Eisenhowers warning

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by VJ

This speech resurfaces from time to time. When somebody brings it up, he's usually a young hippie who doesn't understand the context.

I'm not a hippie, I do understand the context. I just used his speech as a starting point... And the MIC *is* a factor this is just plain sociological common sense, it is little different from what Ike had in mind but not as much as you seem to think.

[RGBVideo]

for some reason, i'm a bit doubtful whether you do or not

I really don't feel like going into a lengthy debate about this, since popular history (myths, popular opinion) has beaten my academic history (search of original sources, trying to read as large amount of original texts as possible, source critique) senseless a number of times in the past and arguing in internet is like special olympics anyway, BUT:

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I do understand the context.

So you understand and already know that when Eisenhower's talking about "military-industrial complex", he's referring to (a) liberal Democrats who made big gains in 1958 and 1960 congressional elections with this exact theme of how the Republicans have failed national defense and there is a desperate need for massive increase on federal spending in this issue and (b) John F. Kennedy, who used the concept of a non-existant "missile gap" (hyped up by high-ranking military officials, in turn funded by big corporations) and the immediate threat of Castro's Cuba to win the presidential election of 1960, just months before Eisenhower made this speech?

Before you get all worked up by something which fits perfectly into your worldview, try completing the research about the subject. Having a narrow worldview causes all sorts of troubles.

[RGBVideo]

See, Eisenhower constantly had talks with Republican congressional leaders and was worried of how Republicans were slowly trying to turn the issue of "STRONG DEFENSE TO PROTECT AMERICA!" into their advantage by becoming even bigger spenders on military pork than the Democrats were (something which, sure enough, did happen). He sensed a lot of trouble if this path would continue and warned the voters to judge the increasing influence of the defense industry more carefully in the future.

Just in case, let me tell you that it does not mean that he prophetically predicted that BU****LER would come and start zillions of wars with foreign countries because of the evil MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and BLOOD FOR OIL.

[Heraclitus]

Re: for some reason, i'm a bit doubtful whether you do or not

Originally posted by VJ


So you understand and already know that when Eisenhower's talking about "military-industrial complex", he's referring to (a) liberal Democrats who made big gains in 1958 and 1960 congressional elections with this exact theme of how the Republicans have failed national defense and there is a desperate need for massive increase on federal spending in this issue and (b) John F. Kennedy, who used the concept of a non-existant "missile gap" (hyped up by high-ranking military officials, in turn funded by big corporations) and the immediate threat of Castro's Cuba to win the presidential election of 1960, just months before Eisenhower made this speech?

Well, actually I did know. I know quite a bit about post-war politics and history btw...

But to get a point across you need to be colerfull and interesting. Simply put the MIC that I refer to has very little to do with Ike. But, and an important but, he does voice concern about their influence in the goverment (influence that could only help his oposition).

Let's just not talk about Ike, and have you tell me with a straight face that the arms industry isn't an important segment of US industry and that it dosen't have a powerfull lobby.

[Arrian]

Eisenhower constantly had talks with Republican congressional leaders and was worried of how Republicans were slowly trying to turn the issue of "STRONG DEFENSE TO PROTECT AMERICA!" into their advantage by becoming even bigger spenders on military pork than the Democrats were (something which, sure enough, did happen). He sensed a lot of trouble if this path would continue and warned the voters to judge the increasing influence of the defense industry more carefully in the future.

Eisenhower was essentially right, and "BU****LER" is the sort of result we're seeing. But of course CLINTONSAINT had his Kosovo and various bombing runs/cruise missle attacks. Future Presidents will utilize US military power too, sometimes poorly. Ike's warning was applicable to all.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by VJ

Just in case, let me tell you that it does not mean that he prophetically predicted that BU****LER would come and start zillions of wars with foreign countries because of the evil MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and BLOOD FOR OIL.

I never said that And you seem to have seen one too many discussion on this topic...

If you read more between the lines you would have noticed that general sentiment...

He did see how military expenditure if it was supported by his Republican party wold become a far greater expenditure than most of the democratic social programs... and that such power begs to be used, if you don't you have just created the deadest kind of capital.

If you read more between the lines you would have noticed that general sentiment...

[Arrian]

We have been over this ground before, you see...

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian




Eisenhower was essentially right, and "BU****LER" is the sort of result we're seeing. But of course CLINTONSAINT had his Kosovo and various bombing runs/cruise missle attacks. Future Presidents will utilize US military power too, sometimes poorly. Ike's warning was applicable to all.

-Arrian

Arrian is right. All statements from past statesmen were politicaly motivated but that dosen't stop us from using them as general warnings... Why do we then quote Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill or Percles for that matter.

[Patroklos]

and have you tell me with a straight face that the arms industry isn't an important segment of US industry and that it dosen't have a powerfull lobby.

And there is nothing wrong with that. They are an industry, like any other. Made up of citizens, like any other. Who can exercise their influence, like any others. All Congress has to do is say no.

Congress

[BeBMan]

I'm kinda confused what's more evil, the MIC, the oil industry or the good old finance capital....

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And there is nothing wrong with that. They are an industry, like any other. Made up of citizens, like any other. Who can exercise their influence, like any others. All Congress has to do is sat no.

Congress

Off course there is no problem.
They just happen to be one of the richest industries, that in its current size is only good for offensive wars since it is superflus for defence. Are you forgetting that the US system is based on money? Why would congressmen refuse to heed their benefactors who ensure their reelection? Especialy if the electorate is strongly nationalistic and in favour of a a strong military.

[Patroklos]

They just happen to be one of the richest industries

Not by a long shot.

that in its current size is only good for offensive wars since it is superflus for defence.

Makes no sense.

Are you forgetting that the US system is based on money

Like every other country in the world.

Why would congressmen refuse to heed their benefactors who ensure their reelection?

For the same reason the refuse to heed their benefators that vote them into office.

Especialy if the electorate is strongly nationalistic and in favour of a a strong military.

If that is what the electorate wants, thats exactly Congress should give them, no?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm kinda confused what's more evil, the MIC, the oil industry or the good old finance capital....

When people use words like good and evil in politics the whole discours goes down quick...Realpolitik
I just wanted to make a sociological observation on the militarization of an intriguing society

Nice point on how people like to blame non-personal wealthy entites though.





PS The answer offcourse is the evil capitalist imperialsit system which allows these injustices to continue.



Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.
O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm kinda confused what's more evil, the MIC, the oil industry or the good old finance capital....

Well you see all three of those are controlled by the Illuminati.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Arrian




Eisenhower was essentially right,

Yes... and that's why it's a good speech read and it's good that it gets the attention it deserves. The problem is, it's usually for the wrong reasons