What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.

Can we not agree that the above cited patent was submitted by agents of Hughes Aircraft Company (now Raytheon Corp) in March 1991 and they were seeking to protect their rights to the use of the above detailed technology to be used in future efforts to mitigate global warming . . .

Well Mick . . . will you agree with the above statement?

It's a real patent for "Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming", I would agree that far.

However I'd take some minor issue with your wording, which seems to suggest they intended to use it later. More likely they thought that someone might use it later, so it would be worth something.

And I think that patent has also expired.
 
It's a real patent for "Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming", I would agree that far.

However I'd take some minor issue with your wording, which seems to suggest they intended to use it later. More likely they thought that someone might use it later, so it would be worth something.

And I think that patent has also expired.
How about . . .

Can we not agree that the above cited patent was submitted by agents of Hughes Aircraft Company (now Raytheon Corp) in March 1991 and they were seeking to protect their rights to the use of the above detailed technology to be used by themselves or by others in efforts to mitigate global warming . . .
 
What's patent life, like 15-20 years? That patent would probably be expired by now. George, I don't think a debunker on the subject would agree with you until there is evidence to point that they are actually doing this. A patent really doesn't mean that much. I can certainly see the plausibility of doing this to mitigate global warming, but beyond that, nothing else yet.
 
What's patent life, like 15-20 years? That patent would probably be expired by now. George, I don't think a debunker on the subject would agree with you until there is evidence to point that they are actually doing this. A patent really doesn't mean that much. I can certainly see the plausibility of doing this to mitigate global warming, but beyond that, nothing else yet.
Your getting your horse before the cart . . . I am not saying anything yet . . . be patent I mean patient . . . LoL!


  • The application preparation alone typically takes 6 to 8 months, and the approval process can take as long as 3 years. For more detailed requirements of the application process, please refer to the United States Patent and Trademark Office website.
Costs


  • Obtaining a patent becomes very expensive after paying all the required fees. One can expect to spend anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000 during the application process. For example, the United States Patent Office filing fee is $355 alone, not including all the other expenses required. For specific filing costs such as filing and examination fees, please refer to the United States Patent and Trademark Office website for a detailed description.
Longevity


  • Generally speaking, a patent will last 20 years from the date the application for the patent was filed with the United States. The patent will continue to run even in the event of the inventor's death, so long as the death occurs within the 20-year period. Patents may be adjusted or extended under certain circumstances, but this is very rare.

Read more: How Long Do Patents Last? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5075315_long-patents-last.html#ixzz27QReG5e9

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that there are patents at all, means that someone had invested time, money and effort into figuring out the logistics for deployment. I would say with that in mind, that there is more reason to believe they had the intention of deploying it, than not... even if the objective never came to fruition.

Patents don't mean much anyway. Top-secret things are not patented, they are classified.
 
Mick,

Do agree there are Patents which are not available to the public . . . as in Classified or Secret . . .

According to 37 CFR 1.9 (i) [Title 37 -- Patents, Trademarks, And Copyrights; Chapter I -- United States Patent And Trademark Office, Department Of Commerce; Subchapter A – General; Part 1 -- Rules Of Practice In Patent Cases; Subpart A -- General Provisions; Patents; General Information And Correspondence], the term national security classified means “specifically authorized under criteria established by an Act of Congress or Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Act of Congress or Executive Order.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/national-security-classified-patents/
Content from External Source
“Secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction." Edward Teller
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edward_teller.html

Content from External Source
 
Mick,

1) Will you agree that Dr. Edward Teller was one of the most well known Scientist in the last 60 years and worked on the Manhattan Project, cofounded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and was known for his opinions and work within Atmospheric Science as well as the SDI . . .

was an early member of the Manhattan Project charged with developing the first atomic bombs. During this time he made a serious push to develop the first fusion-based weapons as well, but these were deferred until after World War II. After his controversial testimony in the security clearance hearing of his former Los Alamos colleague J. Robert Oppenheimer, Teller was ostracized by much of the scientific community. He continued to find support from the U.S. government and military research establishment, particularly for his advocacy for nuclear energy development, a strong nuclear arsenal, and a vigorous nuclear testing program. He was a co-founder of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and was both its director and associate director for many years.In his later years he became especially known for his advocacy of controversial technological solutions to both military and civilian problems, including a plan to excavate an artificial harbor in Alaska using thermonuclear explosives. He was a vigorous advocate of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Throughout his life, Teller was known both for his scientific ability and his difficult interpersonal relations and volatile personality, and is considered one of the inspirations for the character Dr. Strangelove in the 1964 movie of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

Content from External Source
2) Do you also agree that Ken Caldeira is a well known Atmospheric Scientist . . .

In the 1980s, Caldeira worked as a software developer.[1] He received his Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences in 1991 from the New York University Department of Applied Science.[12] From 1991 to 1993, Caldeira worked at Penn State University as a post-doctoral researcher. He then worked as an Environmental Scientist and Physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory until 2005, when he began his current position at the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira
Content from External Source
In 2011, Caldeira resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter, stating "Again, I think the IPCC has been extremely useful in the past, and I believe the IPCC could be extremely useful in the future. [...] My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique." [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira
Content from External Source
3) Will you also acknowledge Dr. Lowell Wood as a known Scientist involved with geoengineering . . .

The team includes several scientists that previously worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Lowell Wood worked with Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, and architect of the SDI anti-missile Laser program.[4] Currently there are several scientists involved with the project, including scientist Jordin Kare, PhD, and principal investigator Eric (3ric) Johanson. These scientists’ knowledge spans several fields; the scientists include engineers, an insect physiologist, an optical specialist, a computational modeling scientist, and an epidemiologist.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
Content from External Source
At the "Response Options to Rapid or Severe Climate Change" round-table meeting organized by the President's Climate Change Technology Program in September 2001 to gather ideas for averting climate change, one of the proposals was to station one or more wire-mesh "mirrors" in orbit to deflect sunlight back into space or to filter it. The idea was proposed by Lowell Wood, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who calculated that deflecting 1% of sunlight would restore climatic stability, and that that would require either a single mirror 600,000 square miles (1,600,000 km2) in area or several smaller ones. Wood had been researching the idea for more than ten years but considered it so infeasible that it should only be a back-up plan for solving the global warming . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_mirror_(geoengineering)oblem.[1]

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mick,

1) Will you agree that Dr. Edward Teller was one of the most well known Scientist in the last 60 years and worked on the Manhattan Project, cofounded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and was known for his opinions and work within Atmospheric Science as well as the SDI . . .
Yes

2) Do you also agree that Ken Caldeira is a well known Atmospheric Scientist . . .
Yes

3) Will you also acknowledge Dr. Lowell Wood as a known Scientist involved with geoengineering . . .
Involved in geoengineering research, yes.
 
The fact that there are patents at all, means that someone had invested time, money and effort into figuring out the logistics for deployment. I would say with that in mind, that there is more reason to believe they had the intention of deploying it, than not... even if the objective never came to fruition.

Patents don't mean much anyway. Top-secret things are not patented, they are classified.

So they are a reason to believe in chemtrails, but they don't mean much? Seems a bit contradictory.
 
How about . . .

Can we not agree that the above cited patent was submitted by agents of Hughes Aircraft Company (now Raytheon Corp) in March 1991 and they were seeking to protect their rights to the use of the above detailed technology to be used by themselves or by others in efforts to mitigate global warming . . .

To possibly​ be used....
 
To possibly​ be used....
Agreed. . . .

United States Patent 5,003,186
Chang , et al. March 26, 1991
Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming​


the above cited patent was submitted by agents of Hughes Aircraft Company (now Raytheon Corp) in March 1991 and they were seeking to protect their rights to the use of the above detailed technology to possibly be used by themselves or possibly by others in efforts to mitigate global warming . . .

Content from External Source
 
Mick,

Do you accept the concept of Prima Facie Evidence

Prima facie (/ˈprmə ˈfʃɨ./;[1] from Latin: prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance", from the feminine form of primus("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to beself-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy. Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Content from External Source
 
Mick

Would you agree that the Congressional Military Industrial Complex exists as warned by President Eisenhower on his farewell address and is Prima Facie evidence that LLNL, Raytheon, SAIC, Northrop Grumman, and others are part of this complex . . .
 
Mick,

1) Will you agree that Dr. Edward Teller was one of the most well known Scientist in the last 60 years and worked on the Manhattan Project, cofounded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and was known for his opinions and work within Atmospheric Science as well as the SDI . . .

was an early member of the Manhattan Project charged with developing the first atomic bombs. During this time he made a serious push to develop the first fusion-based weapons as well, but these were deferred until after World War II. After his controversial testimony in the security clearance hearing of his former Los Alamos colleague J. Robert Oppenheimer, Teller was ostracized by much of the scientific community. He continued to find support from the U.S. government and military research establishment, particularly for his advocacy for nuclear energy development, a strong nuclear arsenal, and a vigorous nuclear testing program. He was a co-founder of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and was both its director and associate director for many years.In his later years he became especially known for his advocacy of controversial technological solutions to both military and civilian problems, including a plan to excavate an artificial harbor in Alaska using thermonuclear explosives. He was a vigorous advocate of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Throughout his life, Teller was known both for his scientific ability and his difficult interpersonal relations and volatile personality, and is considered one of the inspirations for the character Dr. Strangelove in the 1964 movie of the same name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

Content from External Source
2) Do you also agree that Ken Caldeira is a well known Atmospheric Scientist . . .

In the 1980s, Caldeira worked as a software developer.[1] He received his Ph.D in Atmospheric Sciences in 1991 from the New York University Department of Applied Science.[12] From 1991 to 1993, Caldeira worked at Penn State University as a post-doctoral researcher. He then worked as an Environmental Scientist and Physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory until 2005, when he began his current position at the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira
Content from External Source
In 2011, Caldeira resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter, stating "Again, I think the IPCC has been extremely useful in the past, and I believe the IPCC could be extremely useful in the future. [...] My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique." [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Caldeira
Content from External Source
3) Will you also acknowledge Dr. Lowell Wood as a known Scientist involved with geoengineering . . .

The team includes several scientists that previously worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Lowell Wood worked with Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, and architect of the SDI anti-missile Laser program.[4] Currently there are several scientists involved with the project, including scientist Jordin Kare, PhD, and principal investigator Eric (3ric) Johanson. These scientists’ knowledge spans several fields; the scientists include engineers, an insect physiologist, an optical specialist, a computational modeling scientist, and an epidemiologist.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser
Content from External Source
At the "Response Options to Rapid or Severe Climate Change" round-table meeting organized by the President's Climate Change Technology Program in September 2001 to gather ideas for averting climate change, one of the proposals was to station one or more wire-mesh "mirrors" in orbit to deflect sunlight back into space or to filter it. The idea was proposed by Lowell Wood, a senior staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who calculated that deflecting 1% of sunlight would restore climatic stability, and that that would require either a single mirror 600,000 square miles (1,600,000 km2) in area or several smaller ones. Wood had been researching the idea for more than ten years but considered it so infeasible that it should only be a back-up plan for solving the global warming . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_mirror_(geoengineering)oblem.[1]

Content from External Source

Mick,

Would you agree that the above individuals were involved with advanced geoengineering research and the following quote is Prima Facie evidence that LLNL deals with classified research which may involve climate change and geoengineering . . . ?


In 1990, a year short of his doctorate, Caldeira went to Leningrad to study with Russian climate scientist Mikhail Budyko, one of the first champions of geoengineering. In the 1970s, Budyko had suggested an early version of the basic Teller-Wood idea — decrease the global temperature by shooting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere. While he was in Leningrad, Caldeira's philosophical outlook still predisposed him to distrust such interventions, but years later that would change.
In 1993, the former peace activist accepted a research post at that haven of bombmakers, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Caldeira was running high-powered computer models to study the climate, but when he was offered a security clearance that would have allowed fuller access to the lab's resources, he tried to stay true to his old principles by declining. As a result, he didn't see much of Wood. "There's an outer fence at Livermore, and then there's an inner fence," Caldeira says. "Lowell worked inside the fence."
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=1

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George, man, have some patience! Mick will answer your question eventually...
Fine . . . I just gave him three questions . . . I have no problem waiting . . . there is just one of me . . . I get hit with questions from multiple sources . . . however, I really don't think Mick is overwhelmed by little old me . . .
 
What does "accept the concept" mean here? Obviously the concept exists. But are you asking if I agree with some particular definition or usage?

Eisenhower did not warn of a "Congressional Military Industrial Complex", he warned of a "Military Industrial Complex"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12086&st=Industrial Complex
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.
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 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.
Content from External Source


I don't see any evidence Teller was involved in "advanced geoengineering research", he did some speculation, sure, but just back-of-an-envelope stuff.
 
And I'm going to be a bit slow responding on and off for the foreseeable future, as I've got work to do.
 
What does "accept the concept" mean here? Obviously the concept exists. But are you asking if I agree with some particular definition or usage?

1) Eisenhower did not warn of a "Congressional Military Industrial Complex", he warned of a "Military Industrial Complex"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12086&st=Industrial Complex
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.
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 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.
Content from External Source


3) I don't see any evidence Teller was involved in "advanced geoengineering research", he did some speculation, sure, but just back-of-an-envelope stuff.
1) Historically, the original speech written included "Congressional" and IMO is much more accurate . . . the President was advised to remove it for political purposes and did so . . .
2) I am asking if you will accept that certain things are True based on common sense and does not require lengthy documented support . . .
3) Teller was involved historically in atmospheric science, especially policy . . . I will make a separate question if you wish . . . did he do the down and dirty research?? . . . I don't know but he felt very comfortable in giving his advice on the subject and the LLNL was very involved . . . LLNL being his brainchild . . .


1)
The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.[5] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military-industrial-congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
Content from External Source
3)
CASE STUDY 2
WEATHER MODIFICATION: THE EVOLUTION OF AN R&D
PROGRAM INTO A MILITARY OPERATION

As we
will see, it was instrumental in prompting the largest weather modification R&D program in the Dept. of Defense. Besides that, it was the most excellent ammunition for those who were only too delighted to be able to point to a Soviet "weather threat." Dr.Edward Teller -a frequent participant of many of these campaigns - could serve up the following vision to a US Senate Preparedness Subcommittee:"Please imagine, a world ... where the (Soviets) can change the rainfall over Russia ... and influence the rainfall in our country in an adverse manner." (21)http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/leitenberg/weather.pdf

21. From 1963 to 1965 Dr. Teller subsequently served on The Committee on Atmospheric Sciences, and on the Panel on Weather and Climate Modification of the US National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

Content from External Source
Hoover digest 1998 no. 1 FROM: Sunscreen for Planet Earth by Edward Teller
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791

"Yet if the politics of global warming require that"something must be done" while we still don't know whether anything really needs to be done--let alone what exactly--let us play to our uniquely American strengths in innovation and technology to offset any global warming by the least costly means possible. While scientists continue research into any global climatic effects of greenhouse gases, we ought to study ways to offset any possible ill effects.

Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach
. Why not do that?

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1) Historically, the original speech written included "Congressional" and IMO is much more accurate . . . the President was advised to remove it for political purposes and did so . . .

Reference or source? You made the claim.......
 
Ahhh...sorry, I missed that. The link to the author was dead....but the fact that "he claims" something, does not make it fact. He wasn't there and thus privy to the draft speech. You aren't even using the same term as the source you reference.

military-industrial-congressional complex vs Congressional Military Industrial Complex

So...one person states that as a claim in a book....therefore it must be true?

No...I'm not buying or looking up the book and all it's footnotes...since any person referenced has probably been dead for 20 yrs.

What a person actually said is what counts...not what they might have said. Esp when it was probably written by a speech writer in the first place.

I know...this seems trivial...but one word puts an entirely different view on the phrase. Even more so when the words are in a different order.
 
Ahhh...sorry, I missed that. The link to the author was dead....but the fact that "he claims" something, does not make it fact. He wasn't there and thus privy to the draft speech. You aren't even using the same term as the source you reference.

military-industrial-congressional complex vs Congressional Military Industrial Complex

So...one person states that as a claim in a book....therefore it must be true?

No...I'm not buying or looking up the book and all it's footnotes...since any person referenced has probably been dead for 20 yrs.

What a person actually said is what counts...not what they might have said. Esp when it was probably written by a speech writer in the first place.

I know...this seems trivial...but one word puts an entirely different view on the phrase. Even more so when the words are in a different order.
Knock yourself out . . . IMO the order is not as important as the concept . . . having worked inside the Washington Beltway and with Congress and the revolving door with Lobbyists, Corporate interests, and the Military . . . it resonates with me . . . I agree I screwed up the order . . . I have severe dyslexia . . .

Geoffrey Perret

Geoffrey Perrett is an American historian, currently living in England, whose work focuses primarily upon the political dynamics that influence strategic and tactical military decisions, as well as broader political themes. He has published over thirteen books dealing with a variety of topics, among them the U.S. Presidency - including several biographies of iconic Presidents such asJohn F. Kennedy and Ulysses S. Grant - leading American military commanders such as Douglas MacArthur, and pivotal American military engagements.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Perret
Content from External Source
 
So you don't think the order of the words resonates differently...esp in the current times (or even back then)? Having Congressional as the first word would seem to indicate to most people that that is where the whole influence/conspiracy originates. Changing the order around would seem to indicate that the Military was the instigator. This would seem esp true when the speech was given when there were many hawks in the military with deep hatred for Socialist and Communist ideologies. Not to mention the perception that Big Business is in control?


A little OT...but you've made reference several times to your knowledge of the inner workings of politics w/in the Beltway. I'll admit I have no such experience....but recently there was a post (MikeC? maybe?) where they gave a little background on the reason for their opinions. Would you be willing to do the same? Not necessary at all, but sometimes I do wonder.....people on boards such as this are sometimes amazing to me with their experience and background. I'm in awe of a few of the people on the DIY board I moderate. Engineers that have traveled the world and worked on projects that changed the course of the country they were in, are not people to be taken lightly.
 
Which order it may be in may influence how it resonates with a particular individual, but leaving it out altogether gives it no resonance whatsoever.
 
So you don't think the order of the words resonates differently...esp in the current times (or even back then)? Having Congressional as the first word would seem to indicate to most people that that is where the whole influence/conspiracy originates. Changing the order around would seem to indicate that the Military was the instigator. This would seem esp true when the speech was given when there were many hawks in the military with deep hatred for Socialist and Communist ideologies. Not to mention the perception that Big Business is in control?


A little OT...but you've made reference several times to your knowledge of the inner workings of politics w/in the Beltway. I'll admit I have no such experience....but recently there was a post (MikeC? maybe?) where they gave a little background on the reason for their opinions. Would you be willing to do the same? Not necessary at all, but sometimes I do wonder.....people on boards such as this are sometimes amazing to me with their experience and background. I'm in awe of a few of the people on the DIY board I moderate. Engineers that have traveled the world and worked on projects that changed the course of the country they were in, are not people to be taken lightly.
1) I do think Congress is the key player . . . when partnered with the Lobbyists . . . IMO they control the money . . . they control where the money goes . . . the Corporations pay for the Lobbyists . . . Lobbyists cannot do anything without Congress playing along . . . the Military plays along to get their money . . . they are the most passive part of the equation . . .

2) Retired after 30 years of experience in the military as a high ranking officer plus I had a few years working with the corporate bandits . . . Many years flying back and forth to D.C. as program manager on several large government contracts . . . coordinated with Assistant and Under Secretary of Defense level . . . briefing Congressional Staffers, etc. . .
 
People seem a little confused about the original different wording in the speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military-industrial-congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[6]James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military-industrial-scientific complex".[6][7]Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military-industrial-academic complex".[8] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[9]
Content from External Source
Personally though I do think that congress really should be included. It's the actions of individuals in congress that actually result in the "war is a racket" situation.

http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

I'd also like to see "prison" added to the mix, as it's an oft-overlooked corruption issue. I'd imagine you'd want to include "bankers" too. But maybe those are different "complexes"

I don't think any of this is indicative of the likelihood of some secret spraying program though.
 
[COLOR=#222222 !important] Eisenhower biographer, Geoffrey Perret, wrote that Eisenhower [/COLOR]

“originally intended to include Congress in this indictment and deliver a blast at the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex.’ At the last minute, he struck out ‘congressional.’”​
http://thebeuselaer.weebly.com/iron-triangle.html
Content from External Source
A Country Made By War (Paperback)
Geoffrey Perret



Product Description
1989 Random House jumbo trade PB, BOMC. "....nine major wars in nine generations," author Geoffrey Perret "...places the nation's military history as a factor of American life....important as geography...business, the separation of powers...or anything else that contributes...to America's unique identity...." Long before the Vietnam War, according to the author, there was a military/industrial complex.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000HD04DS/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1



Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People seem a little confused about the original different wording in the speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military-industrial-congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[6]James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military-industrial-scientific complex".[6][7]Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military-industrial-academic complex".[8] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[9]
Content from External Source
Personally though I do think that congress really should be included. It's the actions of individuals in congress that actually result in the "war is a racket" situation.

http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

I'd also like to see "prison" added to the mix, as it's an oft-overlooked corruption issue. I'd imagine you'd want to include "bankers" too. But maybe those are different "complexes"

I don't think any of this is indicative of the likelihood of some secret spraying program though.
Let's not get ahead of things . . . we are just exploring where we agree . . . that is probably a different Thread . . .

Oh . . . do you have a preference of what to call the complex. . . ????? And do you believe it exists???
 
Let's not get ahead of things . . . we are just exploring where we agree . . . that is probably a different Thread . . .

Oh . . . do you have a preference of what to call the complex. . . ????? And do you believe it exists???

Of course "it" exists. But not as an organization. It's a situation, not an organization.
 
Of course "it" exists. But not as an organization. It's a situation, not an organization.
Are you saying you think I think the complex is an organization . . .???? No, IMO I think it is similar almost copycat process to influence legislation, money, contract awards, etc . . . the glue is military appropriations . . . the most lucrative of all budget pots to dip into . . . it also includes Black Budgets and highly Classified Projects . . .this is the unique part . . .
 
1) I do think Congress is the key player . . . when partnered with the Lobbyists . . . IMO they control the money . . . they control where the money goes . . . the Corporations pay for the Lobbyists . . . Lobbyists cannot do anything without Congress playing along . . . the Military plays along to get their money . . . they are the most passive part of the equation . . .

2) Retired after 30 years of experience in the military as a high ranking officer plus I had a few years working with the corporate bandits . . . Many years flying back and forth to D.C. as program manager on several large government contracts . . . coordinated with Assistant and Under Secretary of Defense level . . . briefing Congressional Staffers, etc. . .

I disagree to some extent on #1. If anything.....Military says in casual conversation (which shouldn't happen in the first place)..."Boy we'd like this" (pie in the sky), industry scrambles for a plan and pays lobbyists, lobbyists talk/schmooze/pay legislators. Legislators promote program based on how much it will help their district. Military says..."Well, ok sure we'll explore that Senator. Thanks for the money." Just my perception of course. I think that Congress has often tried to force things on the military that they don't want or need.

Thanks for #2...though...no offense...not much specifics. High ranking? O-5? O-6?? O-7??? AF, Navy, Army? No matter...appreciate the feedback. My personal opinion is that no General officer should ever be allowed to work for a defense contractor and lower ranked officers should have a 5-10 yr limit before they are allowed to. Far too much inside info. Most large firms have a "no compete" clause. Maybe they should have a similar thing for military officers and even senior enlisted? Hell...I saw a 30 yr E-9 retire on Monday and start a job the next week with the shipyard he was supposed to be keeping an eye on when he was active.
 
I disagree to some extent on #1. If anything.....Military says in casual conversation (which shouldn't happen in the first place)..."Boy we'd like this" (pie in the sky), industry scrambles for a plan and pays lobbyists, lobbyists talk/schmooze/pay legislators. Legislators promote program based on how much it will help their district. Military says..."Well, ok sure we'll explore that Senator. Thanks for the money." Just my perception of course. I think that Congress has often tried to force things on the military that they don't want or need.

Thanks for #2...though...no offense...not much specifics. High ranking? O-5? O-6?? O-7??? AF, Navy, Army? No matter...appreciate the feedback. My personal opinion is that no General officer should ever be allowed to work for a defense contractor and lower ranked officers should have a 5-10 yr limit before they are allowed to. Far too much inside info. Most large firms have a "no compete" clause. Maybe they should have a similar thing for military officers and even senior enlisted? Hell...I saw a 30 yr E-9 retire on Monday and start a job the next week with the shipyard he was supposed to be keeping an eye on when he was active.
1) There are so many ways to shade the process . . . needless to say there is potential for abuse and undue influence over public funds . . .
2) 06 . . . AF . . .
 
They have a monopoly of power. They have a monopoly on force. They control the money supply. With human nature, how would they not want to take advantage of that to benefit them personally?
 
Are you saying you think I think the complex is an organization . . .???? No, IMO I think it is similar almost copycat process to influence legislation, money, contract awards, etc . . . the glue is military appropriations . . . the most lucrative of all budget pots to dip into . . . it also includes Black Budgets and highly Classified Projects . . .this is the unique part . . .

Military is the most lucrative, sure, but it's not the only pot.

Anyway, my point was really more that's this is an emergent process, not a directed process.

i.e., nobody created this beast, nobody is running it, it's just the way things ended up, a natural product of human nature in millions of individuals who benefit from the system evolving a certain way.
 
2) 06 . . . AF . . .

Just want to back George up here, as far as I can tell he does have that background. I used my Google-fu to track him down.

Of course one does not want to get into arguments from authority, but it's an interesting perspective.
 
Military is the most lucrative, sure, but it's not the only pot.

Anyway, my point was really more that's this is an emergent process, not a directed process.

i.e., nobody created this beast, nobody is running it, it's just the way things ended up, a natural product of human nature in millions of individuals who benefit from the system evolving a certain way.
I have no problem with your position . . . it is what it is . . . a name to describe a process and activities that bear watching . . . one which is further complicated by its lack of transparency . . .

1) What do you wish to call it?
2) Will you agree that LLNL, SAIC, Northrop Grumman, DARPA, etc are evolved in said complex, behavior, etc.
 
Back
Top