General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Big difference--

The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.


One cannot fight a war without casualties.


If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not have
been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
have
been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.


The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

I wrote, knowing that it wouldn't go unchallenged:

I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a
tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while
claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt

Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

It -sure- takes a lot of courage for a politician to call for tax cuts. C'mon,
Ed.

As I am sure you recall, Reagan called Carter to task during the 1980 campaign
on budget deficits. They he like quintupled them. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out. Always.

As an aside, do you recall Reagan saying that he understood what it was like to
be separated from loved ones during war? Shortly thereafter, someone pointed
out that Reagan lived in the same house for three years during WWII.


Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates

Do you recall the 1979 oil embargo? Gee whiz, Ed. I'm not real impressed
here.

Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to us.
And we, I guess with some skill played them off against each other. But they
needed cash and the oil flowed in a way that Carter couldn't count on. With
the exception of some hostage taking, Islamic militancy largely feasted on
itself while Reagan was in office.

in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

So........when you were flying missions over Viet Nam, that had nothing to do
with the containment of the USSR?

The containment of the USSR was a 40 year process pursued by every U.S.
president. Reagan just happened to be in office when the balloon went up, the
same way Nixon got to talk to the Apollo 11 astronauts. The groundwork was
already laid -- mostly by Democratic presidents.

You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

I think the consensus is that Laffer is a laugher. I don't claim to know much
about it. I do think that not paying your bills -- the course that Reagan
chose, does not denote any particular courage. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out.


And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way.

Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
scumbag Olliver North.

While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

So was beheading Nick Berg, I guess.


Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Who, like Jesse Jackson?

Listen, Reagan said --I remember this distinctly -- "this government will
never negotiate with terrorists", when he knew full well that exact thing was
happening.

And -this- is REALLY important. A democracy can only function if the people
have information to make informed choices.

In the case of supporting the Contras, it was entirely within the purview of
the voters to be presented with the question:

"Should we fund the Contras or not?"

But the Reagan adminstration went behind the backs of the voters, sold off
government property they had no title to, and used the money on a cause that
the people had indicated (through their representatives in Congress) that they
didn't care for.

My God, Reagan was SUCH a bum. Okay, maybe it's a toss-up between Bush 43 and
Reagan for worst president ever.

You know, President Lincoln said that:

"By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have
wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with
equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very
short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no
Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure
the Government in the short space of four years."

As long as the people retain their virtue, charlatans like Bush 43 and Reagan
will be held up to the ridicule they so richly deserve.


Walt

If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
have
been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.


The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

I certainly don't know that -just- because you and that near moron George Bush
Jr. say it.

I know that the former SecNav James Webb have said that it is a strategic
blunder, and General Zinni says it was a strategic blunder, and many other
jefes of national policy experience say that.

Just because that moron Bush says it, doesn't make it so. That's the first
lesson you need to learn in order to shrug off your Orwellian reliance on
someone elses' unsupported opinion.

Now, as I've said, I don't need a general to tell me that Iraq is a ****ing
mess. All I need do is note that the head of the Iraqi Governing Counsel was
blown up --right outside-- the US enclave to get a glimmer that things are not
going right. You can do that too.

You can also -- "look ma, no hands!" make your own determination that when the
attourney general says we can expect a major terrorist act in this country
before the election, that invading Iraq and incurring 5,000 casualties didn't
-exactly- bring about the outcome we thought it would.

Walt

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
have
been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.


The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

Finally I've got it! Since actual terrorists are sort of hard to find,
Iraq is some sort of a surrogate for the real thing; a whipping boy so to speak.
But if we can go anywhere we want to fight this war on terror, (even if it makes
no sense) then why not choose some place more convenient than Iraq? How about:
Cuba? Canada? Chicago?

On 30 May 2004 17:57:21 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I wrote, knowing that it wouldn't go unchallenged:

I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a
tough decision.

Walt

Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

It -sure- takes a lot of courage for a politician to call for tax cuts. C'mon,
Ed.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to an electorate in which the
lowest 40% of wage earners pay NO taxes and the top 5% of wage earners
pay 40% of the total federal revenue and say that the economy will
benefit from cutting taxes and no, you folks who don't pay any taxes
won't be getting a cut.

As I am sure you recall, Reagan called Carter to task during the 1980 campaign
on budget deficits. They he like quintupled them. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out. Always.

Yes, Reagan was pointing out that an economy suffering 21% inflation
was increasingly paying more interest and less principle and therefore
providing fewer services to the people for much more money.

Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates

Do you recall the 1979 oil embargo? Gee whiz, Ed. I'm not real impressed
here.

Actually, the oil shortages started much closer to 1976. I was in
Spain at the time where gas was selling for $1.45/LITER!. In '79 I was
in Germany where it was becoming increasingly expensive as the Carter
economic policies had driven the dollar/mark exchange rate from 2.5
marks to the dollar to 1.45 marks per dollar. Each month my rent was
going up another $30/month. In the first eight months after Reagan's
election, my rent dropped nearly $400/month because of the rapidly
increasing strength of the US dollar. Similarly, after four years of
military pay freezes, I got a 22% pay raise which almost returned my
income to what it would have been with the suspended cost-of-living
increases that Carter withheld.

Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to us.

That would have been Iraq, the Soviet client-state vs Iran, the
capturer of our embassy in 1979 (whose hostages were released upon
Reagan taking office.) I've got to say I notice very little "beholden
to us" from either nation in 1980.

And we, I guess with some skill played them off against each other. But they
needed cash and the oil flowed in a way that Carter couldn't count on. With
the exception of some hostage taking, Islamic militancy largely feasted on
itself while Reagan was in office.

So, Islamic militancy that drove the Shah out in 1978 only became
successful after Reagan took office? I think your chronology is
asynchronous.

in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

So........when you were flying missions over Viet Nam, that had nothing to do
with the containment of the USSR?

It would be hard to attribute my (or anyone else' effort) in Vietnam
with the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years later. Most analysts
relate it to the economic pressure place on the SU by Reagan's
reversal of the Carter disarmament policies. They couldn't maintain
the guns over butter economic choices they were being driven to by
competition.

The containment of the USSR was a 40 year process pursued by every U.S.
president. Reagan just happened to be in office when the balloon went up, the
same way Nixon got to talk to the Apollo 11 astronauts. The groundwork was
already laid -- mostly by Democratic presidents.

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

I think the consensus is that Laffer is a laugher. I don't claim to know much
about it. I do think that not paying your bills -- the course that Reagan
chose, does not denote any particular courage. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out.

Laughing at what you "don't claim to know much about" is one available
course of action. Reagan submitted balanced budgets, but unfortunately
for most of his tenure a Democratic controlled congress chose to spend
the increased revenues. The budget comes from a two-branch of
government process and without the line item veto which Reagan lobbied
for strenuously, the President doesn't get a lot of flexibility in how
the money is appropriated.


And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way.

Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
scumbag Olliver North.

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout. (Debate about the correctness of that is
still ongoing, but that's the fact.) Certainly a strong case can be
made that Iran-Contra was wrong, but simply throwing the term out
without knowing the background does little to enhance understanding.

Ditto for labeling and name-calling.

While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

So was beheading Nick Berg, I guess.

Red herring, non-sequitur. Unrelated. Inflammatory.


Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Who, like Jesse Jackson?

Listen, Reagan said --I remember this distinctly -- "this government will
never negotiate with terrorists", when he knew full well that exact thing was
happening.

And -this- is REALLY important. A democracy can only function if the people
have information to make informed choices.

And -this- is REALLY important too! We are a constitutional republic
based on democratic principles. We are organized to have
representation, not majority rule by the electorate. We elect
representatives to become informed on incredibly complex choices.
That's what the founding fathers understood very well. The common man
has neither the resources nor the time nor the interest in many
political questions. We all like to think differently, ascribing great
wisdom to "we the people" but the fact is that we the people are
remarkably ill-equipped to deal with most of it.

In the case of supporting the Contras, it was entirely within the purview of
the voters to be presented with the question:

"Should we fund the Contras or not?"

No. The voters choose the government to make the decision in
consideration of the priorities, the available resources and the
alternatives. Your question, if placed before the voters, will always
get a "no". That isn't the way to conduct foreign or domestic policy.



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

Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to
us.

That would have been Iraq...

Do I read this right? We had an arms-for-hostages deal with Iraq? I always
thought it was --Iran--. Silly me.

Walt

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

Ummmm....Lessee. Truman, JFK and LBJ. That's three. Eisenhower and Nixon --
that seems to be two.

Throw in Carter and Reagan and it's still 4 to 3. I'd say -- I like
precision-- that 4 is bigger than 3.

This is it, Ed? Your best shot? No wonder people wail about the state of
American edcuation.


Walt

Walt

Reagan submitted balanced budgets...

What year was that?

Walt

Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
scumbag Olliver North.

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout.

The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction of
the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering more
than two years.

Article One, Section 8, para 12 reads:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years"

So you are flatly wrong, and not for the first time. Precision -- it's
precision you want, lad. Great thing for an educator, don't you know.

You should read the Constitution, Ed. It's a fabulous document.

Sorta odd for a military man and patriot like yourself not to be more familiar
with the parts of that document that impinge so directly on the military. But
I digress.

So.

Are you saying that President Ford -didn't- try to get Congress to throw some
-more- money/assets at Viet Nam?

They refused right? It's the same thing that happened in Iran-Contra. The
principle is the same. Now, had Gerald Ford gotten first LT North to sell TOW
missiles to some third party and then sent that money to the S. Viets, then
you'd have the same -principle- in action as what Reagan did.

Reagan was a bum. Olliver North is a scumbag. He dragged the good name of
the Marine Corps through the mud just like these "re-cycled hillbillies" have
done to the Army at Abu Ghraib. Of course these natioanl guardsmen had the
blessing of the SecDef. If you recall, Ed, Weinburger and George Shultz
opposed trading arms for hostages, but it went ahead any way.
"Poppy" said he wasn't in the loop, but that was a lie.



Walt