[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "David Williams" <dwilliams298 at attbi.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 04:34:36 GMT
Lines: 26

On Wed, 28 May 2003 17:33:35 GMT, in a fit of overwhelming naivete, Jonathan
Biggar  wrote:
> >In lower costs of future defense because we don't have Saddam to bug us
> >any more.

I'll skirt the issue of whether or not Saddam was really that big or that
imminent of a threat, or whether he really was "bugging us" (apart from
being an embarrassment to the Bush family).
Simply put, he really doesn't matter.  When you are rich and powerful, you
will ALWAYS have enemies.  Which means you ALWAYS need to build and maintain
your national defense.  Which means you will ALWAYS spend an incredible
amount of money on basically nothing.  (Kind of like insurance.)
The problem is, one should avoid taking actions that:
1. Provoke existing enemies to action
2. Create new enemies
Gulf War II will succeed in doing both.

Wes Struebing replied:
> You really think that?  What color is the sky in your world?

It depends on whether or not he has his rose-colored glasses on.

Regards,
-David W.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 29 May 2003 05:05:37 GMT
Lines: 68

>When you are rich and powerful, you
>will ALWAYS have enemies.  Which means you ALWAYS need to build and maintain
>your national defense.  Which means you will ALWAYS spend an incredible
>amount of money on basically nothing.  (Kind of like insurance.)

Thing is, of course, this wasn't always the way.  The pattern was this: you
build up your military at time of war, then you reduce the military during
times of peace, keeping enough of a force in readiness so that you're not
caught betwixt and between when something starts.  

That's supposed to be the peacetime boom, when the defense budget is reduced
and that money is redirected toward the civilian sector in creating jobs,
fixing the infrastructure, building highways and cities and the like.

Now we're on a nonstop parade of military spending, no matter peace or war. 
Which was exactly what Eisenhower (a republican) warned about decades ago.  He
was either the one who coined the term "military-industrial complex," or he
came along shortly afterward.  He saw the alliance as a bad one, one of too
much reliance at the cost of taxpayers, and was concerned that it would lead to
this.

He was right.

This is what this Republican said in January, 1961:

--------------------------
"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. 

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 State house, 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 militaryindustrial
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." 

----------------------------

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)