Learn from the wise men of the past

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

Originally posted by Pick


You know what's funny? Your opinion represents the minority in America. Mine represents the majority.

i told you so

:o

[Pick]

Originally posted by igor@af


:right:

You know Igor, I really like your sense of humor.

[Pick]

Originally posted by Jimster



How is it offensive???? It's Hitler standing up in a car.........................

Sorry, I was adding a little liberal syndrome into my post. I wasn't serious.

[texan]

WOW.

Back to the original subject of this post and the on-topic respsonses, this is one of the most shocking threads I've read in awhile.

Firstly, I do not agree with Goering's qoute. Especially not in a democracy, and one which champions freedom of speech. If an unjust war were so easy to prosecute and the opinions of the people so easily manipulated, why then did Vietnam tear a deep rift into the American homefront? While leadership and power does afford one some ability to sway public opinion, this is not effective over the long term and in the face of contradictory evidence. This is just as easily illustrated by today's war in Iraq; though the majority of the American population supports the action, a significant percentage also disagree for one reason or another and their voices are heard everywhere and often. I would instead approach Goering and ask that if the questioning of authority is so natural to man (and anyone who has a kid knows this to be true), why then his stance on the ease of manipulating people? In a country without state run media, one that has freedom of speech and of the press, and one that encourages populace education in all it's forms; I submit that dissent during wartime is more natural than any other possible outcome.


And in regards to Hitler being a great leader, well that argument simply doesn't hold water. Look back to the earlier posts and you'll see qualifiers such as not having to worry about being for the right cause, or "despite his crimes against humanity". Leaders are to be judged not only by their actions, but their intentions AND perhaps most importantly the outcome of both. Hitler did one thing for his country: run it directly into the ground with a viscousness never before seen in modern military history. He may have been democratically elected, but the country soon become a martial law system under his command and his regime was ultimately responsible for the entire country's near destruction. That, ladies and gentlemen, doesn't make for a great leader. You can say he was a persuasive and charismatic speaker, you can say he was brilliantly ruthless and incredible driven, but you cannot say he was a great leader.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

who said he was a great leader? He just shifted the blame on someone and everyone believed him :o Everyone believed in him because he offered to make Germany powerful once more like before the Great War ie Prussia Germany Austria East European countries at the time. There are parties that are around like the Nazi's i.e BNP British Nationalist Party and there are too many old farts that believe the crap that they brew up.