Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dwight D. Eisenhower on the consequences of war
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RidgeHunter" data-source="post: 1726597" data-attributes="member: 4319"><p>Solid posting. No let downs this time. <img src="/images/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>As far as I can tell, Ike knew that no matter how necessary huge military power/spending may have been at any given time - that once you reach those levels it will become, for lack of a better term, a self-perpetuating beast. I.E., he knew that if no tangible threat exists to justify our expenditures - one would likely be created. And how right he was. Obviously Ike was a general and also president during some very tumultuous times, and while many people seemed to be focusing on the present, he was always looking ahead and foreseeing the negative effects other people were blind to.</p><p></p><p>Your War on Drugs comparison is probably the most similar program in my opinion. I always ask the question "Does the government want to win the WOD? Do the people with financial interest in the WOD want it to end?"</p><p>If you could flip a switch today that would stop 100% of drugs from entering/being manufactured, I doubt the government would pull it. Who is going to fill the beastly prison system that the War on Drugs built? What are the employees involved in the WOD, in both the public and private sector going to do if the drug problem gets better? It was never designed to end. Never designed to get smaller. It was only designed to sustain itself by whatever means necessary.</p><p></p><p>Military-Industrial Complex is a lot like that. There will always be a threat, tangible or not, that justifies it's existence at levels that dare not be questioned. Once you have something that big, with that many people benefiting in so many ways from it, they aren't going to accept the idea of anyone taking any piece of it away. By '61 Ike seemed to be full-on freaking out at the realization that the American public was obviously going to be easily swayed by unwarranted fear, and that politicians and financial interests were going to capitalize on that.</p><p></p><p>Not only is there are great deal of responsibility that should go along that much power, there's an inherent vulnerability there that politicians and people with a financial interest are going to capitalize on. If you can make people scared, you can make them stop thinking.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RidgeHunter, post: 1726597, member: 4319"] Solid posting. No let downs this time. :D As far as I can tell, Ike knew that no matter how necessary huge military power/spending may have been at any given time - that once you reach those levels it will become, for lack of a better term, a self-perpetuating beast. I.E., he knew that if no tangible threat exists to justify our expenditures - one would likely be created. And how right he was. Obviously Ike was a general and also president during some very tumultuous times, and while many people seemed to be focusing on the present, he was always looking ahead and foreseeing the negative effects other people were blind to. Your War on Drugs comparison is probably the most similar program in my opinion. I always ask the question "Does the government want to win the WOD? Do the people with financial interest in the WOD want it to end?" If you could flip a switch today that would stop 100% of drugs from entering/being manufactured, I doubt the government would pull it. Who is going to fill the beastly prison system that the War on Drugs built? What are the employees involved in the WOD, in both the public and private sector going to do if the drug problem gets better? It was never designed to end. Never designed to get smaller. It was only designed to sustain itself by whatever means necessary. Military-Industrial Complex is a lot like that. There will always be a threat, tangible or not, that justifies it's existence at levels that dare not be questioned. Once you have something that big, with that many people benefiting in so many ways from it, they aren't going to accept the idea of anyone taking any piece of it away. By '61 Ike seemed to be full-on freaking out at the realization that the American public was obviously going to be easily swayed by unwarranted fear, and that politicians and financial interests were going to capitalize on that. Not only is there are great deal of responsibility that should go along that much power, there's an inherent vulnerability there that politicians and people with a financial interest are going to capitalize on. If you can make people scared, you can make them stop thinking. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dwight D. Eisenhower on the consequences of war
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom