Page 14 of 41 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 807

Thread: China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

  1. #261
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    "I realize that it has been difficult, at times, for you to back us up in the Formosa question and, for this reason, I want to give you a very brief account of our general attitude toward the various factors that have dictated the course we have taken. You understand, of course, that we have certain groups that are violent in their efforts to get us to take a much stronger, even a truculent position." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, Feb 1955.
    One nagging hindrance to the Administration's Far Eastern policy is the impression, widespread among the free world's leaders and opinion-shapers, that Nationalist China's Chiang Kai-shek is fanatically bent on invading the mainland at whatever cost, even nuclear world war. In an effort to correct that impression, Dulles got from Chiang a formal declaration renouncing force as the "principal means" of liberating the mainland Chinese. - Time, Nov 1958.
    I think there may be enough evidence here to make a case that Eisenhower was a communist sympathiser and John Foster Dulles was in reality a 'peace' hog swilling at the trough of appeasement. I could be wrong, however.

  2. #262
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Even erstwhile enemies, who should have never approached the US, are approaching the US. It would not have been possible if there were no favourable diplomatic exchanges.
    Why shouldn't "erstwhile enemies" approach each other? The US has quite congenial relations with a number of erstwhile enemies, and has been getting on reasonably well with the Vietnamese for some time. Nothing very odd or unusual about it.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  3. #263
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    China is a very careful country. It will not back down, but will use the prevailing parameters to calm the situation without 'losing face', and then will seek opportunities when it is in a position to seize the initiative.
    Ray, long-term, how would you imagine the best-case scenario for the China question?

    ***


    'One China idea' up for discussion: Ma

    MUTUAL NON-DENIAL:The DPP said the ‘one China, two governments’ proposal ran counter to Ma’s 2008 pledge that he would not ‘discuss unification’ within his term (By Mo Yan-chih and Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporters)

    The latest proposal that Taiwan and China function as separate governments within a “one China” framework could be up for discussion, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, sparking concern within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) about political negotiations across the Taiwan Strait.
    'One China' idea up for discussion: Ma - Taipei Times - June 25, 2011.

    ***

    ‘One China, two governments’ rejected

    AGREEING TO DISAGREE: DPP lawmakers said the Ma administration’s support for the ‘one China’ principle had opened the door to new interpretations of ‘one China’ (By Vincent Y. Chao / Staff Reporter)

    A new proposal to bring Taiwan and China together as a single country, but with separate central governments, has failed to gain much traction with lawmakers.
    Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators opposed the idea published by a Chinese academic with the US-based Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank, earlier this month.
    'One China, two governments' rejected - Taipei Times - June 24, 2011.
    Last edited by Backwards Observer; 06-24-2011 at 06:07 PM. Reason: add link

  4. #264
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    No there isn't an immediate threat. However, it is prudent to discuss threats that may appear in the future. How many angels on the head of a pin is idleness, discussing what the PRC is up to ref Taiwan, is prudent.
    Carl, you have been a lone voice insisting that the US should not cut Taiwan loose. I respect you for that. But, even Americans sometimes forget that they come out of a culture where everything (and I mean everything) is negotiable (that leaves you and the handful who believe in what you believe with regard to Taiwan to be in a pitiful minority). The most honest act the US can take in relation to Taiwan is to tell them that they should (starting right now) not rely on support from the US and negotiate the best solution with China that they can (while they can).

    It may not happen in my lifetime but I predict with certainty that what we see with Taiwan will eventually play out with Hawaii where mainland Americans begin to question whether to risk conflict with China is worth the defence of Hawaii. (May sound ridiculous today but book mark this and in 20-25 years lets talk again). Everything is negotiable...
    Last edited by JMA; 06-24-2011 at 07:55 PM.

  5. #265
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Dayuhan,

    Interesting to note from your comments the precipitate change in the US policy outlook since the time of John Foster Dulles, nay, closer to time, George W Bush!!

    If the US and its Secretaries of the Administration and Congressmen, including Chairmen of House Committees are so flippant and merely thrive on bluff and bluster, then maybe JMA is right, US will soon abdicate its sovereignty over Hawaii, just to buy peace!

    Peace at all costs takes a new meaning!

    Surprisingly, peace at all costs appears to be a one way street as per your postulations and heavily loaded against the US, who alone is pursuing the peace at all cost street.

    China, by her actions, does not appear to be following the same benign thought.

    Maybe I have not understood the current US Foreign Policy that you seem to be propounding.

    If I have not understood incorrectly it appears that keynote to the current US Foreign Policy is to compromise and back down on principles just to ensure peace and at the same time befool the allies with worthless treaties and intermittent salves of hot air.

    Maybe it is John Foster Dulles and George Bush who I imagine as the stereotypes when I think of US Foreign Policy.

    I thought Govts change but not national interests.

    I also am confused as to what is 'nominally Communist'? Something like 'nominally a democracy' like Pakistan was when Musharraf, the military dictator was in power to remove the 'sham democracy'?
    Last edited by Ray; 06-25-2011 at 05:13 AM.

  6. #266
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default As a casual note to members from other nations...

    Don't pay much attention to the conflicting ramblings from the mouths of
    Congress persons or the US media -- no one from the US does because they are more often meaningless than not.

    National interests do change and not only with changing US Administrations but with modifications to the behaviors and intents of others. However, the US has two consistent aims or policies and has had and lived by them for over 220 years:

    We hew to freedom of the seas and commerce; and we do not tolerate serious threats -- minor annoyances we live with. It's also advisable to recall that almost all our wars have been caused by someone thinking the Americans were too soft and self absorbed to actually do anything or fight...

  7. #267
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Carl, you have been a lone voice insisting that the US should not cut Taiwan loose. I respect you for that. But, even Americans sometimes forget that they come out of a culture where everything (and I mean everything) is negotiable (that leaves you and the handful who believe in what you believe with regard to Taiwan to be in a pitiful minority). The most honest act the US can take in relation to Taiwan is to tell them that they should (starting right now) not rely on support from the US and negotiate the best solution with China that they can (while they can).

    It may not happen in my lifetime but I predict with certainty that what we see with Taiwan will eventually play out with Hawaii where mainland Americans begin to question whether to risk conflict with China is worth the defence of Hawaii. (May sound ridiculous today but book mark this and in 20-25 years lets talk again). Everything is negotiable...
    If the American culture and all it stands for is negotiable (everything, that is), then would it be correct to surmise that it is not based on principle, morality or resolve? Everything is up for the grabs?

    I wonder if such a culture could have made the US as powerful as it is today.

    I find it rather odd that the US would for the fear of a conflict with China, hand over Hawaii to the Chinese 25 years hence.

    Would Alaska go the same way to avoid risk of a conflict with Russia?

    Why forget the French and the Spanish. They might be embolden to ask for the return of their territories.

    Too imaginative, I would say.

    I am surprised that Iraq and Afghanistan could break the will of a nation as powerful as the US!

  8. #268
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Don't pay much attention to the conflicting ramblings from the mouths of
    Congress persons or the US media -- no one from the US does because they are more often meaningless than not.

    National interests do change and not only with changing US Administrations but with modifications to the behaviors and intents of others. However, the US has two consistent aims or policies and has had and lived by them for over 220 years:

    We hew to freedom of the seas and commerce; and we do not tolerate serious threats -- minor annoyances we live with. It's also advisable to recall that almost all our wars have been caused by someone thinking the Americans were too soft and self absorbed to actually do anything or fight...
    And how do you feel about risk of conflict with China causing US to hand over Hawaii to China or equivocating over the obligations of treaties in context with the South China Sea?

    On one hand, I find brave words against intolerance to threats, and in the very next, there is abdicating of the same for the sake of not raising the risk of conflicts and even going to the extent of handing over a part of the US to buy peace!! (not you, though).

    I am not suggesting that there be war. But to avoid war, it does not mean one cowers frightened into the corner.

    Very confusing message.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-25-2011 at 05:35 AM.

  9. #269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I thought Govts change but not national interests.
    You couldn't find any two Americans who agree on what constitutes US national interests. This (I suggest) accounts for the wild swings in foreign policy observed with each change of Administration. Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak).

  10. #270
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You couldn't find any two Americans who agree on what constitutes US national interests. This (I suggest) accounts for the wild swings in foreign policy observed with each change of Administration. Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak).
    I had a great laugh over this post!

    Especially this one - Today the US is your friend... tomorrow they knife you in the back (ask Hosni Mubarak)

    So, Russia and China are better bets?

    I hope the Indian Govt is reading this thread.
    Last edited by Ray; 06-25-2011 at 06:24 AM.

  11. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    If the American culture and all it stands for is negotiable (everything, that is), then would it be correct to surmise that it is not based on principle, morality or resolve? Everything is up for the grabs?

    I wonder if such a culture could have made the US as powerful as it is today.

    I find it rather odd that the US would for the fear of a conflict with China, hand over Hawaii to the Chinese 25 years hence.

    Would Alaska go the same way to avoid risk of a conflict with Russia?

    Why forget the French and the Spanish. They might be embolden to ask for the return of their territories.

    Too imaginative, I would say.

    I am surprised that Iraq and Afghanistan could break the will of a nation as powerful as the US!
    Who (which generations) built the US? Everyone under (say) 50 years rode in on the coat-tails of the efforts and sacrifices of those who passed before.

    Make no mistake there are still many fine Americans but their voices are being increasingly drowned out. In my generation we had a minority who maintained it was "better to be red than dead" and that type of thinking is now close to the majority view in the US (sadly).

    I thought I would leave it at Hawaii but what is the geographical connection of Alaska to the US? Add 15-20 years to the hand over of Hawaii and you will see the fate of Alaska being negotiated. After all Alaska is closer to Russia than the US (and if you apply current US logic like with the Falklands/Malvinas) and the US should agree to hand Alaska back to Russia by the latest (say) 2050 if not before.

    Right now there will be an emotional rejection to the thought of giving up Alaska and maybe Hawaii but this will pass...

    The French and the Spanish (like the Brits) are already burnt out and what we are seeing with the US is the last kicks of a dying horse. Sad but true.

    The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.

    I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?

    ...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...

  12. #272
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Make no mistake there are still many fine Americans but their voices are being increasingly drowned out. In my generation we had a minority who maintained it was "better to be red than dead" and that type of thinking is now close to the majority view in the US (sadly).
    Most of us preferred to be neither red nor dead, and managed to achieve that. I don't see anybody proposing "that type of thinking", here or elsewhere, neither do I see any serious external threat to US security. Internal is another story, and the US needs to pay attention to its economic competitiveness far more than it needs to worry about the Chinese, the Muslims, or any other external bogeyman.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The French and the Spanish (like the Brits) are already burnt out and what we are seeing with the US is the last kicks of a dying horse. Sad but true.
    What we're seeing now is the belated realization that you don't have to control the world to live in it, and that trying to control the world is a self destructive fool's errand.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.
    The US has no Empire, and is thus spared the miserable and counterproductive task of bankrupting itself in an effort to hold an empire together. Iraq and Afghanistan are divisive because Americans see enormous cost with no clear goal and no clear gain or prospect for gain. That's naturally divisive, and it should be: what good is democracy if the people don't question their government?

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?
    The US can't "lose" Saudi Arabia. You can't lose something you haven't got, and we don't own Saudi Arabia. The Saudia do, and they - like the Mexicans, Canadians, Venezuelans, Kuwaitis, Nigerians, etc - will continue to sell the US oil until the oil runs out, or until the US can't pay for it any more, both of which are more serious threats than having someone else come along and take Saudi Arabia away.

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    ...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...
    The world survived total Anglo domination, I suppose it will survive the loss of total Anglo domination.

    There is a real risk that the US will burn out its money and its will fighting pointless and unnecessary wars, and will have little or nothing to fall back on if ever it is necessary to fight... but there is always a real risk of something. I personally choose not to be terrified. I don't think the challenges and threats are greater than they have been at any other point in recent history.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  13. #273
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    JMA,

    That is an extraordinary analysis, but then I am hardly equipped to comment.

    Yet, this is interesting and I presume seems to be worrisome to many:

    ...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...
    You feel the mindset will change?

    I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

    To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!
    Last edited by Ray; 06-25-2011 at 08:49 AM.

  14. #274
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking I feel with my fingers, mostly...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    And how do you feel about risk of conflict with China causing US to hand over Hawaii to China or equivocating over the obligations of treaties in context with the South China Sea?
    However, I believe that such risk is badly overstated by some for their own purposes. The US politicians do it to garner headlines; the US media prate on about it to generate headlines and the US State Department responsible for equivocating over treaties worldwide excels at vacillation in an effort to justify their jobs. China and others (?/) also feed it for their own purposes. IOW, ho hum, another day, another 'crisis.'
    On one hand, I find brave words against intolerance to threats, and in the very next, there is abdicating of the same for the sake of not raising the risk of conflicts and even going to the extent of handing over a part of the US to buy peace!! (not you, though).
    No, not me because I was a soldier, not a politician or a newsman. I repeat my suggestion that most of that prating is best ignored. If one does read it, one should note that collating it will indicate a truth somewhere between the poles. JMA and his agenda not withstanding (smart and good guy but he's still really upset with us for not adequately supporting Rhodesia back in the 70s when he was a hard charging Lieutenant...) the US will, like every other nation, do what it perceives as in its interest in accordance with the adminstration of the day's whims -- we American do whims and we do not do continuitiy...
    I am not suggesting that there be war. But to avoid war, it does not mean one cowers frightened into the corner.
    I agree. I think most, not all, Americans would also agree. Whether the government of the day -- or tomorrow -- also agrees (I think most will, to what extent is unanswereable) is time and circumstances dependent. Then again, one man's cowering is another's prudent avoidance and yet another's tactical ploy.
    Very confusing message.
    Yep. By design or accident, it is that -- it's the American way. Shifty folks, we. Get misread all the time...

  15. #275
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default My Goodness!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Who (which generations) built the US? Everyone under (say) 50 years rode in on the coat-tails of the efforts and sacrifices of those who passed before...
    That's partly true -- but, like many of your assertions regarding what you've read and 'discerned' of the US of A, Inc. it is far from totally so...

    For the next few paragraphs of your polemic, ably answered by Dayuhan, all I can say is: "Return of the gloom peddler!"

    Ignoring all that wild eyed speculation and getting back to reality, this is fairly true:
    The US have always had a short attention span and thus they have never been able to make the long term commitment to hold an "empire" together. That is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able so debilitating and divisive to the American people.
    Well, we've been far more debilitated and divided in my lifetime than we are now but the "attention span" is indeed part of it, another part is wild-eyed idealism by some and still another, perhaps the most important, is that we aren't mean enough -- unless and until we get really severely pushed...

    Moving right along, this statement by you, as I'm sure you know, is totally specious:
    I often wonder where the average American thinks the oil will come from if the US "looses" Saudi Arabia and control over the applicable shipping routes?
    We're going to harness the hot air from the US Capitol for electrical energy and use all the oil for big cars and tacky neon plastic clothing...
    ...and what will the increasing Hispanic influence in the US have on foreign policy over the next 20 years? Beyond the average American attention span to contemplate I know but total Anglo domination is on the way out and that will bring changes...
    ¿Que se dice? ¿Por que no, Hombre?

    (I would note, however, that the Hispanic has a sense of history and likes continuity, is notoriously proud and can be combative. Some things to bear in mind... )

  16. #276
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

    To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!
    It's also notable that many Hispanic Americans can be equally passionate and gung ho. We're not nearly as populous as India but we have an amazing diversity and it is extremely difficult to categorize the American demographic due to that diversity and our geographic size and dispersion.

    Many commentators make the mistake of trying to compare the US to other nations and it rarely works well. We are not in any sense 'an' or 'the' "Exceptional Nation" but we are in fact small 'e' exceptional in many respects due to those dispersion and diversity factors plus the fillip of most of us are here because we or our forebears didn't like where they were and decided to do things differently...

  17. #277
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johannes U View Post
    Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...

    Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages )
    Dr. Henry the K back in Beijing:

    Kissinger's new book offers insights on how the ice was broken in Sino-US relations, reports Li Xing in Washington.

    Henry Kissinger is scheduled to arrive in Beijing on Friday for a series of public and private meetings as a guest of the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.
    He will discuss with his hosts his latest book, On China, which has been touted in the Chinese media and much coveted among the Chinese.

    As he summarized after he received a lifetime achievement award from the Asia Society in Washington last week, he attempted to share with the readers his historic analysis of how the Chinese and Americans handle their problems and how "this translated itself into the actual interaction" between the United States and China.

    The book "provides us with his insightful views on Sino-US relations over the past 40 years, including his meetings with four generations of Chinese leaders", Zhang Yesui, China's ambassador to the US, said during the Asia Society event.

    A highlight of the trip will be his meeting with a celebrated party of old friends - and children of his old friends - to recall the memorable 48 hours he spent in Beijing in July 1971 on his secret mission to break the ice in China-US relations.

    Among the many memoirs are some by a small circle of Chinese and Americans who worked to make the visit not only a success but also to initiate changes that have transformed the world. Numerous Chinese and American journalists have also come up with their accounts to unravel the "mysteries" surrounding the events that led to the secret trip and US President Richard M. Nixon's historic visit to China in February 1972.
    Unraveling mysteries behind Nixon's 1972 China visit - China Daily - June 24, 2011.

  18. #278
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    JMA,

    That is an extraordinary analysis, but then I am hardly equipped to comment.

    Yet, this is interesting and I presume seems to be worrisome to many:
    Just my personal crystal ball.

    I watched the sun set on the British Empire and still today there are those (notably those critical of the SDR [strategic defence review]) who still believe Britain has a role in the world that requires a military capably for global intervention. (They use the theoretical need for a Falklands War 2 capability as an argument)

    The US is just a replay of this. That is why I speak of a 20 year and 30 year time frame. The writing is on the wall. My generation of Americans won't believe it nor will a large percentage of the next one. But as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow the world and the US role in it (and the USA itself) will be much changed in 30 years time (and that probably means IMHO Hawaii and Alaska will no longer be part of the Union).

    Like the "winds of change" blew through the British Empire and Africa so are they now blowing through the world (at the US's expense).

    You feel the mindset will change?

    I find the Indian origin American more gung ho about the US and the US Anglo Saxon heritage than many Americans of Anglo Saxon extract.

    To wit, their defence of Bush's action in Iraq was downright aggressive and totally opposite to the Indian way of thinking. Likewise their concern over illegals from Mexico, as if they had landed on US shores with the first immigrants to the New World and with their own hands carved the US for what it is today!
    The US was once a huge "melting pot" where over time immigrants were Americanized with all the hybrid vigour that goes with that. A great nation was born. Miscegenation was not embraced (by both sides) so Chinese and black people sort of fitted in as minorities. Fast forward and it is all about embracing the culture and language and less about just mixing for the sake of mixing. With the Hispanics it is first a language issue and many have one foot South of the border so don't see the need to jump into the melting pot as they are only there to get work, live a better life and sent money home to the extended family who they hope will join them one day in the US (where they will live their culture from back home).

    I have friends from schooldays who emigrated to the US and 40-50 years on are more yank than the yanks and their kids only connection with the mother continent is that is where dad was born (and maybe where gran and grandad live). That is the way it should be.

    Perhaps your reference to the attitudes of the Indian origin Americans you speak of is that they are really Americans now (or at least genuinely want to be such) and will as such embrace main stream US opinion rather than espouse the line from mother India?

    The key answer from immigrants is to the question "where is your home"?

    Unless the Hispanic migrants willingly jump into the "melting pot" they will become a separate (and growing) political pressure group with their own agenda. My information is that the majority are not and as more get the vote they will be able to exert greater language and political pressure within the US system.

    Any ideas on the effect in 20 years from now?
    Last edited by JMA; 06-26-2011 at 03:24 AM.

  19. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    JMA and his agenda not withstanding (smart and good guy but he's still really upset with us for not adequately supporting Rhodesia back in the 70s when he was a hard charging Lieutenant...) the US will, like every other nation, do what it perceives as in its interest in accordance with the adminstration of the day's whims -- we American do whims and we do not do continuitiy...
    Actually first a troopie (for one year) then 2nd Lieutenant through to Captain. Hard charging? Yea... is there any other way to approach troop commanding in a war?

    I have stated that I have never met an American I did not like (obviously my sample is small). I have found Americans to be good, generous and big-hearted people. In a group though they can get a little... tribal

    A great nation with (possibly) the worst political system in the world. This through the calamitous effect its foreign policy has had on the world post the 1940's.

    Many Americans accept that their system is fatally flawed but few will take responsibility for the damage they have caused in the past 60 odd years.

    How things have changed from the days of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln where the low point has now been reached where the defining moment in a presidency is making a 50:50 call to send in a small team after a HVT.

    Can you believe it that this "bold decision" has made this president... the question must be asked what was he before he made this "brave"decision?

    It was not America who handed the country to Mugabe it was Carter. And you need to know that it was all about the possible recognition of Bishop Muzorewa's Zimbabwe Rhodesian government. The Brits would recognise it if Carter would. But Carter owed the Congressional Black Caucus for their support in getting him elected so he refused to recognise Muzorewa and demanded new elections (as what was wanted by the CBC).

    Of course neither Carter nor the CBC of the day will accept the result of their decision nor will they take responsibility for the deaths and destruction in Zimbabwe since 1980. Politicians with no conscience. You see with an inconsequential stroke of the pen Carter consigned a country to the trash heap. Happened many times in the last 60 years under different US Presidents.

    No one I know (and certainly not me) holds the US responsible for Carter and CBC actions in this regard. The US electorate realised their mistake and bombed Carter in the next election.

    Being the president of the US demands a high level of skills and abilities that few if any incumbents have displayed certainly during my lifetime.

    The only thing worse than incompetent civilian politicians are soldiers taking over and trying to run a country.

    As I have said here before small countries with the usual incompetent politicians have less scope for creating international mayhem than the US does. Here lies the problem. With the US, Russia and China starring in a Charlie Chaplin/Laurel & Hardy/Keystone Cops show the prognosis is not good.
    Last edited by JMA; 06-26-2011 at 04:58 AM.

  20. #280
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default Strategic Hamlet?

    Ever so slightly on topic:

    That Shakespeare. Who'd have picked him as a Sinophile?

    Odds bodkins, zounds and strike me pinke. The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, has just been to Stratford-upon-Avon and paid little Britain the most terrific compliment.

    Our economic growth may be only a 10th of Chinese growth rates; our tax rates may be - absurdly - higher. The Chinese may be set to be the economic and political powerhouse of the 21st century, and I wouldn't be surprised if they again mop up more gold medals than anyone else at the Olympic Games. And yet Wen has been to watch Hamlet and declared that we can still claim to be the birthplace of ''the greatest writer who ever lived''.

    [...]

    He went global while he was still alive, carried overseas by Elizabethan merchant adventurers. The play Wen watched was first performed in Indonesia, would you believe it, in 1609. In the decade after he died Shakespeare was performed in Germany, in German, by travelling players. He has been big in China for 120 years, being known first as Shashibiya and then just as Sha Weng, ''Old Man Sha''.
    That Shakespeare. Who'd have picked him as a Sinophile? - Sydney Morning Herald (Daily Telegraph article by the Mayor of some English city) - June 29, 2011.

Similar Threads

  1. Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum Europe
    Replies: 1934
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •