Great movie.....but Id like to make a point about Ike.......
I bought this movie last week (on DVD) and was pleasantly surprised. I found it very thought provoking (especially in this day and age). By the way, if you get the DVD they have several bonus features (such as audience Q&A, his appearances on several talk shows including Charlie Rose’s show).
One point I would like to make though. I think Ike was somewhat misrepresented in this film. The Eisenhower I remember was more of a Cold Warrior than this film represents. The Eisenhower Doctrine called for aide to any nation fighting communism and he said that the United States was "prepared to use armed force" anywhere in the Middle East against "aggression from any country controlled by international communism”.
Also, his farewell address was somewhat cherry picked. He explained in the address itself why the permanent arms industry was necessary. He said: ’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. 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.’ In other words: because of advances in technology, military research must be on-going. And that is especially true today. Furthermore, this film may give one the mistaken idea that Ike blamed the USA for the Cold War. From his farewell address [referring to communism]: 'We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.' So in other words: the USA was hardly the aggressor nation in the Cold War. And he went on to say that the challenge they posed had to be met.
One more thing. Gore Vidal dusted off the idea that the Atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary. A successful counter argument to this can be found in Richard Frank’s book: Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. Frank shows that the Japanese leadership was nowhere close to being ready to surrender before the bombings. (And even after the bombings some in that group were reluctant.)
But overall, these are only minor points in a question the film asks us (as American citizens) to ponder: should (apparent) American world hegemony remain permanent? I guess the better question is: what is the alternative? In the Cold War (for example) who would have checked the spread of communism? Who is now trying to stop nuclear proliferation? Since the UN is impotent; who else can meet these challenges? Certainly we have misused our power in some instances (see Iraq).....but I don’t see another alternative right now.
Idiot Block List: KDR/Presto, Alonzo-Mosley (and aliases), sharon 18, imnotracist, ibestupid