This world in arms in 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."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" speaking at the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953.
People my age tend to think of Eisenhower as a great General but not as a peacemaker. That's a mistake -- perhaps because we saw Eisenhower in his declining years. Eisenhower came to power promising to end the Korean War -- which he did -- and his great accomplishment was to end the Second World War -- which he certainly assisted in.
Eisenhower was not a militarist. He was a realist and believed in an army where needed. But he always saw military spending as inevitably wasted and at best a necessary evil.
7 comments:
So why did Chretien put us in Afghansistan again? Didn't he have an exit plan?
It is stealing my labour through taxes to pay for these war weapons as well as to keep those wealthy people wealthier. Thereby making me and others like me poorer. People ought to be reading "John Stuwart Mill". Anyong
I would ad automobiles to this list.
They are our domestic weapons of mass destruction
Every brick school?
Every power plant?
And hospitals.....and roads....and bread.....and homeless masses?
It's one thing to be pacifist, but give me a break, please.
You come across as an emotional masochist.
Unaware or unconcerned with reality.
It's a bad world out there and this sop of a post is giving me an upset stomach.
Put your pajama's on, have a warm mug of milk and dream away.
""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 is the problem with people like Mr Morton who rely on the government dole to survive.
Mr Morton has never lived outside his box which consists of "progressive" friends and "progressive" colleagues.
Mr Morton is a full blown "progressive" which is really just a codeword for being a full blown Karl Marx "Marxist".
Mr Morton believes there is something inherently wrong with Canadian society and if only his friends could mold the country to his worldview, we would all be better off.
This my friends is going to lead to a civil war down south which will hopefully spread up to Canada.
The Americans want nothing to do with Obama's version of Marxism.
Why would Canadians?
The part that pisses me off is that there is no difference between the peoples of the USA and Canada. We really are the same culture.
However, through activist judges which are no doubt friends of Mr Morton, we now have Canada.
A Utopian paradise where abortion is legal right up until birth, capital punishment is banned, gun control is in full force, speech control is alive and well,etc.......
If Mr Morton didn't have any "progressive" friends, my bet he would have none at all.
Errrrh, guys, I am quoting President Eisenhower. My point is he was a realist -- he knew we need a military but also knew it was no more than a necessary evil. An army should be limited to what is needed and not more. Canada needs forces that can do search and rescue, can assist in the current battles to protect democratic nations and that's about it. We don't face a Soviet style threat -- we face urban and rural insurgents. Massed army divisions don't work so the focus should be Coast Guard and pacification. As for the "dole" reference, well, I am a private business with clients and employees and the rest. Some of my clients are legal aid (and they don't make me money) but most aren't. Whatever...
I do not entirely agree that it is as straight forward as that.
Arctic sovereignty is a real problem especially with the obvious increase in natural resources i.e. oil and natural gas.
A military presence is essential.
The "war on Terror" is a wild card as well. It is foolish and dangerous to assume that Canada will be spared a major attack.
If it does happen Canada will want to choose appropriate action.You can argue what that action ought to be but Canda will want to decide for itself what that action should be. It will need to "put it's money where its mouth is" if we expect full support for whatever action needs to be done.
Post a Comment