[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[dmc]

> When Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg, the
> Nazis were the largest single party in the German Reichstag (although
> not a majority).  Hitler did come into office with a criminal record
> (tax evasion, and had served jail time for an attempted takeover in
> Munich in 1924 amongst other things).

As I have read of the history the Chancellor appointed Hitler under
extreme duress, to the level that would qualify as rendering it
non-binding under contract law.  (e.g. If someone puts a gun to your
head and says to sign the contract selling them your Mercedes for
$1.00 the contract would be readily voided.)

>>The USA has never in modern history engaged in any war for imperialistic
>>purposes 
> Not all would agree with such a statement.

They would be absolutely wrong on the facts of history, no matter
their partisan cries to the contrary.  Facts and truth do not vary
merely because someone asserts a contrary version.

>>(had we been imperialistic we'd directly control Europe,
>>Japan, and other sections of the world).
> If you can control events in there through other means (economic
> dominance for example), then there's the whole notion of informal
> imperialism.  An informal empire is a whole lot cheaper than a formal
> one.

Given that Japan has become our fiercest competitor in the automotive
industry, Europe in airplane manufacturing, and others in additional
areas there is little evidence that we have controlled them to their
detriment.

Indeed, these countries have been blessed by freedom, peace, and
prosperity they never knew prior to our relationship with them --
at great military and financial sacrifice to the citizens of the
USA.

Selfishly biting the hands that have rescued, rebuilt, and nurtured
you is hardly evidence of people of character or wisdom.

> There was for example the Soviet suggestion that the 1947 Marshall
> plan was imperialistic, as it required "economic cooperation" from all
> countries that aid was offered to.  (I'm not really over taken in by
> this particular argument though)

Quoting Soviet propaganda as a means of criticizing America?
Shall we poll their subject nations as to the benefits of their
"influence" over eastern Europe.

Please.

>>It means that one does not commit functional acts of sedition or
>>treason.
> So, why is the United States now independent of Britain?

As I said, if you disagree, leave and take up the other side.
In the American revolution some remained loyal to Britain,
some chose independence.

To pretend loyalty yet to attack ones home nation is hypocrisy
at best.

> Consider that support for this argument comes also from people like
> Richard Clarke - counter-terrorism advisor to several successive US
> presidents including GWB.  It's very hard to argue that he didn't have
> a good grasp of what was going on.

Actually, Clark was dead wrong over and over and over and was
eventually separated from office due to his incompetence and his
arrogance.

One must recall that it was during Clark's time in power that
the Clinton Administration blew multiple obvious opportunities
to deal with people and circumstances that would have prevented
911.

> I'll agree that criminal acts are crossing the line, but I see no
> inherent problem with even some very strong criticism of a leader's
> action (although only if such criticism can be justified through a
> look at the evidence - as you argued later).  In fact, as power is
> conceptually drawn from the people in republics and democracies,
> theres an argument out that might label this part of a citizen's
> responsibility.  I think that some of the attacks on the legitimacy of
> the George W. Bush have gone too far though.

When one questions the loyalty of a President based on specious
charges of unproved conspiracies, corruption, or of greed one has
at-best crossed the line into libel and slander.

When one provides excuses for the barbaric and genocidal acts of
sworn enemies of America as a nation then one is in functional
violation of the intent, if not the letter, of sedition and treason
laws.

In the days of more responsible politics the party/philosophy not
in power prided itself on being the "loyal opposition".  What we
see now is full blown selfishness in the form of acquiring power
at any cost, slandering the opposition, undermining the defense
of the country, and Jane Fonda-like campaigning for the cause of
the enemy vs America.

Hitler and his minions took a similar tact and it surprised the
older leaders of his day.  They could not imagine that anyone
would stoop so low.  This is what destroyed the re-election of
the first President Bush, he underestimated the sleaziness of
the opposition as he was raised with a more British view of
fair play.  No so the son, he learned through business and
Texas politics that there is no place some people will not go to
gain an advantage.

We are at war and both our freedom of government and our freedom
of religion are at risk.  The sooner Americans get that the sooner
they will discipline the irresponsible in Hollywood, the major media,
and the Left and Right extremists in American politics.

-- 
Respectfully,
David M. Colburn, D.Min, MACo, etc.
http://bibleseven.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~