Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Best proof in a while that you'll see things exactly the way you'd like to see them.> And yet another example of you being unable to show why things aren't like I see them.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Funny thing about Ike... several years ago he was quoted in the movie "The Atomic Cafe." The point there was that Ike used his popularity to encourage nuclear build up during the cold war. Like so many in public life, he said many things, and it's no small trick to cherry pick among them to bolster the point-of-view du jour.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Best proof in a while that you'll see things exactly the way you'd like to see them.>> <And yet another example of you being unable to show why things aren't like I see them.> I just have to laugh. Because that's yet another example of you calling for me to "show" things that can't be shown - unless either you or I can read Eisenhower's thought process across the years and the Great Divide itself.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I just have to laugh. Because that's yet another example of you calling for me to "show" things that can't be shown - unless either you or I can read Eisenhower's thought process across the years and the Great Divide itself.> So you admit your post was strictly a personal attack, with no substance behind it? As for what can be shown, we could certainly look at President Eisenhower's defense budgets to see whether he thought this country was worth defending.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html" target="_blank">http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu /~hst306/documents/indust.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Thanks for the link Kar2oonMan. Here's a little snippet that illustrates my earlier point - "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."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I just have to laugh. Because that's yet another example of you calling for me to "show" things that can't be shown - unless either you or I can read Eisenhower's thought process across the years and the Great Divide itself.>> <So you admit your post was strictly a personal attack, with no substance behind it?> Of course not. I was referring to you insistence on "showing" things that can't be shown; when inevitably they can't, you claim to be "right." <As for what can be shown, we could certainly look at President Eisenhower's defense budgets to see whether he thought this country was worth defending.> Every president has thought this country was worth defending. Of course, it was Ike who warned us that the military-industrial complex was at least as much about feeding itself as defending the country. That they would call for larger and larger budgets in the name of "defending the country" that we might well be able to live without.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I was referring to you insistence on "showing" things that can't be shown; when inevitably they can't, you claim to be "right."> You were referring to that in post 19? How could that be if I didn't "insist" you "show" anything until post 21. If you don't want me to "insist" that you show something that can't be shown, maybe you shouldn't claim that something "proves" something when it doesn't. <Of course, it was Ike who warned us that the military-industrial complex was at least as much about feeding itself as defending the country. That they would call for larger and larger budgets in the name of "defending the country" that we might well be able to live without.> He also said the words I quoted in post 26, which seem to support my interpretation of the first quote.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd recommend the documentary "Why We Fight" to anyone who wants to watch. It's everything Fahrenheit 9/11 should've been but failed to accomplish.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I was referring to you insistence on "showing" things that can't be shown; when inevitably they can't, you claim to be "right.">> <You were referring to that in post 19? How could that be if I didn't "insist" you "show" anything until post 21. If you don't want me to "insist" that you show something that can't be shown, maybe you shouldn't claim that something "proves" something when it doesn't.> Except, of course, that it did. And around we go. <<Of course, it was Ike who warned us that the military-industrial complex was at least as much about feeding itself as defending the country. That they would call for larger and larger budgets in the name of "defending the country" that we might well be able to live without.>> <He also said the words I quoted in post 26, which seem to support my interpretation of the first quote.> "Seems to" in your mind, maybe. Ike's quote in #26 is pretty much boilerplate of what every post-war president says periodically. Every president wants to defend the country, wants it ready to stand up against potential aggressors, etc. If it wasn't just boilerplate, it's just as likely to interpret that statement as Ike saying "let's not let the defense fall into a state of unreadiness such as we had before WWII." There's a huge difference between our military levels before and after that war; before, the US was not such a world player and the assumption was that it was okay to not have to be able to fight a major war tomorrow, as we probably were not going to be involved in one. WWII changed all those assumptions. Every post-war president, though, has kept the military budget at much higher levels than pre-war, because our position has changed. Eisenhower's presidency was early on in that new paradigm, however, and it's just as easy to interpret his words as saying to those who might have wanted to go back to the familiar pre-war paradigm that "we have to have a larger standing military than we used to." However (and this is a big however), he ALSO warned us that the miltary-industrial complex (a term he coined) would want MORE than that. MORE than just our preparedness and ability to fight a war if necessary, and MORE than just the level we'd need for deterrance. And he was right.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
