On the Military Industrial Complex

[braindrain]

I have a healthy fear of the MIC, but to just wantonly blame it for our involvement in Vietnam knowing our policies from the dropping of the Iron Curtain onward... well, its not totally silly, just majorly silly.

Pledges given? Yes, I'm aware of the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine and a few other "doctrines" here and there. I am also aware that our pledge given regarding eastward expansion of NATO by Bush 41, and I note how we have not honored it. And I observe that as we move our troops into countries bordering Russia, we are saying by implication that WE can have and enforce our Monroe Doctrine, but Russia may not do the same. I guess that's because we are exceptional and special on this planet, a superior citizenship for humans?

Whoever said we were threatened by Vietnam? I'm not sure anybody said those actual words, but I do understand implications, and being a professor, I'm sure you do too. The question might be were you around at that time to receive the implication given by our leaders that communism and Vietnam were threats not only to us, but to world order.

The good humor is that all these years later we are trading with those horrible communists. :lol:

As a history professor, I assume you are aware of the practice of "writing history" in a favorable light, favorable to the person writing the history, and any agenda he may embrace. I hope you're not suggesting humans that groups of humans with special interests don't develop and advance agendas?

It matters not whether I am more perceptive in seeing the influence of the MIC during my life time, or you are less perceptive in that regard, but I assure you Ike was not making things up. In fact from then until now as we start another round of bombing in Libya, the military industrial complex drives and controls US government policy and spending. Vietnam was a fraud, and the entire GWOT is a fraud, of epic proportions. eace[/QUOTE]

Why do I get the feeling that your history professor credentials are about as weak as your flight instructor ones. As in none at all.

 

[Thoreau72]

First, where are you getting your information, apparently faulty, on any pledges made not to expand eastward NATO under GHWB?
https://www.brookings.edu/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ Brookings is considered, if anything besides nonpartisan, a more liberal leaning think tank. I don't think Gorbachev, who was kinda there, has any particular reason to lie about this, either.

Secondly, using the Monroe Doctrine we did not stop Soviet troops, their navy, intelligence operations or being what amounted to a distant satellite state in Cuba... we did say NO to putting Nukes on Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the state I was living in at that time.

Yes, I was also around to receive the implications that communism [had a class in high school, Americanism vs Communism, required class at the time] was a threat... and it was. One which we, intelligently , “Contained”. Specifically Greece and Turkey, Korea, Vietnam, all were involved in that containment strategy along with the rest of the world... a strategy that worked. Not flawlessly, but pretty damned well with no more major World Wars, no need to use A bombs to Nukes by either side. And we stopped, for the most part, unbridled communist expansion. Try giving me some major examples of where the communists went where they did not murder, often hideously, major portions of their own populations, usually into the millions, even in small countries like Cambodia [ one of those pesky little dominoes that fell to communism ].

We are no longer dealing with the Soviet threat of worldwide conquest... so the pawn of Vietnam in its gambit to undermine Democracy and Capitalism failed. Cuba isn't a threat any longer, either. But I am guessing you don't understand the implications of the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War? Our strategy of Containment worked, capitalism is pulling formerly VERY communistic China more towards our system... we smartly defused the threat worldwide. Why shouldn't we trade with our former enemies if they no longer are part of a global threat?

I do not doubt Ike, he is one of my favorites. He gave both warnings, as mentioned earlier. You believe the one but not the other? I believe both were to be listened to and acted upon. You believe only the one, why? You have yet to prove your point or to disprove my facts stated. I do feel the MIC influences too much, yet I do not let the fear of that blind me to real threats, then or now.

Yes, the US is special. Do you doubt it? Based upon what?

Sad to report, the only thing special about the US today is the lawlessness and arrogance of its government.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Sad to report, the only thing special about the US today is the lawlessness and arrogance of its government.

We may have been yanked downwards, but that does not obviate our heritage and stellar past.

 

[Thoreau72]

We may have been yanked downwards, but that does not obviate our heritage and stellar past.

If you mean that the principles enunciated in the US Constitution were noble and practical, and that the eventual elimination of slavery by way of the political process was noble, then I certainly agree.

And understand that while I consider Ike to have been one of our better presidents, he was only human like you and I. He was not an angel. Point being that it's not Ike himself was so awesome, but rather the message he delivered that was critical, even though it has been ignored by subsequent generations. The message, not the man.

In your opinion, how have we been "yanked downwards"?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If you mean that the principles enunciated in the US Constitution were noble and practical, and that the eventual elimination of slavery by way of the political process was noble, then I certainly agree.

And understand that while I consider Ike to have been one of our better presidents, he was only human like you and I. He was not an angel. Point being that it's not Ike himself was so awesome, but rather the message he delivered that was critical, even though it has been ignored by subsequent generations. The message, not the man.

In your opinion, how have we been "yanked downwards"?

Yes, adhering to the principals of our original Constitution, understanding change is necessary and that it be slow, measured change that the majority is on board with. The Civil War proved that we can [try to] force change, but you have to have the overwhelming majority on board for it to really change. That is why the amendment process was so prescient... our founders truly understood, or got lucky with, human nature. The idea of limited government, while understanding there is a need for government, and federalism where most major decision making was made more locally... that was fantastic.

We have gone in a downward trend since the Civil War. We have pretty much lost the idea of Federalism, states rights being given a bad name/reputation and everything associated with states rights, good bad indifferent, has been hung with the epithet of Slavery. Decision making has become more of a one size fits all mandate by our Federal government.

The 16th and 17th amendments have taken the balance achieved by the founders of the nation out of kilter. The 14th, which was never properly Constitutionally passed, was a poor amendment forced, trying to cover way too many bases and so has been abused making nearly everything "okay". With the concept of limited government, the 14th should be interpreted in a limited manner. States should make their own decisions on everything except that which specifically was agreed to when the states gave up only a certain amount of their sovereignty to become united.

Without going further into a dissertation, that in a capsule somewhat describes where I am coming from.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, adhering to the principals of our original Constitution, understanding change is necessary and that it be slow, measured change that the majority is on board with. The Civil War proved that we can [try to] force change, but you have to have the overwhelming majority on board for it to really change. That is why the amendment process was so prescient... our founders truly understood, or got lucky with, human nature. The idea of limited government, while understanding there is a need for government, and federalism where most major decision making was made more locally... that was fantastic.

We have gone in a downward trend since the Civil War. We have pretty much lost the idea of Federalism, states rights being given a bad name/reputation and everything associated with states rights, good bad indifferent, has been hung with the epithet of Slavery. Decision making has become more of a one size fits all mandate by our Federal government.

The 16th and 17th amendments have taken the balance achieved by the founders of the nation out of kilter. The 14th, which was never properly Constitutionally passed, was a poor amendment forced, trying to cover way too many bases and so has been abused making nearly everything "okay". With the concept of limited government, the 14th should be interpreted in a limited manner. States should make their own decisions on everything except that which specifically was agreed to when the states gave up only a certain amount of their sovereignty to become united.

Without going further into a dissertation, that in a capsule somewhat describes where I am coming from.

Fair enough.

I think the 14th was appropriate for a number of reasons. If the Enlightenment idea of equality of all men before the law is valid, then the 14th was an affirmation of those principles.

The 16th is the one of questionable provenance, and its subsequent interpretations that a man's wages are 'income' in the sense of what the word meant at time of 1900-ish were wrong. On the 17th I have no particular opinion.

As I'm right in the first third reading a collection of essays and opinion pieces from The Nation going from 1931 to the present, called Surveillance Nation, it is clear that government efforts to (with the best of intentions) crush privacy and violate the spirit and letter of the USC, is nothing new under the sun.

On thread, the MIC is very much the driving force in today's government policy.