PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Eisenhower Final Speech - warned us of the military industrial complex.


teedubya
03-14-2011, 04:22 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8y06NSBBRtY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When you watch the whole speech... you can see that he saw what was coming. It is one of the most telling and most patriotic speeches that I've ever seen from the Commander in Chief. Take into account that he was with the US military for 50 years, and it gives his insight a whole new weight.

Part 1
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S9_fyDV7Mnk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Part 2
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cbUAwCE7JVY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here is another video that is interesting...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/13zCc9JW_wI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

teedubya
03-14-2011, 11:46 PM
Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.
Thank you, and good night.

Direckshun
03-14-2011, 11:55 PM
I think you're sending the point home a little strong.

There is no doubt that the military has created its own portion of the economy that's politicallly untouchable, and that the military has used that vantage point to become single-minded ambassadors for their cause.

One thing I welcome about the imminent Republican revolution over the next five to eight years is the new willingness to cut into the defense budget. Defense cuts almost have to come from the right side of the aisle for them to be very successful. Will be interesting to see how deep we can go.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:13 AM
It's very telling.

The Nazis were a military industrial complex... THEN... we defeated them. Less than 5 years later, we are a in a cold war with Russia.

So, think for a minute. All of the Nazi scientists that were "free agents", where do you think most of them moved to? Most of whom did not get tried at Nuremberg.

A bidding war for the Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretzky, Mike Tyson of Nazi scientists. The US couldn't have that all-star team go the Russians. So, in a sense, we traded places with the Germans. We are now the war machine.

You can see what Eisenhower was talking about when he said, "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Count Alex's Losses
03-15-2011, 12:21 AM
How is our rise to power disastrous?

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 12:36 AM
It's very telling.

The Nazis were a military industrial complex... THEN... we defeated them. Less than 5 years later, we are a in a cold war with Russia.

So, think for a minute. All of the Nazi scientists that were "free agents", where do you think most of them moved to? Most of whom did not get tried at Nuremberg.

A bidding war for the Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, Wayne Gretzky, Mike Tyson of Nazi scientists. The US couldn't have that all-star team go the Russians. So, in a sense, we traded places with the Germans. We are now the war machine.

You can see what Eisenhower was talking about when he said, "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

I don't like drawing a straight line from the Nazi defense system to the Department of Defense.

Come back to earth and we'll talk.

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 12:41 AM
How is our rise to power disastrous?

I think you misunderstand.

The military is, just like any other department, jockeying for funding within the government.

The problem is that the military has essentially won any and all funding its asked for for the past seventy years.

What's resulted from that is more than just a bloated government bureaucracy. It's worse than that.

It's a fully developed complex that depends on excessive, exhaustively wasteful spending that we pour into defense by the trillions, much of it unnecessary. Some of it directly counterproductive to protecting America.

Politically, the military is, like every other department in the American government, an ambassador for its cause above all other causes, even the greater cause of America's wellbeing, and thus must be treated with a moderated hand, not stuffed until it bursts. And it doesn't take a decorated general turned quality American President to see that.

As the medium goes... too much of anything is a bad thing.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:43 AM
I look at it like this... we spend TRILLIONS on defense... then, the weapons get old and outdated, so we sell them... or we have to find an enemy to use them on. Trillions that could have been used for the betterment of humanity.

So, in a sense, we have armed a lot of our enemies... or created enemies. And that is being a global bully and police man.

Once you look at it from this perspective, you can see how 9-11 aided them in moving their agenda forward. Look at all of the shit they got to blow up... and look, they created a whole new "security" industry... TSA, Homeland Security, FEMA.

We have a "War" on terrorism. "War" on drugs. "War" on this... "War" on that... In many ways, we have become the beast we set out to destroy in WWII.

That's just my opinion, but Eisenhower was right on, in my estimation. The powers went unchecked... and look, we are always at war with someone, somewhere...

Here is a list of just our ARMY military bases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations

In my opinion, we should be strong on defense, but it should be like martial arts. Attack when provoked...

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:45 AM
I don't like drawing a straight line from the Nazi defense system to the Department of Defense.

Come back to earth and we'll talk.

It's not all the DOD... it's the Armament Industry... this includes all of the corporations dealing with defense contracts. The Halliburtons, the Lockheed Martins, etc...

And the Nazi Scientists parallel is very relevant. Most people have never considered the Cold War/Nazi Scientists free agency situation. It was called Operation Paperclip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

How do you think we got to the Moon in the 60s? Nazi scientists.

Now, I'm not saying we have gone all "holocaust" on countries... but we had their scientists and a military armament industry complex just like the Germans. It's interesting to process, though.

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 12:45 AM
It's not all the DOD... it's the Armament Industry... this includes all of the corporations dealing with defense contracts.

And the Nazi Scientists parallel is very relevant. Most people have never considered the Cold War/Nazi Scientists free agency situation.

How do you think we got to the Moon in the 60s? Nazi scientists.

Sweet jesus. Stop.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 01:04 AM
It was called Operation Paperclip. It's not a crackpot "theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 01:08 AM
It was called Operation Paperclip. It's not a crackpot "theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Don't give a shit. I'm not interested in bringing Naziism into any political conversation.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 01:19 AM
Heh, I'll put my head under the covers, maybe the robber will go away.

It's a paradigm shift in thinking, I know. It's a bit of the red pill. But, once you understand this bit of information, you start seeing that the official story, isn't always the case.

Knowing about Operation Paperclip was one of the things that woke me up, years ago.

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 01:23 AM
I understand the connections. I just don't think, if we are to critique American defense spending, that Nazis are in any way an effective precedent.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 01:36 AM
That's fair. I just look at it as a whole, instead of segmenting them. Once we dug ourselves out of the great depression with our armament industry... and became the world's most powerful country, we had to keep that going.

I don't know WHAT the scientists did, but IMO, they should have been executed for war crimes... not utilized in creating a new war machine. There is something there.

Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex going unchecked... it went unchecked. Eisenhower's successor was JFK. We know how his story ended... by a "lone gunman".

Now, we find ways to use our weapons... so we can build more weapons... blow up shit... then rebuild the shit we blew up. It's called GDP, and considered economic "growth".

Hell, most of America's enemies are using older American weapons to fight against us with... it's a sham.

http://www.google.com/search?q=us+sold+weapons Weapons are practically the #1 US Export, now.

Eisenhower knew it, and it's a shame no one stood up and did anything about it.

We have become the "Empire", and unfortunately, George Lucas isn't directing this movie.

Direckshun
03-15-2011, 01:38 AM
If you're going to start comparing us to Star Wars, we might as well go back to Nazis.

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2011, 01:44 AM
If you're going to start comparing us to Star Wars, we might as well go back to Nazis.

LMAO

orange
03-15-2011, 03:03 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LOouiLW1P4M/SSNwMHwUyZI/AAAAAAAAAtg/KeXT40q6sYM/s400/darth%2Bcheney%5B1%5D.jpg

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 06:52 AM
One thing I welcome about the imminent Republican revolution over the next five to eight years is the new willingness to cut into the defense budget. Defense cuts almost have to come from the right side of the aisle for them to be very successful. Will be interesting to see how deep we can go.


What gives you ANY indication that such a willingness exists?

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 06:55 AM
It's not all the DOD... it's the Armament Industry... this includes all of the corporations dealing with defense contracts. The Halliburtons, the Lockheed Martins, etc...

And the Nazi Scientists parallel is very relevant. Most people have never considered the Cold War/Nazi Scientists free agency situation. It was called Operation Paperclip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

How do you think we got to the Moon in the 60s? Nazi scientists.

Now, I'm not saying we have gone all "holocaust" on countries... but we had their scientists and a military armament industry complex just like the Germans. It's interesting to process, though.

I'm aware of the recruitment of Nazi scientists and the tremendous benefits we got from recruiting Werner von Braun etc.

That doesn't make your analogy a single bit less ridiculous.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 06:56 AM
Heh, I'll put my head under the covers, maybe the robber will go away.

It's a paradigm shift in thinking, I know. It's a bit of the red pill. But, once you understand this bit of information, you start seeing that the official story, isn't always the case.

Knowing about Operation Paperclip was one of the things that woke me up, years ago.

Woke you up to what, exactly?

Think about how the use of the German scientists ties into our Cold War and pause to consider which are causes, which are effects, and which are neither.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 06:58 AM
That's fair. I just look at it as a whole, instead of segmenting them. Once we dug ourselves out of the great depression with our armament industry... and became the world's most powerful country, we had to keep that going.

I don't know WHAT the scientists did, but IMO, they should have been executed for war crimes... not utilized in creating a new war machine. There is something there.

Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex going unchecked... it went unchecked. Eisenhower's successor was JFK. We know how his story ended... by a "lone gunman".

Now, we find ways to use our weapons... so we can build more weapons... blow up shit... then rebuild the shit we blew up. It's called GDP, and considered economic "growth".

Hell, most of America's enemies are using older American weapons to fight against us with... it's a sham.

http://www.google.com/search?q=us+sold+weapons Weapons are practically the #1 US Export, now.

Eisenhower knew it, and it's a shame no one stood up and did anything about it.

We have become the "Empire", and unfortunately, George Lucas isn't directing this movie.

Nazis, Star Wars and now JFK conspiracy theories. You are completely out of control. You may return to Earth at your convenience.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 07:36 AM
While you deleted your post, Fishpicker, I saw it before you did.

The answer is no, no they weren't. Not "a lot" by any measure, and none in any position where they could dictate policy. We USED them to advance OUR goals.

penchief
03-15-2011, 08:55 AM
Unfortunately, the military industrial complex has more to do with profiteering than it does national defense, IMHO.

We are headed down that road with regards to health care, as well. Now that corporations are profiting from Medicare there is no question that health care costs are going to become even more of a burden for tax payers and another boon for huge corporations. Single-payer would have been much more efficient than turning health care over to Wall Street, whose only goal is to maximize profits over all else.

Greed is the problem. The government is corrupted by lobbyists who represent those who have their hands in the cookie jar. Until we get rid of lobbying, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people will be working for huge corporate interests instead of we the people.

Of course, if you listen to those on the right, they're telling us that lobbying which amounts to bribery represents freedom of speech and that corporate greed represents the American Dream.

Oh well, Wall Street, banks, and coporations have been getting their way for over three decades and this country continues to spiral downward. At some point people will have to wake up and make the connection. Until then we can just keep blaming social programs and workers unions.

patteeu
03-15-2011, 09:54 AM
This thread is hilarious. Kudos to Direckshun and Amno for trying to inject at a little sanity.

Jaric
03-15-2011, 10:00 AM
This thread is hilarious. Kudos to Direckshun and Amno for trying to inject at a little sanity.

You can't tell me that Cheney didn't order the MIC to start work immediately building a Death Star.

patteeu
03-15-2011, 10:04 AM
You can't tell me that Cheney didn't order the MIC to start work immediately building a Death Star.

OK, I won't tell you that. :)

Jaric
03-15-2011, 10:07 AM
OK, I won't tell you that. :)

I'm sorry Pat, but if you can't imagine Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, you're not paying attention.

patteeu
03-15-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm sorry Pat, but if you can't imagine Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, you're not paying attention.

I don't have to imagine, orange showed a picture of it in post 18. In reality though, he was a great and selfless public servant to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. The fact that he has been subjected to so many vicious and scurrilous attacks against his character while continuing to put the country first, makes him an even more outstanding man. We were blessed to experience his leadership and devotion.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2011, 10:19 AM
Only a small minority of us would object to significant reductions in defense spending. Unfortunately, between real threats, the inevitability and inertia of a Global community, and the hysteria stoked by opportunistic defense industry folks....Congress seems unwilling to kick the habit.

But seriously dude, it's almost as if you flunked HS, and are working on a GED through youtube and the internet. Probably better than KC public schools, but not exactly a great way to get a good education. Just sayin', pal.

;)

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 10:25 AM
I don't have to imagine, orange showed a picture of it in post 18. In reality though, he was a great and selfless public servant to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. The fact that he has been subjected to so many vicious and scurrilous attacks against his character while continuing to put the country first, makes him an even more outstanding man. We were blessed to experience his leadership and devotion.

Nothing personal but...


:Lin: :Lin: :Lin: :Lin:

Jaric
03-15-2011, 10:40 AM
I don't have to imagine, orange showed a picture of it in post 18. In reality though, he was a great and selfless public servant to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. The fact that he has been subjected to so many vicious and scurrilous attacks against his character while continuing to put the country first, makes him an even more outstanding man. We were blessed to experience his leadership and devotion.

Oh shit, that is Cheney. I guess, I'm the one not paying attention.

Anyway, I'm not feeling the Cheney mancrush, Pat. But, to each his own I suppose.

patteeu
03-15-2011, 10:42 AM
Oh shit, that is Cheney. I guess, I'm not the one paying attention.

Anyway, I'm not feeling the mancrush Pat. But, to each his own I suppose.

Wasn't it refreshing to have a VP who wasn't interested in the top job for a change? The democrats tried to use the same formula, but it doesn't work as well when the guy you select has on a pair of oversized clown shoes.

Jaric
03-15-2011, 10:45 AM
Wasn't it refreshing to have a VP who wasn't interested in the top job for a change? The democrats tried to use the same formula, but it doesn't work as well when the guy you select has on a pair of oversized clown shoes.

Biden? He reminds me of a used car salesmen. The thought that he is a heartbeat away from being president scares the shit out of me.

Cheney might be evil, but he's generally proven compentent for the most part. I'll take him over Biden without hesitation. I just hope I don't end up in the room with no windows in Cheney's underground volcano lair in the process.

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2011, 10:51 AM
Unfortunately, the military industrial complex has more to do with profiteering than it does national defense, IMHO.

We are headed down that road with regards to health care, as well. Now that corporations are profiting from Medicare there is no question that health care costs are going to become even more of a burden for tax payers and another boon for huge corporations. Single-payer would have been much more efficient than turning health care over to Wall Street, whose only goal is to maximize profits over all else.

Greed is the problem. The government is corrupted by lobbyists who represent those who have their hands in the cookie jar. Until we get rid of lobbying, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people will be working for huge corporate interests instead of we the people.

Of course, if you listen to those on the right, they're telling us that lobbying which amounts to bribery represents freedom of speech and that corporate greed represents the American Dream.

Oh well, Wall Street, banks, and coporations have been getting their way for over three decades and this country continues to spiral downward. At some point people will have to wake up and make the connection. Until then we can just keep blaming social programs and workers unions.

penchief! You are the moon to my sun. You are the yin to my yang. You are the Hardy to my Laurel.

You complete me.

Bowser
03-15-2011, 10:58 AM
what is this I don't even

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2011, 11:03 AM
I don't have to imagine, orange showed a picture of it in post 18. In reality though, he was a great and selfless public servant to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. The fact that he has been subjected to so many vicious and scurrilous attacks against his character while continuing to put the country first, makes him an even more outstanding man. We were blessed to experience his leadership and devotion.

:spock:

I can appreciate his service, yeah; but holy crap...is that over-the friggin' top?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Bowser
03-15-2011, 11:24 AM
I don't have to imagine, orange showed a picture of it in post 18. In reality though, he was a great and selfless public servant to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. The fact that he has been subjected to so many vicious and scurrilous attacks against his character while continuing to put the country first, makes him an even more outstanding man. We were blessed to experience his leadership and devotion.

Wait, what?

You have a shrine in your basement full of Cheney stuff, right next to where you'll keep the real Cheney when you find him, don't you?

Bowser
03-15-2011, 11:25 AM
"I'll heal your broken heart, Mr. Cheney. I'll heal it with love"

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:17 PM
Only a small minority of us would object to significant reductions in defense spending. Unfortunately, between real threats, the inevitability and inertia of a Global community, and the hysteria stoked by opportunistic defense industry folks....Congress seems unwilling to kick the habit.

But seriously dude, it's almost as if you flunked HS, and are working on a GED through youtube and the internet. Probably better than KC public schools, but not exactly a great way to get a good education. Just sayin', pal.

;)

Hahaha... My KU edu has served me well. I'm open to thinking outside the box, where most people bury their head in the sand.

Most people think the US is above reproach... We are a war machine. We are a profiteering machine. We don't care about the consequences of our actions... We care about $$$.

We have a ****ed up central banking system. We have a ****ed up defense mentality. We buy up and destroy patents that would get us off of oil.

This type of stuff is why America isn't viewed with respect any longer worldwide.

Instead of trying the Nazis scientists... We brought them in house... And we became a military industrial complex... Just like Germany. Those are facts, not conjecture. Homeland Security and TSA is becoming more Gestapo-like. It's certainly a parallel to consider. Regardless of what you think of me, I could care less.

Most people don't know about operation paperclip, they don't realize that we are war profiteers. It makes you look at the real motives behind Vienam, both wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other numerous incidents throughout the last 50 years.

Blow it up... Build it up... Charge the countries interest, and profit. It's an endless cyle. Period.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-15-2011, 12:21 PM
The speech's message is solid, but Eisenhower was a goddamned hypocrite for giving it.

The man participated in a massive nuclear weapons buildup and used that very same complex as a way to overthrow democratically elected governments in places like Guatemala for the benefit of American corporations, in essence returning the country to a form of corporate feudalism.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:23 PM
If you're going to start comparing us to Star Wars, we might as well go back to Nazis.

Well, I don't think the Empire ever sold any weapons to the Rebel Alliance... so Star Wars has that on us. ROFL

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:25 PM
The speech's message is solid, but Eisenhower was a goddamned hypocrite for giving it.

The man participated in a massive nuclear weapons buildup and used that very same complex as a way to overthrow democratically elected governments in places like Guatemala for the benefit of American corporations, in essence returning the country to a form of corporate feudalism.

I tend to agree... He was saving a bit of face for his own conscience.

He should have gone further and blown the lid off of it all.

This speech reminds me a bit of Woodrow Wilson's lament of approving the Federal Reserve and IRS, "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country."

Yeah, nice try, asshole.

Jaric
03-15-2011, 12:26 PM
Well, I don't think the Empire ever sold any weapons to the Rebel Alliance... so Star Wars has that on us. ROFL

They did give them the plans to the death star which allowed them to locate a weakness to blow it up with.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 12:30 PM
I tend to agree... He was saving a bit of face for his own conscience.

He should have gone further and blown the lid off of it all.

This speech reminds me a bit of Woodrow Wilson's lament of approving the Federal Reserve and IRS, "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country."

Yeah, nice try, asshole.

That Wilson quote -- there's no proof he ever said it, and it's fantastically hard to believe any politician would say it about something he himself had done.

Chances that he actually said it -- about zero.

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:46 PM
They did give them the plans to the death star which allowed them to locate a weakness to blow it up with.

ROFL

teedubya
03-15-2011, 12:52 PM
That Wilson quote -- there's no proof he ever said it, and it's fantastically hard to believe any politician would say it about something he himself had done.

Chances that he actually said it -- about zero.

You know, you are right. I just found where it had been mis-attributed. Figures. I thought he'd at least have some remorse for fucking us up.

He did say this rather hypocritical thing

"No country can afford to have its prosperity originated by a small controlling class. The treasury of America lies in those ambitions, those energies, that cannot be restricted to a special favored class. It depends upon the inventions of unknown men, upon the originations of unknown men, upon the ambitions of unknown men. Every country is renewed out of the ranks of the unknown, not out of the ranks of those already famous and powerful and in control."
Section I: “The Old Order Changeth”, p. 17.

Kind of ironic, considering that he created the small controlling class.

Bowser
03-15-2011, 12:52 PM
The speech's message is solid, but Eisenhower was a goddamned hypocrite for giving it.

The man participated in a massive nuclear weapons buildup and used that very same complex as a way to overthrow democratically elected governments in places like Guatemala for the benefit of American corporations, in essence returning the country to a form of corporate feudalism.

I'm sure you've seen it, but just in case....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

teedubya
03-15-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm sure you've seen it, but just in case....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

That trailer sums most all of my points from this thread. I'm gonna watch it, so I can continue my "YouTube" education. heh

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-15-2011, 01:19 PM
If you're really into this, you could watch the 14.5 hour documentary I wrote my Master's thesis on :evil:

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 01:33 PM
You know, you are right. I just found where it had been mis-attributed. Figures. I thought he'd at least have some remorse for fucking us up.

He did say this rather hypocritical thing

"No country can afford to have its prosperity originated by a small controlling class. The treasury of America lies in those ambitions, those energies, that cannot be restricted to a special favored class. It depends upon the inventions of unknown men, upon the originations of unknown men, upon the ambitions of unknown men. Every country is renewed out of the ranks of the unknown, not out of the ranks of those already famous and powerful and in control."
Section I: “The Old Order Changeth”, p. 17.

Kind of ironic, considering that he created the small controlling class.


JP Morgan more or less single-handedly ended the Panic of 1905. Think about that for a second.

Then realize that the three wealthiest men in American history, relative to GDP and adjusted for inflation etc., were (1) John D. Rockefeller, (2) Andrew Carnegie, and (3) Cornelius (Commodore) Vanderbilt, while number 6 and 7 on the all time top 10 list also had the peak of their careers between 1860 and 1910. That is, of course, in large part due to the industrial boom, etc., but 5 out of 10 of the richest Americans (50%) ever made their money during the robber baron age and the early industrial age.

And that doesn't include soem bankers, such as JP Morgan, who wielded power FAR beyond their own nominal, personal wealth.

Then think about the small controlling class issue.

Believe me -- JP Morgan wielded far, FAR more power over this country than any one wealthy man today does.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 01:34 PM
Oh, and rep for acknowledging that it's not a real quote, just another Internet meme quote (see my sig)

teedubya
03-15-2011, 01:38 PM
JP Morgan more or less single-handedly ended the Panic of 1905. Think about that for a second.

Then realize that the three wealthiest men in American history, relative to GDP and adjusted for inflation etc., were (1) John D. Rockefeller, (2) Andrew Carnegie, and (3) Cornelius (Commodore) Vanderbilt, while number 6 and 7 on the all time top 10 list also had the peak of their careers between 1860 and 1910. That is, of course, in large part due to the industrial boom, etc., but 5 out of 10 of the richest Americans (50%) ever made their money during the robber baron age and the early industrial age.

And that doesn't include soem bankers, such as JP Morgan, who wielded power FAR beyond their own nominal, personal wealth.

Then think about the small controlling class issue.

Believe me -- JP Morgan wielded far, FAR more power over this country than any one wealthy man today does.

Absolutely. These same men were also the original controlling interest of the banks that are named as the stockholders of the Federal Reserve bank.

Great post. But I think you mean the Panic of 1907. I need to check my YouTube diploma first... lol. JP Morgan propped up the stock market like the Bank of Japan tried doing last night, by putting in Y3 trillion into the market.

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 09:39 PM
Absolutely. These same men were also the original controlling interest of the banks that are named as the stockholders of the Federal Reserve bank.

Great post. But I think you mean the Panic of 1907. I need to check my YouTube diploma first... lol. JP Morgan propped up the stock market like the Bank of Japan tried doing last night, by putting in Y3 trillion into the market.


Yep, 1907. I didn't bother to look it up, and that's what I get.

ClevelandBronco
03-15-2011, 10:10 PM
Yep, 1907. I didn't bother to look it up, and that's what I get.

Is 1907 another one of those musicals?

teedubya
03-16-2011, 01:46 AM
I'm sure you've seen it, but just in case....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

This is the most infuriating documentary that I have ever seen. OMFG. I'm so pissed right now. Fuck.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682#

Watch this and see how Imperial the United States of America has become.

It's fucking sickening.

Jenson71
03-16-2011, 12:34 PM
Unfortunately, the military industrial complex has more to do with profiteering than it does national defense, IMHO.

It's so strongly connected to American jobs. Congressmen can directly see the benefits of military spending when it means a factory in the district gets to make bolts for the Department of Defense.

Doesn't patteeu work for a Defense contractor? Why would he be so strongly in favor of military spending? Some of it has to do with protection, and how much of it has to do with affording a nice home, cars, kids education?

patteeu
03-16-2011, 12:43 PM
It's so strongly connected to American jobs. Congressmen can directly see the benefits of military spending when it means a factory in the district gets to make bolts for the Department of Defense.

Doesn't patteeu work for a Defense contractor? Why would he be so strongly in favor of military spending? Some of it has to do with protection, and how much of it has to do with affording a nice home, cars, kids education?

No, I don't. I once worked for a defense contractor, but not since I'v been at ChiefsPlanet. My interest in sensible defense spending is entirely based on the concept of peace through strength and the recognition that a marginal military advantage isn't nearly as likely to keep your people safe as a dominant military advantage.

The fact that the defense industry is necessarily saddled with the inefficiencies and political considerations that are inherent in a single-payer, government-run industry are lamentable, but I don't know how to avoid them. The best we can do is to constantly try to find ways to keep them in check.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2011, 01:41 PM
...

The fact that the defense industry is necessarily saddled with the inefficiencies and political considerations that are inherent in a single-payer, government-run industry are lamentable, but I don't know how to avoid them. The best we can do is to constantly try to find ways to keep them in check.

:spock:

So, the defense industry is the only industry deserving of such deference?

Not healthcare, or education???? "(industries" in which, research and experience strongly suggest similar ineffeciencies exist....if left entirely to private enterprise and the market.)

:hmmm:

patteeu
03-16-2011, 01:47 PM
:spock:

So, the defense industry is the only industry deserving of such deference?

Not healthcare, or education???? "(industries" in which, research and experience strongly suggest similar ineffeciencies exist.)

:hmmm:

Yes, because the defense industry has only one customer by definition. The inefficiencies of the defense industry should be testaments to why we DON'T want single payer health care or nationalized education.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2011, 02:34 PM
Yes, because the defense industry has only one customer by definition. The inefficiencies of the defense industry should be testaments to why we DON'T want single payer health care or nationalized education.

I'd consider the interests of our children and future of this country as important; I mean, promoting healthy living and educated workforce is in the interest of the nation as a whole, isn't it? Since the market can't seem to efficiently address either in an effective way (private healthcare and education are cost prohibitive for far too many Americans,) then you could argue healthcare and education, should be at least as important a priority as national security.

I'm sure that, the fact they aren't has nothing to do with the limited financial return to high rollers greasing the hands of our politicians--who, in turn, place a much higher priority on defense spending than the health and education of our marginalized middle and lower classes though.

ClevelandBronco
03-16-2011, 02:35 PM
Yes, because the defense industry has only one customer by definition. The inefficiencies of the defense industry should be testaments to why we DON'T want single payer health care or nationalized education.

Food is important. Nationalize grocery stores.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2011, 02:38 PM
Food is important. Nationalize grocery stores.

Private enterprise seems to be doing okay with that one, at the moment.

patteeu
03-16-2011, 02:55 PM
I'd consider the interests of our children and future of this country as important; I mean, promoting healthy living and educated workforce is in the interest of the nation as a whole, isn't it? Since the market can't seem to efficiently address either in an effective way (private healthcare and education are cost prohibitive for far too many Americans,) then you could argue healthcare and education, should be at least as important a priority as national security.

1. Did I say something to confuse you into thinking that "importance" is the criteria that makes single-payer the right way to go on national defense? No, I don't think I did. In fact, I think I said that the reason single-payer makes sense in defense is because there's really only one customer. Not so in education or health care.

2. There is no more important government function than national defense. Not education. Not healthcare. Not deciding which side of the road to drive on. Not cowboy poetry. Demagoguery about doing things "for the children" doesn't work on me, so you might as well save that bullshit for others.

3. We don't have free market education or free market health care and we haven't had it during our lifetimes so to say that the market can't seem to efficiently address these problems is to demonstrate a significant lack of understanding of the problems in the first place.

I'm sure that, the fact they aren't has nothing to do with the limited financial return to high rollers greasing the hands of our politicians--who, in turn, place a much higher priority on defense spending than the health and education of our marginalized middle and lower classes though.

Your broken record, blame the fat cats tune, grows really tiresome. As if there isn't big money changing hands between industry/union and politician in health care and education too. It's a fact of life and the more involved government gets into those industries, the more influence buying there will be. It's a fact of nature.

patteeu
03-16-2011, 02:59 PM
Private enterprise seems to be doing okay with that one, at the moment.

On one end of the spectrum, we have the relatively free market doing a pretty good job on food. On the other end, we have the necessarily single payer, single buyer system in national defense with all kinds of entrenched inefficiencies from simple fraud to weapon systems that cling to life for political/job reasons rather than legitimate defense requirement reasons.

In the middle, we have heavily regulated/funded or hybrid government/private systems in education and health care that seem to be having significant troubles. Which way does Kotter propose pushing the system? Toward the efficiencies of the food market or toward the inefficiencies of defense? Yep, of course, toward the inefficiencies of defense. Brilliant.