One reason why Eisenhower was the greatest president in my lifetime

[Steve R]

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” - Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, in an address to a group of newspaper editors.

[bigmack]

When does a expatriated American, living in Costa Rica, like Steve, EVER have ANYTHING good to say about what this country has done militarily?

Any maroon can tell you we've done plenty of good. I say pennies to pastries he's unable to even type a sentence of acknowledgement.

[Tom]

We could have thrown all that wheat at Hitler and buried his arse!

[thaskalos]

When does a expatriated, American, living in Costa Rica, like Steve, EVER have ANYTHING good to say about what this country has done militarily?

Any maroon can tell you we've done plenty of good. I say pennies to pastries he's unable to even type a sentence of acknowledgement.

America has done some good, militarily...but she has also done some "bad".

Not surprisingly...the "bad" part does not get much play on this board.

Steve R's post was not an indictment against the country; it was an elegant, thoughtful comment on the cost of war...made by a U.S. President who had gotten a close-up view, and knew what he was talking about.

And I, for one, am glad to have read it...

[bigmack]

And I, for one, am glad to have read it...
While you seem like a nice enough fellow, you appear to put WAY too much weight on words. You want the exact words of Romney, BO, Eisenhower...

Fact is, words mean so very little.

The number one job of the Federal Government is to provide national security. 20% of the 2011 budget went to defense. 20% to Social Security. 13% to safety net programs.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PolicyBasics-WhereDoOurFederalTaxDollarsGo-CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities_zpsf4d81ad5.png

See, Steve, has a constant theme. The US is an imperialist nation that rides roughshod over other countries through military force. :D

[hcap]

While you seem like a nice enough fellow, you appear to put WAY too much weight on words. You want the exact words of Romney, BO, Eisenhower...

Fact is, words mean so very little.

The number one job of the Federal Government is to provide national security. 20% of the 2011 budget went to defense. 20% to Social Security. 13% to safety net programs.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/PolicyBasics-WhereDoOurFederalTaxDollarsGo-CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities_zpsf4d81ad5.png

See, Steve, has a constant theme. The US is an imperialist nation that rides roughshod over other countries through military force. :DEisenhower was specifically warning us about the military-industrial complex that makes huge profits and is not exactly adverse to a pro war agenda.

Hey, what does a 4+star General and President know about this stuff? I would much rather believe Sarah P, Jor T Plumber and John Bolton every time they prognosticate on Faux Noos.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
The world's top 5 military spenders in 2011.

[Tom]

Hey, what does a 4+star General and President know about this stuff?

So now you agree with Bush 43?

byw, that was OBAMA who spend all that money in 2011.

[bigmack]

Can I play too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
The world's top 5 Social Program spenders in 2011.

A CLASSIC example of dishonesty in hcap & Comrade graphs. Any honest graph would have it in percentages. But NOOOO, not with those nerds.

[hcap]

Can I play too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/9b6b4ac6234a38d7f61757290055617d.png
The world's top 5 Social Program spenders in 2011.

A CLASSIC example of dishonesty in hcap & comrade graphs. Any honest graph would have it in percentages. But NOOOO, not with those nerds.Percentage of what?

This was meant to demonstrate we spend way more than necessary. The easiest way is demonstrate in raw numbers. Do you expect all those other countries to gang up on us all at the same time?

Maybe we should also prepare for an Alien Attack from Ming the Merciless by funding Star wars at a much higher level.

[hcap]

Be afraid, VERY afraid !!

/B707Ava4wrY?

[Steve R]

[snip]...The number one job of the Federal Government is to provide national security. 20% of the 2011 budget went to defense. 20% to Social Security. 13% to safety net programs.
Makes you wonder why the Founding Fathers put national security third and fourth on the list of government responsibilities instead of first:

1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure liberty to ourselves and our posterity

See, Steve, has a constant theme. The US is an imperialist nation that rides roughshod over other countries through military force. :D
I wonder if that could be because of almost 100 U.S. military interventions in my part of the world just since 1890. I'm sure the incursions into Guatemala in support of the United Fruit Company were all about U.S. national defense.

[bigmack]

Makes you wonder why the Founding Fathers put national security third and fourth on the list of government responsibilities instead of first:
-----------------
I wonder if that could be because of almost 100 U.S. military interventions in my part of the world just since 1890. I'm sure the incursions into Guatemala in support of the United Fruit Company were all about U.S. national defense.
Military interventions? Well, if you're getting your list from the same place I am, and you include such things as the Army suppressing a silver miners' strike in 1892, and you include "your world" to mean the entire world, you'll get 100. But I think you might be hard pressed to find many of them "interventions."

Albeit, we're FULLY AWARE of your resentment of this country and its military, might you be as resourceful with finding "interventions" as finding the number of non-intervention, life saving, merciful, big-hearted missions they've conducted? Ya know, just to give you some balance.

I don't mean to bust your chops, and I'm not some jingoistic, Love it or Leave it, type, but don't you think you're a tad BENT in one direction?
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
---------------------------

Makes you wonder why the Founding Fathers put national security third and fourth on the list of government responsibilities instead of first:
Now you're just being silly. OK, you started with this dealio about IKE. Let's cut to the chase and assume you think we should gut the military and give it to the needy.

The num's as of 2011:

-20% defense.
-Meidcare, Medicaid, & CHIP 21%
-Safety net Programs 13%
-SS 20%

So between MCare & safety net programs we're at 33!

What are you advocating; defense 2%?

[boxcar]

When does a expatriated, Jewish American, living in Costa Rica, like Steve, EVER have ANYTHING good to say about what this country has done militarily?

Any maroon can tell you we've done plenty of good. I say pennies to pastries he's unable to even type a sentence of acknowledgement.

Quit picking on Stevie. Dwight baby was just another globalist. That's why he likes him.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Makes you wonder why the Founding Fathers put national security third and fourth on the list of government responsibilities instead of first:

1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common defense
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure liberty to ourselves and our posterity


General Welfare was pretty far down back then too I see... :rolleyes:

This really isn't an argument anyway... The world is very different now and I'm not really one to harp on "framer's intent.

[elysiantraveller]

Percentage of what?

This was meant to demonstrate we spend way more than necessary. The easiest way is demonstrate in raw numbers. Do you expect all those other countries to gang up on us all at the same time?

Maybe we should also prepare for an Alien Attack from Ming the Merciless by funding Star wars at a much higher level.

That graph is taking into account discretionary (war) spending. Our number is closer to 500 Million. Either way American Military spending makes the world a much more peaceful place via hegemonic stability theory.

[Tom]

Makes you wonder why the Founding Fathers put national security third and fourth on the list of government responsibilities instead of first:

Guess what, the world is not the same now as it was back then.
Maybe you missed it.

[boxcar]

Guess what, the world is not the same now as it was back then.
Maybe you missed it.

Stevie hasn't heard that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", and that the fourth item on his list climbed the ladder of success to now become number one.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Actually, Providing for the common defense is the only specific responsibillity on the list. How the heck do you insure "domestic tanquility", please define a "perfect union".

[acorn54]

General Welfare was pretty far down back then too I see... :rolleyes:

This really isn't an argument anyway... The world is very different now and I'm not really one to harp on "framer's intent.

yes i agree, the world is very different now, and that is why interpreting the founding father's intentions to uphold them in today's world is folly.

[PaceAdvantage]

yes i agree, the world is very different now, and that is why interpreting the founding father's intentions to uphold them in today's world is folly.Perhaps we should throw all that stuff away and just start anew?

I nominate Obama, the great one, as the person to spearhead our new Constitution...who's with me? :jump:

[thaskalos]

Perhaps we should throw all that stuff away and just start anew?

I nominate Obama, the great one, as the person to spearhead our new Constitution...who's with me? :jump:

I knew it was only a matter of time before you came around...:jump:

[elysiantraveller]

I knew it was only a matter of time before you came around...:jump:

Obama would first need to form a bipartisan committee to solve the issue, give them at least 6 months to come up with something, then ignore them, and finally do nothing.

[Actor]

Actually, Providing for the common defense is the only specific responsibillity on the list. How the heck do you insure "domestic tanquility", please define a "perfect union".It's not "perfect union," it's "a more perfect union," an 18th century way of saying "a better union," perfection being unreachable but still something to strive for. "A more perfect union" and and "domestic tranquility" both refer to the fact that some of the states, who considered themselves independent and sovereign, not subject to a central government, were on the verge of going to war with each other.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Steve R]

Guess what, the world is not the same now as it was back then.
Maybe you missed it.
So I guess the Tea Party obsession with returning to the (misinterpreted) values of the Founding Fathers is misplaced.

[Steve R]

Military interventions? Well, if you're getting your list from the same place I am, and you include such things as the Army suppressing a silver miners' strike in 1892, and you include "your world" to mean the entire world, you'll get 100. But I think you might be hard pressed to find many of them "interventions."
Nope, only Latin America and involving American troops on Latin American soil.
http://www.yachana.org/teaching/resources/interventions.html (History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America)
http://www.zompist.com/latam.html (U.S. Interventions in Latin America)

[Steve R]

When does a expatriated, Jewish American, living in Costa Rica, like Steve, EVER have ANYTHING good to say about what this country has done militarily?
An emigrant, not an expatriate.
An atheist, not Jewish.

In my naive youth I believed lots of good things about the USA. I always marveled at the fact that the Tories and Confederates weren't lined up against a wall after the revolutions as the losers generally were in other countries. I even had a poster of Thomas Jefferson on my office wall and kept framed reproductions of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. It all went to crap during the Vietnam War when I realized just how degenerate, hypocritical and murderous American foreign policy had become. Then I started reading different perspectives of American history and realized how much the truth had been manipulated. I remembered my high school world history class where I was taught how America saved Europe during WWII. No emphasis on the fact that the British had already defeated the Luftwaffe and that the Russians had already turned back the Nazis at Stalingrad well before the first U.S. troops set foot in Europe. The tide had already turned and it was largely a matter time before the Nazis would be defeated. Yes, American money (as always) and direct military involvement accelerated the process, but the British and the Russians were the real heroes of WWII. And lets's not forget that the reluctance of the U.S. to get involved earlier was largely due to support of the Nazi regime by powerful forces in American industry who early on saw a profitable future in a Nazi victory.

History is created and written by the winners. Sometimes it's useful to simply look at the actual events rather than the interpretation of those events by those who won. Without the editorial spin, history as you know it can look quite different. I think if you read the history of any era from the perspective of different cultures, I guarantee the stories will be different as well. But hey, most people buy into the version of history their society teaches them whether it is factual or not, sort of like believing American military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya was about freedom and democracy.

[Steve R]

Fact: The RAF defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle or Britain in the autumn of 1940. The battle ended the threat that Hitler would launch Operation Sea Lion, a proposed amphibious and airborne invasion of Britain and it occurred more than a year before the U.S. entered the war.

Fact: By February 2, 1943 the Russian army defeated the German 6th army at Stalingrad with the majority of German forces either in captivity or killed and with the remainder in full-scale retreat to the West. After the Battle of Stalingrad, German forces never recovered their earlier strength, and attained no further strategic victories in the East.

Fact: The first time American forces landed in Europe during WWII was during the Invasion of Sicily which began on July 9, 1943.

Fact: Per cent of active military killed during WWII:
USSR, 22.1
GB, 6.4%
USA, 2.0%

Fact: A number of prominent and wealthy American businessmen helped to support fascist regimes in Europe from the 1920s through the 1940s. These people helped to support Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, as well as Benito Mussolini, and Adolph Hitler. Some of the primary and more famous Americans and companies that were involved with the fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric. The success of the fascists in Spain was an important first step in the building of fascist power in Europe and the stepping-stone for the Italian and German powers. The support of American corporations, and lack of American intervention by the government, was crucial in the success of this first step.

From a report printed by the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary in 1974:
"The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II...are instructive. At that time, these three firms dominated motor vehicle production in both the United States and Germany. Due to its mass production capabilities, automobile manufacturing is one of the most crucial industries with respect to national defense. As a result, these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world. The substantial contribution of these firms to the American war effort in terms of tanks, aircraft components, and other military equipment is widely acknowledged. Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war.

During the 1920's and 1930's, the Big Three automakers undertook an extensive program of multinational expansion...By the mid-1930's, these three American companies owned automotive subsidiaries throughout Europe and the Far East; many of their largest facilities were located in the politically sensitive nations of Germany, Poland, Rumania, Austria, Hungary, Latvia, and Japan...Due to their concentrated economic power over motor vehicle production in both Allied and Axis territories, the Big Three inevitably became major factors in the preparations and progress of the war. In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....

Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....

The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system."....

After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...

Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved."