[lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:38:05 -0800

The history books I've read discuss the various off shore Islands and the
Monroe doctrine as examples of our isolationism.  We shore up our defenses
to keep the others out.  Our one venture into imperialism was the
Philippines which was repudiated almost immediately.  We took the
Philippines because if we didn't the Spanish would, we said, but our heart
wasn't in it.  This is evidence of why we are not an Empire not of why we
are.

 

The Cold War has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere, by me an
others.  What we did during the Cold War wasn't Imperialism despite what the
Communists and their fellow travelers alleged.  We fought the Communism
because we needed to for security reasons - ours and our allies.  Surely you
know that.

 

We don't have a military imperialism.  We have a military for our defense.  

 

I'm not going to get into the matter of American Isolationism.  This is
really well known.  You should get a good history book and read about it.

 

You say we are in debt to the Chinese.  I have some bonds I haven't cashed
in since I retired from Boeing.  The U.S. government is in debt to me as
well.  Does that give me any control over the government?  Not that I've
noticed.

 

Who's afraid of the military buildup in China?   Any buildup of the Chinese
military will be because of their own ideas of security.  They want their
borders secure.  They haven't the foggiest idea of starting a war against
us.  Are you talking about our war-games being fear?  Baloney.

 

Lawrence

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:52 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

 

---- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: 3/25/2006 5:50:16 PM 

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

 

I didn't say we are isolationist, Irene.  I said we had a history of being
isolationist.  

 

 

A.A.  Our history is our present as well.  We wanted to annex the
Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico.  We made Hawaii a state.  We got involved in
Guatemala, owned Panama for years until Carter returned it to the
Panamanians.  Panama itself was a creation of the U.S. by fomenting
revolution in Colombia.  Not to mention our CIA puppets all over the world
(Chili, Iran, Congo, Guatemala, Marcos in the Philippines, others.)  We also
supported our buddy Saddam in Iraq for years; we support Masharif in
Pakistan; Vietnam.  What were we doing in Vietnam if not making the world
safe for democracy?  Making the world safe for democracy is not exactly
being isolationist.  Most recently we tried exporting democracy to Iraq.    

 

 

 

L.H.: This is well known.  We have been protected by two oceans and so
thought until relatively recently that we could avoid the European wars.  If
you had read the original article you would know that the writer was
assuming the U.S. had imperial intentions.  

 

 

A.A. That's part of it.  Also that our economy is driven by military
expenditures.  We need a military imperialism to support the military.  As
Madeline Albright said, paraphrased, what's the point in having a military
if you don't use it?

 

 

 

L.H.  I point out that our history of isolationism belies that.  We still
have isolationists like Pat Buchanan.  Many wish we could still be
isolationist but fewer Americans think that a possibility.  It certainly
isn't a reality.  

 

 

 

A.A.  "Many wish" and "fewer think" are not meaningful statements.  What are
you basing these comments on?  What do you say to the list above?  Do
isolationists make the world safe for democracy?  If so, how?

 

 

 

L.H.  Your globalization comments have nothing to do with the article or my
comments that I can see, but they sound a little like an isolationist
arguing against globalization; 

 

 

A.A.  I'm not for or against isolation or globalization.  It's like being
for or against the Internet.  It's reality, that's all.

 

 

 

L.H. which is an argument I can't take seriously.  I worked at Douglas,
McDonnell Douglas and Boeing which is one of the major corporations in the
world.  I know how we make airplanes and missile systems.  We do the design
and make certain critical parts but for the rest we go out for competitive
bids.  Companies around the world would build parts to our specifications.
It doesn't make any difference in terms of quality if a part was made in the
U.S., Spain, or Italy if the subcontractors standards met our requirements,
but it does make a difference in price.  Competitive bidding allows a
manufacturer to hold costs down.  

 

 

 

A.A.  They pay the bids with American taxpayer dollars.  Military
Keynesianism in a global village; even our military manufacturing is
outsourced.  

 

 

L.H.  Much of the benefit is past on to the consumer. 

 

 

A.A.  Shock and Awe, the new conspicuous consumption.  What did the focus
groups say?  Were the consumers satisfied with the products?  Are we safer
for the products having been used?  

 

 

 

L.H.  I don't see the U.S. as liming along in any respect.  From
everything I've read, and I read a lot, we are still the most successful
economy as well as military.  

 

 

A.A. That's the difference between us and the Chinese.  They see long term.
We see that it's good enough for right now, no concern for long term
sustainability whatsoever.  We are almost $9 trillion in debt and it's
growing every day.  That's not how I would define success. 

 

As to John's question as to why the U.S. is buying so much from China if the
U.S. is afraid of military build up in China, the only thing I can think of
is it's American *corporations* manufacturing in China and selling to the
U.S., for now.  When the Chinese economy gets strong enough, they'll sell to
the Chinese.  That's what I was saying earlier that the corporations don't
care about the U.S.  They care about themselves; they are *global* elites
with *global* markets.  The U.S. is there to keep the corporations with the
American names safe; the buzz word to do that is democracy.  As to why the
Pentagon is building up vis-a-vis the Chinese military, that's what the
Pentagon does.  That's the military Keynesianism.  They're a self-supporting
institution.  I'm listening if you have another idea. 

 

I'm off to watch a movie.  Talk to you later.

 

 

 

 

 

Lawrence

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2006