This Story is Archived
The Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex »
Posted by: Spadecaller 1 year, 9 months ago"We Fight is a documentary that starts with the Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address in which he warned about the threat faced by American society of the rise of a "military-industrial" complex. The film then goes on to show how Eisenhower's fears became reality." Why are we really fighting?
Read Full Story at bruceeisner.com »
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
I'm an artist, poet, survivor, and a work in progress.
Also submitted:
- 7.6 - The Heaven's Edge
- 10.0 - Sarah Palin - Predator from the North
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 171
-
ameliog
Dec. 27, 2006, 5:02 p.m.I have this documentary in my DVD collection. It's worth a look but people need to take off any rose-colored glasses prior to viewing.
-
JustCallMeV
Dec. 27, 2006, 11:45 p.m.Good post! That is the major problem! People meandering through life expecting the government to be their panacea, to cure all social, economical and political woes. They quickly dismiss any "conspiracy" as propaganda and bash anyone who questions the government. They play right into the New World Order and the dystopic future it brings.
I am no chronic pessimist, but to be totally blind to the fore-told is just plain foolish.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 27, 2006, 5:27 p.m.I think the comment for the article/video by Ken Larson, a Vietnam vet and a 36-year employee of the Military Complex, is very compelling and telling.
This is just a part of the current war profiteering that is going on ... making a few people very very rich (people who don't have to fight the wars they build the weapons for).
-
ameliog
Dec. 27, 2006, 5:30 p.m.As Eisenhower warned: "We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. ... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 27, 2006, 5:37 p.m.What a coincidence! You posted that 1 hour ago. (I didn't know.)
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 27, 2006, 5:32 p.m.Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy.
The arms lobby is exerting more influence over policymaking than ever before in American history.
The aggressive first-strike military strategy now characterizing U.S. policy toward Iraq was developed during the 1990s by a network of corporate-backed conservative think tanks.
Wars that lead to military quagmires, like Vietnam and Iraq, promote huge profits.
The challenge of inspiring the American people to commit themselves to these wars involve careful timing and skillful marketing.
To what lengths have they been willing to go?
-
rrrtx
Dec. 28, 2006, 12:10 p.m.Sounds very dramatic and scary.
I don't think you can support any part of it with facts though.
-
-
-
getreal1
Dec. 27, 2006, 6 p.m.Eisenhower left us with a strong honorable army. It was reduce right after the kennedy administration. We didn't keep it strong enough to protect our country. The Army, FBI and ETC. all worked together. We are fighting a war with an inexperience Army. We use to have an Army base in almost every state, combat ready. It also render our postal service for revenue to have an income, not just tax payers money.
-
jordan11
Dec. 28, 2006, 11:49 a.m.We didn't keep it strong enough to protect our country>>>>>
Protect it from what? Nine terrorists? War as we've known it cannot fight 'terrorism.' The enemy is not standing on a battlefield in uniform. A strong and viable intelligence system is what we've needed, and it's what Clinton tried to build. It's also what bush ignored. Strong allies with other nations is also crucial in this 'fight', another thing that bush ignored. I realize that bush is trying to make people believe that all the terrorists in the world reside in Iraq, but this is NOT TRUE! We are NOT safer by being there. Eisenhower was right. Go read his farewell address.
-
-
ameliog
Dec. 27, 2006, 6:06 p.m.This is worth at least renting from Netflix or Blockbuster. I'm not sure if you'll find it in your local video store.
Companies who market weapons and weapons systems are like any other business. They need new and increasing demand for their products to survive. If there aren't enough conflicts to produce a demand, threats must be contrived. Whatever produces profit.
In Iraq we first paid for the equipment that was in the military inventory at the time of the invasion. Now three years later, we'll pay again to replace the equipment that got consumed or destroyed. Finally, we'll pay a third time to equip the Iraqi forces to take over operations, whenever that date is. Paying three times, for which the M-I complex profits quite nicely. Without the war, no extra orders.
"Lord of War" is also a pretty good movie.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 27, 2006, 6:21 p.m.The preemption doctrine is actually misnamed.
Preemption suggests striking first against a nation that is poised to attack. The Bush doctrine is much more open-ended, implying that a U.S. attack is justified if a nation or organization might pose a threat at some unknown future date. This is in breach of the recent Supreme Court decision, Hamden vs Rumsfeld.
The strategy of "preemptive war" set out in the Bush national security strategy can be traced to the conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose members have pressed this approach for more than a decade.
In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, PNAC published a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which has served as a blueprint for the Bush-Rumsfeld Pentagon military strategy, up to and including the coining of terms such as "regime change."
-
ameliog
Dec. 27, 2006, 6:26 p.m."attack is justified if a nation or organization might pose a threat at some unknown future date"
Which is why I must kill my neighbors. They're peaceful enough now, but I can't take the chance that they might turn against me in the future!
When you take this "doctrine" down to ground level you quickly see how insane this is. What if every person or every country felt this way?
-
vor
Dec. 28, 2006, 8:38 a.m.Here is a link to that report and other reports by PNAC...
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsrepo
Hilarious that the other day I had a poster state that they would not look at this website as it was some type of leftist Conspiracy Theory site. I am not sure the left could come up with something this diabolical. Openly stating that our intention is to dominate the world and its policies in the coming century. You can't fault Kristol and his bunch for their lack of candor. Just don't ask them about this group in public...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgYZ11pIGU4
Yet I often wonder if the knowledge of this policy is what drives those like Ahmadinejad and Kim. If I were a foreign leader reading this sh-t I would have to seriously question any diplomatic overtures from such a nation. After all this policy was created and outlined by Dick Cheney, and we know who is currently in charge of US foreign policy.
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 27, 2006, 7:21 p.m.Well, it took a while to watch the whole thing, but it was well worth it. The reality ain't pretty. We are in the clutches of the military industrial complex. The media is in on it because they want access. It will take a lot of us to stand up and say "NO." We have to hold all our elected officials accountable. Bombard them with letters and e-mails.
These military contracts MUST stop.
WE need government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE. That means government that takes as its first priorty, the welfare of its citizens and quits playing politics around the globe. Take care of the problems HERE. Rebuild the GULF COAST after KATRINA for a fraction of the wasted lives and money that have been spent in Iraq. If we keep our noses out of every other countries business, they may decide to keep their noses out of ours.
The guys currently in charge are doing nothing but ensuring that we will become a third world nation in short order.
-
m-simon
Dec. 28, 2006, 1:32 p.m.Without American dominance of trade routes and protection of trade an awful lot of people would die. The poor first of course.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/12/declin
What we need to do is insure our energy future:
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 27, 2006, 8:53 p.m.Every contingency and every scenario currently happening in Iraq has been previously evaluated.
The strategy of 'preemptive war' set out in the Bush national security strategy can be traced to the conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose members have pressed this approach for more than a decade.
Before the 2000 presidential election, PNAC published a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which has served as a blueprint for the Bush-Rumsfeld Pentagon military strategy; it included the coining of the term, "regime change."
Founded in '97, PNAC was headed by project directors William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, contributing editor at the Weekly Standard and columnist for the Washington Post, and Bruce Jackson, a long-time Lockheed Martin executive who recently left the corporation to work full time on military policy issues.
-
RSchewe
Dec. 27, 2006, 8:56 p.m.I think the movie being referred to here is "Why We Fight"
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 27, 2006, 9:15 p.m.IN '97 PNAC's statement of principles draws on "the Reagan Administration's success" and urges a return to a "military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges."
PNAC's founding document was signed by: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and numerous others who have gone on to become major players on the Bush team.
Defense contractor Lockheed Martin recently hired PNAC's deputy director and principal author of the report, Thomas Donnelly.
IN essence, this is the syndicate, the mob, or if you prefer the "family without values", that runs our govenrment.
They are the most powerful and most dangerous crime syndicate ever to be known to this world.
-
-
-
spkguy
Dec. 28, 2006, 12:51 a.m.As Eisenhower warned:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial 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."
http://www.memorablequotations.com/Military-Indust
-
blinkers
Dec. 28, 2006, 5:36 a.m.In Eisenhower's day "strength" may have been synonymous with "power" but in a far more complex and unpredictable 21st century world this is no longer the case. American military "strength" is unparalleled but its "power" (i.e., its ability to make other countries follow its dictates without resort to military "strength") is demonstrably on the wane. Planners should be aware of this.
-
Star_Poet
Dec. 28, 2006, 7:34 a.m.I've seen "Why we Fight," and found it very interesting. Most of the time when I contemplate this matter deeply I am disgusted to be a human being. Why do we kill each other? Well, surely it's the battle of Good vs. Evil? No? Well, surely it's the battle for breeding rights? No? Well, surely it's for prefered parking?
The warning about the military industrial complex from Eisenhower is in the top 10 greatest gifts of the 20th Century.
For, afterall, what business willingly desolves after its creation? War is a business, and killing fellow human-beings is the "unfortunate" by-product of this serious business.
So why would we ever want Peace & Harmony as long as there is money to be made?
And people say I'm crazy.
Sheesh!
If I were to stab some poor fool tomorrow for his fat wallet, I'd be sent to prison for my whole life. So why is this bigger entity excempt from this same rule?
Questions to ponder and gnaw upon.
Peace
-
bigG
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:28 a.m.Very good Star. I don't think your crazy. It should be noted that the Military Industrial Complex isn't actually doing the killing but merely influencing others to do so. That is why Ike said we need an "alert and knowledgable citizenry" to guard against that.
I have often wondered why people are so willing to go to a foreign land and kill someone they don't even know in the name of "patriotism" or some other nebulous concept.
There are a lot of people right here in the good ole USA that I have more reason to remove from the land of the living, and it doesn't necessarily involve money.
-
-
rrrtx
Dec. 28, 2006, 10 a.m.Before everyone gets worked into a complete frenzy it is useful to know that the percentage of our Federal budget (and percentage of GNP) used for defense is very low compared to post WW2 averages and is trending lower.
Documentaries like this might have made a little more sense when we were spending 12% of our GNP on defense (like we were in Eisenhower's presidency). We are spending around 4% right now even with the Iraq war. It's just not that big a part of the economy any more.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:21 a.m.There are at least five different factors to consider when analyzing the U.S. budget:
discretionary spending vs. total spending
budget authority vs. outlays
function vs. agency/department
federal funds vs. unified budget
time period
mtx: your figures are skewed!
-
ETproductions
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:31 a.m.At $466 billion, we spend about as much as the all the other nations of the world taken together together ($500 Billion). That may be a small part of our GNP, but it ain't chump change.
-
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:08 a.m.Defence expenditure in the US will equal that of the rest of the world combined within 12 months, making it "increasingly pressing" for European contractors to develop a "closer association" with the US, corporate finance group PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) says.
Its report - 'The Defence Industry in the 21st Century' by PwC's global aerospace and defence leader Richard Hooke - adds that "the US is in the driving seat", raising the prospect of a future scenario in which it could "dominate the supply of the world's arms completely".
The US defence budget reached US$417.4 billion in 2003 - 46 per cent of the global total.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:23 a.m.Not all military spending is done by the Department of Defense.
For example, the Department of Energy budget is responsible for nuclear weapons.
Consequently, calculations of military spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the department or agency in charge of it.
However, not everyone agrees what constitutes a military function.
For example, WRL includes the 66% of Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in military spending, while other groups do not.
-
fishoutofwater
Dec. 28, 2006, 11:24 a.m.True military spending is almost impossible to track -- precisely because the military-industrial complex is such a powerful entity.
As for McCain, he will now say/do anything to have a shot at the White House, and any man that wants power that badly simply cannot be trusted.
-
spkguy
Dec. 28, 2006, 2:08 p.m.DavidHalko
What are your thoughts on this? I'm interested in your perspective.
-
-
Tango57
Dec. 28, 2006, 10:53 a.m.John McCain said, "There is a line we cannot cross, from being good-will and imperialistic". I believe that line was crossed by the Bush Administration, and even now, John supports that decision. He himself crossed that line. Of course the military wanted and needed a stronger presence in the Islamic nations. It should of stayed in Afghanistan and not crossed into Iraq. Unless of course they believed taking Iraq would be much easier than it turned out. If so, the results would of been much different. In that case, once again the CIA was wrong.
-
fishoutofwater
Dec. 28, 2006, 2:46 p.m.Can you say "Shah"?????
Can you say Nicaragua???
Can you say Chile???
What is this benign, "not running foreign governments" of which you speak??
-
-
fishoutofwater
Dec. 28, 2006, 3:28 p.m.Equating the threat from Iraq with either of those two -- one of which directly attacked us, and one of which declared war a couple days later-- shows how far adrift the thinking on this conflict has gone.
If Iraq was such a great idea, why have we had such a difficult time mustering support for it (both here and abroad)?
-
rrrtx
Dec. 28, 2006, 4:11 p.m.Are you referring to my Germany and Japan example?
If so you missed my point.
-
-
-
fishoutofwater
Dec. 28, 2006, 3:46 p.m.As an aside mrtx, I'd like to see your explanation of how Social Security is a budget buster.
