Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Research topic
One topic that has been vital to globalization in the United States and globally in the twenty first century is Wal-Mart. To disagree that Wal-mart does not impact our global economy is crazy. Walmart serves customers and members more than 200 million times per week. Wal-Mart's international operations currently comprise 4,081 stores and 664,000 workers in 14 countries outside the United States.In 2010 the sales delivered outside the U.S. reached one hundred billion. Walmart had a fiscal year of $405 billion in sales, and Walmart employs more than 2 million associates worldwide. This number made Wal-mart number one on the Fortune 500 businesses.
My research topic or question is how does the mass globalization of Wal-mart impact the economy. For this I could look at both pros and cons of Wal-mart, both in the United States and in other courties. There is many things I can look at while also looking at the economic impact of the globalization of Wal-mart. For example, how it effects factory workers, food production, global factories, and global outsourcing. Another is the impact of shifting production to cheap labor markets overseas.
The reason I am so interested in this topic is I like how this effects the people of today and not something that has happened. The globalization of Walmart is happening, the company is growing and continues to grow every year. Another thing that interest me is how big Wal-mart actually is, and the impact it has on the global economy. Walmart that was created in 1962 grew to the number one business in fifty years.
Some smaller question I could bring up in my paper is:
· How does making production overseas effect the United States?
· What is the positives of Walmart globalizing?
· What are the negatives of Walmart globalizing?
· Why is China such important factor for Walmart?
· What countries did Walmart move to first and why?
· What does the future look like for walmart in the global perspective?
References
Fishman, Charles. 2006. The Wal-Mart effect: how the world's most powerful company really works-- and how it's transforming the American economy. New York: Penguin Press.
Smith, Hedrick, and Rick Young. 2005. Is Wal-Mart good for America? [Alexandria, Va.]: PBS Video.
Kammen, Glenn D., Robert B. Reich, Ruth Milkman, Edna Bonacich, Michael Mann, David A. Smith, Denise H. Froning, et al. 2005. Working world. Way we live : Introduction to sociology, 14. Pasadena, Calif: Intelecom.
"The Movement of Labor." New York Times 03 Aug. 2003: 7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Sept. 2010.
Gereffi, Gary, and Michelle Christian. "The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the World's Dominant Retailer." Annual Review of Sociology 35.1 (2009): 573-591. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Sept. 2010.
First research proposal
For my paper, I will look to argue the nature of "law" and "city." Incorporated into this argument is this question of spatial reality and what inherently is "visible" and "invisible." The United States (a "city" in the relation to our discussion) is right in the center of the current debate of spatial reality. The argument of "visible invisibility" is perfect for our discussion of the United States and Globalization. The first article I read for my research is entitled, "From Space Immaterial: The Invisibility of the Lawscape." In this article's introduction, the two authors state that "invisible cities are slices of space through which visibility slides by." (438) This quote is perfect for the beginning framework of what my research is going to study; this notion of our visible "city," the United States, "shedding light onto and into blind spots, to reveal instead the resplendent floppiness the inevitably of the continuous production of further blind spots...thus confounding modernity's visibility with its very escape into invisibility." (440) The United States, the ultimate hegemonic power although slowly losing its grip on the rest of the globe, is attempting to "shed its light" onto the rest of the globe one last time, or onto one more "final frontier" - outerspace.
How is the United States able to pull such a bold move with the "weaponization of outerspace?" One argument is a "visible city and a visible law allow no space from which either of them is to be seen." In other words, nations that are under the spell of our intra-connected, capitalistic, globalized way of life, cannot see nor can they understand a "city saturated with control."
With this notion of "city" and "law" both coinciding with one another in their visible states an inherent invisibility of spatial relations, uniqueness, democracy, and opinion all become relative to the citizens of said "law" and "city." With the invisibility of "city" and "law," the United States is able to garnish enough momentum for arguably their final push to save American Exceptionalism, and ultimately, the capitalist style of world production (in other words, to save their self-interests); this final push of momentum to save the "American Dream" is the controlling of a new "frontier" or "city," outerspace. With the already facilitated notion of the fusion of "law" and "city," invisibility is the chief support system that can possibly help the United States add one final push to their hegemonic, controlling domination in our current globalized society - the sovereignty to control outerspace, and thus leading to its build up of military arms.
This is just the beginning to my proposal. I will have an updated proposal with a working bibliography published onto the blog sometime this weekend.
Thanks, JT Liverman
How is the United States able to pull such a bold move with the "weaponization of outerspace?" One argument is a "visible city and a visible law allow no space from which either of them is to be seen." In other words, nations that are under the spell of our intra-connected, capitalistic, globalized way of life, cannot see nor can they understand a "city saturated with control."
With this notion of "city" and "law" both coinciding with one another in their visible states an inherent invisibility of spatial relations, uniqueness, democracy, and opinion all become relative to the citizens of said "law" and "city." With the invisibility of "city" and "law," the United States is able to garnish enough momentum for arguably their final push to save American Exceptionalism, and ultimately, the capitalist style of world production (in other words, to save their self-interests); this final push of momentum to save the "American Dream" is the controlling of a new "frontier" or "city," outerspace. With the already facilitated notion of the fusion of "law" and "city," invisibility is the chief support system that can possibly help the United States add one final push to their hegemonic, controlling domination in our current globalized society - the sovereignty to control outerspace, and thus leading to its build up of military arms.
This is just the beginning to my proposal. I will have an updated proposal with a working bibliography published onto the blog sometime this weekend.
Thanks, JT Liverman
Research Paper proposal
Research Paper Proposal
History 433, Dr. Margolies
By John Cunningham
The Birth of Globalization in America: Virginia, England and
International Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century
When did the birth of globalization begin in America? Where did American globalization first show signs of growth? How did the early evidence of globalization first shape American culture and society? Most importantly, how did the early signs of globalization shape American political thought and foreign policy. These are the questions I will answer in my research paper.
Most scholars and historians disagree with a precise time and place of the birth of globalization in America. Some claim that globalization first occurred when early man first made contact with a neighboring tribe and diffused their different characteristics to each other. Many others look at globalization as beginning when international trade first began within the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic trade routes along the African coast. Still others look at globalization as first occurring during the late nineteenth century after the birth of rapid transport and the telegraph. Finally, many historians look at the scientific advances of the twentieth century as being globalizations birthplace. In my research paper I will examine what I consider the birth of Globalization in America. I will examine the first signs of international trade and communication within the Chesapeake Colony in today’s current state of Virginia. This trade, particularly the sale of tobacco and the influx of slavery, diffused the cultures of many different peoples that include England, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Additionally, once slavery was established in the Virginia colony, the influence of African societies further fused into American culture. All of this contact between different cultures throughout the world helped to bring to life the early signs of American global power and influence.
While researching this topic I discovered a variety of different sources that can be examined. I first began my research by reading Atlantic Virginia by April Hatfield. This was an excellent book that explores the exact topic that I am researching. One of the subjects I will briefly cover in my writing is the question of why did Europeans first come to the New World. There are several primary documents that describe these reasons, one of which is the first charter of Virginia. This document I will be referring to in my research paper. Another great source is Captain John Smith’s history of Virginia. This book is a wealth of information that thoroughly describes the vast resources that were found in the Virginia colony.
As described above and in my Bibliography, I will use a variety of sources to answer a few simple questions. One of which, is how, why and where did globalization first occur in America? By answering this question I feel that many people will more fully understand Americas place in a global economy.
Bibliography
Coclanis, Peter A. The Atlantic Economy during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2005.
Deans, Bob. The River Where America Began. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Hatfield, April Lee. Atlantic Virginia, Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Hawke, David. The Colonial Experience. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966.
Kelso, William M. Jamestown, The Buried Truth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006.
Pestana, Carla Gardina. The English Atlantic in the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Smith, John. The General History of Virginia. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Bedford: Applewood Books, First published in 1629.
Virginia Company of London. The First Charter of Virginia.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1606-fcv.htm, 1606.
History 433, Dr. Margolies
By John Cunningham
The Birth of Globalization in America: Virginia, England and
International Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century
When did the birth of globalization begin in America? Where did American globalization first show signs of growth? How did the early evidence of globalization first shape American culture and society? Most importantly, how did the early signs of globalization shape American political thought and foreign policy. These are the questions I will answer in my research paper.
Most scholars and historians disagree with a precise time and place of the birth of globalization in America. Some claim that globalization first occurred when early man first made contact with a neighboring tribe and diffused their different characteristics to each other. Many others look at globalization as beginning when international trade first began within the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic trade routes along the African coast. Still others look at globalization as first occurring during the late nineteenth century after the birth of rapid transport and the telegraph. Finally, many historians look at the scientific advances of the twentieth century as being globalizations birthplace. In my research paper I will examine what I consider the birth of Globalization in America. I will examine the first signs of international trade and communication within the Chesapeake Colony in today’s current state of Virginia. This trade, particularly the sale of tobacco and the influx of slavery, diffused the cultures of many different peoples that include England, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Additionally, once slavery was established in the Virginia colony, the influence of African societies further fused into American culture. All of this contact between different cultures throughout the world helped to bring to life the early signs of American global power and influence.
While researching this topic I discovered a variety of different sources that can be examined. I first began my research by reading Atlantic Virginia by April Hatfield. This was an excellent book that explores the exact topic that I am researching. One of the subjects I will briefly cover in my writing is the question of why did Europeans first come to the New World. There are several primary documents that describe these reasons, one of which is the first charter of Virginia. This document I will be referring to in my research paper. Another great source is Captain John Smith’s history of Virginia. This book is a wealth of information that thoroughly describes the vast resources that were found in the Virginia colony.
As described above and in my Bibliography, I will use a variety of sources to answer a few simple questions. One of which, is how, why and where did globalization first occur in America? By answering this question I feel that many people will more fully understand Americas place in a global economy.
Bibliography
Coclanis, Peter A. The Atlantic Economy during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2005.
Deans, Bob. The River Where America Began. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Hatfield, April Lee. Atlantic Virginia, Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Hawke, David. The Colonial Experience. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966.
Kelso, William M. Jamestown, The Buried Truth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006.
Pestana, Carla Gardina. The English Atlantic in the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Smith, John. The General History of Virginia. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Bedford: Applewood Books, First published in 1629.
Virginia Company of London. The First Charter of Virginia.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1606-fcv.htm, 1606.
My Topic
I hope this makes sense - I have confused myself by reading too much about my topic :) When I cut and paste it looks messy on the blog- My papers are always very neat and orderly so excuse the ugly font, lack of bold and italics.
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Its national coffee day- lets call it international coffee day for the sake of globalization though :)
Its National Coffee DAY!!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!! Just in time because I stayed up all night reading tons of stuff on my topic only to produce a 2 page essay- my mind is boggled now- its all interesting to me so i keep reading then get overwhelmed and confused as to what my topic is and then frustrated because alot of the wording is hard for me to understand in what I am reading. I am not so good with vocab :) Anyway happy COFFEE DAY Guys!! Lets have coffee in class today :)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Another Long One- Sorry Guys :)
I am sorry guys that this is sooooo long again! I thought I had posted the 1st last weekend- but I didnt- maybe I just thought about it-
I enjoyed “dominion from Sea to Sea” – obviously because after every chapter read, I wanted to change my paper topic- it was very interesting and easy to read and understand for me. It really gave a different perspective in all topics covered. My whole outlook on globalization has changed! Our country has an outlet (as Cumings put it) to every place on Earth- when I sit back and think about that, it is amazing to me. I have always known that- but never really put any real thought into it.
The cotton industry was how the US became dominate in world trade and it could not have been as successful as it if it were not for the slaves- I think this was paper topic # 4 for me. Texas notable contributed to the cotton trade as well as the slave trade. After the Civil War, Texas became a Jim Crow state. Once the cotton gin came about the plantation owners could have their cotton ginned (I guess you would call it) but huge plantations that never made a comeback after the civil war. Southern states like Texas began a new type of farming- cattle production- what we think of as the wild west- cowboys and cattle. This was an easy way to make money because you could buy some cattle and turn them out into the wide open- they are pretty rugged and eat almost anything that grows from the ground. Cattle driving came and went quickly. Oil was next for Texas, generating 4/5 of US production. This is where it gets confusing for me because if I am correct, whoever finds the oil, owns the oil. Now- what is it is no one’s land- if you struck oil- was it yours?? Was the land then yours aswell? I think I may be thinking too much into it and straying away from Cumings main points. The rails and telegraph shrunk time and space, people were free to move about and free to venture where ever they pleased- from gold, to cattle and oil- if you could find it- it was yours for the taking!
As I read Cuming’s book, I always remember a section of Scholte’s book (p5) – Globalization is “a progressive increase in the scale of social processes from a local or regional to a world level “the heart of globalization is the transcending of established boundaries and boarders of time, space, & territory, an increasing interdependence & interaction of peoples and an emerging consciousness of what’s happening.
- This to me is the essence of Dominion from Sea to Sea – it makes me think of the colonist, Lewis & Clark, Native Americans, Cotton, Slave Trade, World Trade, Steam Engines, Continental Travel, Oceanic Travel, Military, Military Bases Abroad and most of all America.
America is everywhere- I never thought about it much until I read Scholte’s book and especially now after reading the last few chapters of Cumings book. To me, bases abroad was the norm- I kind of even (I am totally embarrassed to saw) looked at those countries who accommodated US bases as fortunate to have us. I saw or still see, just in a different light US bases abroad as defense for all those who fall under the idea of “good order” or good morals. Even after living in Japan and frequenting Korea as a Marine and seeing both the good and loved side of being a Marine and seeing the hated side of being a Marine- from those we called “the Japanese Mafia” or some people called the “Nips” not me- sounds racist to me- I was stationed 30 min train ride from Hiroshima- that’s where we would go to party all weekend- and the younger generation LOVED us and the older seemed to hate us. I never really thought that much about it other than WWII but it goes so much farther than that- we really have taken over so much of their land. I don’t think anyone who has not been to every US base on mainland Japan really know how much land we occupy on the mainland- not to mention Okinawa which is 75% US bases. We even have a base at the foot of Japans highest mountain- Mt. Fuji where marines train in various areas, as well as climb the mountain- it is very “Americanized” anything is when you put 500 Marines in uniform around it.
Americanization is more of a word to me know- I guess in a way we are Americanizing everything and every place we can. We can’t really help it due to the fact that we are everywhere and our military readiness is first class. US military men and women are plentiful, unfortunately expendable and ready to deploy with only 72 hours notice- that’s for the average marine- they expect you to have a family care plan in order to care for dependents, always have a sea bag packed and dog tags on. They continually practice redness exercises- its packing allllllllllll you and your commands shit up, staging it, putting it on float (boat) or in a bird (plane) taking it wherever and then unloading it alllllllll and setting it up. That’s allllllll we did in Iwakuni Japan because there was nothing else to do- practice being ready to deploy – I was a logistical embarker – the name says it all- shit packer, shit shipper and shit set-er- upper – and honorary hole digger of frozen ground. Woo- sorry to get off track- I am just really realizing now just how “everywhere” we are –
we even practice to go everywhere when there is nowhere to go!!
A friend sent this to me not long ago- in remembrance of all our crazy ass 2 am hole digs- I just goggled it and found it. It’s a perfect example of our readiness to be anywhere alllll the time- we are everywhere even when there’s nowhere to go :)
http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcbjapan/Pages/2010/100730-invincible.aspx
-
I enjoyed “dominion from Sea to Sea” – obviously because after every chapter read, I wanted to change my paper topic- it was very interesting and easy to read and understand for me. It really gave a different perspective in all topics covered. My whole outlook on globalization has changed! Our country has an outlet (as Cumings put it) to every place on Earth- when I sit back and think about that, it is amazing to me. I have always known that- but never really put any real thought into it.
The cotton industry was how the US became dominate in world trade and it could not have been as successful as it if it were not for the slaves- I think this was paper topic # 4 for me. Texas notable contributed to the cotton trade as well as the slave trade. After the Civil War, Texas became a Jim Crow state. Once the cotton gin came about the plantation owners could have their cotton ginned (I guess you would call it) but huge plantations that never made a comeback after the civil war. Southern states like Texas began a new type of farming- cattle production- what we think of as the wild west- cowboys and cattle. This was an easy way to make money because you could buy some cattle and turn them out into the wide open- they are pretty rugged and eat almost anything that grows from the ground. Cattle driving came and went quickly. Oil was next for Texas, generating 4/5 of US production. This is where it gets confusing for me because if I am correct, whoever finds the oil, owns the oil. Now- what is it is no one’s land- if you struck oil- was it yours?? Was the land then yours aswell? I think I may be thinking too much into it and straying away from Cumings main points. The rails and telegraph shrunk time and space, people were free to move about and free to venture where ever they pleased- from gold, to cattle and oil- if you could find it- it was yours for the taking!
As I read Cuming’s book, I always remember a section of Scholte’s book (p5) – Globalization is “a progressive increase in the scale of social processes from a local or regional to a world level “the heart of globalization is the transcending of established boundaries and boarders of time, space, & territory, an increasing interdependence & interaction of peoples and an emerging consciousness of what’s happening.
- This to me is the essence of Dominion from Sea to Sea – it makes me think of the colonist, Lewis & Clark, Native Americans, Cotton, Slave Trade, World Trade, Steam Engines, Continental Travel, Oceanic Travel, Military, Military Bases Abroad and most of all America.
America is everywhere- I never thought about it much until I read Scholte’s book and especially now after reading the last few chapters of Cumings book. To me, bases abroad was the norm- I kind of even (I am totally embarrassed to saw) looked at those countries who accommodated US bases as fortunate to have us. I saw or still see, just in a different light US bases abroad as defense for all those who fall under the idea of “good order” or good morals. Even after living in Japan and frequenting Korea as a Marine and seeing both the good and loved side of being a Marine and seeing the hated side of being a Marine- from those we called “the Japanese Mafia” or some people called the “Nips” not me- sounds racist to me- I was stationed 30 min train ride from Hiroshima- that’s where we would go to party all weekend- and the younger generation LOVED us and the older seemed to hate us. I never really thought that much about it other than WWII but it goes so much farther than that- we really have taken over so much of their land. I don’t think anyone who has not been to every US base on mainland Japan really know how much land we occupy on the mainland- not to mention Okinawa which is 75% US bases. We even have a base at the foot of Japans highest mountain- Mt. Fuji where marines train in various areas, as well as climb the mountain- it is very “Americanized” anything is when you put 500 Marines in uniform around it.
Americanization is more of a word to me know- I guess in a way we are Americanizing everything and every place we can. We can’t really help it due to the fact that we are everywhere and our military readiness is first class. US military men and women are plentiful, unfortunately expendable and ready to deploy with only 72 hours notice- that’s for the average marine- they expect you to have a family care plan in order to care for dependents, always have a sea bag packed and dog tags on. They continually practice redness exercises- its packing allllllllllll you and your commands shit up, staging it, putting it on float (boat) or in a bird (plane) taking it wherever and then unloading it alllllllll and setting it up. That’s allllllll we did in Iwakuni Japan because there was nothing else to do- practice being ready to deploy – I was a logistical embarker – the name says it all- shit packer, shit shipper and shit set-er- upper – and honorary hole digger of frozen ground. Woo- sorry to get off track- I am just really realizing now just how “everywhere” we are –
we even practice to go everywhere when there is nowhere to go!!
A friend sent this to me not long ago- in remembrance of all our crazy ass 2 am hole digs- I just goggled it and found it. It’s a perfect example of our readiness to be anywhere alllll the time- we are everywhere even when there’s nowhere to go :)
http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcbjapan/Pages/2010/100730-invincible.aspx
-
Monday, September 27, 2010
Intentions in Afghanistan the Philippines: Benevolent gone awry
Are we really just "spreading democracy" and attempting to be a beacon of light for the rest of the Middle East to model themselves from? Or are we fighting an unjustifiable war that is only being fought for the interests of United States domestic politicians with ties to foreign relations? According to neo-liberals such as George Bush and Bill Clinton, we are in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan being specific examples; "in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations." This passage was an article from a law passed in the Clinton administration entitled, "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," These examples listed above are perfect nations for neo-liberals such as Clinton and G.W. Bush to attempt to instill the western, capitalist myth of a "free-market" where any nation can compete. What ends up happening is we head over to weaker nations with "benevolent intentions" but end up becoming involved in murder accusations of our troops. This is exactly the case that is happening in Afghanistan right now with five U.S. Army troops being accused of the murders of twelve Afghan civilians.
Well I thought we were supposedly over in Afghanistan to stabilize their government and set up a western-style system of capitalism. The problem is, the Shari ya (spelling), or the Islamic law, is completely against our western ideological system. Our diplomats and politicians are concerned with the lack of control in the Middle East by our war machine, and their concerns are valid. The Muslims who fundamentally hate the west will fight until their death for our presence to leave their region of the world. The wars in Afghanistan, and the continuing war in Iraq (the war in Iraq is not over, do not be fulled by false reports, troops are still being deployed in Iraq on a fairly constant basis) are completely unorganized and are full of troops whom do not know the correct way to conduct this new style of fighting. When we have a grunt accusing his Sergeant of telling the squadron to "wax this guy" referring to a regular Afghan citizen, then we as a nation are not spreading the "beacon of light" we once professed to posses as a group of citizens. The neo-liberals might tell you that we are going into oppressed nations, to "lift them in accordance with the rest of the world" with benevolent intentions, but as I have read many historians argue, mixing democracy, abolishing tyranny, spreading ideals, all with benevolent intentions, does not work out the way it was originally intended. The classic example of a failed occupation to "civilize and uplift" a particular nation was the United States occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. When the natives would not assimilate to our way of life, on the set time schedule we planned for them, we decided we needed to force the change to occur. Those benevolent intentions quickly turned into visions of potentially huge investment by controlling the Philippines. We did not think twice about what we were doing to the natives; the popular thought at the time was how could the United States establish itself on a global scale via a Pacific point of view.
If there really is a threat in the Middle East, then I have no problem supporting the military if she is fighting for justifiable reasons. But to support an army that is getting a "thrill out of the killing of innocent Afghan civilians" is tough for me to conjure up the strength for. But apparently, being the sole hegemonic power means you as a nation must "search in order to find monsters to destroy." Are these "monsters" legitimate threats, or rather scapegoats for the United States to use to portray its dominance as the sole superpower in the world? The debate is real and alive, waiting to be pondered and critiqued by aspiring historians such as the students in this class.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-soldier-describes-thrill-kill-innocent-civilians-afghanistan/story?id=11732681
the link posted above is to the story on the five U.S. Army soldiers charged with pre-meditated murder.
-JT Liverman
Well I thought we were supposedly over in Afghanistan to stabilize their government and set up a western-style system of capitalism. The problem is, the Shari ya (spelling), or the Islamic law, is completely against our western ideological system. Our diplomats and politicians are concerned with the lack of control in the Middle East by our war machine, and their concerns are valid. The Muslims who fundamentally hate the west will fight until their death for our presence to leave their region of the world. The wars in Afghanistan, and the continuing war in Iraq (the war in Iraq is not over, do not be fulled by false reports, troops are still being deployed in Iraq on a fairly constant basis) are completely unorganized and are full of troops whom do not know the correct way to conduct this new style of fighting. When we have a grunt accusing his Sergeant of telling the squadron to "wax this guy" referring to a regular Afghan citizen, then we as a nation are not spreading the "beacon of light" we once professed to posses as a group of citizens. The neo-liberals might tell you that we are going into oppressed nations, to "lift them in accordance with the rest of the world" with benevolent intentions, but as I have read many historians argue, mixing democracy, abolishing tyranny, spreading ideals, all with benevolent intentions, does not work out the way it was originally intended. The classic example of a failed occupation to "civilize and uplift" a particular nation was the United States occupation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. When the natives would not assimilate to our way of life, on the set time schedule we planned for them, we decided we needed to force the change to occur. Those benevolent intentions quickly turned into visions of potentially huge investment by controlling the Philippines. We did not think twice about what we were doing to the natives; the popular thought at the time was how could the United States establish itself on a global scale via a Pacific point of view.
If there really is a threat in the Middle East, then I have no problem supporting the military if she is fighting for justifiable reasons. But to support an army that is getting a "thrill out of the killing of innocent Afghan civilians" is tough for me to conjure up the strength for. But apparently, being the sole hegemonic power means you as a nation must "search in order to find monsters to destroy." Are these "monsters" legitimate threats, or rather scapegoats for the United States to use to portray its dominance as the sole superpower in the world? The debate is real and alive, waiting to be pondered and critiqued by aspiring historians such as the students in this class.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-soldier-describes-thrill-kill-innocent-civilians-afghanistan/story?id=11732681
the link posted above is to the story on the five U.S. Army soldiers charged with pre-meditated murder.
-JT Liverman
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Virginia Beach will live on without Oceana
This weekend I attended the 37th annual Neptune Festival that was held in Virginia Beach. While enjoying the activities I decided to conduct my own field study. Having been born and raised in Virginia Beach, I have attended every single Neptune Festival since its inseption in 1973. I have seen this small local event turn into one of the largest activities of its kind.
The beginning of this study started with surveying twelve different hotels/ motels along Atlantic Avenue. All of the facilities were sold out for the weekend. Three of the facilities claimed that they were booked full all the way into November. One hotel, the Hilton, said they were booked full all the way into December. This is good news for Virginia Beach. Many people believe that the ocenfront is basically closed from October to March. That might have been true ten years ago; but, in 2010 Virginia Beach is just as vibrant as any other comparable city along the East Coast. The new oceanfront convention center is prooving to be a resounding success. More and more groups are naming Virginia Beach as their annual convention destination. Rates at motels and hotels are at rock-bottom during the winter months. This is attracting many visitors to come to our city during this down period.
The second part of my study involved observation and conversations with some of our out-of-town visitors. While driving around the oceanfront and looking for a parking spot I noticed that there were a large amount of license plates registered to states other than our own. Cars from New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina were represented. I even saw one car from Ontario and two from Quebec. While walking through parking lots I noticed the same trend. It seemed that one out of three license plates were from out-of-state. This is remarkable when you consider that tourist season is over. I talked with a few visitors and they all said that they came to Virginia Beach because of the short travel distance and the low motel rates at this time of year. They also said that marketing in their area was very strong for Virginia Beach and that they felt that this area was family friendly with a low crime rate. None of the people I talked to were related to the military. As a matter of fact, I noticed that there were not that many military personel present in the crowd.
In 2009 Virginia Beach had over 2.5 million visitors that spent 890 million dollars. In return, this created more than 15,000 jobs. In addition to the tourist industry, Virginia Beach has a strong agricultural heritage that contributes to the economic vitality of this region. Manufacturing in the area is also continuing to thrive. There are many companies such as, Stihl, that have made Virginia Beach their home. This kind of business is not related to the military and is an indication of our areas economic vitality.
How could Virginia Beach survive without Oceana Naval Air Station? This question has been asked by many. My answer is yes, our areas strong economic base outside the military is very strong and continuing to grow. If the massive acreage of land that Oceana occupies were to become available to our tax assesors. The winfall would be tremendous. There are many other uses for that land that I feel will better utilize the available resources in our area. Examples that can be used are turning the airfield into a Fedex/ DHL terminal, or building an industrial park or amusment park. The real estate tax that the city would gain would be astonomical. Currently, the city does not receive this benefit from the current residents. In addition, one has to look at the residents from the base. They typically receive benefits that none military personel do not receive. For example, tax free shopping and free medical benefits are typical for many military families. This economic activity does not benefit the city and in actuallity causes harm to the native residents of our area. I will admit that housing will suffer as a result of the loss of Oceana. But, when you look at the big picture, housing is intruding on green areas that can be used for agriculture. There is an influx of un-needed housing in Virginia Beach. I feel that existing housing has met our needs and construction of new housing should be limited.
In conclusion, I feel that the future shines bright for Virginia Beach. Tourism is on the rise, manufacturing has shown a strong increase and agriculture is and always will be a force of strong economic input/ output. Yes, I believe that Virginia Beach can survive without Oceana and would continue to thrive without the presence of Oceana Naval Air Station.
The beginning of this study started with surveying twelve different hotels/ motels along Atlantic Avenue. All of the facilities were sold out for the weekend. Three of the facilities claimed that they were booked full all the way into November. One hotel, the Hilton, said they were booked full all the way into December. This is good news for Virginia Beach. Many people believe that the ocenfront is basically closed from October to March. That might have been true ten years ago; but, in 2010 Virginia Beach is just as vibrant as any other comparable city along the East Coast. The new oceanfront convention center is prooving to be a resounding success. More and more groups are naming Virginia Beach as their annual convention destination. Rates at motels and hotels are at rock-bottom during the winter months. This is attracting many visitors to come to our city during this down period.
The second part of my study involved observation and conversations with some of our out-of-town visitors. While driving around the oceanfront and looking for a parking spot I noticed that there were a large amount of license plates registered to states other than our own. Cars from New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina were represented. I even saw one car from Ontario and two from Quebec. While walking through parking lots I noticed the same trend. It seemed that one out of three license plates were from out-of-state. This is remarkable when you consider that tourist season is over. I talked with a few visitors and they all said that they came to Virginia Beach because of the short travel distance and the low motel rates at this time of year. They also said that marketing in their area was very strong for Virginia Beach and that they felt that this area was family friendly with a low crime rate. None of the people I talked to were related to the military. As a matter of fact, I noticed that there were not that many military personel present in the crowd.
In 2009 Virginia Beach had over 2.5 million visitors that spent 890 million dollars. In return, this created more than 15,000 jobs. In addition to the tourist industry, Virginia Beach has a strong agricultural heritage that contributes to the economic vitality of this region. Manufacturing in the area is also continuing to thrive. There are many companies such as, Stihl, that have made Virginia Beach their home. This kind of business is not related to the military and is an indication of our areas economic vitality.
How could Virginia Beach survive without Oceana Naval Air Station? This question has been asked by many. My answer is yes, our areas strong economic base outside the military is very strong and continuing to grow. If the massive acreage of land that Oceana occupies were to become available to our tax assesors. The winfall would be tremendous. There are many other uses for that land that I feel will better utilize the available resources in our area. Examples that can be used are turning the airfield into a Fedex/ DHL terminal, or building an industrial park or amusment park. The real estate tax that the city would gain would be astonomical. Currently, the city does not receive this benefit from the current residents. In addition, one has to look at the residents from the base. They typically receive benefits that none military personel do not receive. For example, tax free shopping and free medical benefits are typical for many military families. This economic activity does not benefit the city and in actuallity causes harm to the native residents of our area. I will admit that housing will suffer as a result of the loss of Oceana. But, when you look at the big picture, housing is intruding on green areas that can be used for agriculture. There is an influx of un-needed housing in Virginia Beach. I feel that existing housing has met our needs and construction of new housing should be limited.
In conclusion, I feel that the future shines bright for Virginia Beach. Tourism is on the rise, manufacturing has shown a strong increase and agriculture is and always will be a force of strong economic input/ output. Yes, I believe that Virginia Beach can survive without Oceana and would continue to thrive without the presence of Oceana Naval Air Station.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Dominion from Sea to Sea
I thought Bruce Cummings book was fantastic. It was well written and it kept me completely engrossed. His thoughts in relation to american military and economic growth and expansion was enlightening. His thoughts concerning american westward expansion and global influence across the Pacific Ocean was very unique and well conceived. Although, his theories are very sound and reasonable I tend to disagree with him.
Although, I agree that the Pacific Ocean and East Asia have a very strong impact on United States global policy, I think that american emphasis should center around solidifying our age-old connection with our European allies. Our ties to the "Old World" (Europe) are just too strong to overlook. The relationship between the United States and England is one of the strongest bonds that modern history has seen. We share common culture, society and values with our European allies. This type of bond should be strengthened and improved upon and I believe it is our duty to complete this goal.
I also feel that the United States should defend its interests in the Pacific and Asia; but, avoid expanding any farther than we have already. With the enlarging economic power of China, America should tread lightly in an area of growing Chinese strength. The United States, already has strong defensive establishments in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Our nation should be satisfied to defend these nations and use them as a bulwark to defend our Pacific interests and most importantly defend the west coast of the United States and protect the Panama Canal.
In conclusion, Cummings book was a fantastic read that I would recomend to anybody. Although he puts forth some sound judgements I will have to disagree with some of his theories. Particularly, when one considers the United States existing European bonds and domination of the Atlantic Ocean. Trans-atlantic trade is and always should be America's path to global success and economic stability.
Although, I agree that the Pacific Ocean and East Asia have a very strong impact on United States global policy, I think that american emphasis should center around solidifying our age-old connection with our European allies. Our ties to the "Old World" (Europe) are just too strong to overlook. The relationship between the United States and England is one of the strongest bonds that modern history has seen. We share common culture, society and values with our European allies. This type of bond should be strengthened and improved upon and I believe it is our duty to complete this goal.
I also feel that the United States should defend its interests in the Pacific and Asia; but, avoid expanding any farther than we have already. With the enlarging economic power of China, America should tread lightly in an area of growing Chinese strength. The United States, already has strong defensive establishments in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Our nation should be satisfied to defend these nations and use them as a bulwark to defend our Pacific interests and most importantly defend the west coast of the United States and protect the Panama Canal.
In conclusion, Cummings book was a fantastic read that I would recomend to anybody. Although he puts forth some sound judgements I will have to disagree with some of his theories. Particularly, when one considers the United States existing European bonds and domination of the Atlantic Ocean. Trans-atlantic trade is and always should be America's path to global success and economic stability.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Technology as an Industrial Revolution
I find the view Cumings has developed of technology as another kind of industrial revolution and driver of the American economy quite interesting. The development was very much focused within the western states and so it is unsurprising that this would be a major part of his book. I think that he might discount too much the role of eastern interests in financing and providing a market for the products that were produced by Microsoft, Apple and company. However, he is clearly showing that this was a monumental shift in the American economy. Furthermore, the growth of software giants like Microsoft and the movement overseas of the Fairchildren (companies spun off by Fairchild Semiconductor) heralded the larger transition in the American economy from one of production of durable goods (hardware) to one of services (software.) One may loathe the monopoly of Microsoft or the cult of personality that has developed around Steve Jobs, but Apple and Microsoft are some of the largest generators of goods and services that this country exports. I suppose the ultimate irony of this is that some of the grunt work coding for Microsoft is done overseas and for Apple all of its products composed by industrial designers to reach a near Platonic level of perfection, are produced in the People's Republic China. It is very interesting that communist China has benefited so much from the capitalist west's desire to reduce wage and production costs but it seems less so given the insistence a century or more earlier to use imported Chinese labor to reduce costs and become more competitive. Perhaps there really is nothing new under the sun and we have always needed cheap Chinese labor to run the country's economy.
Monday, September 20, 2010
I am struck by the way Cumings is constantly drawn to the concept of Arcadia. I suppose that it is a most appropriate way to describe the way people have viewed the country. It always seems convieniently depopulated and yet unmarred by human impact. Yet as soon as paradise is found it is lost. Cumings does a fine job of detangeling the way in which the settlement of the west was a monolithic process and instead parses it out into it's constitiuent parts. Different people settled different parts of the country and
It has only been through the imagery of the Hollywood Western that this ideal has been created. I greatly enjoy Cumings use of cultural references to illustrate his point. For him, themexpansion ofmthemcountry wasmmoremofma
cultural phenomena than anything else. I wish he had given a more thorough treatment of the war in the Phillipines but I do enjoy his way of framing regions and his discussion of how the environment has impacted settlement and material conditions.
It has only been through the imagery of the Hollywood Western that this ideal has been created. I greatly enjoy Cumings use of cultural references to illustrate his point. For him, themexpansion ofmthemcountry wasmmoremofma
cultural phenomena than anything else. I wish he had given a more thorough treatment of the war in the Phillipines but I do enjoy his way of framing regions and his discussion of how the environment has impacted settlement and material conditions.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Cumings ch 1- 3
Dominion from Sea to Sea is a very in depth look at the American dream or belief in manifest destiny.
As I read these 3 chapters though, I am having problems piecing everything together because Cumings jumps around from different time periods so hopefully all of it makes sense (my notesJ) I keep having to change my whole thought process- not easy for me J
Cumings begins by trying to define what the “west” is and how its boarders have changed so drastically over time. The east is cultured and refined with much of the same characteristics as Europe. The west is uncivilized and wild, yet it is seen by the newcomers as a way to break free and move farther from their European roots. The west is like a never ending conquest – maybe I should say that moving west is a never ending conquest. We began on the east coast and slowly the boarders of what is east and what is west moved closer and closer to the Pacific. The Pacific was our Garden of Eden as Cumings calls it- a land without the constraints of the east- or better a land without the constraints of Europe.
Cumings compares Chicago to the Pacific coastal cities because of its rapid industrial growth. If I understand correctly, Cumings is comparing the 2 because the growth of Chicago linked more so than we had ever been to the “rest of the world” whatever that was during that time- Europe, the east and the west. The east on one side and the wide open west on the other meant that “Chicago was the epicenter of innovation” – the goods of the west had to first come through Chicago before a profit could be made. Chicago was like what the west coast held in store for us as far as being an epicenter to the rest of the world.
Chicago made the Midwest virtually untouchable when it came to industry. It tied our new country to the rest of the world and kind of gave us a beginning as far as trade and marketing go. New innovations of the meat market gave us a broader than ever future. Inventions such as the conveyer belt, slaughterhouse and refrigerator train cars promised a profitable future for those who owned land out west because they could grow corn or raise cattle and pigs for income. Cumings emphasizes the importance of the Homestead Act which allowed for the expansion of farmers and landowners throughout the unsettled west. This expansion led the way for market opportunity for the US which leads to worldly power.
Cumings illustrates just how profit driven and power hungry new Americans were then- just as they are today. The new colonial life set up a foundation for domestic trade and production through transatlantic and international economies. The quick transformation and success of the colonies demonstrates the settler’s interest in power and authority over their new lands, the people they found there and over their own destiny.
- I think the Monroe Doctrine illustrates our new countries desire for extreme supremacy and our capability as a new country- we were very forceful in what we wanted and we got it. I think threatened the old world in many ways.
Cumings vividly describes the European settler’s need for control as they quickly destroy the native American’s land and lives through urbanization of their lands, killing of the buffalo, the on sought of diseases and murder. This mode of power through the control of human lives was soon used again by slave holders. This all led to the Indians savage ways- the once peaceful tribes lived among each other, trading with each other and helping each other- after the whites came, the poor Indian tribes had nothing left and no choice but to use barbaric practices in order to survive or save what little of their culture was left- it became their tribe against the rest of the world, the world being all other surviving tribes and the whites.
As the settlers moved west, conquering all in sight- eventually they reached the Pacific- which was to the settlers a gold mine (latterly of possibilities). The pacific coast symbolized e very thing that was America or everything g that American wanted. The need for power and good old American greed push west. It was like a race to power- who would be the first to claim land or find gold. Jefferson led the way in settling the west; I think Cumings calls him an expansionist- perfect for him J The Donner party was a perfect example of greed and the American love of power. The Donner party, who was originally headed to California, following others decided not take a so called faster route through a mountain range- the reason for this was to get to the gold and land first. We all know what happened to that group high up in the Sierras.
The Texas Annexation led to the Mexican American war, both perfect examples of the American ideas of Manifest Destiny, we took the Indians land now we were taking the Mexican’s land. Again, we got what we wanted by way of force. Victory and conquest for the US forces sparks even more feelings of nationalism and Manifest Destiny now.
- I have been told before that America has always been the one to begin conflict either by stirring up problems with other countries which in turn leaves us no choice but (for the good of all) to intervene or by letting the weaker force strike first- exactly what we want- hhhmmm…. Pearl Harbor???
- As I read ch 3- it said exactly that- we have always provoked war in some way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)