Re: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism & etc etc

[David R. Block]

Title: "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who express

Guys, this font is almost unreadable, even with my glasses. David "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.'  How shallow these people are."—Neal Boortz   On 12/20/2011 5:24 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote:   One of the causes of WWII was WWI.  And World War I did not need to happen. Wilson lied to the US and then got us into an insanely ridiculous war.   Correct, so far, so good.       It war left Germany...and virtually all of Europe in a mess. The disastrous Weimar Republic was created in Germany which created hyperinflation and ultimately economic collapse.  That set the stage for the fascists who told Germans they could restore their pride and their economy.   ------------------------------------------------   Here is where the problems begin. Rather than blame the USA, which was not even in the war until 1917, there are other far more plausible explanations for what happened :   1. French insistence on the Versailles Treaty, which left Germany with huge indemnities it could not pay without bankrupting itself., which it did, a mess that spiraled out of control, with a cure that was worse than the disease, namely hyper-inflation. The USA, far from being supportive of the treaty, was against it, and the Brits were not happy with it either although they felt they had to go along with France. But if  I  remember this correctly, Keynes, then a young advisor, was aghast at the terms and predicted really bad stuff would happen.   2. Deflationary pressures made things worse than they should have been because the gold standard was completely unrealistic. Basically not nearly enough precious metal to sustain it. A mixed metal ( gold + silver ) system with a good % of wealth calculated in terms of national assets might have worked but at the time it was gold or nothing. Which was pure stupidity.   3. Weimar was anything but an ideal republic, but no-one had any idea it would turn out as badly as it did. What part did America play in the failure of Weimar ?  Nothing.   As for FDR, if there was baiting, as Buchanan suggests, if the fish was not hungry, any baiting would have been pointless. As for Buchanan, as soon as he starts his neo-isolationist stuff  is when I stop listening. Otherwise I really admire him and was a supporter in 1996 and was at least qualifiedly OK with him in 2004. But he has been an isolationist since he was in diapers and that view, IMHO, is crazy. In the 30s it was especially crazy, like  asking a kid at  school to be a pacifist in  a playground full of bullies.   Isolationism / non-interventionism , take your pick, both policies are irresponsible in the world we actually live in. There is no way to even BE non-interventionist when every other country outside of various allies wants us to fail and tries with all their resources to defeat us. Especially Islamic countries. We should roll over and play dead ?  I don't think so. In other words,  RP is delusional.   As for the 1930s, Japan was gobbling up one country after another. Therefore, we should do nothing ?  Like today, Muslims are  on the warpath wherever you look. And what do we hear from you-know-who ?  Its all America's fault. That outlook is pure bull.   In 2008, for all the problems of that year, the GOP still could have pulled off a victory. The party chose to jump off a cliff. Looks to me that there is a really good chance it could happen again.   Billy     =========================================       The world wide depression did not occur out of thin air. Nor did Hitler.   As to the Pacific aspect of the war, there is a fascinating new treatise that purports that your hero FDR baited Japan and pushed the US into war covertly.  I am sure a great historian such as yourself would have looked into this history.   http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2011/12/06/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/   These pompous Progressives were war mongerers.  They believed they could reshape the world and they did.   Note to Chris's query.  A conservative is someone who believes this history could have been avoided if we had been smarter and more humble.   Kevin Not the result of military expansionism : Maybe the original 13 colonies / states, although there was a ( military ) revolution that dragged along with it a good number of local communities that were loyalist.   the Louisiana purchase   the Gadsden purchase   the Virgin Islands   the state of Washington, although there was threat of military action at the time  "      "     "   Hawaii           "            "       "      "      "      "          "      "   "     "   Alaska    Everything else was the result of military expansion       Causes of WWII ?   # 1 and far away most important, the Depression # 2 the rise of totalitarian  ideologies, Fascism / Communism # 3 dysfunctional European political policies in GB, France, etc       plus policies of various colonial  powers in the Pacific   WWI created the conditions for a military industrial complex ? ? ? After WWI  we demobilized almost completely.   We had an army of about 250,000 in 1940, the smallest for a country of our size of any nation in the world. We were, except for the Navy, ridiculously unprepared for WWII. There was NO  military-industrial complex in 1940, that idea is unfounded.   Where does that idea come from, if I may ask ? Whoever  came up with it is anything but an historian and simply does not know what he / she is talking about.   If you are going to make historical generalizations it would be a really good idea to actually study relevant history. Liberal Fascism is a really interesting book with a lot to say, but it is anything but the last word on many of the subjects it covers.   Billy     -==================================================   12/20/2011 12:14:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, kerv...@comcast.net writes: It all went South with entry into WW1 when America sent millions to fight overseas.  That created the conditions for WWII and the military industrial economy and we have been stuck in the interventionist mindset ever since.   Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Kervick To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:05 PM Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism Perhaps we are talking about degree.  Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: bil...@aol.com To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: bil...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:22 PM Subject: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism Actually, James Polk, no 20th century liberal, was responsible for the War with Mexico that added the SW, California, and Texas to the USA, and that was the 1840s. But military expansionism dates to the Revolution itself even if our various attempts to conquer Canada fell flat, both then and in 1812. There also was a threat of war with Canada as late as "54-40 or fight," also under Polk.   BTW, Ben Franklin favored military expansion. So did other Founders, not least George Washington.   So did TR, then a Republican , in the 1890s, and for quite a while we had the Philippines,  and still have Guam and PR from that era.     These are established facts that are not in the least dispute.   Billy   ----------------------------------------------------------------------   12/20/2011 11:09:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, kerv...@comcast.net writes: I agree with that Chris.  To me conservative = classical liberal or constitutionalist.  Military expansionism is actually a liberal idea that began in the early 20th Century.   Kevin If Paul is the most conservative candidate, how do you define conservative?  I don’t resonate well with either label, liberal or conservative.   Both terms are bloated with contradictory meanings that are in the eye of the beholder.   Chris         From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:36 AM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RC] Age of Ron Paul   I like to use the term, Independent Conservative to show that he is conservative.  He has the most conservative voting record in the House.  The Independent label refers to the fact that he does not toe the line with neoconservatives and Progressives who say they are conservatives.  His opponents and the media use libertarian to paint him as something other than conservative.  I believe paul is the most conservative candidate in the race, bar none.   Kevin   Kevin,   From your article, “Why are they so afraid of Ron Paul? They are afraid because his message does not fit their increasingly outdated and tired narrative. If people begin to embrace Paul’s independent conservative message, many of them will undoubtedly stop listening to dinosaur Conservatives on the airwaves.”   First sentence is great and I think true.  Second sentence, I am confused by your use of the term “conservative” to define Paul.  To me, he doesn’t fit into the normal bi-polar liberal-conservative box.  Why bother to put a conservative label on him?    Chris   ------------------------------------------        Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D.      Constructive Agreement, LLC    ch...@constructiveagreement.com     P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT  59771  (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax ------------------------------------------     From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:10 AM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com; de...@yahoogroups.com Subject: [RC] Age of Ron Paul   http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/the-age-of-ron-paul-panics-the-conservative-and-gop-establishments   Discovering Possibility: A Common Sense Conservative Manifesto (For Classical Liberals Too) is available at www.discoveringpossibility.com. The book offers a sociological perspective and corresponding culture change approach, that relies on the principles of classical liberalism and a Deistic spirituality and promotes four pillars of community - freedom, personal responsibility, neighborliness, and thrift.  All proceeds from Discovering Possibility go toward the furtherance of our mission at A Place for Possibilities, www.aplaceforpossibilities.org, a 501 (c) 3 educational nonprofit corporation.   Also, check out my writing about Independent politics on Examiner.com at http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/kevin-kervick --     --     -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org