Billy
 
Looking at the situation you mentioned below starting with:
"
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."
 
We can look at the positive aspects as they exist for us. Thanks to both WWs we 
(the US) we able to vault from up and coming underdog nation to number one in 
record time. Without the decimation of Europe and Japan the road to the top 
would probably have been infinitely longer. 
 
The negatives are the free world's failure to make a detailed study of the post 
WWII situation. We often talk about "winning the war' and "Who won WWII?". The 
big winners cannot not be measured by nationalist ideas of nations because the 
people of all nations allied or axis lost. Who won? or rather "What won?" was  
the corporate world. While the Nazis, the Fascisti and the Japanese 
nationalists (as well as the allied leaders) no longer exist some things do. 
And they are doing even better today because of the war. Those entities are 
Mercedes-Benz who made the engines for Germany's Tiger and Panther tanks, 
aircraft engines and German military vehicles, Krupp who made the artillery 
including the super Big Bertha type cannons, Bayer and Mengele pharmaceuticals 
who made both the medicine for the troops and many of the poisons to kill 
concentration camp prisoners. Alfa Romero whose engines powered Mussolini's 
armored corps as well as other vehicles, Fiat,
 Beretta. In Japan Mitsubishi who designed and manufactured the famous Japanese 
Zero that had a kill ration of supreme numbers overall, Kawasaki whose steel 
production fueled the Japanese military as did their aircraft production. They 
are all still going full blast today and are very successful enterprises. 
 
On the other side there is in the US, Ford, GM, Boeing Aircraft, etc. The Brits 
still have Rolls-Royce whose Merlin class engines made the Spitfire and the 
P-51invincible aircraft. The Soviet AK-47 the most produced long arm in history 
brought and is still bringing the new Russian Republic untold wealth. And 
I have mentioned only a few corporations as examples. All these things I have 
mentioned had and have today long term consequences both positive and negative 
depending on where one is standing. 
 
TR and Asia:  Look back (hind-sight is always 20/20) TR's faith in Japan was 
misplaced  and you know very well that I am a die-hard Japanophile having 
studied there and lived there for a decade.  But we must call a spade a spade.  
TR is not to be blamed for his misplaced trust. It has to do with the times. At 
the turn of the century we really knew little about East Asia and it's trends. 
By 1900 Japan looked like a super power-house nation while China was struggling 
with the Western view that it was "The sick man of Asia". China had garnered 
this reputation under Manchu rule which was slipping fast having many external 
foes but whose biggest problem were the Han Chinese who were sick of Manchu 
domination and wished to recoup the power they had lost 2.5 centuries earlier.
 
Our (the West) mistake was to think of China as finished. We thought this 
because we did not take into account the previous 4000 years of Chinese history 
and culture. China was the weak man of Asia from, let's say 1850 to 1910. Sixty 
years which seems like a long time to us but when you country has 4000 plus 
years of history this is less than a drop in the bucket. Wen your society is 
that old you know the meaning of the word patience. In less time than the Ching 
dynasty (one of the shorter ones 300 years) China went from a monarchy and sick 
man of Asia to a republic to communism to a corporate state. It might have 
taken a bit longer but we probably should have gone with China in 1900. It is 
after all the Rome of East Asia but different from Rome it is not a nation with 
a dead  that has faded into the past .  No wonder the Phoenix is a revered bird 
in Asia. 
 
I went to school-in Japan with a Chinese boy from Shanghai who is today a very 
successful factory owner. He said the (45 years ago) when we were innocent 
kids. "China will never remain communist. If anything it will transform 
communism into something very Chinese if it doesn't disappear altogether." I 
asked him why he believed this and he told me, "There are two things you cannot 
prevent the Chinese people from doing." What are they i asked "Making business 
and gambling." two things that run counter to communist doctrine. There is a 
saying in Chinese "No one ever conquers China, China passively conquers her 
conquerors.". The mongol Genghis Khan is a great example of the truth of this 
refrain.
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


--- On Tue, 12/20/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:


From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism & etc etc
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 5:24 PM





 

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, [email protected] 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: [email protected] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] Military Expansionism


Perhaps we are talking about degree.  Kevin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: [email protected] 
To: [email protected] 
Cc: [email protected] 
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, [email protected] 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: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
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 
   [email protected] 
    P.O. Box 39 , Bozeman , MT   59771
 (406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax
------------------------------------------
 
 


From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin Kervick
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
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 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to