Famous last words

When I surfed the internet for some WW2 information I suddenly found Eisenhower and his famous last speach as president. Didn't know it but I guess the Americans know what I am talking about:

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.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pr...enhower001.htm

My question is: How do you judge the situation 44 years after that? How strong is the military industrial complex. How militaristic is the US society and the US policy?

Ike's famous parting shot has featured in a number of criticisms of US government and policy since.

I do not believe that US policy or society is particularly militaristic and I could, in fact, argue that we haven't had enough of that quality. Even 60 years after Pearl Harbor, we don't know enough to keep our guard up at all times since being The superpower automatically makes you the prime target.

Defense spending and Congress, however, has become rather byzantine. Weapon systems purchased AGAINST the military's request, bases remaining open in order to please powerful legislators, defense contractors and vendors charging hundreds of dollars for a coffee pot designed to perform in multiple G environments (and more survivable than the plane they were installed in!): all of these things do point to some degree of distortion resulting from the MIC. I don't think it has resulted in much militarism, but in too much graft.

Seamus

I think this has allot of bearing After WW2 America did something different came out of isolastionism (good or bad we did) and adopted sort of a policemens role which at times has been a blessing and others a hinderance. This role has lead to America being the most loved and hated at the same time. When we seee something wrong America usually wants to help and need be put our mens live on the line for the betterment of the wrold (it maybe it might not in others veiws) but as patton says "All Americans love battle All real Americans love that sting of battle,

SftS,
I think it was good that the US did not chose to go in isolation after WW2. But I do not agree that they played poiceman then. They just tried to fight communism. Overall that was necessary (I guess Ike started it himself). Sometimes anti communism was a bit of a complex or mania. And maybe there would have been a chance for an agreement. But since cold war is over I cannot see why the US is so focused on military. There is no real military threat for the US.
But military strength is one thing, militarism is another one. I see some signals coming from the US that I think are true but maybe only a part of the picture.
- Is the military industrial complex still controled by the politics? How big is their influence, lobby, on the politics?
- From my view the US foreign politicy is too much focused on military.
- I always see G.W. Bush make his speaches at some military bases. This would not be possible in Germany (any more). To me it looks like a militarisation (?) of the policy and society.
- Some of the US posters here stated things like: "the US soldier is my idol ...";
Maybe my information is misleading. So what I want to discuss is, how militaristic is the US today? Was Ike right?

The United States population as a whole is no more militaristic then any other western country.

The problem that you see is that our extremes are much more pronounced because of the way our politics work. About 40 percentage of the population (roughly my estimate by the way) are idealogue extremists - and I would say roughly 20 Percentage to each extreme - with the remaining population somewhere in the middle - but leaning one direction or the other.

If we could get the extreme idealogues under control a little more - some of what you see in the media might actually seem more moderate to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The United States population as a whole is no more militaristic then any other western country.

The problem that you see is that our extremes are much more pronounced because of the way our politics work. About 40 percentage of the population (roughly my estimate by the way) are idealogue extremists - and I would say roughly 20 Percentage to each extreme - with the remaining population somewhere in the middle - but leaning one direction or the other.

If we could get the extreme idealogues under control a little more - some of what you see in the media might actually seem more moderate to you.

---

I'd break it up 1% Whack-job Lefty, 14% Lefty, 25% Moderate, 19% Righty, 1% whack-job Righty and 40% gleefully ignorant by choice; but Red's comment is more or less on target.

Seamus

It's a tricky one.

(Imo) Any society with so much vested in the arms industry... needs arms spending, needs enemies to justify that spending, needs to deploy those arms to justify the spending and ultimately; needs war.

Otherwise that's a whole lot of people out of work. A whole lot of investment down the pipe, and a whole lot of discontent. Which could well lead to a whole lot of revolution waiting to happen.

To coin what I believe is an American phrase; it all sounds fubar. Sadly we seem to as far from "Swords into ploughshares" as ever before.

Course this isn't just down to the USA or what Ike said by any means. Arms make money and there's always a market...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'd break it up 1% Whack-job Lefty, 14% Lefty, 25% Moderate, 19% Righty, 1% whack-job Righty and 40% gleefully ignorant by choice; but Red's comment is more or less on target.

---

I don't think you give the Whack-jobs enough credit here, I'm willing to bet they are at least 3% on each side. ~D

Slaves to the vocal minority...

When you say whack-job lefties and lefties, what are they really? I mean would I as a Danish conservative be a leftie, or would a Joe Normal here be that or are we talking true burning communists and revolutionaries?

Hannibal's dad Hamilcar said to Hannibal as he was dieing "Never give Romans peace"

Now, don't quote me, but it was something along those lines...(I think)

I believe it's "Never give the Romans peace" rather than "piece" ~:)

He said: "Never be a friend of Rome."

And he didn't say it as he was dying as he died away from Hannibal (ambush, so if Hannibal had been there he would hve died too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

He said: "Never be a friend of Rome."

---

I feel an incredible hankering to clarify this quote, so I apologise to everyone who already knows this (probably everyone here. Sorry.)

When Hamlicar made Hannibal swear upon a sacrifice to "never be a friend of rome", this was not meant as, do not befriend Rome. A Friend of Rome, in the Roman sense, was a person or organisation (i.e. a city-state, tribe or army or such) that declared a sort of servitude to Rome. They were not under their official or direct control, so they still had some freedom; but, if Rome told them to do something, they had damn well better do it. It was a very strict form of vassalation, and it was something that Hannibal was liable to face if he did not fight Rome tooth and nail.

Yeah... I just couldn't bother to do it.
The full title was "Friend and ally of Rome", a good case study would be Saguntum or Massilia. Similar would be the Warsaw Pact countries outside the Soviet Union, as most trade was done between the 'mother' and the friends and the friends would all apply for help from the 'mother' and follow her direction.

Quote:

---

I believe it's "Never give the Romans peace" rather than "piece"

---

God, I need to start thinking when I post.:embarassed:

No excuse, but when I get on these forums it's usually right after school, and I'm not in the mood to do anything but relax. LOL, oh well...

Famous last words?

"Hey, yall watch this!"

or

"I didn't steal the money, Vinny, I swear!"