General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMerryland
(1,134 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,603 posts)back in the day, military folks weren't very political, for the most part.
IMHO, the last decent Repub President.
StoneCarver
(249 posts)Without him it would have withered on the vine. Nixon was the last republican who was normal. He was a crook and deserved to be impeached, but he created the EPA and signed COLAS into law for SS. Look how far we've come?
Stonecarver
rpannier
(24,328 posts)Nelson Rockefeller, Howard Baker, Thomas Dewey, Hiram Fong, John Heinz, John G Beale Jr, Charles Potter, even Everett Dirksen is far preferable to today's Republican
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)He was a lot like Bernie.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)Ike was without affiliation and was recruited heavily by both parties. The Republicans succeeded only because the pragmatic Ike saw the country didn't favor Truman in 1952 because of the festering Korean war and Truman's firing of the egomaniac general MacArthur who Americans also stupidly regarded as a national hero. But when Ike became President he took charge. EVERYONE - including Congress - in the country knew who was the BOSS. Ike ended the Korean War in a year, he started a huge infrastructure building program that lasted 20 years, promoted nation-wide quality education in what we call today STEM, teachers were almost as well-paid as engineers, ordered Federal troops into Little Rock to enforce the rights of African-Americans to go to college, people who earned only twice the minimum wage could buy a house (my parents were in that category and did exactly that), and many of our top universities were practically TUITION-FREE. I earned my entire state college tuition from summer jobs. At that time - and for the LAST time - the United States was truly regarded BY THE WORLD as the best and most respected country on earth.
Gosh, this story is sounding awfully deja-vu to me. Is 2016 to become the next 1952?
First Speaker
(4,858 posts)...or even a modern Dem--with the honorable exception of Sanders...and doesn't *that* show how far we've come...?
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)Who cares what that cuck had to say? He probably smoked pot.
Cirque du So-What
(25,908 posts)Speaking out against the MIC at a time when it was turgid with war-lust and profit motive. Who did Eisenhower think he was anyway - an expert in warfare or sumpin'?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)by Ira Chernus
Common Dreams
March 18, 2008
Peace activists love to quote Dwight Eisenhower. The iconic Republican war hero spoke so eloquently about the dangers of war and the need for disarmament. He makes a terrific poster-boy for peace. But after years of research and writing three books on Ike, I think it's time to see the real Eisenhower stand up. The president who planned to fight and win a nuclear war, saying "he would rather be atomized than communized," reminds us how dangerous the cold war era really was, how much our leaders will put us all at risk in the name of "national security," and how easily they can mask their intentions behind benign images.
From first to last, Eisenhower was a confirmed cold warrior. Years before he became president, while he was publicly promoting cooperation with the Soviet Union, he wrote in his diary: "Russia is definitely out to communize the world....Now we face a battle to extinction." On the home front, he warned that liberal Democrats were leading the U.S. "toward total socialism."
SNIP
For Eisenhower, the point of amassing a huge nuclear arsenal was not to deter war but to win it. This was enshrined as official policy in NSC 5810/1: "The United States must make clear its determination to prevail if general war occurs." The only meaningful war aim, he told the NSC, was "to achieve a victory." He described his war plan as "Hit the guy fast with all you've got if he jumps on you"; "hit 'em ... with everything in the bucket."
SNIP
Eisenhower assumed that a post-holocaust America would be a totalitarian state, ruled by martial law. But he worried about (among other things) what would happen to the credit structure of the country and how to print and sell war bonds to finance the next war if Washington were destroyed. At one NSC meeting he complained that if the President and the Vice President were "knocked off," the "damnable" law of succession would result in the Democrats (he called them "the other team" taking the White House. "To assure against that happening, the President thought the Vice President should be put in cotton batting."
SNIP
And we ignore it at our peril, because it was a policy that put anticommunist ideology above human life, made by a man who would "push whole stack of chips into the pot" and "hit 'em ... with everything in the bucket"; who would "shoot your enemy before he shoots you"; who believed that the U.S. could "pick itself up from the floor" and win a nuclear war, even though "everybody is going crazy," as long as "only" 25 or 30 American cities got "shellacked" and nobody got too "hysterical."
CONTINUED
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/18/7742
jwirr
(39,215 posts)voted for him.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)was the last allied commander to actually win a war. It should come as no surprise that as Commander in Chief he would adhere to that doctrine.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)and other scientists he came to see the dangers of a nuclear arms race driven mostly by the MIC.
How did that work out for us?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)after our victory in WWII and the Cold War that followed it.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)weeks everything would begin to be rebuilt using Marshall Plan contracts. War then rebuild. War then rebuild at the American taxpayers expense. I say, let Europe war against IS and their taxpayers pick up the MIC/Marshall Plan tab this time. Refugees are coming into Europe.
The People knew very little about radiation and thermal neutrons (Hydrogen bomb), circulating in the Earth's winds and waters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)I figure Mr Eisenhower could do arithmetic, and recognized that it would be impossible for the U.S. to win a conventional war without having massive forces lying around doing nothing. Whereas atomic and then nuclear weapons were a more economical and decisive stick. And let's face it, there is no nuclear strategy that is not absurd, but the genie can't be put back in the bottle. Conventional thinking still sees nuclear weapons in terms of their deterrent ability, nobody really hopes they'll be used. But if they are going to be used, then naturally one would prefer to hit the Other Guy harder than we get hit, and it doesn't make much sense militarily to hold back when it comes to blows. It's easy to criticize nuclear strategy: they don't call it MAD for nothing.
-- Mal
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)If he'd fought at Iwo Jima and in the Green Berets like Wayne did, maybe that pinko punk would know a thing or two about what it takes to defend this great Christian nation.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)they found out he was full of shit!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)you're a loose Cannon. But I mean that in a good way!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)presumably for not waiting for Martineau's magic markets to do in Hitler (or maybe just for fighting a war instead of leaving as a LT due to TB and running the SF writers' division of Naval research with L. Ron Hubbard)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Values
The organization supports limited government and opposes wealth redistribution and economic interventionism. It opposes collectivism, totalitarianism, fascism and communism. It opposes socialism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating U.S. governmental administration. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right.
The society opposed the 1960s civil rights movement and claimed the movement had Communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer titled "What's Wrong With Civil Rights?", which was used as a newspaper advertisement. In the piece, one of the answers was: "For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years." The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states' rights to enact laws regarding civil rights.
The society opposes "one world government", and it has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this alleged trend is not accidental. It cited the existence of the former Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#Eisenhower_issue
Xipe Totec
(43,888 posts)Men of honor and vision are no longer its leaders.
Instead, we have court jesters playing dress up.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)and often reads Ike's letter to his conservative brother who wanted to do away with social security and other social programs:
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part VI: Crises Abroad, Party Problems at Home; September 1954 to December 1954
Chapter 13: "A new phase of political experience"
"Dear Ed:1 I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order--at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.
"You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.2
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid. ...."
DhhD
(4,695 posts)and his Seven Mountain Party.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)He was in Europe, and saw what WWI and WWII did to the continent. He knew that war is not the answer, even as a general.
He saw the ruins all over. He saw the people in the streets without homes, or food.
Eisenhower also put forth plans for the Interstate Highway System, which created many jobs.
Eisenhower was the best Republican president ever, bar none.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)Imagine if Lincoln let the South go, where they would be today.....
Idiocracy.....
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Eisenhower was better than Abe.
If Lincoln let the south go, the south would have failed.
former9thward
(31,941 posts)He did it so the military could move equipment and men around the country quickly in a crisis. He was impressed by the efficiency of the Hitler created Autobahn in Germany.
DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,362 posts)He definitely saw the advantages for commerce. It wasn't all about and only about moving military equipment around.
And FWIW. the Autobahn wasn't a creation of Hitlers;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#History
former9thward
(31,941 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#History
No myth at all. Eisenhower was part of a military transport mission across the U.S. in 1919. He was appalled at the lack of roads and wrote a report about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Motor_Transport_Corps_convoy
paleotn
(17,884 posts)...but do you think Ike could have pursued the system with more than one benefit in mind? He was a bit more than your black and white, 2 dimensional caricature. Just like everyone else, famous or not, he was human, thus not completely good or completely bad. Just human. And by the way, in a time of national emergency, moving military personnel and equipment quickly and efficiently is of pretty damn serious importance, don't you think?
former9thward
(31,941 posts)That was not his purpose. I am very happy with the interstate Highway System and I don't really care why it was created.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)as are the other posters, but . .
what are you going to DO about it?
I joined Veterans For Peace
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . he was saying that the United States was becoming as militarized at the same fanatical pace as Nazi Germany was during the 30s.
Journeyman
(15,024 posts)when William Jennings Bryan castigated the idea of strict adherence to a gold standard, his famous "Cross of Gold" keynote address.
It became one of the most famous speeches in the early 20th Century, and Bryan delivered it many times over the next few decades.
The speech ends with this fervent exhortation:
DhhD
(4,695 posts)as the financier.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Hillary Clinton. How can they do it? It's one thing to SAY you want change, its another thing when you vote to keep things the same.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.he never did a thing to actually challenge the Military-Indutrial complex.
In fact he promoted Cold War fears, and used the Mc Carthy hearings to stoke this narrative. He made John Foster Dulles his Secretary of State the man in "The Devil's Chessboard", and he let the CIA be the protector of United Fruit in SA, thus allowing the government to be the enforcer of corporate power in foreign adventures.
He knew but he was a benign-looking promoter of almost anything the Military-Industrial Complex wanted to do.
Didn't the Cross of Iron speech come at the endwhen he was about to leave office?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Too late by the time he said it, nobody listened to him and he knew it. The American elite demanded a return to huge wealth inequality and the number of corpses didn't matter, still doesn't.
.many say some scenario like this is what got Kennedy killed.
Glad to know so many people do too. Brown & Root and companies like them were ready to devour up the middle class. Some in this country like to pretend the highest power in the land is the POTUS...not even close.
Some also accept the fact that Reagan turned this country into a full blown plutocracy and neither parties will admit to it. I think the proof is in the pudding.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)I remember listening to this when Carter said it on the Thom Hartmann show:
Go Bernie!
Rex
(65,616 posts)IMO.
He had seen the true cost of war. He was a true republican. I use the term loosely.
burrowowl
(17,632 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Javaman
(62,504 posts)the US Soviet summit. AKA the Gary Powers flight that was shot down.
He help expand our nuclear stock pile to historic levels during his admin and also greatly increased the budget for national defense during the cold war.
the very thing he comments on, is is also very much responsible for, or are we going to get into a conversation about how it was all the Dulles brothers doings? (with Eisenhowers approval)
Do we need to also bring up United Fruit as well?
So while his 'duality of nature" comes through in his various speeches, please look at his policies and administration while you read his words, he is very famous for saying one thing and doing another.
PatrickforO
(14,559 posts)Real hard to pull their fangs now. Try and end up with the generals ruling in a junta. We ARE a banana republic with a huge, bloated military and nukes.