a reply to: alldaylong
It is my policy since many years ago to let the people in general to express their ideas or opinions on my threads, I still think that is a wise
attitude. However, I reserve to me the right to also express mines, and I don't necessarily endorse the ones of anybody that like my threads or find
America was founded by people of all social spheres, in the American Revolution there is a spirit of equality in plurality that made it unique in
the time it happened, that spirit is clearly expressed either in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution.
When we read a sentence that is written beginning with the expression We The People.... or When we read that there are truths that are self evident
like that all men were created equally, it is clear that this was not a revolution just for one social class, but it was a movement inspired and
supported by and for the masses.
The difference in between Hanson and Washington as First President is not their social status , neither their values, since it is clear they both
belonged to a condition blessed with good education, that is not a sin, we can't discriminate them just because they were neither extremely poor or
A Comparison in between Hanson and Washington is interesting, since one was a Civilian all his life, a statesman compromised all the time with the
Political leadership, while the second was Primarily a Military that later became Politician.
It seems that if we accept that the father founder was a military possibly it projects the image that America is a nation created of war, by the war,
and for the war, in other words that civilians were not really involved in the leadership of the Independence. However, that is actually a false
conclusion, taken from a judgment based only in appearances.
We all know that the civil population represents the majority of the nation. Nevertheless, Militaries are a very important profession that must
serve the nation not only in times of war, but also in Peace, which duty is to work for the support of the public order, the Legal institutions and
the defense of the social guaranties of external and internal dangers, externals like attacks of foreign forces and internals like subversion of any
To achieve such an important mission militaries are a professional body that must separate themselves from the Politics, why? because they must
maintain a loyalty with the Institutions in general, their motivations must be all the time of patriotism, never of sectarianisms and definitively
well above of the political divisions that the Parties represent.
When militaries become Politicians they must surrender their previous status, their rank in the arm forces, understand that in the political life
they are no longer separated of the rest of the civilians, but part of them. George Washington understood this very well, he showed that what a
Military can contribute a lot, while returning to the civil life is to control the divisions created by the parties, to defend the genuine national
interests of the ones of pressure groups, and above all social differences to treat everybody as members of the same team.
Dwight Eisenhower is a nice example of this paradigm, he was a General along all WWII, and his performance as a military was absolutely brilliant, but
when became President he understood that he must rule a nation in times of Peace, not of war.
As President he maintained a strict balance of priorities, he avoided the involvement of the country in unnecessary conflicts, without risking the
national security standards, pushed the national spirit to move forward through the path of progress, in balance between public and private sectors,
he opened the exploration of the Space, boosted the research in Science and Technology sponsored by federal funding, he was the first to talk about
civil rights, He modeled the highway national system, he also was smart enough to see that Vietnam was an important battle against communism, but of
the people of that nation, not an American one.
He was the only President of the Second half of the XX Century that decided to don't involve America at all in the political turmoil of the Middle
east. He didn't support the action of France and England in the war of Suez Crisis against Egypt, he understood that the Arab world was a key piece of
the balance of forces of the cold war, and so he decided that it was the best policy for the nation to be absolutely neutral in the Israel -
We are seeing and painfully experienced after his epoch all the negative consequences that the American involvement in middle east problems have
carried to the country, the Petroleum Embargo of the 1970s, crisis of the hostages in Iran in 1980, arrival of terrorism to American soil in 2001,
plus wars in which it does not look to be an end in that region and the thousands of American lives sacrificed on them.
Moreover, when retiring from the Presidency, he warned the country of the existence of what he called a Military establishment that was
dangerously pushing the country out of balance, obsessively focusing a so high economic momentum just in to maintain an armament industry. He
worried a lot of the extremely high cost this would carry to the nation, suspecting it should be an unsustainable weight for the public finances,
that in the long run will constraint dramatically until suffocation many vital areas of the national life and even our freedom.
His last speech to the Nation is of incredible courageous moral authority, about that an uncontrolled Military Industrial complex could compromise
American progress at future.
Farewell address Jan 1961
If what he told to us would have been respected, it is very likely that America never would have suffered the fiasco of Vietnam, The recession of
mid 1970s, the early 1980s, the Post Persian Gulf war one, or even the great recession of 2008-10, and possibly it should never have gone in course
of collision with fundamentalisms that basically are not of our concerns, since they were aroused from problems that are far of the American life .
He clearly pointed that the possibility of another great war in the world must be at any cost avoided, since if it happens, it should collapse by
sure the civilization. Interesting meditation in times like ours, in 2014 when a political dispute created for pushing Ukraine to one or other sphere
of influence has increased exponentially such a risk as never before.
Why a President that offered along his 2 campaigns to work for the Peace, that even got a Nobel prize, is now insisting in to go ahead in a fight that
we all know easily could go out of control and destroy Civilization?
The best answer is in this relatively short, so honest, so patriotic, so sensate, so wise speech asking for balance of who leaded the ally victory in
The Angel of Lightness
Eisenhower Jan 17th 1961 ,
You and I --need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice .
edit on 12/7/2014 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)