From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:24:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.153440.23995@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <BvKF4L.L69@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com>,
>dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>
>|>Nevertheless, YOU HAVE benefitted from the military stability on the
>|>European continent due in some part to the presence of American troops.
>|>Your personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the argument.
>
>I have also suffered from US interference in our domestic affairs such as the
>intelligence center at GCHQ.
>
>US foriegn policy , particularly that of the republican right is not popular
>abroad. Particularly the invasion of Vietnam and the destabilisation of
>democratic governments in South and Central America.
>
>Perhaps you consider that we should attempt to extract payment from the Indians
>for the rather nice railway we built over there. Point is that as with the US
>stationing troops in europe it was done for self interest, not altruism.

Why would I advocate this?  I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that 
we should just get out of Europe.  When you asked me about the BAOR, I
said its your business.  Once again, whether or not you want to charge
India is your (and obviously their) business.

I have tried not to pass judgement nor opinion on *why* we were there, 
I merely claimed you benefitted from the presence of troops which 
were in Europe at our expense.

>Point of fact, the US did not "bail the British out". The US was 
>attacked by the Japanese and then Germany declared war on the US. The 
>only reason why the British got into the war in the first place was 
>that we were bailing Poland out.  Of course both the UK and the US 
>entered the war because they knew that if they did not Germany 
>would attack them.

Point of fact, my grandfather was there for the First World War.  

In 1918, there were over two million American troops fighting in
France for the Allies.  I venture to state that one of the major
reasons that the German offensive of 1918 ultimately failed was the
reserves available to the Allies which were a direct result of the
stretches of the front held and advanced by American troops.

As to the Second World War:

Which do you mean, that the "only reason why the British got into
the war in the first place was that we were bailing Poland out", or
"both the UK and the US entered the war because..."?

The situation leading to British involvement in the Second World
War was due in part to a fear of German attack.  However, the use
of the phrase "bail-out" relative to Poland is a misnomer.  The 
British government, attempting to retrieve its reputation after 
having agreed to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to the Nazis for "peace 
in our time" (the infamous Munich Pact), signed an ALLIANCE with 
the Polish nation.  One of the terms was to declare war on Germany 
in the event of a German violation of Polish territory.  The 
British government myopically believed that this would somehow 
dissuade Hitler.  In fact, Hitler was genuinely astonished that 
the British and French honored their commitment to Poland after 
being such "worms" regarding the Czechs.

The United States, on the other hand, supplied large amounts of
war material, intelligence, and merchant marine to aide the
British Empire commencing before the fall of France.  This aide,
known as Lend-Lease (although Roosevelt also saw to it that 
other covert aide was also supplied), was provided in spite of 
the fact that the United States had no formal treaty with the 
British Empire and was not at war with Germany.

I do not consider these situations equivalent.

>|>>|>Why don't you read "United We Stand"? 
>|>>Why don't you read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital?
>|>Now, who's accusing whom of hysteria?  This obvious attempt to link
>|>Perot with Hitler is characteristic of the Church of the Born-Again
>|>Perot Haters.
>There are undenyable common elements. The simplistic approach to ecconomics
>based on the establishment of a command ecconomy for "a limited period". 
>The use of patriotic emblems to hide the core philosophy.

Here, Phill omits just what core philosophy he refers to.  In 
this manner, he leaves it open the possibility, or perhaps means 
to encourage, a subconcious connection between this unspecified 
"core philosophy" of Perot, and the commonly held notion of the 
core philosophy of Mein Kampf, namely, that of genocide as a 
means of obtaining racial purity.

In his prior article, Phill admitted his knowledge and use
of manipulative oratory techniques which he referred to as 
"demogoguery".  While Phill will no doubt use my above
paragraph as evidence of paranoia (and likely generalize
his condemnation to all Perot supporters), I think it not 
unreasonable to expect that he is equally willing and able 
to practice similar techniques in the written medium.

Earlier in the article which prompted this response, Phill says
in response to my query about why he bothers to post:

>Because the Perotistas are the worst advertisment for Perot. It is you 
>who damage his chances not me. I merely ensure that there are plenty of
>opportunities for those who read the net to see how narrow minded, 
>deperate and frightened Perot supporters are.

Concerning *narrowness of mind*, I do not believe a forum like
a USENET political newsgroup to provide sufficient evidence to 
make such a decision, especially as generic an indictment as
Phill advances here.

It is a common technique to evoke the spectre of Hitler when one
wishes to attack someone.  Such an action is considered by many, 
if not most, readers to be an indication of *desperation*, at least
when such accusations are made with insufficient explanation.

As far as *frightened*, you're right, at least in my case.  I am
afraid that if the American public continues to ignore the 
destructive policies and actions of our government, our children
cannot look forward to a better life.

Dave

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections