Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions.
> or powerful as a five-star general who
You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem.
> Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed
No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have tried, and he would have been cockblocked. Too much money in it. Do you think the coast states would have wanted fleets mothballed with their economies tanking soon afterward?
> Prior to WWII in this country the phrase "standing army" was one of derision.
Why isn't it now? Why when I mention the idea that I think having a standing army is bad now, people treat me like a kook?
The truth is, you want to have a standing army. You vote that way. You get neurotically worried if someone like me suggests that maybe we don't need a navy at all (but how would we save the poor oppressed people of X with our bombs and collateral damage?!!?!).
> At this point, the only way to stop these particular pigs
You might want to re-read your comment. Upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7949955), I've already made the unnecessary-military argument you're struggling to articulate, and I mentioned the "standing army" phenomenon here because Eisenhower's voters had lived most of their lives in that intellectual climate. It's clear that he could have relied on that built-in skepticism in a way that no leader today could.
Now I'm "a pig" because I'm a little skeptical of the tired Eisenhower hagiography one always reads in these threads? Just face it, your hero didn't save us. Anyway the MIC is just a specific example of a general trend with this nation. You might even like some of the other examples: the War on Drugs, the War on Immigrants, the War on Fat, etc. If a system always does the same thing, one expects that system to keep doing that thing. "Voting" isn't somehow external to the system under discussion.
Nobody claimed stupidity. Well-informedness is a matter of security clearance.
> You have all the power in the world. blah, blah, blah
Why hide behind ambiguous vitriol? If you actually have a point make it.
> Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed.
Executive orders give the POTUS extraordinary powers during war-time and times of national emergency. Entire wars have been fought upon executive order. Do you want to discuss specifics or just continue being nasty to people you're talking to? See http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/01/29/obama-could-issue-an...
> You're the pig.
Classy. What particular item of conversation makes you say that to the person you're responding to? I didn't see anything that could have provoked that.
Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions.
> or powerful as a five-star general who
You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem.
> Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed
No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have tried, and he would have been cockblocked. Too much money in it. Do you think the coast states would have wanted fleets mothballed with their economies tanking soon afterward?
> Prior to WWII in this country the phrase "standing army" was one of derision.
Why isn't it now? Why when I mention the idea that I think having a standing army is bad now, people treat me like a kook?
The truth is, you want to have a standing army. You vote that way. You get neurotically worried if someone like me suggests that maybe we don't need a navy at all (but how would we save the poor oppressed people of X with our bombs and collateral damage?!!?!).
> At this point, the only way to stop these particular pigs
You're the pig.