"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 not clothed. The 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....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."
-- Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
umm, every gun is a theft from those who hunger? Think the Jews at Dachau would have agreed with that sentiment? That every gun Americans made was a theft from poor Americans, and therefore should not have been made? Is there no such thing as a just war? Is pacifism the only acceptable alternative in every single case?
If not, if there are ever cases where miltary might can be wielded for the good of humanity, then we are just arguing about a matter of degree. Then we can all argue that Iraq is a bad war, and WWII was a good war, and argue the application of military power is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. But choose now. Decide now if you think it is ever possible for Evil America to ever use its military power for good. If the answer is no, mull over how you might explain your stance to the Jews in the Holocaust, or the slaves in the old Confederacy.
oh, and by the way, a really cheap shot, using Lee Atwater next to Eisenhower. As long as we are playing history, Republicans wanted to avoid involvement in WWII (prior to Pearl Harbor). Was that smart? Good foreign policy? Staying out of foreign entanglements that were none of our business? Is that the Republican party you prefer, Ms. Neville Chamberlain?
You are missing my point. My point is not about gun control (my views on that might surprise you, by the way. I am pro gun ownership and never want to live in a society where only the police and army have access to guns.). My point was how you would NEVER hear a major Republican talk like this nowadays. The party is so different than it was sixty years ago that it's nearly unrecognizable And I believe Lee Atwater's tenure marks a tipping point.
Katie
I wasn't talking about gun ownership, I was talking about the military as well (which I'm pretty sure Eisenhower was referring to). My point, especially in my second post, is that yes, the Republican party sounds pretty different from 60-70 years ago, especially the part about "avoiding foreign entanglements" which was the party's stance prior to WWII.
It seems to me that Jews at Dachau were hungering. Eisenhower was talking about pacificism. He was talking about the Cold War and priorities. He is saying that we should use power to help the powerless, not to threaten other powers. Choosing to build a huge nuclear arsenal to scare the Soviets took funds from humanitarian efforts, and there were certainly plenty of cold and hungry people that could have been helped instead.
To the extent that Iraqis were hungering for freedom from Saddam's rule, we used our guns, rockets, and warships in their service. Of course, given the unaccounted billions and the huge expense of a war against a country with no navy, air force, or even much of an army, it's pretty obvious that we also wasted a lot of resources that could have been put to better use.
Post a Comment