IKE's Farewell Address

[CrusaderFrank]

Well worth listening to, especially on the Fourth of July in the year 2019.

I would hope that the reader will listen, and learn from our history, and President Eisenhower's message to the nation in Jan. 1961.

A speech of common sense and a message to the future, sadly his lifetime learning and wisdom has been ignored by too many.



This address to the nation was only 16 minutes, I hope it opens the mind to the reader, and they consider IKE's remarks within the framework of messages by President Trump in this third decade of the 21st Century.

Dwight D "Operation Wetback" Eisenhower.

 

[fncceo]

Well worth listening to, especially on the Fourth of July in the year 2019.

I would hope that the reader will listen, and learn from our history, and President Eisenhower's message to the nation in Jan. 1961.

A speech of common sense and a message to the future, sadly his lifetime learning and wisdom has been ignored by too many.



This address to the nation was only 16 minutes, I hope it opens the mind to the reader, and they consider IKE's remarks within the framework of messages by President Trump in this third decade of the 21st Century.

Ike’s parade:
View attachment 267695

Liar. That was his Inaugural Parade, not the 4th of July.

That actually makes it worse.

An inaugural parade is all about the candidate ... making it a military showcase is a not too subtle implied threat.

A 4th of July parade is all about America and Americans ... a military presence celebrates our past victories.

 

[GLASNOST]

Ike did nothing about any of it while in office, so who cares what he said in 1961on his way out, after presiding over the Cold War. He wasn't about to hurt his own elections over anything to do with 'military industrial complexes n stuff'. He just proved generals make lousy Presidents and politcians, as usual.

So you criticise the man who warned you of what was to come and you ignore his advice on how to prevent it? Real smart. Not.

Ike's forces could have taken Berlin at the closing of WW2 but FDR ordered them to halt and allow the Russian hoard to take the city. ....... .

Bull shit. The Soviets won the war fair and square.

Rubbish. They were crushed by the time the Brits rescued them. They were just the hired help kept alive by Roosevelt.

As for Whtiehall's usual BS FDR bashing, it's rubbish, too; Ike determined where we would stop, he chose that line at the beginning of the war. Berlin was not an important military objective, so no need to take it,it was rubble. Ike chose to stop at a defensible line, is all. FDR let him make the decision.

It astounds me that people like yourself believe such poppycock ... and then pass it off and spread it around as though it was truth.

 

[westwall]

You don't list a single example from Ike's speech. Nor do you explain how Ike's ideas counter "Trumpism."

All you got is the zinger that I oughten to write reviews.

Go away. Why would I post any example from IKE's farewell address, he said it all. You cherry pick a word or two and expect me to list what is self evident in the entire address? That's an amateur's rhetorical device, one I won't take seriously.

You are so impressed with Ike's common sense message for the future yet you refuse to list a single word he said nor to attempt to discuss it. This isn't about my rhetorical devices, this is proof that you have nothing of your own to say.

The Address is impressive, maybe you support trump and feel that IKE has criticized trump from the past. That is my figurative take, along with his sincere logos, pathos and ethos.

Yes, the address was impressive. Pity you still haven't pointed out ANYTHING Ike actually said. All you got is jabs against Trump, and some fancy figurative flopsap in. Congrats on a thread that says nothing.

What is it with you guys, do you meed a mentor see what is clear? Why do I need to point out the disparity between IKE's vision and trump's? I'll give you one, and a simple one:

IKE spoke of putting the house in order, trump in every way and every day is divisive.

You have nothing original. All you are capable of seems to be watching a video, twisting it in some way to generate an attack on trump, and that's it.

You have no original thoughts of your own. You are merely a parrot.

As far as the speech, it was fine, it was fairly simplistic, but he was fairly accurate.

What you don't mention, because as a history reader you stuck, is Ike took most of his MIC thoughts from Smedley Butler.

THAT is an outstanding speech. I suggest you read it. Your historical knowledge is both narrow, and shallow.

Kind of like you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Go away. Why would I post any example from IKE's farewell address, he said it all. You cherry pick a word or two and expect me to list what is self evident in the entire address? That's an amateur's rhetorical device, one I won't take seriously.

You are so impressed with Ike's common sense message for the future yet you refuse to list a single word he said nor to attempt to discuss it. This isn't about my rhetorical devices, this is proof that you have nothing of your own to say.

The Address is impressive, maybe you support trump and feel that IKE has criticized trump from the past. That is my figurative take, along with his sincere logos, pathos and ethos.

Yes, the address was impressive. Pity you still haven't pointed out ANYTHING Ike actually said. All you got is jabs against Trump, and some fancy figurative flopsap in. Congrats on a thread that says nothing.

What is it with you guys, do you meed a mentor see what is clear? Why do I need to point out the disparity between IKE's vision and trump's? I'll give you one, and a simple one:

IKE spoke of putting the house in order, trump in every way and every day is divisive.

You have nothing original. All you are capable of seems to be watching a video, twisting it in some way to generate an attack on trump, and that's it.

You have no original thoughts of your own. You are merely a parrot.

As far as the speech, it was fine, it was fairly simplistic, but he was fairly accurate.

What you don't mention, because as a history reader you stuck, is Ike took most of his MIC thoughts from Smedley Butler.

THAT is an outstanding speech. I suggest you read it. Your historical knowledge is both narrow, and shallow.

Kind of like you.

As an expository writer you fail in every attempt (you seem to believe a personal attack is a rebuttal). As the DICK Cheney once said, got F yourself.

And don't accuse me of doing what I wrote in this post and example of an ad hominem, that too would expose nothing of substance but for your ignorance.

 

[Picaro]

So you criticise the man who warned you of what was to come and you ignore his advice on how to prevent it? Real smart. Not.

So I point out the rela historical facts; he waited until he was out of office, so his 'warning' was hardly 'brave' or even effective. It was just political ass covering.

It astounds me that people like yourself believe such poppycock ... and then pass it off and spread it around as though it was truth.

Take it up with WW II historians, especially Ike's biographers. Just becuase you'rea n ignorant ass with some spin to peddle doesn't obligate me to kiss your ass. Eisenhower was asked during the interview meeting among the American and British General Staffs what strategies he would use, and he returned in 45 minutes with his plan, and he followed to the letter; where he stopped was a much more defensible line than racing to Berlin would have left our forces in case of further hostilities. They gave him the command over Lord Alan Brooke as a result of that plan.

Berlin wasn't an important military objective, and he chose that stopping place years before we got there. Whether or not you like that doesn't mean a thing, that's the way it was. I don't have a problem with his WW II command; that doesn't mean I have to pretend his political career was fgrand too; he made a lot of errors in judgement as President.

 

[Jets]

Too bad men like Dwight Eisenhower no longer exist in politics. That was the definition of being above the polemics.

 

[Picaro]

Dwight D "Operation Wetback" Eisenhower.

One of his best policy decisions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Too bad men like Dwight Eisenhower no longer exist in politics. That was the definition of being above the polemics.

Sadly those above don't know the meaning of polemics, if they did they would never have supported or continued to support trump (unless they are just like trump).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Too bad men like Dwight Eisenhower no longer exist in politics. That was the definition of being above the polemics.

Sadly those above don't know the meaning of polemics, if they did they would never have supported or continued to support trump (unless they are just like trump).

You supported "Operation Wetback"

 

[GLASNOST]

So you criticise the man who warned you of what was to come and you ignore his advice on how to prevent it? Real smart. Not.

So I point out the rela historical facts; he waited until he was out of office, so his 'warning' was hardly 'brave' or even effective. It was just political ass covering.

I've seen this sort of pseudo logic before. Some guy laying in the gutter, his body saturated with heroine and his last words as he dies is, "Whatever you do son, don't start taking drugs!" By your way of thinking his advice is to be ignored because he never stopped taking the stuff himself and only gave his warning as his life was ending.

It astounds me that people like yourself believe such poppycock ... and then pass it off and spread it around as though it was truth.

Take it up with WW II historians, especially Ike's biographers. Just becuase you'rea n ignorant ass with some spin to peddle doesn't obligate me to kiss your ass. Eisenhower was asked during the interview meeting among the American and British General Staffs what strategies he would use, and he returned in 45 minutes with his plan, and he followed to the letter; where he stopped was a much more defensible line than racing to Berlin would have left our forces in case of further hostilities. They gave him the command over Lord Alan Brooke as a result of that plan.

Berlin wasn't an important military objective, and he chose that stopping place years before we got there. Whether or not you like that doesn't mean a thing, that's the way it was. I don't have a problem with his WW II command; that doesn't mean I have to pretend his political career was fgrand too; he made a lot of errors in judgement as President.

Now THERE'S the spin you were talking about. Sheer poppycock. It's all ad hoc chicanery to rob the Soviet's of the prize they deserved. The U.S. is well-known for such tomfoolery. Just like when Mikael Gorbatjov gave up "the wall". Then, (AND ONLY THEN) Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan saunters in and says, "Mr. Gorbatjov, tear down this wall!" And the American shit-fer-brains whoop and holler about how Reagan and the U.S. won the "Cold War". Really pitiful are the sheeple.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you criticise the man who warned you of what was to come and you ignore his advice on how to prevent it? Real smart. Not.

So I point out the rela historical facts; he waited until he was out of office, so his 'warning' was hardly 'brave' or even effective. It was just political ass covering.

I've seen this sort of pseudo logic before. Some guy laying in the gutter, his body saturated with heroine and his last words as he dies is, "Whatever you do son, don't start taking drugs!" By your way of thinking his advice is to be ignored because he never stopped taking the stuff himself and only gave his warning as his life was ending.

It astounds me that people like yourself believe such poppycock ... and then pass it off and spread it around as though it was truth.

Take it up with WW II historians, especially Ike's biographers. Just becuase you'rea n ignorant ass with some spin to peddle doesn't obligate me to kiss your ass. Eisenhower was asked during the interview meeting among the American and British General Staffs what strategies he would use, and he returned in 45 minutes with his plan, and he followed to the letter; where he stopped was a much more defensible line than racing to Berlin would have left our forces in case of further hostilities. They gave him the command over Lord Alan Brooke as a result of that plan.

Berlin wasn't an important military objective, and he chose that stopping place years before we got there. Whether or not you like that doesn't mean a thing, that's the way it was. I don't have a problem with his WW II command; that doesn't mean I have to pretend his political career was fgrand too; he made a lot of errors in judgement as President.

Now THERE'S the spin you were talking about. Sheer poppycock. It's all ad hoc chicanery to rob the Soviet's of the prize they deserved. The U.S. is well-known for such tomfoolery. Just like when Mikael Gorbatjov gave up "the wall". Then, (AND ONLY THEN) Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan saunters in and says, "Mr. Gorbatjov, tear down this wall!" And the American shit-fer-brains whoop and holler about how Reagan and the U.S. won the "Cold War". Really pitiful are the sheeple.

LOL

Gorby wanted to end the USSR.

 

[westwall]

You are so impressed with Ike's common sense message for the future yet you refuse to list a single word he said nor to attempt to discuss it. This isn't about my rhetorical devices, this is proof that you have nothing of your own to say.

The Address is impressive, maybe you support trump and feel that IKE has criticized trump from the past. That is my figurative take, along with his sincere logos, pathos and ethos.

Yes, the address was impressive. Pity you still haven't pointed out ANYTHING Ike actually said. All you got is jabs against Trump, and some fancy figurative flopsap in. Congrats on a thread that says nothing.

What is it with you guys, do you meed a mentor see what is clear? Why do I need to point out the disparity between IKE's vision and trump's? I'll give you one, and a simple one:

IKE spoke of putting the house in order, trump in every way and every day is divisive.

You have nothing original. All you are capable of seems to be watching a video, twisting it in some way to generate an attack on trump, and that's it.

You have no original thoughts of your own. You are merely a parrot.

As far as the speech, it was fine, it was fairly simplistic, but he was fairly accurate.

What you don't mention, because as a history reader you stuck, is Ike took most of his MIC thoughts from Smedley Butler.

THAT is an outstanding speech. I suggest you read it. Your historical knowledge is both narrow, and shallow.

Kind of like you.

As an expository writer you fail in every attempt (you seem to believe a personal attack is a rebuttal). As the DICK Cheney once said, got F yourself.

And don't accuse me of doing what I wrote in this post and example of an ad hominem, that too would expose nothing of substance but for your ignorance.

ooooh, you use big words, good for you! My point remains, you, like your fellow pseudo intellectuals, c clayton, and marcatl, love to trot out some video, pontificate about it from your particular POV, but never really say anything about the video you present. Instead, you wait for someone to post something and then you try and riff off of what they said.

Next time, instead of your typical "so what do you think about that?" silliness, how about you tell us what YOU think about what you posted, with depth. Not your usual shallow take on things that are usually quite substantial.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Address is impressive, maybe you support trump and feel that IKE has criticized trump from the past. That is my figurative take, along with his sincere logos, pathos and ethos.

Yes, the address was impressive. Pity you still haven't pointed out ANYTHING Ike actually said. All you got is jabs against Trump, and some fancy figurative flopsap in. Congrats on a thread that says nothing.

What is it with you guys, do you meed a mentor see what is clear? Why do I need to point out the disparity between IKE's vision and trump's? I'll give you one, and a simple one:

IKE spoke of putting the house in order, trump in every way and every day is divisive.

You have nothing original. All you are capable of seems to be watching a video, twisting it in some way to generate an attack on trump, and that's it.

You have no original thoughts of your own. You are merely a parrot.

As far as the speech, it was fine, it was fairly simplistic, but he was fairly accurate.

What you don't mention, because as a history reader you stuck, is Ike took most of his MIC thoughts from Smedley Butler.

THAT is an outstanding speech. I suggest you read it. Your historical knowledge is both narrow, and shallow.

Kind of like you.

As an expository writer you fail in every attempt (you seem to believe a personal attack is a rebuttal). As the DICK Cheney once said, got F yourself.

And don't accuse me of doing what I wrote in this post and example of an ad hominem, that too would expose nothing of substance but for your ignorance.

ooooh, you use big words, good for you! My point remains, you, like your fellow pseudo intellectuals, c clayton, and marcatl, love to trot out some video, pontificate about it from your particular POV, but never really say anything about the video you present. Instead, you wait for someone to post something and then you try and riff off of what they said.

Next time, instead of your typical "so what do you think about that?" silliness, how about you tell us what YOU think about what you posted, with depth. Not your usual shallow take on things that are usually quite substantial.

P1: oooooh a classical logical fallacy, the every appearing ad hominem.

P2: It appears you've never read a non fiction book. I have a fun read to recommend, FEAR, Trump in the White House, by Bob Woodward. It includes 32 pages of Source Notes at its end and before a comprehensive Index.

I'm not writing a book, my words are my opinion and yet I do offer sources on a number of occasions to support the facts - not alternative facts as Kellyanne Conway so foolishly admitted.

 

[westwall]

Yes, the address was impressive. Pity you still haven't pointed out ANYTHING Ike actually said. All you got is jabs against Trump, and some fancy figurative flopsap in. Congrats on a thread that says nothing.

What is it with you guys, do you meed a mentor see what is clear? Why do I need to point out the disparity between IKE's vision and trump's? I'll give you one, and a simple one:

IKE spoke of putting the house in order, trump in every way and every day is divisive.

You have nothing original. All you are capable of seems to be watching a video, twisting it in some way to generate an attack on trump, and that's it.

You have no original thoughts of your own. You are merely a parrot.

As far as the speech, it was fine, it was fairly simplistic, but he was fairly accurate.

What you don't mention, because as a history reader you stuck, is Ike took most of his MIC thoughts from Smedley Butler.

THAT is an outstanding speech. I suggest you read it. Your historical knowledge is both narrow, and shallow.

Kind of like you.

As an expository writer you fail in every attempt (you seem to believe a personal attack is a rebuttal). As the DICK Cheney once said, got F yourself.

And don't accuse me of doing what I wrote in this post and example of an ad hominem, that too would expose nothing of substance but for your ignorance.

ooooh, you use big words, good for you! My point remains, you, like your fellow pseudo intellectuals, c clayton, and marcatl, love to trot out some video, pontificate about it from your particular POV, but never really say anything about the video you present. Instead, you wait for someone to post something and then you try and riff off of what they said.

Next time, instead of your typical "so what do you think about that?" silliness, how about you tell us what YOU think about what you posted, with depth. Not your usual shallow take on things that are usually quite substantial.

P1: oooooh a classical logical fallacy, the every appearing ad hominem.

P2: It appears you've never read a non fiction book. I have a fun read to recommend, FEAR, Trump in the White House, by Bob Woodward. It includes 32 pages of Source Notes at its end and before a comprehensive Index.

I'm not writing a book, my words are my opinion and yet I do offer sources on a number of occasions to support the facts - not alternative facts as Kellyanne Conway so foolishly admitted.

You and c clayton , the other logical fallacy spewer, must be related. The facts are simple, you pretend to be a serious, thoughtful person, but your actions point to a shallow, narrow minded thinker.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ike rounded up and repatriated the Mexicans.

Trump needs to be more like Ike

We like Ike

Don't be a hack, just do an Operation Wetback

 

[Picaro]

So you criticise the man who warned you of what was to come and you ignore his advice on how to prevent it? Real smart. Not.

So I point out the rela historical facts; he waited until he was out of office, so his 'warning' was hardly 'brave' or even effective. It was just political ass covering.

I've seen this sort of pseudo logic before. Some guy laying in the gutter, his body saturated with heroine and his last words as he dies is, "Whatever you do son, don't start taking drugs!" By your way of thinking his advice is to be ignored because he never stopped taking the stuff himself and only gave his warning as his life was ending.

It astounds me that people like yourself believe such poppycock ... and then pass it off and spread it around as though it was truth.

Take it up with WW II historians, especially Ike's biographers. Just becuase you'rea n ignorant ass with some spin to peddle doesn't obligate me to kiss your ass. Eisenhower was asked during the interview meeting among the American and British General Staffs what strategies he would use, and he returned in 45 minutes with his plan, and he followed to the letter; where he stopped was a much more defensible line than racing to Berlin would have left our forces in case of further hostilities. They gave him the command over Lord Alan Brooke as a result of that plan.

Berlin wasn't an important military objective, and he chose that stopping place years before we got there. Whether or not you like that doesn't mean a thing, that's the way it was. I don't have a problem with his WW II command; that doesn't mean I have to pretend his political career was fgrand too; he made a lot of errors in judgement as President.

Now THERE'S the spin you were talking about. Sheer poppycock. It's all ad hoc chicanery to rob the Soviet's of the prize they deserved. The U.S. is well-known for such tomfoolery. Just like when Mikael Gorbatjov gave up "the wall". Then, (AND ONLY THEN) Ronald "Bonzo" Reagan saunters in and says, "Mr. Gorbatjov, tear down this wall!" And the American shit-fer-brains whoop and holler about how Reagan and the U.S. won the "Cold War". Really pitiful are the sheeple.

You're obviously an idiot. the Soviets were toast; British aid arrived in time to save Moscow, and the Soviets were on life support by the West from then on, for everything from av gas to boots. The Allied bombing campaigns handed you near total air superiority, you could even run missions with old WW I biplanes at night. In hindsight, some of the right wing cranks are correct in one respect, we should have let Hitler finish you off; we could easily have done without you.

 

[GLASNOST]

Gorby wanted to end the USSR.

No, he didn't. Gorbatjov was a Socialist through and through and he disliked what Stalinism had done to the people of the USSR and how the government was unwilling to relinquish the power and paranoia that Stalin had introduced. Gorbatjov wanted to retain the USSR through reforms and wishes of the people. He wanted to do what Alexander Dubček tried to do in Czechoslovakia in 1968. However, the rush to break free from decades of Stalinism was too much for the population to invest in reforms. They wanted out immediately. So rather than crush the populace as had been done so many times before, Gorbatjov gave in to the people's demands and set them free.

 

[GLASNOST]

You're obviously an idiot. the Soviets were toast; British aid arrived in time to save Moscow, and the Soviets were on life support by the West from then on, for everything from av gas to boots. The Allied bombing campaigns handed you near total air superiority, you could even run missions with old WW I biplanes at night. In hindsight, some of the right wing cranks are correct in one respect, we should have let Hitler finish you off; we could easily have done without you.

 

[Picaro]

You're obviously an idiot. the Soviets were toast; British aid arrived in time to save Moscow, and the Soviets were on life support by the West from then on, for everything from av gas to boots. The Allied bombing campaigns handed you near total air superiority, you could even run missions with old WW I biplanes at night. In hindsight, some of the right wing cranks are correct in one respect, we should have let Hitler finish you off; we could easily have done without you.

View attachment 270741

Yes, you can't rebut the facts of the matter, not when there are those recordings of your own WW II Generals establishing them as well as the historical record.