[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[David Aikema]

On 8/10/05, dmc <edoc7 at verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.)

I'll agree that it was in a situation of duress, and that the
government wasn't overly stable, but at the time the Nazis were the
largest party in the Reichstag, and Hitler only became Chancellor as
part of a coalition government, in which other party in the coalition
had believed that he could be controlled.

(Nitpicking: in the Weimar Republic the President appointed the
Chancellor - the Chancellor didn't appoint)

> Facts and truth do not vary
> merely because someone asserts a contrary version.

I can agree with that.

> >>(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.

In general, it can be argued that with imperialism there is mutual
advantage for both imperialist and imperialized.  It's also entirely
possible that the advantage for the imperial power is only
short-lived.

> 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.

You could try to make much the same argument for the British Empire. 
Perhaps not quite so much for political freedom, but for peace and
prosperity (and perhaps personal freedom as well - I'm not sure) at
great expense to Britain.

> > 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.

I'll admit that I wouldn't have wanted to live in Eastern Europe.  As
I stated in my original response, I do feel that this argument is
rather weak, but at the same time wonder if it may have a grain of
truth to it.  The Marshall Plan would basically force nations to
decide between capitalism and communism, rather than perhaps being
able to maintain a more neutral status.  You could for example note,
that the formation of NATO predated the Warsaw Pact, and its creation
may well have contributed to the polarization of the region, pushing
nations not within it further into the Soviet grasp.

> >>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.

What became the original colonies was originally part of the British
empire, and therefore British soil.  So, if I want to separate my
local area from a larger area, am I permitted to take up arms to do
so?

> > 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.

Could it be that he was removed as a scapegoat?  Or removed because he
didn't think that the approach the current leadership was taking was
correct?  Existing through 4 administrations, both republican and
democrat would seem to indicate that he was more than just a political
hack, or an incompetent bumbler.

The way that you phrase your sentence above - "the clinton
administration blew obvious opportunities" - does note that the
Clinton administration does bear at least a large part of that
responsibility, in that it was unable to carry out plans that it
should have - not that Richard Clarke's suggested plans were bad (BTW,
I should admit to not having read the complete book?)

As you mentioned before, those in power do know certain classified
information unknown to the general populace, so even now we're
unlikely to be getting the full story behind Richard Clarke.

> 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.

To suggest that American actions may have contributed to a problem
does not excuse (eg.) terrorists from moral culpability for their
actions, but is simply a suggestion that American actions may not have
been blameless.

Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, 1 Corinthians 8:13 all seems to me to imply that
one's actions may lead other's into sin, but at the same time does not
excuse those others of blame for their actions.

> 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

Consider the PATRIOT act, for example - what have Americans lost as a
result of it?

People tend to talk of losing rights temporarily in order to win a war
on terror, but how does one determine that the war is over and it is
time to restore rights when the group(s) being fought may at times
keep a fairly low profile when preparing for attacks and is
decentralized?

David