General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Robey Price" wrote in message
.. .

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.


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

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.

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.

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. Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every
Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR. He certainly ran quickly to
make friends with Ortega in the mid 80s. The American and Euro leftists even
ridiculed Reagan for daring Gorby to tear down the wall, and thought it just
was indicative of their pointy headed intellectual views of him being a
simpleton. The left has not just opposed efforts give other states freedom,
but often actively tried to support those states.

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






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

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

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

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:

Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.

Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

sincerely...give it your best shot...feel free to use multi-syllabic
words and compound complex sentences.

Let the games begin!

Robey

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote,
Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of
"separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay
rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial
polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see
Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government
says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so.

These are all good things in my book.


You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people
speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern
liberalism.



Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.


Medicare, Social Security, minimum wage laws, national health care, welfare,
race-based quotas, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:

You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people
speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern
liberalism.

Simply trying to pin you down on your definition.

Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that
demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be
fun.


Medicare, Social Security, minimum wage laws, national health care, welfare,
race-based quotas, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc.

Hmmm, Social Security is about controlling people? Minimum wages are
about controlling people? Universal health care is about controlling
people? Affirmative action...raced based quotas...got it. The only bit
of information that would complete my picture of you would be for you
to tell us, "I'm a god fearing christian...a compassionate
conservative."

I can't think of a single person that is getting rich off social
security. Folks living on the minimum wage are working multiple ****ty
paying jobs. Yeah those minimum wage workers love how they control
your life.

Health care...sister in law now in her 5th (and final more than
likely) year of fighting cancer, her teenage son with Down syndrome,
her husband with life threatening neurological disorder (his dad is
dying from it right now)...anyway, her meds cost $500+ and health
insurance premiums cost $700 per month. This ain't just some faceless
statistic to me...it's family.

Yeah she's controlling your life...

Income redistribution? Progressive income tax anybody? Got *any* idea
about the size of the tax burden on your grand children ( going
forward) to pay for the invasion and subsequent "nation building"
exercise? Don't blame liberals for this expense...suck it up and boast
about it.

YMMV

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the
French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How
many
WWII veterans have done that?

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?

Walt

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Libertarianism, for example.

Or Constitutionalism.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:56:18 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

The trend world-wide is for what is referred to as "mixed
economies"--some aspects of communism in that there is central
planning and governmental interference with the natural flow of supply
and demand; and some aspects of free market in which trade of goods
and services for profit by individuals is tolerated. Good example
would be the current state of China.

Interesting to note that the most noteworthy examples of
totalitarianism include Stalin, Mao and Hitler--two from the political
left extreme and one from the political right.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of
the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the
state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

Kudos to Ayn Rand.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

Certainly in the USA we love our little bits of socialism. Don't try
to take away our Social Security or Medicare. And be sure that we
include tax cuts for the "working poor" who pay no income tax to begin
with.

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the
tradeoff
between liberty and security.

Actually there is. Rousseau's Social Contract says that if we are to
live with the benefits of society we will have to restrict our freedom
of action. The catch is where upon the spectrum you want to place the
line.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush,
for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

So voting is totalitarian? Probably not in the case of the upcoming
election. But, there are some clear choices and the appeal to class
warfare on the one side is distinctly off-putting for me. I'm a firm
believer that I can best choose how to spend my money.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:35:48 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Most assuredly. While many dictatorships exist, most are authoritarian
rather than totalitarian. They simply don't have the resources to get
to the level of control required by totalitarianism.

Libertarianism, for example.

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government. Certainly privatization
is gaining favor and individual responsibility remains a touchstone of
one branch of American politcs, that is a long war from
libertarianism.

Or Constitutionalism.

And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world. I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

MPS, Auburn Univ (at Montgomery) 1978
MSIR, Troy State Univ (European Exension) 1981

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

No one has said they were.

Steve Swartz


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8