They need to change their worldview - allegiances shift daily in Asia (that is what they call duplicity)

There is a very interesting pisko connection between this and Texmati's book where MMS did not want to meet Texmati because he did not want to tell her "no" on her face.

In India (and in Pakistan I guess) it is impolite to say "No". Indian etiquette demands, for example that everyone, near of far gets invited for a family wedding. The concept of RSVP (repondez sil vout plait) is the most uninviting and impolite system invented. You never ever say that you cannot go for the wedding. That is not just an insult. It is like putting a black mark - a curse. No one says "no" on someone's face. You just don't attend the wedding and later apologise with an excuse. That is the accepted norm.

Americans' have never figured this out. Americans in the post WW2 phase have been brought up to believe that they are the center of the entire universe. We feed the world. We dominate the world. There was never any need to learn other languages or figure out other cultures. American culture was the best. Everyone needed to become American, not the other way round. Being up front, "forthright", saying "No", asking for a raise rather than expecting one are American.

Pakis would never have aid "No" to anything the American's asked. they just would not do it. But somehow the feeling that Pakistan would do things because America is so powerful was the popular myth. Even Pakistanis believed in American power but overt the decades they figured out that the US was no longer capable of coercing them to do some things, even as the US was stupid enough to pay Pakistan for things it was not doing. The US was the classic sucker.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Rudradev » 03 Nov 2011 09:32

X_posting something I wrote a while ago, that I think is relevant to this thread:

If we want to analyze the dynamics between ideological groups that determine US foreign policy, let’s begin with a taxonomy based on existing scholarship.

A good example would be the ideological classification proposed by Walter Russell Meade. He divides US policy groups into four classes: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, based on their broad imperatives.

Here are a few articles explaining Meade’s “spectrum” and its four subdivisions from the American point of view:


http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r_syndrome

To be useful to our analysis, we must reconstruct this “spectrum” from an Indian point of view. Here’s an attempt.

In general, Hamiltonians and Wilsonians are the more “outward looking” of the four groups. Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are the more “inward looking.”

Also in general, most of the American public tend to be either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their broad geopolitical outlook. The Hamiltonians are mostly represented by a powerful elite of corporate and business interests. The Wilsonian base is a well-entrenched Washington intelligensia with strong influence over institutions like the State Department and the Pentagon (the “babudom” of America.) Wilsonians also dominate American academia and think-tanks.

Let’s look at these four groups one by one.

1) Hamiltonians: named for America’s first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, this group stands for Economic Expansionism. They support global political and military involvement for the purpose of creating and maintaining a system of trade and commerce dominated by the United States, with an American agenda at the helm.

Bretton Woods was the cradle of the modern Hamiltonian movement. The Marshall Plan, and the Roosevelt-Ibn Saud agreement (which formalized the USD as the currency in which international oil prices would be set) were early initiatives undertaken with Hamiltonian support to establish American economic supremacy.

Domestically, Hamiltonians are backed by big-business corporate interests.In nations where a climate favourable to international commerce exists, Hamiltonians try to further their agenda by political means (through American-dominated institutions such as the World Bank, G8 and WTO.)

In regions where a climate exists that is unfavourable to international commerce, the Hamiltonians are most concerned with making sure nothing happens to threaten the domination of global commerce by the United States. Chiefly, this means using the military, and shoring up military alliances, to ensure America’s energy security… and sometimes, to deny other nations the energy security they would need to compete economically with America. Hamiltonians insist that American foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia focus on enhancing American influence over the oil and mineral resources of those regions.

With respect to India, Hamiltonians generally ignored the socialist avatar of India as a lost cause, but they have begun to take increasing notice of India since liberalization and economic growth began in the early 1990s.

The most pro-India Hamiltonians would like to shape the rise of India into an economic partner and hedge against other potential economic competitors such as China. This sub-group of Hamiltonians were fully supportive of the India-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They are generally in favour of outsourcing and guest worker programs, as long as American corporations continue to receive growing access to Indian markets.

The least pro-India Hamiltonians, on the other hand, are skeptical about the relatively “slow” rise of India, about the obstacles to economic liberalization posed by the exigencies of India’s democratic system, and instead choose to support China as a relatively “sure bet.” They are the ones who would gladly overlook human-rights abuses or nuclear proliferation by China as long as market access and profit mechanisms remained intact.

As India continues to develop economically, it is likely that of all the four groups, the Hamiltonians will adopt policy attitudes most favourable to India. Along the way, however, there will be hiccups: India refusing to sign the Nuclear Liability Bill (thereby denying access to American energy corporations into the reactor-building market), or India choosing not to opt for an American-made MRCA, will be detrimental to the support we have among the Hamiltonians.

All Hamiltonians are realists for whom the bottom line is all about the money.
They see the maintenance of a running trade deficit with China as the best insurance against an inimical, confrontational US-PRC relationship in other spheres of competition. They figure that as long as China is invested in the economic well-being of the United States, its will to threaten the political interests of the United States will be limited.

Very few US presidents have been overt Hamiltonians, chiefly because being overtly associated with big business interests could be detrimental to the electoral success of a US presidential candidate. However, ALL US Presidents since Ronald Reagan have relied on the support of Hamiltonians to exercise their policy initiatives, and no president since Reagan has managed to enact a policy that was opposed by the Hamiltonians.

The most overtly Hamiltonian president so far might be George H.W. Bush, who actually ran the first Gulf War in such a way that America ended up making a profit! In recent years, meanwhile, some potential and actual Presidential candidates have been openly Hamiltonian, in background as well as in terms of their policy platforms. These include Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney and the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, who make no secret of their connection with US corporate interests.

2) Wilsonians are Ideological Expansionists. They seek to use the economic, political and military might of the United States to create a world where all nations look to the United States for ideological leadership. Their goal is to have all other nations willingly subject themselves to the geopolitical dominance of the United States in a global Pax Americana.

Wilsonians pretend to be “anti-imperialistic”, and conceal their intentions behind rhetoric of “democracy”, “American moral compass” and “multi-lateralism.” In this sense, the Wilsonians are the most hypocritical of all the four groups.

The Wilsonians favour democracy in other nations, only when such democracy is guaranteed to be dominated by essentially pro-American parties who will toe the American line when it comes to making policy. They are intolerant of democratic systems which could potentially be dominated by independent parties who put their own national interest ahead of America’s.

In this sense, Wilsonians are the most likely group to be anti-India. They are relatively happy with Manmohan Singh because of his willingness to accommodate American interests; but they are deeply distrustful of Indian babudom, and they are completely against nationalist Indian parties like the BJP.

In fact, even though they claim to stand for “democracy”, Wilsonians prefer dictatorships that can be successfully manipulated by America, to democratic countries that are independent enough to oppose America. The Wilsonian path to American global dominance involves “balance of power” games which essentially amount to divide-and-rule. The Wilsonians see America as the true legates of the British Empire, even though they would like to couch their subsidiary alliances in the guise of “independent democratic regimes” that only seek the leadership of America because America is morally superior.

One important thing to realize about the Wilsonians is that, since the end of the Cold War, they have actually split into two competing camps.

As long as the Cold War was in progress, Wilsonians were more or less united in seeing international Communism, specifically Soviet Communism, as the chief obstacle to ideological dominance of the world by the United States. Henry Kissinger could be described as the archetypal old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonian.

However, following the USSR’s collapse, there is disagreement among the two camps of Wilsonians as to what America’s priorities should be.

These two camps of Wilsonians can be broadly described as:

2A) The “Bush Wilsonians”, also commonly known as “Neoconservatives”, who gained prominence during the George W. Bush regime. They include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, as well as lower-profile figures such as Robert Blackwill. Think-tanks of the Bush-Wilsonian persuasion include the CATO institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Project for a New American Century.

The term “Neoconservative” is actually a misnomer for this group, because they are actually less conservative than the other camp. They sought to radically reconstruct the American foreign policy establishment’s view of the world following the end of the Cold War.

From the Bush-Wilsonian perspective, the demise of the Soviet Union was the start of a brand new era in which America had a unique opportunity as the sole superpower to shape the world for domination. Ideologically, the Bush-Wilsonians subscribe to the notion that America must be the unilateral forerunner of Western civilization, inspired by a Judeo-Christian (mainly Christian) perspective.

They deviate from the old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonians in no longer seeing Russia as the chief threat to the United States, and rejecting the idea that American dominance must be pursued multilaterally through such organizations as the UN.

The Bush-Wilsonians regard China as the major future threat to the United States, followed closely by international Islamism. They are fervent supporters of Israel, owing to a strongly Biblical ideology.

As a means to ensuring American global dominance, the Bush-Wilsonians have sought to reconstruct the geopolitical framework of alliances and strategic partnerships that prevailed during the Cold War. They have tried to rope in India into the American camp by offering such carrots as the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They have also strengthened America’s ties with former Soviet Bloc nations in Eastern Europe, bringing Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia into NATO.

On the other hand, the Bush-Wilsonians have downgraded the American reliance on allies in Continental Western Europe, which they dismissively describe as “Old Europe”, even as they have sought to shore up a few key alliances of the Cold-War Era such as with the UK, Australia, and Japan.

Similarly, they have made some moves towards engaging Russia as a potential strategic partner rather than a competitor, especially in light of the challenges Russia appeared to be facing from a resurgent China and from Islamist terrorism in the early 2000s.

However, their approach to Russia has been wary, and often contradictory, as seen in the American support for the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, American initiatives to station missiles in East European countries such as Poland, and American backing of such individuals as Georgia’s Shakashvili who were belligerently anti-Russian. In such cases, some of the old-school Cold-War-Era Wilsonian prejudices seemed to re-establish themselves with regard to Bush-Wilsonian foreign policy.

These contradictions also manifested themselves when, after invading Afghanistan, the Bush-Wilsonians decided to rely on Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban, with fatal consequences.

The highlight of the Bush-Wilsonians’ dominance over the US Foreign Policy Establishment was of course, the Iraq War… something which has ended up destroying their credibility for the present.

As far as India is concerned, the Bush-Wilsonians have made overtures to India that sharply contrasted with the dismissive attitude of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians. However, the growth of predatory Evangelical missionary activity as Washington’s influence increased in Delhi during the Bush administration, is a warning sign that not all was well with US-India relations during this period. Additionally, the Bush-Wilsonians have repeatedly insisted that India “prove” its sincerity towards Washington, by downgrading its relationship with Iran for example.

When and if the Bush-Wilsonians regain their influence in Washington, India should game them deftly… securing all the benefits we can from their willingness to abandon Cold-War Era policy, but remaining careful not to cede an undue level of influence that might prove to be detrimental to our national and civilizational interests.

2B) The second camp of Wilsonians that has emerged following the USSR’s demise are the “Clinton-Wilsonians.” They are actually more conservative than the Bush-Wilsonian “Neoconservatives”, in that their attitudes more closely reflect the classical Cold-War-Era Wilsonians’ worldview.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the closest group to what Sanjay M likes to call “Atlanticists”. They are deeply distrustful of Russia, and less averse to China; they are also strongly invested in the idea of revitalizing the trans-Atlantic alliances with Western Europe that America maintained during the Cold War. For the rest of the world, the Clinton-Wilsonians firmly trust in the British techniques of divide-et-impera, and in our region in particular, they are the modern torchbearers of Olaf Caroe’s geopolitical agenda. They are more likely than any of the other groups to entertain the idea that Jihadi Islamism can continue to be a coercive policy tool in America's hands.

(Aside: However, I don't believe that this necessarily has anything to do with the “East European ethnic background” of Clinton-Wilsonians. True, some high-profile members of this camp, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeline Albright, are of East European extraction. However, many others of this camp are not ethnic East Europeans, and besides, all the other policy groups in Walter Russell Meade’s spectrum also include a good number of ethnic East Europeans, which makes the correlation doubtful.)

Think-tanks of the Clinton-Wilsonian persuasion include the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Most of the Non-Proliferation types who bash India while ignoring Chinese/Paki proliferation, are Clinton-Wilsonians.

The Clinton-Wilsonians showed their eagerness to reshape the world in America’s favour following the end of the Cold War, most prominently in two instances. One was the war in Yugoslavia, which was deliberately split up into ethnic nationalities, providing additional levers of control that the West could easily manipulate. The second was the secession of East Timor from Indonesia.

In both of these cases, it should be noted that the Clinton-Wilsonians proceeded to fulfill their agenda under the cover of “international consensus”, using the UN to pull together “coalitions” of nations which supported the American initiative. This modus operandi is a key point of differentiation between Clinton-Wilsonians from Bush-Wilsonians, who have been much more prone to reject the authority of multilateral bodies like the UN and carry out unilateral actions such as the Iraq war.

As far as India is concerned, the Clinton-Wilsonians (who include such functionaries as Strobe Talbott, Richard Holbrooke and Robin Raphel) are an inflexible, implacable enemy. This is the single worst group that could come to dominate US foreign policy, from our point of view. They continue the most anti-India traditions of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians, supporting Pakistan to the maximum extent possible and winking at Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, even while they bash India for developing its own nuclear arsenal. They refuse to see India as a potential strategic counter to China, and prefer to cultivate China in a “G2” model of cooperative partnership for the short-to-medium term.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the group who most fervently support Pakistan as a counter to India’s regional dominance, as described in George Friedman’s Stratfor article. They are the most likely group to retain the India-Pakistan hyphen wherever possible, bombard India with equal-equal psyops, and overtly rake up the Kashmir issue as a pressure point against India. They seek to restrict Indian influence to a sub-dominant level even within the “South Asian” region. This is in sharp contrast to the Bush-Wilsonians who made some attempt to dehyphenate India and Pakistan, with a view to bolstering India as strategic rival against China.

I do not see how the Clinton-Wilsonians can be won over… when they are in charge of US foreign policy, it makes more sense for India to engage with other powerful interest groups such as the Hamiltonians so as the modulate the virulence of the Clinton-Wilsonians’ initiatives against India.

Speaking of Wilsonians in general, Lyndon Johnson (who began the Vietnam war) was a classic Wilsonian president, as was his successor Richard Nixon (who reached out to China via Pakistan to form an alliance against the Soviet Union). This is an illustration of how the policy groups of Meade’s spectrum can often cut across Republican/Democrat party lines.

More recently, Bill Clinton has been a Wilsonian president who was, however, always careful to secure the backing of the Hamiltonians (whose power greatly increased during the Reagan years.)

It should be noted that there are many in the US Foreign Policy Establishment who do not fully commit to either the Bush-Wilsonian or Clinton-Wilsonian camps. Robert Gates is one such. Other examples include academics like Stephen Cohen and Christine Fair, who pretend to an independent "maverick" image but in reality always make statements that are in line with the Wilsonian flavour-of-the-month in Washington.

3) The Jeffersonians, compared to the Hamiltonians or Wilsonians, are decidedly inward-looking. They believe in a largely non-interventionist foreign policy, and in concentrating resources on domestic reforms.

Of the four groups of Meade’s spectrum, the Jeffersonians are most inclined to oppose the rise of the “military-industrial complex”… something that Eisenhower famously warned against as he was leaving office, and which is an important source of political influence for both Hamiltonians and Wilsonians.

As I mentioned earlier, many common Americans are either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their outlook. If you talk to an American about the India-Pakistan situation and he says something like “sort it out yourselves, it’s none of our business”… that American is most likely a Jeffersonian.

The typical Jeffersonian is to the “left” of the American political spectrum, upholding traditional “liberal” ideas such as increased Federal Government involvement in social and economic development, upliftment of underprivileged sections, civil rights, environmental conservationism, regulation of corporations, global initiatives against poverty/disease/global warming and so on. Such politicians as Dennis Kucinich are at the extreme left of this group.

However, not all Jeffersonians are leftist. Libertarian Isolationists such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, who believe in a Fortress America model where the US military is exclusively employed to guard America’s borders and enforce illegal immigration laws, also purvey an essentially Jeffersonian foreign policy.

As such, the Jeffersonian attitude towards India tends to be neutral… but this is largely irrelevant. That is because Jeffersonian Presidents tend to hand over control of foreign policy to Wilsonians. Jimmy Carter relied on Cold-War-Era Brzezinski, and Barack Obama relies on Clinton-Wilsonians such as Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke and co. with Brzezinski still present as a mentor-figure. The advantage India has today is that it has cultivated a constituency with the Hamiltonians, who are much more powerful at present than they were during the Carter regime. With the Bush-Wilsonians largely in disgrace, the Hamiltonians are our primary channel of influencing American foreign policy in a positive manner at present.

4) The Jacksonians are also, primarily, inward-looking, though they differ dramatically from the Jeffersonians in terms of their domestic policy agenda. While the Jeffersonians tend to be idealists, the Jacksonians are fervent populists. In the tradition of Andrew Jackson, they stand for increased power of the executive branch (the President) relative to the legislature or judiciary; limited federal government role in the affairs of the country; the “patronage” policy of actively placing political supporters into appointed offices; expanded states’ rights; and decentralization.

Also in the tradition of Andrew Jackson, who pledged to expand the United States “from sea to shining sea”, the Jacksonians believe in America’s Manifest Destiny as the natural leader of the world and in securing America’s influence overseas by any means necessary… not shying away from unilateral military action whenever required.

Some articles on Meade’s spectrum describe Jacksonians as the only group that believes in American Exceptionalism. From an Indian point of view, this is not strictly true… ALL the four groups believe in American Exceptionalism… but the Jacksonians are the ones who most prominently wear it on their sleeves.

Jacksonians tend to be issue-based in their politics, rallying around anti-abortion movements, restriction of gay rights, defence of second-amendment gun rights, unapologetic Christian influence in schools and government institutions etc.

Jacksonians, unlike Jeffersonians, do not make “non-intervention” a cornerstone of their foreign policy views; they are quite happy to intervene in a muscular fashion whenever they deem it necessary to do so. However, their perspective is largely focused on internal priorities, so again, Jacksonian Presidents of the United States have traditionally handed over control of foreign policy to other groups. Reagan depended on Hamiltonians like James Baker and Cold-War-Era Wilsonians such as Alexander Haig. George W. Bush also depended on Hamiltonians, but ceded a large amount of policy space to the new Bush-Wilsonians or Neoconservatives of his day.


***

In conclusion, is not easy to identify any one of these groups as the “best” from India’s point of view.

Also, it is important to realize that no one group typically has complete dominance over a particular US administration’s foreign policy. The actual policy is often a vector sum of competing influences brought together by political expediency and self-interest.

For example, Clinton’s initiatives were planned by Clinton-Wilsonians but strongly modified to accommodate Hamiltonian interests (which became extremely powerful during the Reagan years.)

Bush’s Iraq War was a Bush-Wilsonian policy initiative to bring an American-controlled “democratic” regime change to Iraq. But to enact it, the Bush administration relied on support from both Hamiltonians (interest in the oil fields of Iraq) and Jacksonians (strong popular opposition to Islamism following 9/11.)

Obama is a Jeffersonian who is torn between his Jeffersonian electoral base, which favours a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Clinton-Wilsonian foreign policy establishment, which pursues a flawed policy based on alliance with Pakistan and negotiations with “good” Taliban.

It seems clear that the Clinton-Wilsonians are the most implacable foes of India among all these groups.

Others, particularly Bush-Wilsonians and Hamiltonians, can be engaged on some specific points of convergent interest, but must be handled carefully because other aspects of their agendas are inimical to Indian interest.

Ultimately, a Jacksonian President is perhaps most likely to nuke Pakistan or take a confrontationalist posture towards China… but depending on various factors, the specific circumstances and consequences may or may not be in India’s interest.. We will have to be quick on our feet to translate any advantage out of such situations.

And finally, if India ever rises beyond the confines of the region to the beginnings of global superpowerdom… probably our best bet is for the United States to follow a Jeffersonian line of limited intervention, leaving a power vacuum that we can endeavour to fill.

To close, let me propose (tongue in cheek)… the Indian equivalents of the W.R. Meade spectrum.

Hamiltonian—Narasimhavadi (for PVNR)
Wilsonian—Indiravadi
Jeffersonian—Jawaharlalvadi
Jacksonian—Thackerayvadi!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 03 Nov 2011 22:09

This would be lost in the other threads:

Nightwatch: 2 Nov 2011

Pakistan: A local news service reported today that the Pakistan Army is planning measures to restrict Haqqani network movement along the Afghan border as part of an understanding reached with the United States, at least two senior security officials said.

Pakistan will do its part while coalition forces stop infiltration from across the border, a Pakistani military official said. The military will restrict all militant group movements as well as deny them space within Pakistan's borders.

Comment: What is striking is the contrast between US news reporting about the visit by a high-level US delegation and Pakistani reporting. The US media presented Secretary Clinton's visit as a thrashing, but the Pakistanis treated it as a negotiation.

The US media got swindled again. There is no breakthrough. The US asked for help with the withdrawal and the Pakistanis promised to do what they could to facilitate it. That is the significance of today's report and the Clinton delegation visit.


Kind of supports Shiv's arguments about US. Now why did they paint a different version to the fress press? Was it the Admin H&D at stake here? Was it important to US to appear to be tough in public on TSP and grovel in private?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2537
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby darshhan » 03 Nov 2011 22:47

Rudradev ji , Once again a very astute analysis from you.However I would like to make a minor correction.Jeffersonians cannot be identified as leftists.A true jeffersonian is a libertarian.You probably meant to say that they are not socially conservative and I agree with you.Also the American perception of right and left is different then that of Europe and other parts of the world.In American perception those on right wing believe in a limited government among other things and those on left believe in expanded governement.

Also by this definition America hasn't had a real right wing govt since FDR.Even the so called republican presidents veer towards the left.US Government has been continuously expanding since then.

Seriously man , it is an affront to call a jeffersonian as a leftist.Just because both are socially liberal doesn't make them same.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Rudradev » 04 Nov 2011 10:35

Darshhan ji, you appear to have missed this:

The typical Jeffersonian is to the “left” of the American political spectrum, upholding traditional “liberal” ideas such as increased Federal Government involvement in social and economic development, upliftment of underprivileged sections, civil rights, environmental conservationism, regulation of corporations, global initiatives against poverty/disease/global warming and so on. Such politicians as Dennis Kucinich are at the extreme left of this group.

However, not all Jeffersonians are leftist. Libertarian Isolationists such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, who believe in a Fortress America model where the US military is exclusively employed to guard America’s borders and enforce illegal immigration laws, also purvey an essentially Jeffersonian foreign policy.


Not all Jeffersonians are Libertarian, and many are definitely to the left of the American political spectrum (the key word being American political spectrum, as distinct from European or elsewhere in the world.) Jimmy Carter was for the most part Jeffersonian, and to a very large extent Barack Obama espoused a Jeffersonian outlook when he ran for president. Both of these presidents were certainly to the left of the American political spectrum.

"Leftist" and "Rightist" are meaningless terms unless used in context of a specific polity.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20491
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2011 12:56

If you want to understand the US-as it is today,check into this site where the entire history of US leadership during the last century is exposed for what it really is.A warped view of extreme "Christianity",that has now sprad its tentacles into India and is seen in the Koodankulam protests,the links of the Bush family with the Nazis (read Craig Unger's books for the Bush family's links with the Saudis too) and the undercurrents which have had their disastrous effect upon world history.The same forces are engaged today at the samne game,.US dominance of the world-at any cost,usually at the cost of the poorer and weaker nations as we are seeing in the Middle East today,where Iran and Syria are the next targets.

This is a long paper,and must be rad in full for a complete "understanding of the US".Some of the truths will shock even the knowledgable.I've quoted just a few excerpts.It also exposes why the Norwegians have such a vital role to play in world affairs as "peacemakers",being a deliberate "catspaw" of Uncle Sam and his cohorts.

http://insider-magazine.org/ChristianMafia.htm

EXPOSÉ: THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA
Where Those Who Now Run the U.S. Government Came From and Where They Are Taking Us
By Wayne Madsen


After several months of in-depth research and, at first, seemingly unrelated conversations with former high-level intelligence officials, lawyers, politicians, religious figures, other investigative journalists, and researchers, I can now report on a criminal conspiracy so vast and monstrous it defies imagination. Using “Christian” groups as tax-exempt and cleverly camouflaged covers, wealthy right-wing businessmen and “clergy” have now assumed firm control over the biggest prize of all – the government of the United States of America. First, some housekeeping is in order. My use of the term “Christian” is merely to clearly identify the criminal conspirators who have chosen to misuse their self-avowed devotion to Jesus Christ to advance a very un-Christian agenda. The term “Christian Mafia” is what several Washington politicians have termed the major conspirators and it is not intended to debase Christians or infer that they are criminals . I will also use the term Nazi – not for shock value – but to properly tag the political affiliations of the early founders of the so-called “Christian” power cult called the Fellowship. The most important element of this story is that a destructive religious movement has now achieved almost total control over the machinery of government of the United States – its executive, its legislature, several state governments, and soon, the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

The United States has experienced religious and cult hucksters throughout its history, from Cotton Mather and his Salem witch burners to Billy Sunday, Father Charles Coughlin, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, and others. But none have ever achieved the kind of power now possessed by a powerful and secretive group of conservative politicians and wealthy businessmen in the United States and abroad who are known among their adherents and friends as The Fellowship or The Family. The Fellowship and its predecessor organizations have used Jesus in the same way that McDonald’s uses golden arches and Coca Cola uses its stylized script lettering. Jesus is a logo and a slogan for the Fellowship. Jesus is used to justify the Fellowship’s access to the highest levels of government and business in the same way Santa Claus entices children into department stores and malls during the Christmas shopping season.

When the Founders of our nation constitutionally separated Church and State, the idea of the Fellowship taking over the government would have been their worst nightmare. The Fellowship has been around under various names since 1935. Its stealth existence has been perpetuated by its organization into small cells, a pyramid organization of “correspondents,” “associates,” “friends,” “members,” and “core members,” tax-exempt status for its foundations, and its protection by the highest echelons of the our own government and those abroad.



The Roots of the Fellowship

The roots of the Fellowship go back to the 1930s and a Norwegian immigrant and Methodist minister named Abraham Vereide. According to Fellowship archives maintained at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, Vereide, who immigrated from Norway in 1905, began an outreach ministry in Seattle in April 1935. But his religious outreach involved nothing more than pushing for an anti-Communist, anti-union, anti-Socialist, and pro-Nazi German political agenda. A loose organization and secrecy were paramount for Vereide. Fellowship archives state that Vereide wanted his movement to “carry out its objective through personal, trusting, informal, unpublicized contact between people.” Vereide’s establishment of his Prayer Breakfast Movement for anti-Socialist and anti-International Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”) Seattle businessmen in 1935 coincided with the establishment of another pro-Nazi German organization in the United States, the German-American Bund. Vereide saw his prayer movement replacing labor unions.

A student of the un-Christian German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, Vereide’s thoughts about a unitary religion based on an unyielding subservience to a composite notion of “Jesus” put him into the same category as many of the German nationalist philosophers who were favored by Hitler and the Nazis. Nietzsche wrote the following of Christianity: “When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God’s son? The proof of such a claim is lacking.”

One philosophical fellow traveler of Vereide was the German Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger, a colleague of Leo Strauss, the father of American neo-conservatism and the mentor of such present-day American neo-conservatives as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Strauss’s close association with Heidegger and the Nazi idea of telling the big lie in order to justify the end goals – Machiavellianism on steroids -- did not help Strauss in Nazi Germany. Because he was Jewish, he was forced to emigrate to the United States, where he eventually began teaching neo-conservative political science at the University of Chicago. It is this confluence of right-wing philosophies that provides a political bridge between modern-day Christian Rightists (including so-called Christian Zionists) and the secular-oriented neo-conservatives who support a policy that sees a U.S.-Israeli alliance against Islam and European-oriented democratic socialism. For the dominion theologists, the United States is the new Israel, with a God-given mandate to establish dominion over the entire planet. Neither the secular neo-conservatives nor Christian fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the idea of American domination of the planet, as witnessed by the presence of representatives of both camps as supporters of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative blueprint for America’s attack on Iraq and plans to attack, occupy, and dominate other countries that oppose U.S. designs.

What bound all so-called “America First” movements prior to World War II was their common hatred for labor unions, Communists and Socialists, Jews, and most definitely, the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Vereide’s Prayer Breakfast Movement, pro-Nazi German groups like the Bund, and a resurgent Ku Klux Klan had more than propaganda in common – they had an interlocking leadership and a coordinated political agenda.
\
Not only was Vereide pro-Hitler, he was the only Norwegian of note, who was not officially a Nazi, who never condemned Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling, a man whose name has become synonymous with traitor and who was executed in 1945. Vereide and Quisling were almost the same age, Vereide was born in 1886, Quisling in 1887. They both shared a link with the clergy, Vereide was a Methodist minister and Quisling was the son of a Lutheran minister. The Norwegian link to the Fellowship continues to this day but more on that later.

Another pro-Nazi Christian fundamentalist group that arose in the pre-Second World War years was the Moral Rearmament Movement. Its leader was Frank Buchman, a Lutheran minister from Philadelphia. Buchman was a pacifist, but not just any pacifist. He and his colleagues in the United States, Britain, Norway, and South Africa reasoned that war could be avoided if the world would just accept the rise of Hitler and National Socialism and concentrate on stamping out Communism and Socialism. Buchman coordinated his activities with Vereide and his Prayer Breakfast Movement, which, by 1940, had spread its anti-left manifesto and agenda throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Buchman was effusive in his praise for Hitler. He was quoted by William A. H. Birnie of the New York World Telegram, “I thank Heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism.”[1] Buchman also secretly met with Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Gestapo and controller of the concentration camps. Buchman was at Himmler’s side at the 1935 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg and again at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The predecessor of Buchman’s Moral Rearmament Group, the Oxford Group, included Moslems, Buddhists, and Hindus. Buchman and Hitler both saw the creation of a one-world religion based largely on Teutonic, Aryan, and other pagan traditions mixed with elements of Christianity. Buchman saw Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism as being compatible with his brand of Christianity. Hitler, too, had an affectation for Islam and Buddhism as witnessed by his support for the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the anti-British Muslim Brotherhood, and Tibetan Buddhists.[2] But Buchman had no sympathy for the Jews who Hitler was persecuting. Buchman told Birnie, “Of course, I don’t condone everything the Nazis do. Anti-Semitism? Bad, naturally. I suppose Hitler sees a Karl Marx in every Jew.”

Such global ecumenicalism is a founding principle for today’s Fellowship. With total devotion to Jesus and not necessarily His principles at its core, the Fellowship continues to reach out to Moslems (including Saudi extreme Wahhabi sect members), Buddhists, and Hindus. Its purpose has little to do with religion but everything to do with political and economic influence peddling and the reconstruction of the world in preparation for a thousand year Christian global dominion. Post-millenialist Fellowship members believe that Jesus will not return until there is a 1000-year pure Christian government established on Earth. It is this mindset that has infused the foreign policy of George W. Bush and his administration. The desire for a thousand year political dominion of the world is not new. Hitler planned for a “Thousand Year Reich” over the planet. It is not a coincidence that Hitler desired and the so-called Christian dominionists/reconstructionists now contemplate a thousand year reign. The Christian dominionists are the political heirs of Hitler, the Norwegians Vereide and Quisling, Buchman, Opus Dei founder and fascist patron saint Josemaria Escriva and their political and religious cohorts.

The Nixon tapes reveal that in 1972, Nixon, Graham, and H.R. Haldeman had a conversation in the Oval Office in which the Jews were targets:

Graham: “This [Jewish] stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.”

Nixon: “You believe that?”

Graham: “Yes, sir.”

Nixon: “Oh, boy.” So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

Graham: “No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something.”

--Graham: “By the way, Hedley Donovan has invited me to have lunch with [the Time Magazine] editors.”

Haldeman: “You better take your Jewish beanie.”

Graham: “Is that right? I don’t know any of them now . . .A lot of Jews are great friends of mine . . .They swarm around me and are friendly with me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country.”

Nixon: “You must not let them know.”

The tapes reveal the inconsistencies of the Fellowship. On one hand, their Nazi and Fascist past and tendencies make it seem unlikely that they would be supportive of Israel. Yet, support for Israel is not only something advocated by Graham but also by the shock troops for today’s fundamentalist movement, the so-called “Christian Zionist” wing of the Fellowship.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: US strike options on TSP

Postby ramana » 04 Nov 2011 20:35

ramana wrote: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.



Philip to expand on the concentric circles idea:

Inner to outer

Political prespective: WH, Congress, Business, Media, rest of civil society

Society prespective:EJ, Church going whites, non church going whites, liberals, church going minorities, blacks, hispanics, far left, others

Successful leaders are those who get core support. Others fail.

Movements that could hurt the core will get trasformed eg; Xtian Yoga and the idea came from South and not the Liberal NE.

So on and so forth.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 04 Nov 2011 23:09

Rudradev,

If the analysis is original it is exceptional although one may disagree with the Indian equivalents.

Should be archived or put up somewhere for reference purposes, otherwise a gem will be lost.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby devesh » 05 Nov 2011 00:20

the categories and explanation from RD's post is based on Walter Russell Mead's work. RD has refined and added an Indian flavor to it. the categories definitely do give a unique understanding of American polity.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6435
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Supratik » 05 Nov 2011 01:14

Even if it is Mead's work, it gives us a critical perspective on American polity and its consequences viz a viz India.
Should be preserved somewhere.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Virupaksha » 05 Nov 2011 05:31

X-post
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defi ... icle/98706
Musharraf, a classic “man on horseback” who came to power in a military coup,

In the article by Rice, the above statement gives me an piskological insight.

US is looking at the Pak problem with its own version of history. It is looking at Pak as the wild west. It is understanding the Pak Kabila as the variation of the wild west.

taliban = mexican gangs/native american Indians

I might have to read through the 1800s history of US to understand these.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 05 Nov 2011 07:33

Not really. Its one of the four men of the apocalypse. A bad guy who took power in a military coup.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby shiv » 05 Nov 2011 08:27

Supratik wrote:Rudradev,

If the analysis is original it is exceptional although one may disagree with the Indian equivalents.

Should be archived or put up somewhere for reference purposes, otherwise a gem will be lost.

^
+1

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Pranav » 05 Nov 2011 08:38

Philip wrote:http://insider-magazine.org/ChristianMafia.htm

EXPOSÉ: THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA


American political Christianity is of the "Christian Zionism" variety (which is also increasingly true of all flavours of Christianity around the world).

As regards Zionism, it can be said that there are two aspects - "lesser Zionism" relating to the state of Israel, and "greater Zionism" relating to global neo-colonization. These strands are of course inter-related - here is Ben Gurion talking about his vision in 1962 -

"Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, ail other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.

"In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.
"

http://archive.jta.org/article/1962/01/ ... viet-union


America should primarily be understood as a nation controlled by pro-Zionist elites.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 07 Nov 2011 01:18

The following report may be about a sport, but it does nuff to pisk amrikan society. So hopefully no own goals in the process.
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/art ... ?hpt=hp_t2

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 07 Nov 2011 02:03

Acharya wrote:
arun wrote:X posted from the India-US Strategic News and Discussions thread.

Josy Joseph writing in TOI reveals that declassified Indian documents shown that US hostility to India during the 1971 war with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was more intense than previously disclosed:

US forces had orders to target Indian Army in 1971


Need to understand this more and discuss this more.
Pakistan behavior is monitored and also its foreign policy is under the scanner of US policymakers and US military establishment(Ayub Khan). That is one of the reason the Pak ruling elite turns to its military very often.

The wars waged by Pakistan (atleast 65 , possible 48, likely 99) was war gamed by US military and they do some scenario planning.

If the Pakistan behavior goes out of hand or they overstretch and fumble during war , the US establishment will take the risk to protect them by attacking India or reducing the war making abilities of India (spare shortage)

Karl Indufurth State dept official even made a statement to the effect in 2001 that US will back Pakistan during a war with India.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_poin ... 511473.stm

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3046
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby vera_k » 09 Nov 2011 22:19

deleted on request
Last edited by vera_k on 10 Nov 2011 10:16, edited 1 time in total.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby devesh » 09 Nov 2011 23:11

vera_k: I'll control my urge to lambast you. but seriously, there is no equivalent. you are adding a layer of "support" to all and sundry western designs on India when you put up the above comparison. please do reconsider.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 09 Nov 2011 23:16

VeraK, Please edit your post. Its totally over the top and non sequitor. it force fits US issues on to India. Totally MUTU.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding the US-2

Postby ramana » 20 Nov 2011 03:43

2009 data

Percentage of population by religion in US

Catholics 25.1%
Baptists 15.8%
Without religion 15%


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Krita, sanjayc and 89 guests