Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Dwight D. warned us, did any pay attention?

  1. Apr 28, 2004 #1

    amp

    User Avatar

    Eisenhower saw what could happen and tried to motivate us to monitor these guys.

    his speech: http://eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 28, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you be more specific? I don't feel like reading the whole thing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Apr 28, 2004 #3

    amp

    User Avatar

    OK, he gave warning of the danger of corporations gaining control of the Gov. gaining the ability to set national policy. Examples, Cheney's energy task force as well as Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, ect. This admin is like a whos who of energy industry celebs.
     
  5. Apr 28, 2004 #4
    More specifically, he warned of the dangers of industrial-military complex and of contractual research replacing intellectual curiosity in universities and discovery.
     
  6. Apr 28, 2004 #5
    I am impressed. Really.

    Thanks amp . This is really nice. This guy had class, dignity. You can feel also he saw the terrible reality of war. He had on his shoulders the death of thousands of young guys ... but that was the price for real freedom, not calling for freedom to get oil. It was another situation. I appreciate how he talks about: balance, (possible) loss also of the political and spiritual heritage, avoiding to become a community of fear and hate, how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose, .... Great stuff.
    He said: "As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization ..." and this is only an experience you can have when you were in the middle of it. John Kerry knows it ... but neither Bush, nor Cheney know what they are talking about.

    Some lines that impressed me:

    "But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

    .... snip

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    V

    Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

    VI

    Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

    Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

    Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight."
     
  7. Apr 28, 2004 #6
    ???????????????????


    World War II was ALL ABOUT OIL! Where have you been? OIL is what started the war with the Japanese, bombing the OIL supplies is what finished the war with the Germans. Who are you trying to BS?
     
  8. Apr 28, 2004 #7
    News to me I thought it was fought to liberate the people of Europe and Japan from the fascism that Prescott Bush helped to finance.
     
  9. Apr 28, 2004 #8
    I dont think that WWII was all about oil, but it did play a crucial factor. Hitler's decision to divert the army to the Caucuasus oil fields and Stalingrad and not attacking the crucial transportation bed of Moscow was one such factor, but this is drifting off-topic.

    Hmm.. military-contractual research is a definite way to suck out intellectual curiousity. Find out new ways to blow people up. Yay (sarcasm).

    Judging by the current political turmoil, this may not be possible. The failure of the SALT II Agreement reflects the world's view on disarmament.
     
  10. Apr 29, 2004 #9
    The liberation of the people of Japan was never a goal of WWII at all, to suggest that it was, is pure stupidity. The goal of the war, once it was under way, was to kill as many Germans and Japanese as possible to win the war. Civilians (especially in cities) were targeted by all sides, many civilian areas were bombed repeatedly. You are obviously not a student of history, or you would never have made such a statement; you are not even close on this one.

    If you're going to mention Bush in your BS post, you should mention the Kennedys, the Fords, and a lot of others. Also, why don't you let us know what your great-great-great-grandfather did, and tell us what you could have done to prevent him from doing it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2004
  11. Apr 29, 2004 #10
    Hitler's STATED intent was to control the world. The quickest and easiest way to do that in 1940 was to control the oil. No oil, no ability to fight. If he had cut off our oil, we would have been finished.
     
  12. Apr 29, 2004 #11
    Actually, ... we have also now a guy who wants to control the world. Should I spell his name?
    His buddies: http://www.newamericancentury.org: "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership"
     
  13. Apr 29, 2004 #12
    Thank God you weren't in charge then or now!
     
  14. Apr 29, 2004 #13

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    World war 2 was not all about oil. In Europe, oil was a significant strategic resource, but it was neither the cause nor object of the war.

    In Asia, oil was not the cause of the war, but it was a significant factor leading to the US entry in the war. The war had started in the '30s with the Japanese invasion of China. The US imposed an oil embargo on Japan. The Japanese responded by going to war.

    None of the powers involved went to war with the idea of dominating the oil supply. Rather, oil was seen as a resource critical the war effort.

    Njorl
     
  15. Apr 29, 2004 #14

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Umm, Japan was motivated to get a secure supply of oil in southeast Asia. To get there they had to go past the US military strength in the Phillipines. The simultaneous Pearl Harbor/Phillipine attack was aimed at neutralizing that force. Or so many a history book says.
     
  16. Apr 29, 2004 #15
    Good job again, selfAdjoint. The democrats change their history books as they go. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Apr 29, 2004 #16
    Thank god you weren't. When we took the islands in the pacific from the Japanese there weren't enough Japanese POWs left over to fill up a taxicab. They fought to the death (soldiers and civilians alike). They were not trying to get liberated. You are totally misinformed. You should do a LOT of reading before you post any more of your thoughts on history. You have no idea of what has happened in the past.
     
  18. Apr 29, 2004 #17

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Take your medication Hughes. This is not a Democratic/Republican issue?

    SelfAdjoint merely pointed out why the Japanese expanded their war efforts to the US, British and Dutch (the British decided to exercise a protectorate over Dutch possesions after the Netherlands fell to Germany).

    The Japanese went to war well before Pearl Harbor. Their original aims were to secure preferential markets throughout east Asia, and obtain natural resources. Chief among the resources they sought was the coal from Manchuria. Oil was not a big need at the time for Japanese industry. What they needed they easily bought. It was, however, necessary for their war effort. Had they been able to purchase the oil they wanted, they would certainly not have gone to war with the US. It was a tremendous gamble which they would not have taken if they felt it was not inevitable.

    I hope this doesn't give the impression that I think the oil embargo was wrong. Some say it backed the Japanese into a corner, and forced them into the war with the US. They did have another choice. They could have made peace with China.

    Njorl
     
  19. Apr 29, 2004 #18
    Take yours. From this statement, I see that you agree. Thank you.
     
  20. Apr 29, 2004 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    On the Pacific side, the war was fought for oil(and other resources) and territory. Those are the two of the primary traditional reasons people go to war. Its arguable which was more important. In Europe, oil affected how the war was fought, but didn't really enter into why.
     
  21. Apr 29, 2004 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This may be a language issue, but "leadership" and "control" are not the same thing.
     
  22. Apr 29, 2004 #21

    amp

    User Avatar

    With these neocons, I think the two words are synonymous.
     
  23. Apr 29, 2004 #22

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So Hughes, I see you are now rearranging my quotes into paragraphs that suit your own demented needs, not just quoting them out of context. You are a fundamentally dishonest person.

    You also have no reading comprehension whatsoever. My statements about Japanese oil purchases reflect events that occurred well after the war started. They do not agree with you at all. Now, my explanation is going to be more than 2 sentences Hughes, so I doubt you'll be able to follow it, but give it a try.

    The war in the Pacific started in 1931, not 1941. The Japanese had been at war for almost 9 years with no oil shortage at all. They purchased oil from the Dutch wells in Indonesia, and from the United States. During those 9 years they aquired little if any usable oil reserves. If they went to war for oil, they did a really bad job of picking their targets.

    So, the Japanese obviously did not go to war for oil.. Did they attack the US for oil?

    Even their war with the United States, which was about oil, was not in order to control oil. No one in the Japanese government believed for a moment that they could invade and conquer the United States, and the Indonesian production was inadequate for their needs. So why did they attack Pearl Harbor? It was a grossly flawed perception of American psychology. They believed that they could destroy the American fleet, capture the Pacific bases and present us with a fait accompli. They believed that they could establish themselves as the only power in the Far East, and if we wanted to do business there, it would be with them, on their terms. They believed, once weakened, and with an impending war with Germany, that we would make terms with them quickly. It was never within Japan's capacity or ambition to conquer sufficient oil reserves for their needs.

    It is hard to reconcile this Japanese mind-set with today's world. You must remember, the US was a net oil exporter then. We made a lot of good money selling oil to the Japanese. They saw the oil embargo as a US tool for the struggle to dominate the Asian Pacific. If they ended the struggle for dominance, trade would resume, benefitting both sides. They had a similar situation with the Soviet Union in the '30s. They invaded Russia, lost, made terms, and that was that. They did not dream that the US would pursue them to complete capitulation.
     
  24. Apr 30, 2004 #23
    I didn't rearrange anything. I just cut out all of the blah, blah, blah, rambling part and left in the parts where you are apparently arguing with yourself. Let me know who wins. I'll be glad to debate the winner.

    Actually, maybe I'll just watch you debate yourself. You've been talking about WWII and oil. The more of your posts that I read the more I see how much WWII did have to do with oil.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2004
  25. May 3, 2004 #24

    amp

    User Avatar

    The point is the military-industr4ial complex appears to be directing policies that the gov then carries out which what D. E. warned of.
     
  26. May 3, 2004 #25

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. I just removed the "blah, blah, blah".

    Njorl
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook