Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Beware The Military Indistrial Complex" - Dwight Eisenhower

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 3:48 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (8702)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

--Excerpted from Dwight Eisenhower's farewell

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

Unheeded warnings, so many to count.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Thank you for posting this, it is something that every American should read/hear. I'm distressed because it is very rare that I hear any Occupier mention the MIC and our current wars -- we haven't been hearing much on that front in the media lately, have we?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

No we havent been hearing much about it lately, the corpotate military alliance has squandered trillions of dollars, and when we (misguidedly) went into Iraq, troops didn't have effective body armor, or armored transportation. They had to drive unarmored humvees and get decimated by IEDs, while thousands of armored personel carriers sat in mothballs in The States - why, so GM could sell a lot of humvees. These are just a few of thousands of examples of the blatent military contract fraud since Eisenhower's day. It is exactly what he was warning us about. Thanks for the comment.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Yes, and I work with a kid, reservist, who is trying to get picked up by a private security firm. Boasts, "I'll make $300,000+ a year!" Sick. I keep telling him that he may die an anonymous death ... he doesn't care, the allure of that paycheck is mesmerizing.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

These mercinary forces are patently unconstitution and need to be abolished. This should be high on occupy's agenda. They mirror, actually and historically, the rise of Hitler's SS.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Scary isn't it? Private armies for rent. Get used to it,it's the wave of the future. It's coming soon to police depts and fire depts too. Soon the only protection you will have is that that you can pay for. I'm always amazed at how much science fiction comes true. If you want to see what the future might be like I suggest reading some William Gibson. His book Neuromancer is a good start.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Yes scary indeed. This move towards paramilitaries rather than an army of the government (and therefore of the people, our government being the only institution that people have sway over, corrupted at the moment or not) is, I think, one of the very most totalitarian actions of the Bush administration, and must be stopped at any cost.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Not to bust your bubble but they were around before Bush.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

America didn't hire them, at least openly, before Bush. In any case for our government to hire mercinaries is unconstitutional. It represents a threat to the civilian population.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Lol you contradict yourself. Reread your last comment.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

I wouldn't even be responding to you at this point execpt I'm waiting for some food.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 8 years ago

:) funny

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Bon Appetite

[-] 1 points by stevemiller (1062) 8 years ago

Bush created 9/11 to start both wars. Until the truth about 9/11 is told, nothing will change. Does hypocrisy work for you?

American policy I wrote in 2008

An Informed, Reasoned Solution for America’s Economic Disaster

By Steve Miller

        The trade policy begun by President Clinton when he passed the NAFTA treaties started the giant sucking sound predicted by H. Ross Perot during the 1992 election campaign.  America has been sold out by the ruse named globalization.  We Americans are constantly reminded that globalization is a fact of life and that we need to adapt to the competition of slave labor in China and other dictatorships that force their citizens into slavery. 
        The only remedy that can possibly work to reverse our own economic destruction is the formation of a new third party that will represent the 99% of American citizens who aren’t CEO’s and Board members of the multinational companies that have outsourced our jobs to slaves.  There must be class warfare to reverse the class warfare used to create the globalization ruse.  Americans have been completely bamboozled by the media propaganda that peddles globalization.
        “Free Trade” is a slogan for slave trade.  The obvious, simple solution that would fix the economic depression gripping America is to forbid the importation of slave made products from China or any other country.  The effort required to manufacture those products domestically using an American workforce would require a construction boom necessary to build new factories equipped by the most modern machinery that would   hire millions of construction workers.
[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Must be great to believe in conspiracy theories, no matter how far out they are. You can never be proven wrong, any evidence is just something else fabricated by the conspirators.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

Exactly, this is important. More important than many things that are being talked about.

[-] -1 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Of course not. The MSM has Obama's back all the way. Can you imagine what they would be doing if Bush had done the things Obama has? But no,Obama increases war spending,starts new wars,orders the killing of an American citizen without any trial,the list goes on. You see,it's bad when the Republicans do it but it's okay if the Democrats do it. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

The ONLY CHANGE has been an acceleration of the Bush policies !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

You must think we have very short memories if you think we're going to fall for the notion that Obama is as bad as Bush.

[-] 1 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Really? Who has taken more Wall St. money than any other president in history? Who kept Gitmo open? Who ordered the drone strike on and American citizen? Who took us into more conflicts while we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who increased the nations debt astronomically in less than 3 years? You can hate Bush all you want but the facts do not lie.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

The list of Bush administration crimes is so long that a full assesment of them will probably never be complied, starting with the fact that he was a National Guard deserter. Please, lets have some historical objectivity.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Let's see some crimes. You like to say he has committed crimes yet he's not on trial. Just because you call things you don't agree with crimes doesn't mean they are. Your life would be less stressful if you would stop all the Bush hating,I'm just saying.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

No, I mean crimes, he just hasn't been charged because well, it's like the old adage "who's going to bell the cat?" I'm not going to bother to innumerate them here, because they're a matter of record and all you have to do is check that record.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Lol nice dodge. Weren't you in that movie Dodgeball?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

No, I just like an honest search for truth, I'm not interested in playing word games.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

WW II got money circulating by employing people in weapons factories

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

An unavoidable necessity at the time, because it is the economically least productive form of public spending. When you build a bridge, you have a tangible benefit to society, when you billd a tank, you get an excuse for a war. Both are forms of spending are forms of Keynesianism (sp),the opposite of Reaganism; but bridges don't empower potential dictatorships. Therefore, tax the 1% and spend on public infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

get the people working towards a building effort

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

The simple fact is, we've been sold a bill of goods. We have been told for years that tax cuts stimulate the economy - when history shows the absolute opposite to be true. You tax the wealthiest, because their amassed money does little good for the economy, and spend it on the institutions ond infrastructure that create civilized society. That creates good paying jobs and stimulates the economy throught the Keyensian multiplier effect. That simply means that the newly employed spend more than anyone else on the goods they have previously been deprived of, thus creating new jobs for those who supply them with goods in return and so on. Supply-side economics was a con job.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

i guess the idea is fewer taxes and regulation produce cheaper products cheaply

It assumes we live in a competitive environment

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Right, we Do Not live in a competetive environment, but a monopoly envronment - therefore the whole theory collapses, and becomes simply a con-job.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Eisenhower's comment was dead-on in post WW II America, and it did take a long time ramp down from all that defense spending. Today, however, the issue is entitlement rather than defense.

Goto http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/ and note that we spend $626 billion on defense, but the sum of Health, Medicare, Income Security, and Social Security is $1586 billion.

Defense is one of the few responsibilities of the Federal Government explicitly identified in the Constitution. All these entitlements are justified under the vague "welfare" clause.

Finally, I'll see your quote from Eisenhower and raise with one from Ben Franklin:

“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” – Benjamin Franklin

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

We spend more on the military than practically all the other industrialzed nations combined - you call that rampted down? Secondly, the cost of health care in America is driven up to the highest in the world simply as "welfare" for the insurance "industry" and big pharma. Finally, your quote from Franklin, in this context seems ambiguous. Any more penetrating remarks?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

It was MASSIVELY ramped down. I stick to my term. What you are asking is whether it was ramped down ENOUGH. I can't say for sure, but we better not ramp down to fast or we will create a power vacuum in the world, and someone you don't like will likely fill it. Our "allies" don't really help much.

I suppose you think it's a conspiracy that EVERYONE in the Democratic and Republican party says entitlements are the big budget busters, right ? The entitlements have grown continuously since their inception because our politicians use them to buy votes. The people HAVE found out they can vote themselves money, and that DOES herald the end of the Republic.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

It seems to me that your outlook is fueled primarily by fear, envy and hatred, not to mention a note of paranoia. Why not try to encourage and inspire the higher lights of mankind - or do you believe that this is all nothing but a Darwinian struggle, and humans are capable of no more that battling in out in a contest for the survival of the fittest?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

No, I am not motivated by fear, envy, and hatred but by practical realities.

The entitlement crunch is driven in large part by the huge number of baby boomers entering retirement and the fact that we didn't actually "bank" their contributions. As a result, our young are going to be taxed at oppressive rates to keep keep the inverted pyramid aloft.

How fair is it that our struggling young should not only be graduating with a heavy burden of debt but must also support the most prosperous generation America has ever had with benefits most of them don't even need need ?

Defense can and will be cut further, but nobody has yet had the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said regarding the entitlement programs. It's easier to just toss the burden over to the young.

In a perfect world all people would have all their needs met for free. I don't know how to make this perfect world, and even if I did, it would be a long time in the making. In the meantime we have to work in the world we have.

Every bipartisan look at the budget problem has concluded that we can't fix it with taxes or cuts alone. Unfortunately, the Democrats will only give a millimeter on domestic spending and entitlements while the Republicans will give only a millimeter on taxes. Both are going to have to move off the extremes or we face a huge problem.

We are not eternally immune from the conditions facing Greece, Italy, and Spain.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

You left out the part about corruption, the real reason we are in this hole.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Only because it hadn't come up.

Isn't everyone against corruption (except for those who benefit from it) ? Just in case, I'll say it plainly; 'Rico is against corruption. In fact, I can generalize this even further to say "'Rico is opposed to bad things and in favor of good things." ;o)

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Corruption and the need to end it,is the subject of this forum, and of this site, and of this movement. So when you skip over it when advancing your position, it appears to me to be conscious dissemulation, but perhaps I am wrong. After reading your argument though, I think our understanding of the problem is so much at variance that it would take a prolonged face to face disgussion to find any common ground at all, but thanks for your input:)

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Yep. A perfectly reasonable outcome in any civil discourse is "We're going to have to agree to disagree." These points are best left to compromise in an UNCORRUPTED Democratic process (see http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ ). Heck, that's why we HAVE a Democracy; we wouldn't NEED it if everyone agreed all the time !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

agreed!

[-] 1 points by Prez (1) from Crown Point, IN 8 years ago

Concering alert and knowledgeable citizenry....

"21st Century Ideology"

 The advent of the global economic crisis has recently made many world leaders realize the urgent need for ideological reform.  These ideologies fall under the category of economic, social, environmental, and interpersonal. The mindsets of the past and current, that are not correct for what the world needs, are the greatest barrier to the implementation of these necessary new ideological changes.  Therefore, the world as a whole, needs one day in the future to serve as a reset day.  On the reset day, implementation of the necessary new ideologies will be made by all leaders of counties around the world.

The goal of these new ideologies is to improve the realm of humanity, solve unlimited environmental issues, eliminate economic stresses, solve the future worldwide overpopulation problem, and virtually eliminate societal problems such as unemployment and homelessness. And, thus provide a universal structure for implementation for all countries of the world to utilize.

Once implemented many previously impossible societal problems are solved. New fields of science, health, and technology become an automatic reality.

Perhaps the second decade of 21st Century will be the most important one in the entire history of planet Earth. During this decade of implementation, it will not matter whether a country is "autocratic for a new democracy", "autocratic for a new autocracy that is sympathetic democratic pleas of it's people" or "democratic for a new autocratic democracy". The implementation team will probably be composed by a group that is in the category: "democratic for a new democracy, headed by republicans".

During the year of the reset, financially engrave to mindsets will be reprogrammed. No longer will any government worldwide perceive any debts on any other country. Countries wishing to protest debts associated with prior financial ideological schemes can be assigned special privileges by the "Universal Worldwide Ideological Financial Forum Committee". Providing the necessary framework for the implementation of legalize funding schemes worldwide, while diligently regulating various hierarchal substructures of distribution, fears of societal inflation subside.

The truth to the matter regarding many of these proposed new financial ideologies, is that implementation has already begun. These premature implementations have recently caused much societal concern. Without new structures of world-wide bureaucracy pertaining to these necessary 21st century ideologies, the global outcome with regards to the infinity of time becomes uncertain. Being the most important category of the necessary ideological reform, financial ideology must be given the highest priority. It is this ideology that serves as a basis for all other necessary new ideologies.

Governments worldwide should not be abandoned their taxation methodology, however, they can provide much needed tax relief. In doing so, these governments of the world continually remind their people that now belong to caring societal hierarchy. The basis for many of the new ideologies provide structure for the new necessary implementations. Unlimited funding for necessary societal programs worldwide becomes commonplace. When these concepts become universal, for all countries of the world, worldwide cooperation of nonfinancial based ideologies such as environmental become easier to achieve.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Have you ever seen such a bunch of long-winded, meaningless obfuscation as that above? I really have to dig up some examples Orwell used to expose this kind of nonscence and post them here! "autocratic for a new democracy?" What?

[-] 1 points by CollegeStudent (17) 8 years ago

This reminds of some other famous words "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Today we live in a global culture of fear, which is used to increase military spending worldwide. We have allowed our fear to rule us, we create imaginary enemies and then invent the need for preemptive warfare. Don't forget that the Military Industrial Complex is not just an issue in the US.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Thanks for this post, Ike was a descent, honest-man, I think. But he was no Roosevelt. The 1% have tried to erase the memory of Roosevelt, the greatest president this country ever had.

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 8 years ago

If only all countries would divert the military budgets to some peaceful endeavor OWS and the tea-party both would be unnecessary. I saw an old movie where the President actually did that. He called a meeting with all the countries that owed us money and demanded payment of all debts then when they said they could not pay he pointed out how much each one spent on military that year. It basically ended up with a much better world. Maybe calling for the dismantling of all militaries would be a good thing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

It would be a very good thing but unlikely to happen. The truth is America had spent more on it's military than all the other industrialized countries combined.

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 8 years ago

We don't just spend on our military. We also spend tax dollars to arm others. It was tax dollars that armed Osoma bin Laden in Afghanistan to begin with. We were helping them remain free from Russia. Good idea too cause it was that war that brought down the USSR. they went broke cause any war in the Middle east is an unwinable money pit.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Good point.

[-] 1 points by JohnsonJaimes (260) from Sanibel, FL 8 years ago

There are other "industrial complexes" to worry about as well, destroying us from the inside. For profit education, health care, incarceration..... the list goes on and on and on.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Exactly. That is why I see our very necessary presence in the voting booth as only the beginning. This nation has become fundamentally and systemically corrupt. What we are facing is something far more serious in it's implication to liberty that the colonialists faced in the Revolutionary War, and we must oppose it nonviolently, but with the same or even greated determination than that with which they opposed the British Empire. In this regard everyone should study Ghandi, because their power is derived from our cooperation. Noncooperation therefore is not an ineffective method of resistance; it is the only effective method of resistance to such overwealming concentrated power.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

America's FIRST Commander-in-Chief George Washington warned against the military industrial complex. Here is a quote from his farewell address as America's first president.

"Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty: In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other." http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/gw.htm

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Thank you for that post.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Essential infrastructure, like roads and bridges and dams are in dire need of maintenance and replacement across the US of A.

Put the military's might and ability to work in the rebuilding of your own country.

Americans, for America.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 8 years ago

Very good post.

Domestically, our police forces are being militarized and the MIC is just itching to start using some of its firepower on American soil.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

That is why non-violence is absolutely essential. Violent elements infiltrating OWS must be disavowed absolutely. Black Bloc is not a part of OWS, and needs to be outed as a separate entity entirely as must any other group advocating, or engaging in violence.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

The problem is even if you disavow them you still let them stay. It's not very believable unless you throw them out. By letting them stay they put a face on your movement that you don't want. I don't agree with a lot of what OWS says (amazingly we do agree on several issues) but I think we all agree that the violence does nothing but hurt your image and the news is always attracted to the biggest story ie violence in a supposed non-violent protest. I'm just saying.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

How do we force them out, violently? See any contradiction there . . . duh?

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Well,then you still have the problem. Those people are the face of OWS that millions of Americans see. It's easy to see why so many people don't back you because of that.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

No, people are able to see that those people aren't us. Whoever pays them is, I'm glad to say, wasting their money.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

LOL so now it's a conspiracy? Actually according to the people I talked to from news people to active military and everything in between (It's good to have friends) everyone thinks that is you. Your attempt to play it off as a setup is hilarious. Don't you see,no one has to set you up,you do that all by yourself by welcoming violent people with open arms.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Nice try.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vets74 (344) from New York, NY 8 years ago

"I LIKE IKE"

Particularly for his tax code. Not Reagan. Not Bush.

How's about passing the 1956 tax code as original ??? Balance the budget ASAP. Piss off the Koch heads big time.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

You're right, Ike was a Republican, but he looks like a font of wisdom and integrity next to those who call themselves Republicans Today. If we just set corporate tax rates at the levels they were at under Ike, and reigned in The MIC, as he warned us, we never would have come to this dismal pass.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

One might say the same in contrasting Clinton and Obama. Lincoln, by the way, was a Republican too ;o)

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8702) 8 years ago

Yes, sadly the Republican Party no longer resembles the party of Lincoln's, or even Eisenhower's day.