Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
87. Now if this was not so tragic
Thu Sep 5, 2013, 07:21 PM
Sep 2013

as to Booz Allen, you know how old they are? THey are so old that they were the consulting firm that was engaged by the San Diego City Council to look at the Metropolitan Transit System and wether to bring the trolley and bus systems under one umbrella.

Yes, they are dirty, but are much older than the Bushies.

As to Snowden. No I do not think he was a honey trap. He was what he was. But not a honey trap.

But I believe, mostly after looking at onions across the nation, that yes, city councils and the feds are controlled by interests that cannot and will not tolerate any who will go against their interests. You hear the truth for a second when disgraced mayors (San Diego recently), are forced out. Or when Presidents give a farewell speech that happens to be a warning, since there is nothing more to lose.

This applies right now.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

January 17, 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

But each proposal must be weighed in 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 the cost and hoped for advantages – 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 the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

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.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

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.

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, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking 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.

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 differences, 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.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If we weren't totally selective about who we hold accountable for using them... NuclearDem Sep 2013 #1
Who has gotten away with using them recently? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #2
The United States Octafish Sep 2013 #3
Are you sure you're not confusing your international laws? Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #18
Depends on how recent we're talking. NuclearDem Sep 2013 #4
The US still hasn't gotten rid of its own stockpile of VX gas. eom leveymg Sep 2013 #51
Veteran's Day Poppy Octafish Sep 2013 #5
I will not tell you it's not equally enforced. nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #6
So it is best to give up on it altogether? blm Sep 2013 #8
Well, given Syria is not a signatory nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #11
nadin...do you really think I don't know the gory details of Iraq/Iran blm Sep 2013 #20
Why this then? polly7 Sep 2013 #22
That report appears to be incredibly skewed. blm Sep 2013 #31
Of course it does. I'll just take your word for it ... polly7 Sep 2013 #32
I told you how it appears to me. blm Sep 2013 #39
BushInc is a subsidiary of PNAC inc nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #28
I didn't say that, nadin. I am well aware of the historic details here blm Sep 2013 #35
I am sorry, this is not just about WMDs nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #38
You can't change the FACTS, nadin. You did learn of greater crimes blm Sep 2013 #41
You are right, we can't change the facts nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #59
I never said that it was ONLY about chemical attacks. You claimed that. blm Sep 2013 #69
I will put it to you this way nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #77
I have never trusted Obama implicitly and have noted his weaknesses blm Sep 2013 #81
Now if this was not so tragic nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #87
Let me know when the human race whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #7
So it is best to give up on the bans we DO have altogether? blm Sep 2013 #10
No, it's best to enforce them judiciously and not to use them as an excuse commit other atrocities. whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #12
well said. cali Sep 2013 #15
Explain: 'enforce them judiciously' blm Sep 2013 #17
Well, our "enforcement" in this case whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #23
That's key. and would go back to the ban. Your OP Precisely Sep 2013 #26
When did it become an 'excuse to commit atrocities' blm Sep 2013 #43
That all sounds good Precisely Sep 2013 #46
Why do you assume its faith and not reason? Ever read the BCCI Report? blm Sep 2013 #50
I'm sorry. I meant it affirmatively. Precisely Sep 2013 #65
The treaty does not empower the US to act in retaliation, in fact is specifically leaves Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #33
From all of your posts on the subject TM99 Sep 2013 #9
I take very seriously the entirety of the circumstances involved. blm Sep 2013 #14
This is not about one man Precisely Sep 2013 #34
Then I am sorry but you are TM99 Sep 2013 #37
I didn't say that - you want to believe I did. blm Sep 2013 #53
You can't even realize that your rebuttal TM99 Sep 2013 #61
I will continue to repeat what I know because so many are repeating lies blm Sep 2013 #72
You are more than welcome to wash, rinse and repeat daily. TM99 Sep 2013 #80
I already proved numerous times that is not true. blm Sep 2013 #85
Yes Precisely Sep 2013 #29
should all arms control KT2000 Sep 2013 #36
Straw man, and you know it. TM99 Sep 2013 #40
not a straw man KT2000 Sep 2013 #42
Of course, it is worthwhile to agree to ban certain weapons. TM99 Sep 2013 #44
my first choice KT2000 Sep 2013 #47
Do you even acknowledge that diplomatic solutions were TRIED for blm Sep 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author KT2000 Sep 2013 #60
Just answered in another reply. TM99 Sep 2013 #62
You assume Kerry is to blame and Assad's mental state post-ArabSpring is intact. blm Sep 2013 #67
Seriously, TM99 Sep 2013 #68
That's horsepoo - I developed my own views of Syria through research blm Sep 2013 #70
How do you know to what degree of research I have done on Syria? TM99 Sep 2013 #71
Instead some people here want the US to join the indifference blm Sep 2013 #56
The biggest straw man argument now is that this is just like Iraq. blm Sep 2013 #55
A simple question that I know you will avoid is this, TM99 Sep 2013 #64
No. But, I am not going to pretend there isn't more just because blm Sep 2013 #73
Your powers of projection are astounding. TM99 Sep 2013 #76
I already said No. The ? was NOT avoided. blm Sep 2013 #82
It hasn't been kept in place anymore than the conventions against genocide have cali Sep 2013 #13
Why do you need to pretend I claimed that Owen's poem was the first? blm Sep 2013 #16
not pretending anything, dear. cali Sep 2013 #25
That's the 'impression' you wanted to give yourself. I gave you no cause. blm Sep 2013 #48
Lysistrata! Precisely Sep 2013 #30
It did? WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #19
Take Britain to court. But, why pretend Geneva ban isn't worth saving? blm Sep 2013 #21
Which court? WilliamPitt Sep 2013 #24
I'm not defending Britain. They deserve to be exposed at The Hague. blm Sep 2013 #45
Christ, that was a hundred years ago... malthaussen Sep 2013 #27
I know -- next year will mark a century since the Great War. No more living persons anneboleyn Sep 2013 #49
WWI is an especially glaring example of the futility of war... malthaussen Sep 2013 #52
Why is bombing Syria the only - Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #54
If it really was about just wanting to attack Syria we'd have done blm Sep 2013 #58
Everyone agrees that chem weapons should not be used LittleBlue Sep 2013 #63
Pro-accountability doesn't have to be pro-war. blm Sep 2013 #66
Obviously, the world doesn't care as much as you claim. reformist2 Sep 2013 #74
The world did THEN. Now more people want to join the ranks blm Sep 2013 #75
So how are you going to secure those chemical weapons, blm? Union Scribe Sep 2013 #78
That's the Pentagon's job. blm Sep 2013 #83
Stop cramming words in my mouth and answer Union Scribe Sep 2013 #84
I can't do the Pentagon's job of planning surgical strikes and blm Sep 2013 #86
Tell that to the people of Vietnam . . . markpkessinger Sep 2013 #79
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A significant achievement...»Reply #87