After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
confessed the following:

I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here.

Okey dokey...

Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just
something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no
matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but
lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine
and cheese.

Ture...in the ideal world every citizen is free. The problem is the
world is not simply black & white, yes or no. Today we're tied down in
Iraq trying provide those blessings of freedom. And hopefully in the
long run things will work out for those folks.

Sincerely how do you reconcile your desire for freedom for Iraqi
citizens now and 20 years ago when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and met with
Saddam Hussein and gave him the blessing and backing of the US gov't
(but not getting too pushy about chem warfare vs the Kurds or
Iranians)? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
The Iranians had released the American hostages when Reagan took
office...why not be consistant? My answer? **** happens.

And where do you draw the line at which countries will benefit from
our liberating their people? Do we go into Iran next? Syria? Saudi
Arabia (and kill all those wahabi islamist ****s)?

Then on to North Korea...and the PRC. Do you think Vietnam needs to be
liberated now? We spent a whole lot of money and got a whole lot of
guys killed, and by all appearances Vietnam is a pretty peaceful place
these days (and the citizens are happy and like Americans).

The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with
conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern
European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro
were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the
ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro.

I have no answer for that...I can't think of any US liberal leaders
(politicians) that were ever happy about the conditions on the
otherside of the Iron Curtain. Try to use Tom Hayden

The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and
just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist
totalitarian states in the world.

As a blanket statement that is incorrect. I strapped my ass to a jet
ready to "kill a commie for christ" (so to speak) and never once
thought it was foolish to defend western europe against the WP, or
defend the RoK against Kim Il-Sung (that ****).

Sincerely, without meaning to sound insulting...looking at the war in
SEA with all the secrecy (the war in Laos, the bombing of Cambodia)
and tell me what it accomplished in terms of spreading freedom?
Personally I think liberals object to the secrecy aspect..and de facto
lying about motives...and many are simply morally opposed to war.

Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR.

Not a Kerry scholar...help me out here. How many, or simply what were
the specifics. Surely you recognize that blanket statements don't make
it so.

No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters.

No argument from me. I don't think Iran-Contra was Reagan's finest
moment in office, but he was successful (unless you think more in
terms of the huge federal deficit at the end of his 2d term). And
before anybody howls in protest...Reagan was the MAN, he was at the
helm when the wall came down. May he rest in peace.

But when
it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist
rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record.

Hmmm, Truman defending the RoK (along with our UN friends) against
those godless ****s north of the 38th parallel, JFK facing down the
soviets over Berlin, JFK facing down the soviets over IRBMs in Cuba,
LBJ sending more troops to SEA because of the (bogus 2d attack) Gulf
of Tonkin...OK you got me there.

I notice you write "totalitarian or marxist rule," are other form of
non-democratic government acceptable? King Hussein of Jordan, the
House of Saud? Where do you personally draw the line? Over the years
the US has supported folks with names like Batista, Boun Oum, Chiang
Kai Shek, Franco, Salazar, Ngo Diem, Trujillo, the Somozas,
Verwoerd, Ydigoras. Paticipatory democracy (which I think you're
addressing) was not a hallmark of these clients.

I appreciate the debate.

Robey