From: Robey Price

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.

Same here...

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.

Well Iran was still on our **** list, and they were the biggest threat at that
time in the Middle East. Iraq had not taken out hostages, and was not trying
to spread Islamic Revolution around, and in fact they were opposed to it also.

If they had been anywhere else in the world besides next to Iran, circumstances
would have been different. Hussien has had collossially bad strategic
judgement, and if he had not gassed the Kurds, or invaded Iraq, or pursued
nuclear programs, he would still be in power, and Iraq would not have been the
pariah it was most likely.

But I think everyone realizes we and the rest of the west should have taken a
harder line that we did against him and his chemical weapons actions. And I do
think around early 1990, DIA predicted that Iraq had the biggest probability of
being our next military opponent if there was military conflict.

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)?

Yes I think we can all agree those countries should be free. Iraq is enough of
a problem right now without having to worry about others. Going into others
too would guarantree failure for all of them. We can still promote freedom in
those countries however without military action. As for Saudi, unfortunately
as long as we use this much oil and gas, rather hard to do much there, and god
help us if radicals take power there.

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).

Yes we should promote efforts to change, and I think Vietnam is probably along
that path as it is, although has a ways to go. DPRK, well that is another
darling of the really far left groups. Another sticky situation, but yes,
should do what we can to bring them down with destab efforts. They should
implode at some point, and if we can help it along, we should.

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

Well the ones who may have not been happy, sure were content, based on their
displeasure for anyone who actually dared to want to roll back the Iron
Curtain. Look at how much leftists despised Reagan and the free markets
economists for daring to think the USSR could be defeated economically. They
all just wanted the USSR tolerated, and maybe contained.


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 ****).

And I am glad you did strap yourself into a jet, I am jealous, and glad for
your service. But that does not change the fact that the leftist movements
still thought it stupid and foolish to want to oppose the USSR, and if we only
just talk to them...
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.

Well it sure wasnt a real effort unfortunately, and some here know all too
well. While I would not call Johnson a leftist, Vietnam certainly was not an
effort to win.

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.

Yes he wanted to cancel the Peacekeeper ICBM, SDI (which many Soviets think was
the last straw in their economic defeat), B-1B, AH-64, Aegis cruisers, Patriot
SAM, AV-8B, F-14, AIM-54 and AIM-7...

All of those were vital in winning the cold war, in negotiation of weapons
treaties or being used in later conflicts.

“I see an enormous haughtiness in the United States trying to tell them what
to do,”

Kerry, in regards to the Sandinista Government.

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.

Complete agreement.

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 dont think the US really had a real leftist movement equivalent to modern
liberals, outside of Hollywood and Academia, until the mid-late 60s.

You cant call Truman, JFK, LBJ lefties or even liberal. They would have
nothing in common with the left wing of today.
They certainly did not believe in collectivist economics, and were very much
believed in, promoted freedom, both of personal liberties and economic freedom.
JFK was very much even a free market tax cutter.All three of those would
probably be anathmas in the current democratic party, based on their positions
then.



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.

Yes, and in hindsight we can see more now, and sometimes in our zeal to face
down communism, we allied ourselves with someone who wasnt really any better.

But I still believe that leftist movements were against promoting freedom in
the communist countries during the 80, based on their word of ridicule, their
actions to promote some of those same countries, and their demonstrations that
only served to help the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base