Have We Forgotten

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340349985118918525&q=Eisenhower+Military+industrial+Complex

Have we forgotten what President Eisenhower forewarned?

[quote] "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…

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. " [/quote]
2

Please note that I am not trying to draw any parallels to any conspiracy theories, and made effort to find a link to the footage of him saying it without conspiracy theory links surrounding it, but it is near impossible.

That is a real shame because people sensitive to conspiracy theories will by association neglect to respect the significance of the speech, simply because it is a frequently used tool of the consipracy theorist crowd.

3

http://www.harpers.org/MilitaryIndustrialComplex.html

While I understand that Harper?s is a “progressive leftist” magazine, please refrain from the standard sweeping generalisations and categorical discrediting.

Whether or not harper?s deserves any respect, I am merely using this article because it has the pertinent informaiton presented in a nice chronological layout.

4

I believe that the weapons industry needs to be deprivitised. This is precisely because of what President Eisenhower was concerned with.

You may argue all you like whether or not we are currently witnessing an abuse of power by the military-industrial complex, but what matters to me more is the fact that it can be abused to begin with.

Sure all power can be abused, but the power of the military-industrial complex is of the most threatening kind. Whether it is hypothetical or not, the abuse of this power is potentially far more threatening than any terrorist.

I believe weapons manufacture should be a non-profit government sector. No one should profit from the production of weapons, nor should anyone profit the use of said weapons. Production, and research and development of weapons should be fueled by directly by tax dollars.

Currently tax dollars pay for the PURCHASE of weaponry by the government, meanwhile investors and benificiaries within the government and the military benefit from these purchases.

If there are no investments to be had, then there can be no benificiaries, which means there will no abuse (or at least less) of this section of power.

Any comments and suggestions welcome.

5

So he’s saying how in his opinion, arms sale and trade will become a tool of the elite class?

6

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
So he’s saying how in his opinion, arms sale and trade will become a tool of the elite class?[/quote]

what?

7

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
So he’s saying how in his opinion, arms sale and trade will become a tool of the elite class?

what?[/quote]

You have to forgive him. He’s really really smart.

8

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Any comments and suggestions welcome. [/quote]

Okay.

So you’re proposing the elimination of capitalism from the firms who research, develop, and manufacture weapons.

Question 1: Why do you think we have the most advanced military (by a lot) in the entire world?

In my opinion, this is because we are a rich nation, coupled with the fact that there is a certain motivation to want to get into the business of scientific research, processes, and product development, testing, marketing, and ultimately the sale of weaponry and countermeasures.

In other words, what made us great was the fact that the military-industrial complex has that same allure that California had back in the late 1800’s. This is where the gold is at, man!

Question 2: What happens to us diplomatically when we fall behind, militarily, to some other nation? What I mean is: is it a good idea to give up our military might which is the very lowest common denominator in our supremacy? We can talk until we are blue in the face, send diplomats, wage debates in the UN, etc., but what it boils down to is that we have the means to blow shit up in so many extraordinary ways that folks tend to listen to what we have to say. Ask Saddam if we are all talk and no walk.

The reason I’ve gone on about losing our military badassedness is becasue that is exactly what will happen if we de-privatize the military-industrial complex. Rule number one in a bureaucracy is to not expect effficiency, effectiveness, or timeliness from things which are governed by it. If we hand over the reins of our real and effective power to a bureacracy of complete idiots (trust me, they are), then we all will reap the horrors of it.

Fuck that.

It’s bad enough that we semi-trust elected morons to “govern” us, I’m sure as shit not going to trust them to build me a decent rifle.

9

Some quotes from other peoples posts, including the OP

[quote]

proposing the elimination of capitalism from the firms who research, develop, and manufacture weapons.

losing our military badassedness is because that is exactly what will happen if we de-privatize the military-industrial complex.

Currently tax dollars pay for the PURCHASE of weaponry by the government, meanwhile investors and benificiaries within the government and the military benefit from these purchases.

I believe weapons manufacture should be a non-profit government sector. No one should profit from the production of weapons, nor should anyone profit the use of said weapons.

the weapons industry needs to be deprivitised. This is precisely because of what President Eisenhower was concerned with [/quote]

Exactly what i said. So rainjack, what are you contributing to this thread? I hope it’s more relavant that a horrible image of your naked arse on an avatar.

If you aren’t at least saying something, don’t arrive and make a sarky comment. I was asking if that’s the impression others got of the guys quote. Seems people are in accord with me, so i got it. Cool.

Capitalism from weapons= another reason why people resent the current ‘alpha’

10

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
So he’s saying how in his opinion, arms sale and trade will become a tool of the elite class?

what?

You have to forgive him. He’s really really smart. [/quote]

LOL!!

That was good.

11

In the 20th century it was “Nationalism” today its “Terrorism”

12

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
In the 20th century it was “Nationalism” today its “Terrorism”
[/quote]

Aaaaaaaaaaand…Godwin’s Law!

13

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
In the 20th century it was “Nationalism” today its “Terrorism”

Aaaaaaaaaaand…Godwin’s Law![/quote]

lol, I thought the same thing.

14

The problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is the ability of capitalism to influence government. Take away the legalized corruption that is our current system of campaign contributions, and you greatly reduce the problem.

Take for example, Prop 89 here in California. Could be a HUGE step forward for us here, it’s worked in other states, and it’s no surprise to me that only a handful of major politicians (like for example Phil Angelides) have endorsed it.

Were we able to execute something like this on a national level, I think it might actually be possible to regain a semblence of democracy here in the states.

15

[quote]knewsom wrote:
The problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is the ability of capitalism to influence government. Take away the legalized corruption that is our current system of campaign contributions, and you greatly reduce the problem.

Take for example, Prop 89 here in California. Could be a HUGE step forward for us here, it’s worked in other states, and it’s no surprise to me that only a handful of major politicians (like for example Phil Angelides) have endorsed it.

Were we able to execute something like this on a national level, I think it might actually be possible to regain a semblence of democracy here in the states.[/quote]

That?s very interesting. Prop 89 is an excellent idea. I hope it does reach a national scale, as that would indeed prevent a lot of the problems that I was talking about.

On the other hand politicians could still be corrupted by being motivated to go to war as beneficiaries of weapons manufacturers and industrial corporations. Any thoughts?

16

Perhaps there should be stronger constraints on politicians finances in additon to independent monitoring of said finances?

Any ideas?

17

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
Any comments and suggestions welcome.

Okay.

So you’re proposing the elimination of capitalism from the firms who research, develop, and manufacture weapons.

Question 1: Why do you think we have the most advanced military (by a lot) in the entire world?

In my opinion, this is because we are a rich nation, coupled with the fact that there is a certain motivation to want to get into the business of scientific research, processes, and product development, testing, marketing, and ultimately the sale of weaponry and countermeasures.

In other words, what made us great was the fact that the military-industrial complex has that same allure that California had back in the late 1800’s. This is where the gold is at, man!

Question 2: What happens to us diplomatically when we fall behind, militarily, to some other nation? What I mean is: is it a good idea to give up our military might which is the very lowest common denominator in our supremacy? We can talk until we are blue in the face, send diplomats, wage debates in the UN, etc., but what it boils down to is that we have the means to blow shit up in so many extraordinary ways that folks tend to listen to what we have to say. Ask Saddam if we are all talk and no walk.

The reason I’ve gone on about losing our military badassedness is becasue that is exactly what will happen if we de-privatize the military-industrial complex. Rule number one in a bureaucracy is to not expect effficiency, effectiveness, or timeliness from things which are governed by it. If we hand over the reins of our real and effective power to a bureacracy of complete idiots (trust me, they are), then we all will reap the horrors of it.

Fuck that.

It’s bad enough that we semi-trust elected morons to “govern” us, I’m sure as shit not going to trust them to build me a decent rifle.[/quote]

Certainly a very important perspective and very relevant point too. Sorry for taking so long to reply, been trying to think this one over, and this is, of course, THE obstacle.

Is there no way to deprivitise weapons manufacturing whilst still offering good salaries and optimal resources for advanced research and development? Perhaps setting a minimum quota of tax percentage to allocate to the hypothetical weapons sector? This would enable politicians to increase the quota during times of need or as they saw fit. In reality this wouldn?t be any different to current policy considering it will be the american people paying for the prices of the current wars.

Any ideas?

18

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
In the 20th century it was “Nationalism” today its “Terrorism”
[/quote]

ssn, your entry into the troll hall of fame surely awaits.

hint we already know that you’re a douchebag. You don’t have to keep proving it.

19

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
On the other hand politicians could still be corrupted by being motivated to go to war as beneficiaries of weapons manufacturers and industrial corporations. Any thoughts?[/quote]

This assumes that “going to war” doesn’t cost a politician political capital, which it does. Supposedly, the check on a government’s power is public opinion. Going to Iraq nearly cost G.W. his job.

I can even remember people protesting against the Gulf War with Iraq to liberate Kuwait, saying “No War for Oil!” Even France was okay with that conflict (because Muslims were on both sides so there was nothing to be lost in the court of Muslim opinion by standing next to the United States)!

20

[quote]eic wrote:
This assumes that “going to war” doesn’t cost a politician political capital, which it does. Supposedly, the check on a government’s power is public opinion. Going to Iraq nearly cost G.W. his job.

I can even remember people protesting against the Gulf War with Iraq to liberate Kuwait, saying “No War for Oil!” Even France was okay with that conflict (because Muslims were on both sides so there was nothing to be lost in the court of Muslim opinion by standing next to the United States)! [/quote]

Of course, every action a politician takes will have consequences in terms of political capital. The fact that Clinton got IMPEACHED for having his pole smoked is testament to that. (Ridiculous that Bush hasn?t been impeached then, though the very thought of Cheney ruling the country sends shivers through my very soul.)

I somewhat agree with what you say in the second paragraph, but I don?t understand where the assumption was made. Public opinion, however important it is and should remain, is easily manipulated.

Many do not realise just how easy:

(I know it?s wikipedia, but not everything in there is crap.)