[lit-ideas] RESEND FW: RE: Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:07:27 -0500
This got lost somewhere. I'm resending.
---- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence 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:
- » [lit-ideas] RESEND FW: RE: Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land
