No, you've misunderstood ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
It gives me great insight that the US does not know what it does and is staffed with near incompetent, ponderous people at the helm of affairs, if I have understood correctly.
While that is of course sometimes true, issue dependent, most often we know in three or four variations what should be done. Any one choice of a course of action would likely be quite successful. The problem arises when our political milieu which strives for compromise interjects itself and we end up picking feature of two or more of those COA and the combination, as is always true of compromise, will not be as good as any single would have been. When confronted with real -- and serious -- emergencies we can and do act decisively but under ordinary circumstance, i.e 98% or more of the time in our view, we tend to putter a bit. It's a design feature and, as I said, has worked fairly well in the past -- I (and others) are not sure it's going to be adequate for the future due to changes in the speed and ease of communication and travel.
Quote:
It does leave me uncomfortable.
It leaves most of the world uncomfortable because what we do or do not do and how those things occur can have far reaching impacts.
Quote:
Though I will confess that it was not the impression I got when I interacted with the US military personnel...I thought they knew their job and missions.
They did and do but they inhabit a closed circuit, demanding heirarchial society within the broader far more open and less 'disciplined' (for lack of a better word) American society, the one in which the government operates. *
Quote:
But then since so many of you feel that the US policies are a huge sham and rudderless, so be it!
No one has said that, there is no sham (other than that practiced by politicians in every nation or that done deliberately by us to divert or disrupt...) and not rudderless, just with several steersmen.
Remember, that 'several steersman' bit is by design. Unlike Parliamentary democracies where the majority party(ies) ARE the government, here the parties most frequently split governance with all that implies. Many of us regret that check and balance thing intrudes on other nations but internally, we wouldn't change it. :cool:
As an aside, those aforementioned military folks { * ) really, really get frutrated with that competing steersmen bit -- not least due to the adverse impacts on organization and force structure, not to mention missions...:rolleyes:
Quote:
Maybe it is better for many nations in the world to change boats, while the going is still good!
I've been hearing that since 1947 when I was old enough to start paying attention. As I moved about the world in uniform and out over the next 50 years, I heard it again and again. Often from the same nations for a second or third time. I've heard that several times from Indians and IIRC the first time I heard something along that line from an Indian military person was from Major-General Indar Jit Rikhye in 1965 who was quite scathing about the US in general and its conduct in the Congo and Dominican Republic (both places he and I bumped into each other) in particular.
Of course, he later retired -- to the US -- and lived here until his death in 2007... ;)
What surprises me is your conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
But what surprises me is the contention that policies of the Govt, Congressional Hearings, commentaries, news reports are to be taken as bogus, fantasies, and fables and hence cannot be relied upon.
As be skeptical and wary is really quite far from "bogus, fantasies, and fables" your conclusion is a bit surprising. Though I'll grant Dayuhan and I did both mention fables -- they are in fact out there...
Evil American intent as opposed to normal minor American fumbles being a prevalent example. :D
Quote:
And then comes the hedging when it becomes sticky!
Hedging or trying to erase misperceptions from perhaps not well stated positions? IMO you have elected to take the dimmest possible view suiting your purpose of what's been said and tried to use those perceptions in the face of amplification which then becomes 'hedging' -- I do not think it is hedging anymore than I think your stated take on the issues is hedging.
This is an imperfect medium, a lot of nuance is missed.
Quote:
If that is so, what can be relied upon so that we have a bottom line for discussion.[/B]
Meanderings of the self acclaimed KNOWALLS?
Can't speak for others but I make no claim to be a know all. I know some things and can make an informed guess on others. On still many more others, I have no clue. I have no problem stating what I know, what I guess and acknowledging what I don't know. I am however open to learning new things and to modifying my position in the face of new information. ;)
"Predictions are hard, especially about the future..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
Democratic views are wrong or chaotic.
Not necessarily wrong but, if essentially a democratic nation, the views will be divergent, sometimes strikingly so.
A Parliamentary system of government accepts divergent views but the the government of the day will decide on a course of action and generally implement that. In the US with our three arm Republican governmental system, The Legislative branch will not reliably support the government of the day. That is particularly true if those branches are of different parties but it can even occur if both are of the same party. The third branch, the Judiciary will not reliably support either of the other two branches and can effectively overrule one or both.
Thus one can be confronted with the Administration or the Congress announcing a policy which is then disavowed by the Congress or Administration. The Admin can implement a foreign policy and Congress can refuse to fund it. Congress can pass a law that says 'X' and the Administration can just not implement or enforce it. An Agency may be directed by the Admin to do 'Y' and drag its feet, waiting for a new Administration. ANY US citizen can take the issue to Court and, if given a bit of success can stall things for years. All democracy is, as you say, chaotic -- we are particularly so and usually slow to decide (when not rushed into knee jerk reactions...:rolleyes: ).
Quote:
Could you explain the Chinese moves in CAR, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, South China Sea, Afghanistan, even Xinjianng and Tibet (there is no dispute that it is a part of China) , changing the course of water in the Mekong and Brahmaputra and relate it to its 'Peaceful Rise'?
Dichotomy? That would be my explanation based on what I know at this time. Those moves may at this time be viewed as a sort of "Peaceful Rise" but they emphatically do not telegraph that as an ultimate goal...
I'm unsure how to answer this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ray
If I can have your indulgence in knowing the facts that bring you to that conclusion since that is what I seek to know.
The 'facts' that I know are that China is large and has internal problems. Those facts are gained through open source material and your source are probably more varied then mine. The possibly factual things of which I'm aware are accounts which, in total, suggest all the things you cite and more as indicators that the Chinese are doggedly and aggressively pursuing both resource and a degree of economic investment and return if not hegemony worldwide to include in both Americas. Again, that's all open source and in sum appears reasonably factual but I certainly have not traveled enough lately to say much is indeed fact..
Long observation has led me to believe that a series of events tend to aim toward a logical culmination. The logical culminating event here would seem to be sole superpower. *
So I have no collection of facts, merely a series of reasonably plausible indicators and, as the Intel Wallas say, "Indications lead me to believe..."
* That may be the aim, may not be. If it is, even my limited math skills are adequate to say both your nation and mine can jointly or separately deter that should we wish -- and I do not mean militarily -- and I know (As I'm old...) that unforeseen things can intrude on the best of plans... ;)