Harvard criticises Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher regimes

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You weren't at war with democratic Chile.
That was somewhere where freedom was cushed under
a fascist jackboot, and thousands of innocents were slaughtered.
Every bit as bad as worst Communist regimes.

No, Izzy. Seriously, from May 8th of 1945 until Christmas of 1991,
we were in the 3rd World War; no joke.

It was a war wherein communist slavery tried, did its best, to conquer the world.
I disapprove of authoritarianism including Fascism and Kennedy-liberalism.
I 'm glad that Mussolini was killed, but his form of dictatorship
was much milder, softer, less intrusive than was communist slavery.
Chile was only one of many battlegrounds in the 3rd World War.

Success in that war required energetic dedication of effort,
determination, and persistence; in default whereof,
we 'd have fallen into permanent worldwide slavery.

Fighting that war in a half-hearted way wud have been suicidal.
"In war, there is no substitute for victory." We did not have
the luxury of fooling around; we needed to be strong and resolute.

In 1943, Admiral Bull Halsey put up a big sign in an American
naval base in a South Pacific island named Tulagi, exhorting
American sailors to:
"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs!" Later in the war,
he was quoted in the press as saying of the Japs:
"We are drowning and burning them all over the Pacific,
and it is just as much pleasure to burn them as to drown them."
I offer this as an example of the proper attitude
toward the enemy in war, and of the attitude that we needed
toward our communist enemy during the Third World War,
including, but not limited to, its battleground in what u
have called "democratic Chile." I might point out that
the nazis were successful in democratically electing
a plurality of members (43%) of the Reichstag in 1933.
I don't see that to have been significant in the 2nd World War
any more than Allende 's election was in the 3rd World War.

I 'm very glad that we won both of those wars.
The death of communism on Christmas of 1991
was the second happiest day in my life.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

That's rubbish David. America crushed freedom throughout Latin America. Freedom at the expense of others is no freedom at all, it's oppression and domination.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Have you read 1984? One of the ways to keep the population in check is to be constantly at war. Eurasia/Eastasia Communism/Islam. It's no coincidence we moved from one war setting to another, during times of peace people have the opportunity to think.

0 Replies

What Dave does not realize is that without the Union, Ronald Reagan could not have defeated the commie empire. That is why Lincoln had done a right thing to shatter the Confederacy.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That's rubbish David. America crushed freedom throughout Latin America.

What u wrote is so vague and general that it is difficult
for me to analyze & comment; I dunno quite what u have in mind.

In your vu, WHAT is it that u believe thay r not free to do ?
It will be helpful, if u be specific.

A good friend of mine, Cloty, who is quite intelligent
and was on the Board of Directors of NY Mensa for many years
is from Colombia, South America; her brother, Peter, is a retired
college professor there whom I 've met over dinner a few times.
In conversation with him, he evinces a powerful intellect.
Thay both appear to believe that (altho there r turbulent times)
Colombia is and has been a free country. (Admittedly, we have not
discussed that in depth; thay kinda assumed it in conversation,
the way that we assume that America is a free country.)
I can call Cloty in NY and ask her if Colombia is a free country;
I 'd be very surprized if she denies that it is.

izzythepush wrote:

Freedom at the expense of others is no freedom at all,
it's oppression and domination.

I stand perplexed.
I believe that is inaccurate.

Let us suppose that Mr. A commits a robbery.
He is apprehended, tried, convicted n incarcerated,
where he is oppressed and dominated by the guards.

So far as I can see in this example,
ONLY Mr. A is oppressed n dominated,
not any other party to interactions with him;
i.e., his victim, the police, the judge n jury and the prison guards
all remain free.

FREEDOM is a state of the absence of external restraint.
After we defeated the nazis and we oppressed
the nazis and dominated them in Germany during the occupation,
I did not feel un-free, nor less free.

U might wanna express that differently,
so that I can figure out the point that u r making.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In your vu, WHAT is it that u believe thay r not free to do ?
It will be helpful, if u be specific.

Those who opposed Pinochet weren't free to do anything except fall into the ocean and drown.

Quote:

Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign including murder and torture of political opponents. According to a government commission report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Human_rights_violations

That's just Chile.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

What Dave does not realize is that without the Union,
Ronald Reagan could not have defeated the commie empire.

Most likely, both of the Americas wud have been closely allied
in the fight against communism, with the same result.
I cannot conceive that the C.S.A. wud fail to be anti-communist,
even MORE than the U.S.A. The South has been more blessedly
anti-communist than the North has been; e.g., NY, NJ and Mass.
have been infested with liberalism for a long time.
The liberals have been very half-hearted and grudging
in their support of the anti-commie effort.
I know that from living with them for many decades.

oristarA wrote:

That is why Lincoln had done a right thing to shatter the Confederacy.

In my objective, dispassionate opinion
of both the text of the Supreme Law of the Land
and of American history leading up to ratification
of the US Constitution, I am confident that the ratifying States
did not intend to trap themselves in the new union,
regardless of the intensity of any future political claustrophobia.

NY was explicit in reserving its right to withdraw.
(See the New York Instrument of Ratification of the US Constitution.)
It was a study in hypocrisy in sending a huge military force
to kidnap the South. I object to Lincoln 's violation of his oath
to support the Constitution (including its 1Oth Amendment).
A man is as good as his word. He who dishonors his oath,
relinquishes respectability.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In your vu, WHAT is it that u believe thay r not free to do ?
It will be helpful, if u be specific.

izzythepush wrote:

Those who opposed Pinochet weren't free to do anything
except fall into the ocean and drown.

Point of information:
what do u believe wud have happened to nazis
in England or in America who opposed Churchill
or Roosevelt during the early 1940s??
Izzy, I have never met Pinochet, but I have posted my wish
that I had the opportunity to take him in warm embrace,
congratulating him on his anti-commie patriotism
and contributing some money to his anti-commie campaign
(not that he needed it) so that I cud feel like a part of it!
He was a great guy, a wonderful fellow!
It makes me happy just to remember him.
I shud mount a picture of him in a place of Honor
and toast his success with the finest wine each dinner.

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign including murder and torture of political opponents. According to a government commission report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#Human_rights_violations

That's just Chile.

Yes; well, what your quote fails to mention
is that those "political opponents" were THE COMMUNISTS,
who were actively fighting to enslave the world, including my part of it.
The nazis were bad, but the commies were a lot worse.
Pinochet has my un-dying, ardent gratitude, love and admiration.
I remain mildly ashamed of the fact that I was not there HELPING him to kill the commies.
No, I was in New York in my law practice, scooping up the money. Embarrassed

I shud have sent him some.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Do not compare Allende to the Nazis. If you want to compare anyone to the Nazis, it's Pinochet.

Those people he murdered were innocent, they were fighting to make sure everyone had enough to eat. The enslavers were Pinochet's bunch.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Do not compare Allende to the Nazis.
If you want to compare anyone to the Nazis, it's Pinochet.

Well, I can agree with u, to a limited extent.
Pinochet treated the commies in his country as well as the nazis
treated the commies. Communists are much worse than nazis; more intrusive.
Thay say that: "there is some good in everyone."
I strongly APPROVE of the way that the nazis handled the commies.
The only good thing about the nazis is how thay handled the commies.
At the time in question (1945 thru 1991) I was in an un-ending
state of fear that the liberals in America woud cause American
anti-Red resistance to be so weak, feeble and ineffective
that the commies woud win, and then, as thay used to say
in the movies: "the last round is for YOU" i.e., u dare not be taken alive.

izzythepush wrote:

Those people he murdered were innocent,
they were fighting to make sure everyone had enough to eat.
The enslavers were Pinochet's bunch.

He killed them for their commie support.
I do not believe that there was any slavery in Chile. ( ? )
It is sad that Batista failed to do so in Cuba before 1959.

Y do u believe that thay were innocent??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

If you think it's alright to kill someone just because of what they believe you're not much different from Hitler. Both Hitler and Stalin thought they could obtain peace if they killed enough people. We don't want to go down that path ever again.

Any ideology that does not respect human rights isn't worth squat.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

You're doing well, Izzy.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

If you think it's alright to kill someone just because
of what they believe you're not much different from Hitler.

My guy Pinochet wud not waste his time on what thay BELIEVE,
but rather what thay DO. He did the job.

izzythepush wrote:

Both Hitler and Stalin thought they could obtain peace if they killed enough people.
We don't want to go down that path ever again.

Any ideology that does not respect human rights isn't worth squat.

We defended both of those wars EFFECTIVELY and successfully.
If we had fought those wars half-heartedly, without enthusiasm, in keeping with your
posted philosophy on the point, then eternal communist slavery wud have resulted.
A loss wud have meant the end of all human freedom forever.
Endless communist ultra-surveillance; worse than death -- seriously worse than death.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

We've got endless surveillance right now. Pinochet was every bit as bad as the rest of them.

Freedom for a select few is no freedom at all. You're allowing your belief in an ideal to blind you to what's right. Allende was democratically elected, he was the legitimate president. Pinochet was the criminal, murdering to enrich a tiny elite. That's not freedom, it's slavery. Anything else is doublethink.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We've got endless surveillance right now.

Expect it to get worse. We need to fight against it.

izzythepush wrote:

Pinochet was every bit as bad as the rest of them.

I doubt that he shud have done anything differently.
If he had, then there is too much chance of loss of the war.
We needed to win the war; no room to fool around.
It wud be a huge mistake to be gentle with the commies.
Wars r won by being AGGRESSIVE and energetic and killing the enemy.
As Admiral Bull Halsey put it:
"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs" as applied to the commies.

izzythepush wrote:

Freedom for a select few is no freedom at all.

The goal is the death of communism
and ideally of all authoritarianism and of collectivism. We got it.
No one has argued that the poor shud be held in bondage.

izzythepush wrote:

You're allowing your belief in an ideal to blind you to what's right.

Killing authoritarianism is right.

izzythepush wrote:

Allende was democratically elected,

As was the nazi plurality of 43% in 1933; that fact does not justify
the metastacism of authoritarianism, be it nazi or commie.
Self defense is what counts.

izzythepush wrote:

he was the legitimate president.

Did we overthrow Mussolini?
Did u oppose that ?
Communism is much worse,
much more totalitarian than Fascism.

izzythepush wrote:

Pinochet was the criminal,

If that were true,
if he violated some statute, then we needed to help that criminal
because loss to communist slavery is the ultimate anathema, worse than death.

izzythepush wrote:

murdering to enrich a tiny elite. That's not freedom, it's slavery.

The definition of slavery is not
"murdering to enrich a tiny elite."
My beloved Pinochet killed communists in defense of the 3rd World War.
U appear to believe that loss to communist slavery was acceptable
and that we shud have allowed their supporters in Chile to survive. Yes ?

izzythepush wrote:

Anything else is doublethink.

No. U turned it around backward.

The National Socialists and the international socialists are both dead.
I remain very, very satisfied about that, and pleased that their
supporters were killed along the way. Pinochet did the job.

I was also THRILLED by the anti-communist revolution in Indonesia in 1966.
We had many, many losses along the way in the 3rd World War;
it was very good to hear of defeats of communism.

David

1 Reply

Wow. what a surprise.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

We were at war with Italy. Chile was not at war with America. You're not advocating freedom, just freedom for yourself and those like you.

As I said before, any ideology that does not respect human rights isn't worth squat.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

We were at war with Italy. Chile was not at war with America.

That is very false:
Chile fell under the occupation of communism,
the same as Cuba; ergo, it was on the communist side
in the 3rd World War (which u do not appear to take very seriously).

If we had applied the philosophy that u seem to favor
(as MANY American liberals desired), then there 'd have been no point
at all in resisting the onslaught of communist slavery; we might just
as well have thrown our weapons away (as many liberals wanted us to do)
and told the Kremlin:
"OK, here we are!
Take us and our grandchildren into your slavery forever.
Let us change the nature of humanity permanently into despotism."
We 'd have consigned ourselves and all future generations of our species
into an un-ending nightmare of communist hell,
all because we were not willing to fight the war as it shud have been
fought and as it actually was fought. That is pretty serious.

All is well now, because we won, but at the time,
in the middle of the war . . . we cud not afford to take such
a light-hearted attitude as u have exhorted; it was a matter
of life and death, of freedom or slavery. That counts for a lot.

izzythepush wrote:

You're not advocating freedom, just freedom for yourself and those like you.

NO; by killing communism
and hopefully killing all socialism,
the threat is ended and everyone is free.

izzythepush wrote:

As I said before, any ideology that does not respect human rights isn't worth squat.

IF we used it successfully (as, in fact, we DID)
to defeat the onslaught of communist slavery
then that disproves and refutes your contention
that the ideology had no value; not only to us
but also to the slaves who were freed thru out the communist slave empire
(e.g., Russia, and Eastern Europe). That counts for a lot.
Killing communists is a wonderful thing.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Absolute rubbish. Chile was a democracy and elected a Socialist government, just like we elected a Socialist government in 1945.

A brilliant government that, despite austerity, gave us the NHS.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Absolute rubbish. Chile was a democracy and elected a Socialist government . . .

Yea, like the National Socialists and the other German socialists in 1933.
That fact did not protect the world from them.

With our victory, our defensive success, already behind us,
we can now afford to take a magnanimous vu,
but if we had applied your philosophy to defending
the 3rd World War, then the commies wud have won.
We 'd have become communist slaves,
or if we were lucky, then we d have been killed.

U don t take a practical vu.
Your way of fighting a war leads to loss and defeat.

izzythepush wrote:

just like we elected a Socialist government in 1945.

Yea; as soon as Churchill defeated Hitler,
u kicked him in the ass and u threw him out into the gutter
and u trod upon him.

0 Replies

Harvard criticises Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher regimes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know