We recently watched the film "Why We Fight" (which I HIGHLY recommend) that talks about how the U.S. has the biggest military budget than every other country in the world combined. The film mentioned how Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex gaining too much power in the country-which it has. Another aspect that the film mentioned is that defense contracts are issued to almost every state so that members of Congress will not want to get rid of those contracts because their constituents will lose their jobs. It seems that fabric of the MIC is woven into every bit this country. If the U.S. is the sole superpower of the world, why do we need such a vast military? It does seem that the U.S. cares more about the military (the department that is-not about the men & women who volunteer) then it does about education, health care, and other important issues that effect everyday lives. I am wondering if it is possible for us (as a country) to dismantle this MIC and how can we do that. I do know that it starts in Washington.

I know that it seems ironic that I should be a bit upset about this since I recieve a check every month from the Department of Defense.


I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "Wouldn't that be great if schools had all the supplies it needed and the Army had to have a bake sale if they want a new bomb."


Comments?


Cat

there are some other interesting flicks on that subject, like the movie about robert mcnamara (fog of war, i think it was called?) and "uncovered," which is a little preachy but gets to the point about iraq. wars are typically financial transactions couched in moral terms, i think, and the reason why we're concerned about islamic extremism in iraq and not in africa or indonesia is pretty obvious, yes?

boondoggles like the F-22 strike fighter would be funny if they weren't so depressing. why exactly do we need fancy and ridiculously expensive fighter jets when we're fighting an enemy that straps bombs onto the backs of donkeys? because it's a massive makework project, something like a 200 billion dollar contract and a lot of people are gonna starve otherwise.

I dunno. It’s depressing. And like you, I do a lot of work in defense and related fields, I don’t necessarily mind that, countries have to have militaries, but it seems so bloated in America these days. And I have to eat, and that’s who’s ringing my phone. But it’s a shame war seems to be the only thing we can figure out to do as a species that gives us any sense of meaning.

there are some other interesting flicks on that subject, like the movie about robert mcnamara (fog of war, i think it was called?) and "uncovered," which is a little preachy but gets to the point about iraq. wars are typically financial transactions couched in moral terms, i think, and the reason why we're concerned about islamic extremism in iraq and not in africa or indonesia is pretty obvious, yes?

boondoggles like the F-22 strike fighter would be funny if they weren't so depressing. why exactly do we need fancy and ridiculously expensive fighter jets when we're fighting an enemy that straps bombs onto the backs of donkeys? because it's a massive makework project, something like a 200 billion dollar contract and a lot of people are gonna starve otherwise.

I dunno. It’s depressing. And like you, I do a lot of work in defense and related fields, I don’t necessarily mind that, countries have to have militaries, but it seems so bloated in America these days. And I have to eat, and that’s who’s ringing my phone. But it’s a shame war seems to be the only thing we can figure out to do as a species that gives us any sense of meaning.


Well, if we stopped outsourcing jobs to India then there'd probably be enough jobs to go around without us having to start wars every 5 minutes. But of course, if the US ignored the plight of India and numerous other country's around the world, we'd be the evil empire with our isolationist policys who just didn't care.
I often wonder myself why we need such an advanced military when ever other country in the world doesn't have one. That being said, military technology has benefited the private sector so much.. SO MUCH! Do you think we'd all be communicating on the internet if the military hadn't dumped millions in to it? Do you think mass storage devices would exist had the military not dumped millions in to the research necessary? It's a good catch 22.

That’s a good point about the internet. A lot of technologies come out of the military. Heck, most of em probably do. that said, it’s just a matter of innovation, people are innovative, they can do it in the military or somewhere else. In a few years, when we’re done screwing around with endless wars and a silly and frivolous service economy and the bills start coming due from all this debt we’re running up, we’re gonna need to start up something like FDR’s public works projects to actually start fixing the country. And that’ll become the substitute for the military industrial complex. If we’re lucky. If we’re not, we’re all gonna be eating out of trash cans except the billionaires.

Well, if we stopped outsourcing jobs to India then there'd probably be enough jobs to go around without us having to start wars every 5 minutes. But of course, if the US ignored the plight of India and numerous other country's around the world, we'd be the evil empire with our isolationist policys who just didn't care.
I often wonder myself why we need such an advanced military when ever other country in the world doesn't have one. That being said, military technology has benefited the private sector so much.. SO MUCH! Do you think we'd all be communicating on the internet if the military hadn't dumped millions in to it? Do you think mass storage devices would exist had the military not dumped millions in to the research necessary? It's a good catch 22.



Not only the internet but the interstate system. Yes, we have major highways connecting this entire nation because of DOD $$$$. Even though everyone who travels benefits from it, it was orginally built to move the army from point A to point B.



Cat

Not only the internet but the interstate system. Yes, we have major highways connecting this entire nation because of DOD $$$$. Even though everyone who travels benefits from it, it was orginally built to move the army from point A to point B.

Cat


Really?! Wow, I never knew that. Probably due to an under-funded education system.  ;) ;D

That’s a good point about the internet. A lot of technologies come out of the military. Heck, most of em probably do. that said, it’s just a matter of innovation, people are innovative, they can do it in the military or somewhere else. In a few years, when we’re done screwing around with endless wars and a silly and frivolous service economy and the bills start coming due from all this debt we’re running up, we’re gonna need to start up something like FDR’s public works projects to actually start fixing the country. And that’ll become the substitute for the military industrial complex. If we’re lucky. If we’re not, we’re all gonna be eating out of trash cans except the billionaires.


Right, most technology comes from the military. I don't really know where I stand on this issue. I think if you strip the military you do a huge amount of harm, not just now, but in the future as well. At the same time, do we really need that many laser guided missiles and F-22's when we've got that many million people living under the poverty line, when we have whole city's that haven't been repaired (New Orleans)  and when there are ten's of thousands of people dieing from easily curable ailments every year.

Yes, we'll always be technologically superior, but at what cost?

I really don't know. The problem is that unlike most Government programs where you can starve the beast (something I fully advocate) until it becomes streamlined, the MIC is so reliant on both the Corporate Sector, The Public Sector and The Government it's impossible to trim it without causing massive detrimental harm. Yes, Yes, Yes, I know lots of you hate big corporations, but those big corporations employ thousands of people and have pensions running with further thousands, if you cut out their biggest meal then there's going to be a lot of people in a very dire situation.

Right, most technology comes from the military. I don't really know where I stand on this issue. I think if you strip the military you do a huge amount of harm, not just now, but in the future as well. At the same time, do we really need that many laser guided missiles and F-22's when we've got that many million people living under the poverty line, when we have whole city's that haven't been repaired (New Orleans)  and when there are ten's of thousands of people dieing from easily curable ailments every year.

Yes, we'll always be technologically superior, but at what cost?

I really don't know. The problem is that unlike most Government programs where you can starve the beast (something I fully advocate) until it becomes streamlined, the MIC is so reliant on both the Corporate Sector, The Public Sector and The Government it's impossible to trim it without causing massive detrimental harm. Yes, Yes, Yes, I know lots of you hate big corporations, but those big corporations employ thousands of people and have pensions running with further thousands, if you cut out their biggest meal then there's going to be a lot of people in a very dire situation.



You are right. The MIC does equal JOBS which is why it has been able to grow over the last half century. It gave me a job (and a pension). Personally, I don't think the U.S. needs what they are selling (and building) but we do need the jobs it creates to sell and build these military items (whether it be bombs, planes, etc.) I think the U.S. should start to move away from the military mindset and divert the $$$$$$$ that goes into the MIC into more social programs. But, that is my opinion. The question is how to do it?  ???




Cat

I think military is an important part of maintaining a superpower or great nation, but I don't think it needs flaunted.  Leadership is an important part to keeping the balance within a nation.  You cannot keep any one area stronger than the other.  If military is getting too much money, then it should be brought down a bit.  I also don't think that money granted to military or social programs is being used for what it actually needs to be spent on.  If we focused on giving more money to education, some bureaucrat at the top will cut his share and let the rest fickle down.  Military families do not get paid that much at all, yet Congress can vote a raise for themselves.  Having honest people in government who actually want to help the people and the country is important.  Maintaining social programs to sustain the middle class and to help the less fortunate is important.  Maintaining a strong military is important.  Losing any of this is really means for a disaster. 

Technology in the army doesn't make you superior.  Aircraft carriers are important, air superiority is important, but the personnel who make up the fighting force make it what it is.    Technology doesn't guarantee a military will always win, Germany proved that in both WWI and WWII.  They had a vastly superior military in both training and technology, but lost in the end.  America's workforce was a tremendous asset to boost our strength in WWII.  I think there are many more problems in this nation than just spending too much money on a military.  Outsourcing and loosing the middle class in this country will be, if not our downfall, very detrimental to our wellbeing. 

I think military is an important part of maintaining a superpower or great nation, but I don't think it needs flaunted.  Leadership is an important part to keeping the balance within a nation.  You cannot keep any one area stronger than the other.  If military is getting too much money, then it should be brought down a bit.  I also don't think that money granted to military or social programs is being used for what it actually needs to be spent on.  If we focused on giving more money to education, some bureaucrat at the top will cut his share and let the rest fickle down.  Military families do not get paid that much at all, yet Congress can vote a raise for themselves.  Having honest people in government who actually want to help the people and the country is important.  Maintaining social programs to sustain the middle class and to help the less fortunate is important.  Maintaining a strong military is important.  Losing any of this is really means for a disaster. 

Technology in the army doesn't make you superior.  Aircraft carriers are important, air superiority is important, but the personnel who make up the fighting force make it what it is.    Technology doesn't guarantee a military will always win, Germany proved that in both WWI and WWII.  They had a vastly superior military in both training and technology, but lost in the end.  America's workforce was a tremendous asset to boost our strength in WWII.  I think there are many more problems in this nation than just spending too much money on a military.  Outsourcing and loosing the middle class in this country will be, if not our downfall, very detrimental to our wellbeing. 



Why do you think maintaining a strong military is important? To fight our "enemies"? Who are our "enemies"? We have a bunch of ragtag people running through the desert and hiding in caves. So we bring in the mighty U.S. military and who do they usually take out? Civilians. I'm not saying that the U.S. intentually take out civilans but the fact being, is that civilians get in the way-only they call it "calladeral damage."  ::)  Personally, I think if we didn't have a large military and a large MIC, most of those radicals wouldn't even think twice about us. It is the "David vs Golilth" thing going on with the U.S. as Golilith. As the MIC gets stronger, more and more around the world will thinkl that this "Golitith" needs to be taken out-which in turn many think that we need a stronger military. And the whole thing escolates. And where does it end? I don't know but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look pretty.


BTW, I do agree with you about Congress. They usually give themselves a 30% raise and give me anywhere from a 1.1%-3% raise.  ::)



Cat

Why do you think maintaining a strong military is important? To fight our "enemies"? Who are our "enemies"? We have a bunch of ragtag people running through the desert and hiding in caves. So we bring in the mighty U.S. military and who do they usually take out? Civilians. I'm not saying that the U.S. intentually take out civilans but the fact being, is that civilians get in the way-only they call it "calladeral damage."  ::)  Personally, I think if we didn't have a large military and a large MIC, most of those radicals wouldn't even think twice about us. It is the "David vs Golilth" thing going on with the U.S. as Golilith. As the MIC gets stronger, more and more around the world will thinkl that this "Golitith" needs to be taken out-which in turn many think that we need a stronger military. And the whole thing escolates. And where does it end? I don't know but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look pretty.


BTW, I do agree with you about Congress. They usually give themselves a 30% raise and give me anywhere from a 1.1%-3% raise.  ::)



Cat






I think our money and lifestyle have created the Goliath factor as well, not just the military.  However, the military is the easy target because they are out in the open.  It may look like the problem, but I think our meddling in the affairs of other countries is what ultimately causes the problem. 

Maybe I believe in a strong military cause it gives me a false sense of security and the kid in me has always thought the military cool.  I also served in the military and maybe that kind of adds to the way I feel.  In the grand scheme, I understand what you are getting at.  Ultimately I would hope that our military would be used as a good thing. 

I feel its a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario.  People expect things out of the world's biggest power, if we dont go they will hate us.  If we do go and civilians die, they will hate us.

Lot of interesting points in history though.

If the Roman Empire had not expanded, Britain might have remained a bunch of nomadic tribes, much as the natives in America where. 

If some Colonials did not make an army, America would still be part of the British Empire. 

Wonder how the Civil War would have played out with the military aspect?

America would have never used its military might to expand on native lands. 

America would not have hawaii, guam, puerto rico, and wouldn't have the made up problems in Cuba.

America would have been isolationist in WWI and WWII.  Europe might still be speaking German.

The military juggernaut in America stems from WWII but also is an after effect of the Cold War.  We still have kept the same mentality of military buildup after the end, and maybe it has gone too far, I still think that military is important in some ways.  Its kind of crazy to think what the world would be like if there were no militaries.

America's ultimate enemy is America itself.  Like I said before, all superpowers eventually break apart. 

Why do we fight?  Its human nature.  I think when someone actually finds the meaning of peace, we will already be gone.

I think our money and lifestyle have created the Goliath factor as well, not just the military.  However, the military is the easy target because they are out in the open.  It may look like the problem, but I think our meddling in the affairs of other countries is what ultimately causes the problem. 

Maybe I believe in a strong military cause it gives me a false sense of security and the kid in me has always thought the military cool.  I also served in the military and maybe that kind of adds to the way I feel.  In the grand scheme, I understand what you are getting at.  Ultimately I would hope that our military would be used as a good thing. 

I feel its a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario.  People expect things out of the world's biggest power, if we dont go they will hate us.  If we do go and civilians die, they will hate us.

Lot of interesting points in history though.

If the Roman Empire had not expanded, Britain might have remained a bunch of nomadic tribes, much as the natives in America where. 

If some Colonials did not make an army, America would still be part of the British Empire. 

Wonder how the Civil War would have played out with the military aspect?

America would have never used its military might to expand on native lands. 

America would not have hawaii, guam, puerto rico, and wouldn't have the made up problems in Cuba.

America would have been isolationist in WWI and WWII.  Europe might still be speaking German.

The military juggernaut in America stems from WWII but also is an after effect of the Cold War.  We still have kept the same mentality of military buildup after the end, and maybe it has gone too far, I still think that military is important in some ways.  Its kind of crazy to think what the world would be like if there were no militaries.

America's ultimate enemy is America itself.  Like I said before, all superpowers eventually break apart. 

Why do we fight?  Its human nature.  I think when someone actually finds the meaning of peace, we will already be gone.






The problem with having a standing army, you create an empire. You did mention the Roman Empire and look what happened to it. Many are saying that the U.S. is basically the new Roman Empire and history WILL repeat itself. Yes, I believe that some things the military has done was for the good. Others...well, I don't think I need to go into that. Let me ask you this? Do you think it is necessary for the U.S. to have bases in other countries? We have bases in England, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey-just to name a few. The mighty hand of the MIC reaches just about every part of the world. Personally, I think that is very dangerous.

In case you haven't guessed, I too have served in the military and I am proud that I did. But as I get older, I see the propaganda that was fed not to just me but the entire nation and I start to question that. I am proud to be an American but I am sometimes ashamed what this country has done and what it has become. I am hoping that we will learn the lessons of the past and hopefully change things so history won't repeat itself.




Cat

No, I dont think that we need bases in other countries and I do hope that we can correct mistakes we have made as well.  The Roman Empire spread to far and America is heading down the same path.  I do see that an overly strong military can cause many problems.  Its a big reason we get into messes like Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam.

I guessed that you have served in the military.  :)  I actualy wasn't thrilled the time that I was in.  I never fit in with the lifestyle and blindly following orders.  I like to question stuff.  This is why I question military and government all the same.  Im glad I served, but it still was not the greatest time of my life.

I really dont think our military is that strong anymore anyway.  We have spread ourselves too thin in the world.  So where is the money going?  I think alot of money spent in our government is wasted.  You get so much per fiscal year and if you dont spend it all, you dont get as much the next year.  So you waste it on pointless crap.  And then, like I said before, im not sure it always gets to where it needs to be going in the fist place.

I saw the movies "The Siege" and "Outbreak." Perfect example of how the military can be very scary in our country. 

I wonder how we move forward right now.  Do you think that the problems are fixable?

You are right. The MIC does equal JOBS which is why it has been able to grow over the last half century. It gave me a job (and a pension). Personally, I don't think the U.S. needs what they are selling (and building) but we do need the jobs it creates to sell and build these military items (whether it be bombs, planes, etc.) I think the U.S. should start to move away from the military mindset and divert the $$$$$$$ that goes into the MIC into more social programs. But, that is my opinion. The question is how to do it?  ???

Cat


Well, one way would be with a Universal Health Care system. Any infrastructure that large would create thousands and thousands of jobs, also bringing back jobs from places like India and Bangladesh would be beneficial. That being said, a lot of the jobs that would be lost through cutbacks in the MIC would be high skill level jobs that couldn't be replaced so easily. I think a good way to go about things would be to divert some of the minds and money from building bombs in to working for organizations such as the NSA, CIA and NASA. All three organizations fall under the National Security Umbrella (NASA does folks, you think everything they do is reported to the press?  ;)) so nobody could say that the United States was less prepared, we may just be able to nip problems in the bud before they required force and less jobs would be lost. It's a slightly Utopian view but it's conceivable is it not?

Well, one way would be with a Universal Health Care system. Any infrastructure that large would create thousands and thousands of jobs, also bringing back jobs from places like India and Bangladesh would be beneficial. That being said, a lot of the jobs that would be lost through cutbacks in the MIC would be high skill level jobs that couldn't be replaced so easily. I think a good way to go about things would be to divert some of the minds and money from building bombs in to working for organizations such as the NSA, CIA and NASA. All three organizations fall under the National Security Umbrella (NASA does folks, you think everything they do is reported to the press?  ;)) so nobody could say that the United States was less prepared, we may just be able to nip problems in the bud before they required force and less jobs would be lost. It's a slightly Utopian view but it's conceivable is it not?



Do we really need the NSA & the CIA? They are just a part of the MIC which has led to so many conflicts. Look what the CIA did to Chile, Cuba, & Iran,  (not to mention many other places). I do agree with you about NASA. It is a good orginazation.

But, I like your idea about adding jobs to a universal health care system and bring jobs back from India and Bangladesh. So when are you running for office?  ;)




Cat

Looking at what was said above by both -



and




I must address a few points.

First of all is this - I agree fully with Cat. Do we really need such a large military? That's part of the problem. I don't see any issue with the US Military continueing to improve it'self, it's machines, it's weapons systems, it's communications sytems etc. That's man-made evolution at it's finest. But do we really need such a huge military? I mean, what wars could we possibly fight that we couldn't decimate the population of the nation? (That's how you win a war against fundamentalism by the way, devastate the population.) We've got the biggest bombs, the best guns and the fastest ships. Nobody can currently even come close to beating us. If the US were to be involved in an actual war.. not just an occupation, it would be over in days. Seriously, if Spain or somebody stepped out of line and attacked the US, Madrid would be a smoldering pile of rubble before dawn the next day, so that begs the question, why do we continuously need to create an even larger military? We don't! I mean, seriously.. it's that simple, we don't. The U.S needs a strong military, we already have the strongest.. by far.. by a long shot.. by a freakin country mile.

Secondly - The Goliath factor exists with other countrys as well. A lot of the problems the US has are Geographical. We're way over here in the other hemisphere to most people, with just two borders, one of which we don't even pay attention to because it's just an extension of our own country. We're isolated from the rest of the worlds problems so when we wage in they either get pissed off that we're interfering, or get pissed off because we didn't do anything soon enough. It's time to play the old Saturday Night Live game "YOU CAN'T WIN!!!" because that's the situation we're always going to be in, no matter what. Other people are always going to be pissed at us, it's a case of jealousy, dislike, distrust, animosity, whatever. Europe wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the US, the US has given more foreign aid than anybody else. We've stopped genocide, war, famine and natural disasters.. but alas, there's always a fault to be picked. Has the United States always acted responsibly? No. No, the US has commited the same atrocities as other countrys.. but we've always been big enough and responsible enough to go ahead and pick up the ball and help out when the time came for it. The Goliath factor exists for the same reason that you hate your neighbor with the new BMW. He never did anything to you, but he can afford a nice new car whilst you've got your piece of crap Ford. You don't really wish death upon him, but you'd love to key his car whilst he's asleep.

Third and finally - Technology is by far the most important thing for the military. There's only so many troops who are willing to go and die for us, it's the job of the military to ensure that as few as possible die. That's where technology comes in to it. Using the example of Nazi Germany is flawed. Germany had the war won. It wasn't the fact that the Germans relied on technology that led them to lose the war, it was Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to stop bombing British air-fields, it was Hitler wanting to settle the score with Stalin and it was Hitler leaving Rommel's supply lines exposed that led to the German loss in the Second World War. Trust me on that. Technology rules, simple as that.

Technically the way to fight terrorism is through the NSA, CIA and others as well, not through military.  Well, thats what I have thought anyway.

Do we really need the NSA & the CIA? They are just a part of the MIC which has led to so many conflicts. Look what the CIA did to Chile, Cuba, & Iran,  (not to mention many other places). I do agree with you about NASA. It is a good orginazation.

But, I like your idea about adding jobs to a universal health care system and bring jobs back from India and Bangladesh. So when are you running for office?  ;)


Yes we need the NSA and CIA. Forgetting the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Democracy via the CIA and indirectly using NSA intelligence and communications, both agency's do a huge amount of good. Although I can base this statement on no 'available' facts, it's a fairly safe estimate that the NSA prevents between 10 and 30 large scale attacks against the US (and generally civilians) in any one year. Of course, I'm sure that could be an inflated propaganda number, but it's got a basis in truth. The CIA is highly necessary, the CIA has been manipulated for political gain on numerous occasions, but the organization itself is critical to protecting the United States (and our key allys) via the gathering of information and recon work with other organizations.

2012, but I don't know if I'll be allowed to run on the reform party ticket.  ;)


Technically the way to fight terrorism is through the NSA, CIA and others as well, not through military.  Well, thats what I have thought anyway.


Very much so. You're 100% correct. Both organizations do this, but occasionally, one slips through the net, or in the case of 9/11 is ignored.

Yes we need the NSA and CIA. Forgetting the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Democracy via the CIA and indirectly using NSA intelligence and communications, both agency's do a huge amount of good. Although I can base this statement on no 'available' facts, it's a fairly safe estimate that the NSA prevents between 10 and 30 large scale attacks against the US (and generally civilians) in any one year. Of course, I'm sure that could be an inflated propaganda number, but it's got a basis in truth. The CIA is highly necessary, the CIA has been manipulated for political gain on numerous occasions, but the organization itself is critical to protecting the United States (and our key allys) via the gathering of information and recon work with other organizations.

2012, but I don't know if I'll be allowed to run on the reform party ticket.  ;)

Very much so. You're 100% correct. Both organizations do this, but occasionally, one slips through the net, or in the case of 9/11 is ignored.



I'm not too sure whether I agree with you on that or not. I just know what the CIA has done in the past. They disposed of a democrately elected president (Allende) and replaced him with a murdering dictator (Pinocet). The U.S. fights for democracy in the world my ass.



Cat

The problem with having a standing army, you create an empire. You did mention the Roman Empire and look what happened to it.


Actually, the very reason the Roman Empire collapsed was the fact that they downsized their military.

In the earliest days, acceptance in the Roman Legion was only open to Roman Citizens.  Only native born Roman citizens were even eligable to join the legion, foreigners were not welcome.

During the late-Republic/Early-Empire era, this opened up as a way for people to become Roman Citizens.  It also saw the introduction of auxiliary troops.  These were little more then local militias from conquered territories (or allies in the conquoring of a territory) who were incorporated into a legion.  Gifted individuals from these auxiliaries had the chance to become legionares.  Upon the completion of a 20-30 year term, they would reture with the full rights of a Roman citizen.

During the High Empire era (Pax Romana), the use of auxiliaries reached an all-time high, and almost half of the Roman Military were auxiliaries.  Most of these were composed of "Romanized" locals, who saw enlistment in the Legions as a way to gain full citizenship.  They mostly enlisted out of a sense of Patriotism to the Empire.

Then came the late Empire.  By this time, enlistment by Roman Citizens had dropped sharply.  Corruption and politics made the Legion less appealing to people who were already citizens.  At the same time, Rome bagan to hire mercenary militias, mostly from barbarian tribes.  It was not unusual to see a group of Goths hired to fight Vandals in one conflict, then in the next to see Vandals hired to fight the Franks.  Barbarian mercenaries increasingly took up the majority of Rome's military, and their own standing army shrank more and more.

And at the same time, these barbarian tribes would benefit from the training and equipment provided by Rome.  Finally by 470, the Western Roman Empire collapsed, having been taken over by Odoacer.  Odoacer was the son of one of Attila's Generals, and had once been the leader of Roman Auxiliaries in Gaul, he returned and took over Rome.

So if you look at the Roman Empire, the actual lesson is that you can't place your security at the hands of others.  The minute you turn over your own security to others, it is only a matter of time before they themselves decide to take what you have.

And has been mentioned earlier, it is amazing how much of our modern technology came from Military projects.  Here is just a short list of things that originated from mliitary research:

Cell Phones
Digital Computers
GPS
Plastic Surgery
Trauma Medicine
Ambulance Services
Highways and Freeways
Communication Satellites
RADAR
SONAR
Jet engines
Aircraft
Metal Detectors
Telegraph
Plastics
NMR/MRI
LASER (and everything else from CD-DVD to bloodless surgery)
Penacillin
Plasma as a blood replacement (and long term storage of plasma)
Prosthetics
LED/LCD
Rare Earth Magnets (used in everything from speakers and hard drives to pacemakers and automotive electronics)
Kevlar (not just for bulletproof vests now, but for motorcycle helmets, car parts, and golf clubs)
Lithium-Ion Batteries
Nickel-Candium Batteries
Halogen Lights
Floursecent Lights

And a lot of other things from heat and motion sensors to modern hydraulics and of course the Internet.  Most of these either started as mliitary research programs, or only became useable after a huge infusion of funding by the military.  And in almost every case, it was then converted by one some company into a viable (and often critical) civilian use.

To me, when I hear people screaming about Defense Spending or the "Military-Industrial Complex", it often reminds me of The Life Of Brian:

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

We now see in Iraq what Eisenhower predicted when he coind the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex."  He was not saying America should not have a strong military or a large defense budget.  He was warning us against for-profit interests directing--and ultimately subsuming--military priorities.  If private corporations tell politicians what to do, then what we have now comes to pass.  We go to war not for national security but for the interests of Exxon-Mobil and the profitability of Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Blackwater Security, and so forth.  

The rank incompetence in the day-to-day operations of the occupation of Iraq is a product of outsourcing military functions to private interests.  Why provide our troops with enough daily calories if Halliburton can make more money keeping them half-starved?  Well, won't that be detrimental to our ability to win the war?  Who said anything about winning?  It's only politicians who talk like that.  War is not about winning, it's about making money for shareholders.  

THAT IS THE DANGER TO WHICH EISENHOWER WAS ALERTING US!

Liberals accuse the Bush Administration of trying to destroy public education.  The liberals are right.  What the liberals are only now starting to "get" is the Bush war on another publically funded institution--the U.S. armed forces.  You've got U.S. army soldiers competing with Blackwater mercenaries who make 10 times as much working for a private corporations.  If there is an incentive for would-be soldiers to go work for private mercenary forces unaccountable to the American taxpayers, we are very far up the road to fascism.  And that's the biggest danger of the MIC.

And has been mentioned earlier, it is amazing how much of our modern technology came from Military projects.  Here is just a short list of things that originated from mliitary research:

Cell Phones
Digital Computers
GPS
Plastic Surgery
Trauma Medicine
Ambulance Services
Highways and Freeways
Communication Satellites
RADAR
SONAR
Jet engines
Aircraft
Metal Detectors
Telegraph
Plastics
NMR/MRI
LASER (and everything else from CD-DVD to bloodless surgery)
Penacillin
Plasma as a blood replacement (and long term storage of plasma)
Prosthetics
LED/LCD
Rare Earth Magnets (used in everything from speakers and hard drives to pacemakers and automotive electronics)
Kevlar (not just for bulletproof vests now, but for motorcycle helmets, car parts, and golf clubs)
Lithium-Ion Batteries
Nickel-Candium Batteries
Halogen Lights
Floursecent Lights

And a lot of other things from heat and motion sensors to modern hydraulics and of course the Internet.  Most of these either started as mliitary research programs, or only became useable after a huge infusion of funding by the military.  And in almost every case, it was then converted by one some company into a viable (and often critical) civilian use.

To me, when I hear people screaming about Defense Spending or the "Military-Industrial Complex", it often reminds me of The Life Of Brian:

Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?



But couldn't we (as a nation) develop stuff without going through the military?



Cat

Actually, the very reason the Roman Empire collapsed was the fact that they downsized their military.

In the earliest days, acceptance in the Roman Legion was only open to Roman Citizens.  Only native born Roman citizens were even eligable to join the legion, foreigners were not welcome.

During the late-Republic/Early-Empire era, this opened up as a way for people to become Roman Citizens.  It also saw the introduction of auxiliary troops.  These were little more then local militias from conquered territories (or allies in the conquoring of a territory) who were incorporated into a legion.  Gifted individuals from these auxiliaries had the chance to become legionares.  Upon the completion of a 20-30 year term, they would reture with the full rights of a Roman citizen.

During the High Empire era (Pax Romana), the use of auxiliaries reached an all-time high, and almost half of the Roman Military were auxiliaries.  Most of these were composed of "Romanized" locals, who saw enlistment in the Legions as a way to gain full citizenship.  They mostly enlisted out of a sense of Patriotism to the Empire.

Then came the late Empire.  By this time, enlistment by Roman Citizens had dropped sharply.  Corruption and politics made the Legion less appealing to people who were already citizens.  At the same time, Rome bagan to hire mercenary militias, mostly from barbarian tribes.  It was not unusual to see a group of Goths hired to fight Vandals in one conflict, then in the next to see Vandals hired to fight the Franks.  Barbarian mercenaries increasingly took up the majority of Rome's military, and their own standing army shrank more and more.

And at the same time, these barbarian tribes would benefit from the training and equipment provided by Rome.  Finally by 470, the Western Roman Empire collapsed, having been taken over by Odoacer.  Odoacer was the son of one of Attila's Generals, and had once been the leader of Roman Auxiliaries in Gaul, he returned and took over Rome.

So if you look at the Roman Empire, the actual lesson is that you can't place your security at the hands of others.  The minute you turn over your own security to others, it is only a matter of time before they themselves decide to take what you have.



This is fully in line with what I am saying.  The Romans had the Vandals.  We have Blackwater.

Third and finally - Technology is by far the most important thing for the military. There's only so many troops who are willing to go and die for us, it's the job of the military to ensure that as few as possible die. That's where technology comes in to it. Using the example of Nazi Germany is flawed. Germany had the war won. It wasn't the fact that the Germans relied on technology that led them to lose the war, it was Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to stop bombing British air-fields, it was Hitler wanting to settle the score with Stalin and it was Hitler leaving Rommel's supply lines exposed that led to the German loss in the Second World War. Trust me on that. Technology rules, simple as that.


You are right.  What a different world this would be if Hitler allowed Rommel to do his job.  He was a brilliant commander, along with alot of other German commanders.  Its interesting, Nazi Germany's downfall was caused by politicians.  America has the technology and the military, but our politicians seem to interfere when they get a chance.  Interfering is not the same as checks and balances in my opinion.  We cant allow the military to take control, but we also can let the military do the job they are designed to do.  I find myself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this issue.  How can you commit to keep a strong military when the rules of warfare have seemed to change?  We are not fighting a military force like the Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.  We are fighting an enemy we can't see.  

I didn't mean that we should have a military juggernaut.  I just think that at this point in time, there isn't any other choice but to have a strong military.  We are the superpower.  It will take a long time for the world to takes its eyes off of us.  I have long thought that we worry to much about the world than our own needs inside the country.  The world is a mess, but it is not our job to fix the problems.  It is our job to make sure we can survive in this world.  Not through an empire, but by sustaining what greatness we have.  

2012, but I don't know if I'll be allowed to run on the reform party ticket

Its sad that, technically, anyone who is capable, should be given the chance to run for President in this country.  We have engrained in our culture that it has to be either a Democrat or Republican, and there are people who vote strictly on party lines without any thought to what these people truely will bring to the country.  Its also sad that the Presidential Race is all about raising money.  Fundraising takes all sort of honesty out of the Presidential race when someone will base their platform or laws off of how much money they recieved from so and so.  You should be able to run and America should be open minded enough to accept it.

I'm not too sure whether I agree with you on that or not. I just know what the CIA has done in the past. They disposed of a democrately elected president (Allende) and replaced him with a murdering dictator (Pinocet). The U.S. fights for democracy in the world my ass.

At least they dont fight for democracy in your ass.  I think there would be problems then.    ;D

Seriously though, Intelligence is important.  Maybe the CIA has done some bad things, but they could do a whole lot worse.  I do not think that America should be able to tap into phone conversations, but I think it is important to keep tabs on other countries.  George Washington also believed that Intelligence was important.  He actually paid for spies to get information from the British during the Revolutionary War.  

But couldn't we (as a nation) develop stuff without going through the military?


Probably not.  One thing that most of these have in common is that they required a huge R&D budget, with a central "command structure" to coordinate the research.  Quite a few of these were "crash programs", where money was spent lavishly, with the only aim to "get the job done".

And the main incentive to the corporation that was successful was the ability to capitolize on the projects at a later date for civilian use.  The majority of Hughes research started as Military projects.  Yet most of them later became Civilian projects at a later date.  The Microwave Oven, Satellites (weather, then communication and GPS) all started by Hughes, and quickly became "civilianized".  The same with the Internet.

Before ARPA set down the guidelines and requirements, there were hundreds of different networking systems, useing everything from POTS and radio to hard wired custom systems.  ARPA set up rules for what later became TCPIP and Ethernet, which enabled the standardization which made the Internet possible.  Otherwise, we would still have what we had before: dozens of different companies (Compuserve, The Source, GEnie, AOL, Prodigy, FIDO, etc), each with their own system, each with their own requirements, and none of them talking to each other.  In fact, all of the systems I listed lasted until the mid 1990's, when the Internet became open for public use.  And quickly afterwards, they all switched over or died.

You are right.  What a different world this would be if Hitler allowed Rommel to do his job.  He was a brilliant commander, along with alot of other German commanders.  Its interesting, Nazi Germany's downfall was caused by politicians.  America has the technology and the military, but our politicians seem to interfere when they get a chance.  Interfering is not the same as checks and balances in my opinion.  We cant allow the military to take control, but we also can let the military do the job they are designed to do.  I find myself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this issue.  How can you commit to keep a strong military when the rules of warfare have seemed to change?  We are not fighting a military force like the Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.  We are fighting an enemy we can't see. 


If Hitler had allowed Rommel to do his job, we WOULD be speaking German. There was a reason why Rommel was so highly regarded by General Montgomery, that was because as well as being a fantastic tactician and soldier, he was also a gentleman, well respected by his troops and local civilians.
If and when the US downfall happens, it will be because of politicians jumping in to bed with big money business and not realizing that eventually, they've got to spit or swallow. When the country loses faith in congress, big business will be there to step in and elect leaders 'for us'.
Of course the rules have changed, you're exactly right and the only way to win (and I find myself thinking of Khrushchev and Brezhnev here) is total devastation of the population.. and I'm sorry, but that's not a price I'm willing to pay.


I didn't mean that we should have a military juggernaut.  I just think that at this point in time, there isn't any other choice but to have a strong military.  We are the superpower.  It will take a long time for the world to takes its eyes off of us.  I have long thought that we worry to much about the world than our own needs inside the country.  The world is a mess, but it is not our job to fix the problems.  It is our job to make sure we can survive in this world.  Not through an empire, but by sustaining what greatness we have. 


Of course, but my point is, we're already a juggernaut. The rest of the world combined would have a hard time actually defeating the US using conventional weapons. You're very much right and I've said this for a long time. Screw the rest of the world, seriously, we have enough problems right here at home without spending hundreds of billions of dollars around the world to appease the guilt we have that others don't have such a good lot. Well, instead of spending money on the problem, why don't we invest more in long term research, hydroponics, medical research to cure AIDS, cutting down on our emissions via the use of Hydrogen based fuels.


Its sad that, technically, anyone who is capable, should be given the chance to run for President in this country.  We have engrained in our culture that it has to be either a Democrat or Republican, and there are people who vote strictly on party lines without any thought to what these people truely will bring to the country.  Its also sad that the Presidential Race is all about raising money.  Fundraising takes all sort of honesty out of the Presidential race when someone will base their platform or laws off of how much money they recieved from so and so.  You should be able to run and America should be open minded enough to accept it.


My friend, I will say something that sums up how politics works in this country right now. At a time when we're at war with in two different country's, when there are millions without health coverage, when the national debt is soaring out of control, when there are (no matter how you feel about it) terrorist groups wanting to kill large percentages of our population, when thousands of starving children leave us per hour and around the world factorys spew out toxins creating death clouds and ruining our environment.. when all these things are going on in the world, the main point of contention between most politicians.. is abortion. Once again, I'm going to get back on my favorite horse and blame the Religious nuts.. and the US has way more than it's fair share of them.


At least they dont fight for democracy in your ass.  I think there would be problems then.    ;D

Seriously though, Intelligence is important.  Maybe the CIA has done some bad things, but they could do a whole lot worse.  I do not think that America should be able to tap into phone conversations, but I think it is important to keep tabs on other countries.  George Washington also believed that Intelligence was important.  He actually paid for spies to get information from the British during the Revolutionary War.


The fact of the matter is this.. without the NSA and CIA,  we'd have had 9/11 a hundred times over. I dare say we would have, by now, had a non-governmental nuclear weapon detonated somewhere in the world. Between them, the NSA and CIA protect not just the US but a large part of the world.

You are right.  What a different world this would be if Hitler allowed Rommel to do his job.  He was a brilliant commander, along with alot of other German commanders.  Its interesting, Nazi Germany's downfall was caused by politicians.  America has the technology and the military, but our politicians seem to interfere when they get a chance.  Interfering is not the same as checks and balances in my opinion.  We cant allow the military to take control, but we also can let the military do the job they are designed to do.  I find myself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this issue.  How can you commit to keep a strong military when the rules of warfare have seemed to change?  We are not fighting a military force like the Japanese Empire or Nazi Germany.  We are fighting an enemy we can't see. 

I didn't mean that we should have a military juggernaut.  I just think that at this point in time, there isn't any other choice but to have a strong military.  We are the superpower.  It will take a long time for the world to takes its eyes off of us.  I have long thought that we worry to much about the world than our own needs inside the country.  The world is a mess, but it is not our job to fix the problems.  It is our job to make sure we can survive in this world.  Not through an empire, but by sustaining what greatness we have.



You are right. However there are a lot people who think the U.S. is the world's police. And I don't think we should be. I think we should concintrate on our own borders. There is so much in this nation that needs fixing-people going to bed hungry, many not having beds to go to, health care, education, etc. etc. The Adminstration is bragging because we are building schools in Iraq and many question, why can't we build schools in the U.S.?



Its sad that, technically, anyone who is capable, should be given the chance to run for President in this country.  We have engrained in our culture that it has to be either a Democrat or Republican, and there are people who vote strictly on party lines without any thought to what these people truely will bring to the country.  Its also sad that the Presidential Race is all about raising money.  Fundraising takes all sort of honesty out of the Presidential race when someone will base their platform or laws off of how much money they recieved from so and so.  You should be able to run and America should be open minded enough to accept it.

Once again, I agree with you. It would be great if campaigns were not centered around the all-mighty dollar. We (the country) are in the mind-set that the more $$$$ the more votes. And yes, that does lead to corruption. "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" which means the ones with the itchy backs are the ones who can't afford anything. It is such a shame.




At least they dont fight for democracy in your ass.  I think there would be problems then.    ;D  

Yeah, I think Carlos might have a problem with that.  ;)



Seriously though, Intelligence is important.  Maybe the CIA has done some bad things, but they could do a whole lot worse.  I do not think that America should be able to tap into phone conversations, but I think it is important to keep tabs on other countries.  George Washington also believed that Intelligence was important.  He actually paid for spies to get information from the British during the Revolutionary War. 




I'm still not totally convinced on this.




Cat

The Adminstration is bragging because we are building schools in Iraq and many question, why can't we build schools in the U.S.?
Cat


What a wonderful sentiment, I truly wish that one day this will happen.

The city of St. Louis just lost it's accreditation in the schools.. so, if you graduate from a St. Louis city school (the city is VERY different to the county - think like Baltimore) you haven't really graduated from High school, because there simply isn't enough money to go around and thus the schools end up taking the brunt because more and more money is channeled to the national guard who are away in Iraq when there are currently thousands in Missouri at risk of losing their livelihoods because the Mississippi and Missouri rivers are already over their flood stages.

What a wonderful sentiment, I truly wish that one day this will happen.

The city of St. Louis just lost it's accreditation in the schools.. so, if you graduate from a St. Louis city school (the city is VERY different to the county - think like Baltimore) you haven't really graduated from High school, because there simply isn't enough money to go around and thus the schools end up taking the brunt because more and more money is channeled to the national guard who are away in Iraq when there are currently thousands in Missouri at risk of losing their livelihoods because the Mississippi and Missouri rivers are already over their flood stages.



That is the point I am trying to make-all this $$$$ goes into the MIC and hardly any of it goes to what needs to be done to make this a better nation.




Cat

That is the point I am trying to make-all this $$$$ goes into the MIC and hardly any of it goes to what needs to be done to make this a better nation.
Cat


Right. As I've said, investing in military technology and intelligence is one thing, but just building bigger.. and more aircraft carriers, missiles, tanks, planes etc.. nooo.. stop.. or at least slow down. We're SOOO far in advance of every other country and have a way larger military in terms of what we can actually throw at anybody.

Right. As I've said, investing in military technology and intelligence is one thing, but just building bigger.. and more aircraft carriers, missiles, tanks, planes etc.. nooo.. stop.. or at least slow down. We're SOOO far in advance of every other country and have a way larger military in terms of what we can actually throw at anybody.



Id rather throw rocks at them.  Make them cry.

Id rather throw rocks at them.  Make them cry.


Or cruise missiles, same basic concept.

Id rather throw rocks at them.  Make them cry.


Human history in a nutshell:

Throw rock.
Throw stick with pointy rock on end of stick.
Melt rock.  Smush rock into shiny sharp stick.  Whack guy with shiny sharpened stick-rock.
Smush shiny rock into tube.  Make fire in metal tube, throw metal rock long way.
Find way to put fire in metal rocks, use metal tube to drop explsosive rocks on other guy.
Find better kind of fire, drop rocks made of unstable isotopes on other guy.
Use fire in tube to get to moon.  Use unstable isotopes to power moonbase.
Build mass driver on lunar surface.
Throw rock.

Moon is harsh mistress.  But is funny-always, not just funny-once.

Whilew I have'nt been reading this all along, Cat has kept me informed, and I have a few things to point out.

First, while it is true that gov't investment in the military creates jobs (military Keansianism) investments in civilian projects (What Keans had in mind) create more job, at least that's what he said and what he preached.

Second, all the technologies m,entioned were NOT discovered by the military, but by "academics" funded by the military.  That research could as easilly been funded by the National Science Foundation.

third, did you know that we didn't have a large standing arm,y until after WWII?  Through most of our history we had an officers corps and little else.

Fourth, while I don't remember all the reasons the Roman Empire collapsed, I can sasy for certain that the Roman Republic collapsed because the standing armies got fed up with civilian control and took over.  There was no one to stop them.  You say it can't happen here?  I wondere.

Second, all the technologies m,entioned were NOT discovered by the military, but by "academics" funded by the military.  That research could as easilly been funded by the National Science Foundation.

third, did you know that we didn't have a large standing arm,y until after WWII?  Through most of our history we had an officers corps and little else.

Fourth, while I don't remember all the reasons the Roman Empire collapsed, I can sasy for certain that the Roman Republic collapsed because the standing armies got fed up with civilian control and took over.  There was no one to stop them.  You say it can't happen here?  I wondere.


And these are all true.  Notice in the second post I made that I mentioned crash programs.  A lot of the technologies listed actually got their start during WWII.  During that conflict, achievement of the goal was the only criteria, cost and other things were secondary.  That is what enabled the Manhattan Project to go from inception to completion in less then 5 years.

And one of the unsung crash programs that has saved uncounted millions of lives is Penacillin.  Discovered in 1928, it was mostly considered a scientific oddity until 1942.  It was at that time it was discovered that it could treat diseases in people.

It was the military need to massproduce this new wonder drug that saw a massive infusion of R&D money.  This is something that would have taken many more years (if not decades) if it was not considered critical.

And one of the most unsung inventors was the actress who was also an amateur mathmatician.  Her work on spread spectrum was toyed with for use in torpedoes and cryptography, but outside of the military was largely ignored.  But her invention made entire generations of communications possible, everything from sattelite and cell phones to the Internet (TCP/IP relies on it).

It is true that most of these things were invented by Civilians.  Outside of a few areas (USAMRID for example) there is really no actual "Military Research" conducted.  Instead it is conducted by cilivilians, either under contract for such research, or funded by the military after uses are discovered.

And we did not have a large standing army until after WWII.  The National Guard was (and still is) the largest component of the US Military.  But it was our commitment to rebuilding Europe and other war torn areas that made it a requirement.  And unless for some reason we suddenly become "Isolationist" again, I doubt that will ever change.

As for the Roman Republic, it did not fall as much as was replaced.  Julius Caeser took control of Rome as Dictator, under the conscent of the Senate.  And this had happened several times in the past.  The only difference is that Julius did not want to give up the power once he had it.  And even in the earliest decades of the Empire, the Senate had enough power that it could normally check the worst of the excess of the emperors.

But like any institution, eventually the Senate became interested more in it's own power then in protecting the rights of Roman Citizens.  This corruption could be seen as early as 132 BCE, when Tiberius Gracchus was put to death for wanting to give to much power to the people of Rome.

I repeat:

The problem with the Military-Industrial Complex is it lets for-profit industry decide who shall live and who shall die.  It is the tail wagging the dog.  The M-I-C also infects the homefront with fascistic fervor as politicians in the pocket of the M-I-C drum up the fear of enemies, the belligerent nationalism, and the drive for endless war necessary to feed the M-I-C beast. 

The USA PATRIOT act and the 4+-year occupation of Iraq are two catastrophes General Eisenhower would never want to see befall this country.

Don't get me started on the M-I-C and 9/11!

I repeat:

The problem with the Military-Industrial Complex is it lets for-profit industry decide who shall live and who shall die.  It is the tail wagging the dog.  The M-I-C also infects the homefront with fascistic fervor as politicians in the pocket of the M-I-C drum up the fear of enemies, the belligerent nationalism, and the drive for endless war necessary to feed the M-I-C beast. 


Of course, what I always find interesting is that DDE expunged part of the phrase when he made the speech.  The phrase he originally wrote was military-industrial-congressional complex, and it was aimed directly at the 86th United States Congress.  It was only to prevent what was seen as hostility towards the Legislative branch that the word "Congressional" was removed.

And if you read the speech, it also stated his belief in having a strong and effective military, and to act quickly and decisively against any agressor, either in the US or abroad.

I am curious, how many that believe in DDR's "MIC" also believe in his "Domino Theory"?  Or do people just pick and choose what they believe in?

Of course, what I always find interesting is that DDE expunged part of the phrase when he made the speech.  The phrase he originally wrote was military-industrial-congressional complex, and it was aimed directly at the 86th United States Congress.  It was only to prevent what was seen as hostility towards the Legislative branch that the word "Congressional" was removed.

And if you read the speech, it also stated his belief in having a strong and effective military, and to act quickly and decisively against any agressor, either in the US or abroad.

I am curious, how many that believe in DDR's "MIC" also believe in his "Domino Theory"?  Or do people just pick and choose what they believe in?
vis-a-vis domino theory, i think in eisenhower’s time they were still trying to get a handle on soviet expansionism and how extensive soviet ambitions really were. eisenhower, not entirely unwisely, erred on the side of overestimating the threat (although even then he had to bend over backward to manage lunatics like macarthur, who were pretty much like george c. scott’s character in “dr. strangelove” -- if we nuke em now we stand a good chance of catching em with their pants down!). so it’s understandable eisenhower might have believed in the domino theory; he didn’t have subsequent experiences such as vietnam, where the domino theory was invoked to get us involved and then when the war failed the nightmare scenarios, with communism sweeping all over southeast asia, didn’t materialize and this led to the domino theory getting largely discredited.

eisenhower, not entirely unwisely, erred on the side of overestimating the threat (although even then he had to bend over backward to manage lunatics like macarthur, who were pretty much like george c. scott’s character in “dr. strangelove” -- if we nuke em now we stand a good chance of catching em with their pants down!). so it’s understandable eisenhower might have believed in the domino theory; he didn’t have subsequent experiences such as vietnam, where the domino theory was invoked to get us involved and then when the war failed the nightmare scenarios, with communism sweeping all over southeast asia, didn’t materialize and this led to the domino theory getting largely discredited.


Uhhh, DDE got us involved in Vietnam because he was a big believer of the Domino Theory.  A theory by the way first brought to attention by Harry Truman.  In fact, DDE was such a believer in it, that he almost ordered Vietnam nuked himself (Look up "Operation Vulture").

The funny thing about history is, that most people really do not know as much about it as they think they do.

The funny thing about history is, that most people really do not know as much about it as they think they do.
that's why we keep YOU around... ;) because you're so much smarter than we are.

yes, you're missing my point. what i'm saying is, an observer with the benefit of hindsight could forgive eisenhower's embrace of the domino theory and still believe the domino theory is incorrect -- because the historical events that subsequently occurred to discredit the theory, such as vietnam, hadn't yet occurred when eisenhower was president. do you understand what i'm trying to explain to you?

that's why we keep YOU around... ;) because you're so much smarter than we are.


I would never describe myself as "smarter".  I am simply a trivia nut, with a deep love of history.  I am also a hopeless cynic, who believes that history has proven that the worst case is not only possible, but probable unless steps are taken.


yes, you're missing my point. what i'm saying is, an observer with the benefit of hindsight could forgive eisenhower's embrace of the domino theory and still believe the domino theory is incorrect -- because the historical events that subsequently occurred to discredit the theory, such as vietnam, hadn't yet occurred when eisenhower was president. do you understand what i'm trying to explain to you?


Discredit the theory?  If anything, it was proven to be accurate.  And it was only the creation of NATO and other steps which prevented it from climbing out of control.

Before WWII, there was really only one Communist Government: The USSR.  After WWII, the countries of Eastern Europe were one after the other gobbled up by the Soviet Empire.  Bulgaria, Poland, Romania. East Germany (and the 1948 attempt to claim all of West Berlin), Czechoslovakia, and Albania.  And the Puppet state of Yugoslavia.  The only major Eastern European nation to not fall under Soviet DOmination was Greece (which successfully fought off a Soviet backed incursion from 1946-1949).  It was only the Truman Doctrine that prevented Turkey from being gobbled up as well.

And it was not just a throey accepted by Republicans.  Harry Truman was the architect of most of the founding principals, and JFK and Lyndon johnson were also staunch supporters of the concept.  And in fact it was drafted in response to the public declaration of the Soviet Union that they would control the world through Socialist Revolutions.

And there were many attempts to spread this doctrine.  Central America, South America, Africa, and East Asia all had Soviet backed revolutions during the 50 years following WWII.  It was mostly through the interdiction of the US, NATO, and other nations (France, Australia, England, etc) that prevented them from gaining a major foothold.  It was the Soviet attempt to grab Afganistan that lead the eventual downfall of that empire.

And you are mistaken, Vietnam had occured when DDE was in office.  The 1954 Geneva Accord was signed at the end of his first term.  This was the treaty that ended French Colonial Rule, and divided Vietnam into 2 different nations, as well as the creation of Cambodia and Laos (at the demand of the PRC dignitary - China feared a unified "Indochina nation" or "Unified Vietnam").  Things like the Greek Civil War, Berlin Airlift, French-Indochina War, the Congo Revolution (and other revolutions spread from Angola to Chad), seizure of the South Kuril Islands, and the ascent of the PRC made DDE and his contemporaries very aware and nervous of "Soviet Domination".

The main things that led to the failure was both the blocking moves made in some countries, and other countries accepting Soviet aid, only to later decide to eschew "Soviet Rule" and go their own way (Mongolia, China, Vietnam, etc).

"Domino Theory" was not discredited, since the Soviet Union itself stated that it was how it was going to take over the world.  Fortuniately, it never came to pass.  And the end result was that the Soviet Empire was the one that ended up on the ash heap of history.

I would never describe myself as "smarter".  I am simply a trivia nut, with a deep love of history.  I am also a hopeless cynic, who believes that history has proven that the worst case is not only possible, but probable unless steps are taken.
A true cynic would say the worst case scenario precipitates because of steps taken!

Discredit the theory?  If anything, it was proven to be accurate.  And it was only the creation of NATO and other steps which prevented it from climbing out of control.

It was only the Truman Doctrine that prevented Turkey from being gobbled up as well.
Turkey--gobbled.  Great pun!

And it was not just a throey accepted by Republicans.  Harry Truman was the architect of most of the founding principals, and JFK and Lyndon johnson were also staunch supporters of the concept.  And in fact it was drafted in response to the public declaration of the Soviet Union that they would control the world through Socialist Revolutions.
I know that's what they said, and certainly the Soviet Union was a menace, but after Stalin's death it was also apparent that the Soviet system could not deliver the goods economically on either the supply or demand level.  Well...if you were one of the elite--so much for classless society--you could get pretty much anything you wanted.  Regular Soviet citizens also bought goods and services via the black market when they could.  Get the kitchen sink fixed by the black market plumber or wait 10 years for the state plumber!  Anyway, the Soviets were a military threat, but I think they were puffed-up into more an ideological when they need not have been.  There were Kool-Aid drinking Stalinists selling the ideology on streetcorners straight up 'till Gorbachev; however, the military-industrial complex was the driving force behind the "Red Menace" via the corporate media and the U.S. education system.

And there were many attempts to spread this doctrine.  Central America, South America, Africa, and East Asia all had Soviet backed revolutions during the 50 years following WWII.  It was mostly through the interdiction of the US, NATO, and other nations (France, Australia, England, etc) that prevented them from gaining a major foothold.  It was the Soviet attempt to grab Afganistan that lead the eventual downfall of that empire.
A socialist state will resemble the state that preceded it.  Russian Soviet socialism was autocratic and dysfunctional because that was the heritage of Czarist Russia.  You can see where the socialist elements in the French and British governments resembled the foregoing temper of those societies.  Even if there was a full-blown communist revolution in France or the U.K., you wouldn't have ended up with a "Stalin" in either country...and perhaps this very fact is why there never was such a revolution.

And you are mistaken, Vietnam had occured when DDE was in office.  The 1954 Geneva Accord was signed at the end of his first term.  This was the treaty that ended French Colonial Rule, and divided Vietnam into 2 different nations, as well as the creation of Cambodia and Laos (at the demand of the PRC dignitary - China feared a unified "Indochina nation" or "Unified Vietnam").  Things like the Greek Civil War, Berlin Airlift, French-Indochina War, the Congo Revolution (and other revolutions spread from Angola to Chad), seizure of the South Kuril Islands, and the ascent of the PRC made DDE and his contemporaries very aware and nervous of "Soviet Domination".

The main things that led to the failure was both the blocking moves made in some countries, and other countries accepting Soviet aid, only to later decide to eschew "Soviet Rule" and go their own way (Mongolia, China, Vietnam, etc).

"Domino Theory" was not discredited, since the Soviet Union itself stated that it was how it was going to take over the world.  Fortuniately, it never came to pass.  And the end result was that the Soviet Empire was the one that ended up on the ash heap of history.

Neither Ho Chi Mihn nor Fidel Castro sought to emulate Soviet governance.  Both refused to capitulate to imperialism from the U.S., so they had to seek assistance from the other bullies on the block.

I would never describe myself as "smarter".  I am simply a trivia nut, with a deep love of history.  I am also a hopeless cynic, who believes that history has proven that the worst case is not only possible, but probable unless steps are taken.

Discredit the theory?  If anything, it was proven to be accurate.  And it was only the creation of NATO and other steps which prevented it from climbing out of control.

Before WWII, there was really only one Communist Government: The USSR.  After WWII, the countries of Eastern Europe were one after the other gobbled up by the Soviet Empire.  Bulgaria, Poland, Romania. East Germany (and the 1948 attempt to claim all of West Berlin), Czechoslovakia, and Albania.  And the Puppet state of Yugoslavia.  The only major Eastern European nation to not fall under Soviet DOmination was Greece (which successfully fought off a Soviet backed incursion from 1946-1949).  It was only the Truman Doctrine that prevented Turkey from being gobbled up as well.

And it was not just a throey accepted by Republicans.  Harry Truman was the architect of most of the founding principals, and JFK and Lyndon johnson were also staunch supporters of the concept.  And in fact it was drafted in response to the public declaration of the Soviet Union that they would control the world through Socialist Revolutions.

And there were many attempts to spread this doctrine.  Central America, South America, Africa, and East Asia all had Soviet backed revolutions during the 50 years following WWII.  It was mostly through the interdiction of the US, NATO, and other nations (France, Australia, England, etc) that prevented them from gaining a major foothold.  It was the Soviet attempt to grab Afganistan that lead the eventual downfall of that empire.

And you are mistaken, Vietnam had occured when DDE was in office.  The 1954 Geneva Accord was signed at the end of his first term.  This was the treaty that ended French Colonial Rule, and divided Vietnam into 2 different nations, as well as the creation of Cambodia and Laos (at the demand of the PRC dignitary - China feared a unified "Indochina nation" or "Unified Vietnam").  Things like the Greek Civil War, Berlin Airlift, French-Indochina War, the Congo Revolution (and other revolutions spread from Angola to Chad), seizure of the South Kuril Islands, and the ascent of the PRC made DDE and his contemporaries very aware and nervous of "Soviet Domination".

The main things that led to the failure was both the blocking moves made in some countries, and other countries accepting Soviet aid, only to later decide to eschew "Soviet Rule" and go their own way (Mongolia, China, Vietnam, etc).

"Domino Theory" was not discredited, since the Soviet Union itself stated that it was how it was going to take over the world.  Fortuniately, it never came to pass.  And the end result was that the Soviet Empire was the one that ended up on the ash heap of history.
the problem with the assertions about the domino theory is that they're founded on untestable propositions. IF nato hadn't resisted communist expansionism, it would have spread and conquered the free world. well, the one place where that was tested, in vietnam -- where we were assured if south vietnam was allowed to fall to the reds, communism would spread all through southeast asia -- it didn't happen. all the OTHER times it didn't happen it could have not happened for any number of reasons. it could have failed to happen because of nato resistance. it could, on the other hand, have happened because the domino theory is false. or it could have failed to happen because of the absence of other necessary conditions we don't know about. because it DIDN'T happen it's impossible to pin down a cause. you can't determine a definite cause for a non-event, but if a proposition is made and its preconditions present themselves, then you can test that proposition based on whether the results it calls for come to pass. in the case of vietnam, the domino theory proposition was tested. it failed. therefore, based on the existing evidence, it's incumbent on us to conclude it was a faulty proposition. it's the same logic that says, if we hadn't gone to war in iraq, we would have suffered another attack on US soil. it's a proposition founded on fear, not reason.

to be honest, i'm amazed we're still debating the domino theory. i thought intellectual consensus had put that idea to bed years ago. but maybe it's like how nowadays i'm hearing defenses of mccarthyism from some quarters.

and i never said eisenhower wasn't involved in vietnam. truman, i believe, was the first person to send advisors to vietnam but i'm fully aware of eisenhower's role in that war.

however, the vietnam war didn't begin to demonstrate the futility of the domino theory until the war started devolving into witless slaughter, and that didn't occur until johnson. you'll notice i'm not bringing up political parties at all, this isn't about parties.

A socialist state will resemble the state that preceded it.  Russian Soviet socialism was autocratic and dysfunctional because that was the heritage of Czarist Russia.  You can see where the socialist elements in the French and British governments resembled the foregoing temper of those societies.  Even if there was a full-blown communist revolution in France or the U.K., you wouldn't have ended up with a "Stalin" in either country...and perhaps this very fact is why there never was such a revolution.
Neither Ho Chi Mihn nor Fidel Castro sought to emulate Soviet governance.  Both refused to capitulate to imperialism from the U.S., so they had to seek assistance from the other bullies on the block.


I have nothing against Socialism itself.  And notice that I mostly talked about the "Soviet Empire".  I never really considered the USSR to be "Socialist" or "Communist" in the true sense.  It was simply another form of dictatorship that covered itself in a "Socialist-Communist" cloak.  Much like PRC, Cuba, and the other such governments that use the name.

And there was never really any kind of fear of the UK or France falling under a Socialist Revolution backed by the USSR.  However, if the Soviets had not been stopped, then more and more of Western Europe would have suffered the effects of Finlandization.  These concepts have less to do with who is in actual control, then it does with "Sphere of Influence".  Yugoslavia was indeed a seperate power, but do you think the USSR would have allowed them to open up for NATO bases?  Can you say "Poland"?

And if you check the books, the US was one of the original backers of Uncle Ho.  And French Indochina was a pawn that was taken advantage of by many countries during it's existance.

The first betrayal was when the US stopped backing Uncle Ho, and agreed to allow the French to take charge again.  The next was when England rearmed the Japanese still in their country, and use them to suppress the Viet Mihn until France could return.  Then during the war they were both supported and opposed by both the Republic of China, then the Peoples Republic Of China.  Both of them feared a unified Indichina on their Southern border.

In fact, PRC was deeply involved in both the partition of Indochina, and in the subsequent war between North & South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.  In the view of the PRC, it was better to have North Vietnam attack South Vietnam then it was to have them attack China.  And in many ways they were proved right, because of the large number of border wars and incursions between the two since 1975.

And I still blame Harry Truman for the entire mess in Vietnam.  Instead of agreeing to prop up a decaying French Empire, he should have urged France to do what we were doing in the Philippines.  Move in to restore order, and at the same time prepare them for self rule.  In 1946 France was moving tens of thousands of troops into Indochina, as the US was turning over the Philippines to self-rule.


and i never said eisenhower wasn't involved in vietnam. truman, i believe, was the first person to send advisors to vietnam but i'm fully aware of eisenhower's role in that war.

however, the vietnam war didn't begin to demonstrate the futility of the domino theory until the war started devolving into witless slaughter, and that didn't occur until johnson. you'll notice i'm not bringing up political parties at all, this isn't about parties.


Actually it was FDR, but close enough.  Uncle Ho had US advisors (mostly OSS Officers) who assisted Ho in fighting both the Japanese, and other bands of Communists (mostly from China) during WWII.  I often wonder what would have happened if Ho was not stabed in the back in the name of Geopolitics.

And I never bring up parties when discussing something like history.  It is not only utterly pointless, it is utterly stupid.  But no matter who was in office, the Vietnam War would have happened once France started to move back in.  There were simply to many nations that wanted to see instability in that region for their own purposes.

China wanted internal strife, to keep any of the former colonies from looking at Northern Expansion.  The USSR saw the war post-revolution as a way to test equipment and doctrine.  And both PRC and USSR made huge amounts of money in selling equipment to the DRV.  And for all the talk about MIC, Russia still far exceeds the amount of military equipment sold to other nations.  Many economists speculate that the USSR would have collapsed 10-15 years earlier if not for the money made through arms sales.  The currency made by sales to countries like Iraq, Egypt, and most other Middle Eastern nations was often the only hard currency they brought in.