President Eisenhower's farewell address

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities 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 half century in the 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 -- 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 issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the 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 good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the 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, our 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 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 insiduous [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 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.

But each proposal must be weighed in the 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 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 of 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 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 alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now 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.

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

During 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 fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- 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 in peace. I trust in that -- in 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 few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources -- 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.

link

And there haven't been a half million Americans killed in war since.

Not for lack of trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Not for lack of trying.

---

Thank God for a good Defense...and Eisenhower

Yes, I know what you meant. See what I did there. ;)

Because the Vietcong posed such a threat prior to US involvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Because the Vietcong posed such a threat prior to US involvement.

---

No, but Communist expansion did and, still does.

Where does communist expansion pose a threat to the US right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Where does communist expansion pose a threat to the US right now?

---

Give up on the other argument?

I successfully proved that US servicemen are not suspected Islamic terrorists.

Now, where does communist expansion pose a threat to the US right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I successfully proved that US servicemen are not suspected Islamic terrorists.

---

Not what we were arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Now, where does communist expansion pose a threat to the US right now?

---

Why would I want to engage you in another debate wherein you have no intention of being serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Not what we were arguing.

---

Sure it was.

Quote:

---

Why would I want to engage you in another debate wherein you have no intention of being serious.

---

What debate?

I asked you a simple question:

Where does communist expansion pose a threat to the US right now?

Terrorism has replaced communism as the great bogeyman. At least the Soviets were an existential threat to the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Terrorism has replaced communism as the great bogeyman. At least the Soviets were an existential threat to the country.

---

And, if the terrorists take control of Pakistan -- and their nuclear arsenal -- would they not become an existential threat to this country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, if the terrorists take control of Pakistan -- and their nuclear arsenal -- would they not become an existential threat to this country?

---

Do you know what the fuck you are saying? Terrorists CAN'T TAKE OVER the country you dumbass.

Let me clear something up for you .

In pakistan the Prime Minister isn't the most powerful man in the country.

Not his cabinet.

Not some religious clerks.



But the Chief General. All that crap is there to depict it as a democracy, but in reality pakistan is probably the MOST corrupt nation on earth. The military can, and will, whenever necessary, take over the country. They are extremely powerful, not to the U.S of course, but they are a force to be reckoned with in the region .


I know some people think that Pakistan is really religous and what not. But this is utter crap. All those that come across as religious are probably the most hypocrtical individuals on the face of the planet.

Do you know how bad it is over there? We live in the 21st century right? Well, Pakistan is probably one of the only countries on the face of the earth that still worries about electricity. Resources the problem? No. Vapta, the government runned electrical agency that delivers power to the whole country collects their bills, splits the profits among the top few, and doesn't have enough money to keep their company running. Why is this a problem when they charge such high rates? They have come up with a solution, they do what is called "Load Shedding," they deliver electricity only to a select few places during different times of the day. Some places only have electricity 25% of the day, and I have heard they are doing this with the natural gas too.

The conditions are so bad that people should break the country up, but the least of your fears should be terrorists. Those cruel bastards at the top wouldn't flinch at nuking their own people if they had to.

Pakistan should be annexed to india.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

Pakistan should be annexed to india.

---

Do you know what the fuck your saying? you can't be serious.

Get it? Because Iraq's defense expenditures pre Gulf War I to pre Gulf War II were comparable to Finland of the WWII era, yet we compared Hussein to Hitler so we could use our massive military against it?

And in 10 years of trying they only took out one single airship, and we used that as proof of an act of war for Gulf War II?

Get it?

Then we compare Ahmedinjad to Hitler and almost go through an exact repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin, bringing us nearer than many realize to war with Iran? And with the hitler pretext we were ready to use our massive military against that country too? Get it? Because the original military industrial establishment was in response to a real threat to the global order, and we use comparisons to that original threat to evoke support for attacking fake threats to our security? Get it?

Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, if the terrorists take control of Pakistan -- and their nuclear arsenal -- would they not become an existential threat to this country?

---

LOL. Replace terrorists with communists and we're essentially back in the Cold War. Gotta have a bogeyman to justify half a tril in military expenditure per annum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

LOL. Replace terrorists with communists and we're essentially back in the Cold War. Gotta have a bogeyman to justify half a tril in military expenditure per annum.

---

So, you're contending Pakistan losing control of its nuclear arsenal to a rabidly anti-American terrorist group doesn't pose a threat?

What a great fucking country this would be if we could get rid of all of the demagogues, fearmongers, and Yonivores of the left and right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What a great fucking country this would be if we could get rid of all of the demagogues, fearmongers, and Yonivores of the left and right.

---

Yeah, Allahu Akbar!

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 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.

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.

- Dwight W. Eisenhower

But think about this. All of those armaments employ however many voters, feed their families, create earnings for however many companies who in turn fund however many politicians. And on it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

What a great fucking country this would be if we could get rid of all of the demagogues, fearmongers, and Yonivores of the left and right.

---

Are you serious?

Anyone who does not keep an eye out for potential threats are fools. Speaking of real possible situations don't constitute fear mongering alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you serious?

Anyone who does not keep an eye out for potential threats are fools. Speaking of real possible situations don't constitute fear mongering alone.

---

Yes, I'm serious. Our liberty is circumscribed again and again under hypothetical 'threats.' Anyone who doesn't see a threat to their liberty from the state is the greatest fool.

Coming out of left field into a horribly comformist America, coming from a life-long military man, DE's speech will surely be seen as one of the most prescient of all US political speeches.

But he was unable to subvert the MIC, which now owns the US govt along with all the other "too big to fail" corps.