Dwight Eisenhower, Chance For Peace
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The most beautifully I've ever heard it</div> Here is the full text of the speech. <a href='http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/chance-for-peace' target='_blank'>http://www.quotedb.com/speeches/chance-for-peace</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in
more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed
more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the
world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud
of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that
come with this spring of 1953.
This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest
choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and
lasting peace.
It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak
their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.
It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of
all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to launch into yet another debate on the Iraq war, we've had enough of those. I just thought this was an amazingly well put explanation of Opportunity costs. Not only must we ask whether an action was positive in its net effects, but we must also ask if it was worth what we had to give up to accomplish it. Think about the priorities of the US budget in that context. Read this thread too <a href='http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1478386&perpage=40&pagenumber=1' target='_blank'>http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1</a> it really gave me some perspective.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in
more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed
more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the
world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud
of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that
come with this spring of 1953.
This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest
choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and
lasting peace.
It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak
their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.
It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of
all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to launch into yet another debate on the Iraq war, we've had enough of those. I just thought this was an amazingly well put explanation of Opportunity costs. Not only must we ask whether an action was positive in its net effects, but we must also ask if it was worth what we had to give up to accomplish it. Think about the priorities of the US budget in that context. Read this thread too <a href='http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1478386&perpage=40&pagenumber=1' target='_blank'>http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...40&pagenumber=1</a> it really gave me some perspective.
Comments
Yesterday I watched this documentary with this famous danish comedian... Omar... (hes from Egypt Gaza) he talked with alot of people... (terrorists and such)... asked them why they did such and such and such...
the reason... Isrealies... took their country... they are not... not free men... in their own country... who gave the Isrealies the pakistan country???... America... England... and France... the allies... If they had not done that... there would not be a big Terrorist problem right now... they are attacking back because they are threated like slaves... now.... America is supporting Isreal... why??? they are the ones who are being bad... Oh its because they are Democratic... and have been for 37 years... but wait theres more... their Jews... and the Pakistan people are Muslims...
No offense... but the american media haven't told the people enough about why... why... and why!!! things are over there???... my guess... they dont even know them selfs... no wait... Thats stupid of cause they know... but they are not telling??? at least not enough about it!!!...
okay I only tried to put some of what I understood into my text... but Im just a 17 year old guy... you should really read into it yourself... maybe watch this movie that Omar Marzouk made (he lives in Denmark)
<a href='http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443807/' target='_blank'>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443807/</a>
oh and not to forget... I was an exchange student this year... And I at one time was offended by someone in my class... even by the news group at the school... they made fun of the Pakistanian/iraq people... (im not one but I feel bad for them)
The next thing they did was just horrorable!!
They showed a music video at school... it was this country guy... singing about 9/11 showing alot of pictures... (simply justifying what they are doing now)... not the point... the news team did the following... they had dressed up as iraq people... and acted all stupid... makeing alot of fun about them... the whole class laughed... made me mad... about that... we read the book Night! by Elie Wiesel... about the KZ camps in Germany during world war 2... one guy said the following... "The Jews deserved to die, they did not accept the hand of Jesus" or something in that dirrection.... okay... ....!!! makes me mad... that someone can be so ignorent... im going to work now...
but... The Terrorists are people too... you can not win the war on terror.. you can help the terrorists.. not to be terrorists... give them back their land? give them back their rights? .. A Jihad... its not a HOLY WAR.. its a fight for a cause that you belive strongly in...
just thought about this... because you talked about peace...
But blah blah blah, military research often benefits civilian life as well. Many military technologies can be purposed for civilian life. The highway system that he proposed was originally designed as a means of domestic defense and quick transportation of military goods and personnel. With the atomic bomb also came nuclear power plants.
The price we pay for fighter jets help airliners become more efficient as well.
There is a cost to everything, and there is also a benefit as well.
The military is a double-edged sword. It is absolutely necessary for any sovereign nation, but it would be nice if we didn't need it.
But blah blah blah, military research often benefits civilian life as well. Many military technologies can be purposed for civilian life. The highway system that he proposed was originally designed as a means of domestic defense and quick transportation of military goods and personnel. With the atomic bomb also came nuclear power plants.
The price we pay for fighter jets help airliners become more efficient as well.
There is a cost to everything, and there is also a benefit as well.
The military is a double-edged sword. It is absolutely necessary for any sovereign nation, but it would be nice if we didn't need it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this is true, keep in mind that the research that indirectly benefits consumer products would be a lot more effective if it was aimed directly at consumer products through NIH or NSF grants, etc.
That's not to say that there would be no benefit at all from spending money on domestic spending instead of the military--but do you have any idea how much furor is created every time the military proposes scaling back some project or military base? The military creates huge economic booms wherever it goes. In fact, if the world magically became a completely peaceful place tomorrow, so that we didn't need a military at all, you STILL couldn't eliminate the military overnight just because it's so incredibly important economically. Our country would go into a massive recession if we abolished the military, and the unemployment rate would skyrocket because of all the people suddenly unemployed because the military didn't need them anymore.
All that, PLUS what Rapier said about side technology benefits.
Its called the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy' target='_blank'>Broken Window Fallacy</a>
If that money was spent on domestic spending it would filter into the economy just as effectively as it did going to the workers that made the bomber.
The boom you describe around a military base isn't, strictly speaking, an economic benefit. The money going to the people at a military base could have gone to exactly those same people had they been employed doing something else.
It is unfortunately politically impossible for the government to close military bases because a lot of small towns are based around them. In all likelihood, if we were operating things in an economically efficient manner, those towns wouldn't exist, and everyone would be better off. Unfortunately that is little consolation to the people in the town for whom the transition can be painful.
... they create too much waste... that is lethal to humans...
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Use some more windmills oh... and wave (at the shores) power... which my country is researching right now... its much cleaner... and energy cant be wasted... cus its the energy of the nature... wind and water... and why not solar?... nukes are bad!!! stupid thing can kill millions of people...
My country does not spend billions and billions on the militery... we are... well to say... quit peacefull in some ways... we did send a few people to the iraq... which I did not like... and we have donated alot of money to the restoration of iraq...
its true that they use alot of money on researches on weapons and such... but if they focused that on stuff to the public... it would be much better... "idiots"...
America..... god... blah....... im done im too tired... havent sleept in 2 days only had total of 5 hours sleep in 2 days
No offense, but you sound like some 14 year old guy living in a European country with very biased, ignorant views on America and Americans.
It's not even tangent to this discussion. We're talking about the effects of a militarized country, not the slander/ridicule of Arabs or the specifics of different forms of energy production, and even then, you obviously know very little about that.
Oh, and stop reading Chomsky and Zinn, here's what I think of the Israeli situation:
<img src='http://www.masada2000.org/occupation1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Its called the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy' target='_blank'>Broken Window Fallacy</a>
If that money was spent on domestic spending it would filter into the economy just as effectively as it did going to the workers that made the bomber. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the "Broken Window" type theory, buliding that bomber is claimed to be a net economic benefit, and the "Fallacy" page tries to disprove that theory.
But I am not claiming it is a net economic benefit--merely that the economic damage done by building that bomber is far smaller than that speech would have you believe.
Note also that the disproof of the broken window theory starts with a scenario where property is destroyed, and ends with the conclusion that the economy is poorer by the value of that property. When someone builds an instrument of war, no property is destroyed, so the "Broken Window Fallacy" really doesn't have much relevance.
And ickaz, get some sleep man. You can't even talk straight right now.
Its called the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy' target='_blank'>Broken Window Fallacy</a>
If that money was spent on domestic spending it would filter into the economy just as effectively as it did going to the workers that made the bomber. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the "Broken Window" type theory, buliding that bomber is claimed to be a net economic benefit, and the "Fallacy" page tries to disprove that theory.
But I am not claiming it is a net economic benefit--merely that the economic damage done by building that bomber is far smaller than that speech would have you believe.
Note also that the disproof of the broken window theory starts with a scenario where property is destroyed, and ends with the conclusion that the economy is poorer by the value of that property. When someone builds an instrument of war, no property is destroyed, so the "Broken Window Fallacy" really doesn't have much relevance.
And ickaz, get some sleep man. You can't even talk straight right now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is a little different, but its the same principle. Think of the bomber as the replacement window rather than as the broken window.
But I don't even have the same premise as the Broken Window theory. Unlike the Broken Window theory, I am not claiming that buying a bomber vs spending the money on something else is a net economic benefit, merely that it is a very small loss. Eisenhower would have you believe that by building the bomber, you have lost its monetary cost in other goods, which just isn't true.
Regardless of which route you choose, the money goes back into the economy, but in one case you get something useful, and in the other you get a bomber, which he's arguing is much less useful ultimately.
He's saying its like paying people to dig holes and fill them back in.
Its really easy to get caught up in the economics that gets talked about a lot on TV about employment, the stock market, currency prices, but those things are just friction in a neo-classical macroeconomic model, though they might make a lot of difference to us on a day to day basis. For neo-classical economics, the important factors are labor, capital, and total factor productivity. The assumption is that the economy will operate at its capacity, and that whenever you produce something, you are giving up producing something else. In the classical model, unemployment happens because people can't get where they are needed instantaneously. A frictional force is really the only way I can think of to describe it.
Things are a bit different if you take a more monetarist or Keynesian approach, but those theories really don't account for long term growth. They deal more with business cycles.
My history teacher in highschool used to mention this. He'd say "You want to know what the lasting legacy of the cold war is? Go out in the hall and look at where the roof is leaking."
The point is that we could do a lot more with the billions we spend on stealth bombers than have a big flying black triangle sit in a hanger, give pilots the occasianal joyride, and burn rocket fuel.
Edit: Nice speech by the way.
I'd would be perfectly happy if we could cut our military budget and spend the extra money on domestic improvement instead. That would be wonderful. I would have no complaints whatsoever if we could do that.
Unfortunately, it's simply not feasible in today's world to do that, and I doubt it ever will be.
Anyway, what if military bases weren't abandoned, but changed to serve another purpose?
Why not? Because terrorists hate our guts with a fiery passion and will pass that hatred on for generations to come? Perhaps some foreigners would hate us less if we actually tried to improve their situation rather than just dumping token aid here and there and spreading the joy and cheer of democracy... with the Marines.
I agree that it's unrealistic to believe we can have a world without wars and militaries, but the amount the United States spends every year for the Pentagon is rediculous and needs to be audited, reworked and cut back.