The New Industrial State by Walter Adams

| 2 Comments

In reference to World War I, Charles Dawes, from The New Industrial State article by Walter Adams, said "Sure we paid.  We didn't dicker.  Why, man alive, we had to win the war.  We would have paid horse prices for sheep if sheep could have pulled artillery to the front.  Oh, it's all right now to say we brought too much vinegar and too many cold chisels, but we saved the civilization of the world.  Damn it all, the business of an army is to win the war, not to quibble around with a lot of cheap buying.  Hell and Maria, we weren't trying to keep a set of books, we were trying to win the war!"

 

Nowadays, the question is what are we trying to win?  Why are we still fighting?  The people interviewed from the video, Why We Fight, had different responses.  They actually did not know the answer and neither do I.  In the past, we were involved in wars because we strongly believed in fighting for freedom and liberty, and to rid communism.  The video also taught me that after 1950's, defense had doubled or tripled, and we used the reasons above to hide deeper facts.  In reality, military-industrial complex is corrupting public's taxes to spend on military goods which benefit mostly corporations instead of our nation. In other words, they "take food from the homeless and pay for military".  Government does little or no negotiations in these issues therefore are ignorant of the technology price, stockpiling, and international trade barrier.  It is disappointing to say that the President can only put a few words into this.  Even if he vetoes a bill, like when Kennedy cancelled the B-70 Bomber in 1961, Congress could still pass it (Wikipedia).  This issue is addressed in The Iron Triangle, as well. If the President cannot control the military-industrial complex, how can the citizens of the United States stop this?  I do not know the answer.  I assume many of them are unaware or cannot express their opinion freely.  Last semester, I took a geography class and we learned about protests.  People's rights to speak and assemble were denied if they cause a disruption.  A disruption is a very broad term and people who participate are likely to be beaten and arrested by police.  If this is the result, what happened to our freedom and liberty? 


Phuong Thuy Pham

2 Comments

Part of me strongly believes that the war on terrorism is a complete sham. It is a false enemy; it is a fictitious enemy. That would mean there is a false dichotomy of the patriot and the terrorist; they're on the same team with the same goals. The purpose is to give us a reason and purpose for controlling the world as the U.S. does because it creates an enemy that cannot be defeated.

At the same time, part of me wants to buy into what the media is telling me; no, there is a real threat. However, the way the government has lied in the past makes me so skeptical. It truly is a fine line between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory as we discussed in class. Anyone else wonder if it is all a sham? Am I the only conspiracy theorist that thinks it is healthy skepticism?

It's weird, my response to the question of why we are at war would have been to protect our country and the people in it, and we fight because we have to and it is necessary. But after watching Why We Fight, I am not so sure if I believe that. I find it quite interesting how the president could have a little or an extreme affect on our country's military choices.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by phamx120 published on October 20, 2009 11:14 PM.

The Dead Zone Dilemma was the previous entry in this blog.

Response to Germs of Life is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.