I'm sorry, what? Do you remember the Iran-Contra mess? Those weapons didn't go to Iraqis, they went to Iran to FIGHT the Iraqis.

No, actually I don't. I asked around and still don't know much. Something about selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contra Freedom Fighters in South America. They were fighting Communism, correct? Again, that was Reagan's number one problem. I did find out that it was Oliver North and some other guy who did it and Reagan claims he didn't know. Don't know the truth. I also know that Congress refused to support the freedom fighters in South America. South America is not that far away from our country. That is letting communism pretty close. I don't know why they would turn it down. Maybe you do.

Obviously I had never heard this before, otherwise, I wouldn't have said what I did before. Thanks for telling me something new.

OK, I disagree with possibly everything you just said in that last post. And don't tell me that my sources are any less valid than your sources who "know what really happened." All I have heard you reference are Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter who are so right wing that they lean when they walk. So basically anything is excusable if it is used to fight the communists. Another News Flash: The Contra "freedom fighters" and the mujahideen (sp?) in Afghanistan were TERRORISTS. Do you get that?!?! We supported terrorists all in the name of defeating the communists. Sure, we "beat" the communists, but now we have to clean up the mess that we made in the process. It is what happens when you become involved in foreign afairs. Now we have to pay the piper. Don't be surprised if 10, 20, 50 years down the road we are in a war with this new government we just installed in Iraq.

Oh and by the way, here is the link to the SW DVDs: Star Wars DVD Box Set. It comes out in September. And make sure you buy the Widescreen edition or else you are a Communist!!! LOL :p

Alrighty then. Let's see if I can condense this into a nutshell.

Up until 1979, Nicaragua (Central America, not South America, btw) was ruled by the US-supported Somoza dictatorship. In 1979, there was a revolution in Nicaragua, and the government was taken over by the Sandinistas. President Reagan viewed the Sandinista government as a communist threat, and approved a covert CIA operation to train and equip a force known as the Contras in order to overthrow the Sandinista government. I don't quite remember all the whys myself, but I know that supporting the Contras was not all that popular a thing either, because they were guilty of numerous human rights violations, including torture, rape and mutilation.

So Congress passed something called the Boland Amendment, which made it illegal for the US to provide military support for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.

Now, it's 1985. Iran is at war with Iraq. There are U.S. hostages being held in Lebanon by Islamic Jihad, a pro-Iranian terrorist organization. The US was approached, I believe by Israel, to supply arms to the Iranians in exchange for money and for their assistance in securing the release of the US hostages.

The US agreed to provide these arms, despite the fact that a) there had been an arms embargo against Iran since 1979 when the US hostages were taken in Iran; b) there were UN sanctions in place against Iran; c) Reagan had taken a firm stance against terrorist countries and organizations and stated that the US would never make concessions to terrorists.

So, the US sold the arms to Iran, and funneled some of that money to the Contras in Nicaragua.

That's a fairly neat summation of the facts. Whether or not Reagan actually knew about it is still up for debate. Some people say he did, some people say he did not.

As far as this goes:

I also know that Congress refused to support the freedom fighters in South America. South America is not that far away from our country. That is letting communism pretty close

I don't have the stomach to call people who rape, torture, and mutilate other people "freedom fighters". But then again, I have strong feelings about this little thing called human rights. Agreed, Central America is not that far away from the US, but the fact of the matter is, Nicaragua was a very, very poor, very small country, and they were not exactly a threat to the US. Iran, on the other hand, was a hotbed for terrorists and had proven more than once that they were capable of direct acts of aggression against US citizens. 52 hostages were held for 14 months in Iran. I'm sorry, but to me, that is a very big deal.

Whether or not Reagan actually knew about it is still up for debate. Some people say he did, some people say he did not.

My opinion is that the Reagan administration is responsible and therefore Reagan is responsible. That is my personal view about management in general.

The green party is very radical. Extremely far left. They don't agree with anything that a Republican has to say. You don't get the same thing from a Republican. Why? Because when it makes sense to us, we don't let our ego's get in the way. And thats a fact. We don't have radical Right Winged parties like the Green Party.

I don't want to get involved in any arguments, leastways not political ones, but I must take exception to your constant use of we and us. You seem to be speaking for an awfully lot of people, and frankly I don't care what they have to say or think, but am interested in what YOU say or think. It makes you sound as though you're just spewing campaign rhetoric.

Scott

And I agree. I totally HATE this argument.

My current favorite is regarding the Iraq prison (Abu Ghraib) scandals:
Me: "The abuses that took place are wrong (immoral)."
Them: "Saddam Hussein tortured people much worse: gas, rape, mutilation, etc."

As if that validates the torture in the Abu Ghraib prison and makes it OK!!!!

Unforunately most of the time that that argument occurs, there is some misunderstanding. The sins of a few stupid soldiers or individuals does not make the government responsible/culpable, while the attrocities of Hussein's Reign were supported, sponsored, and encouraged by the government itself.

If one cop in LA beats a suspect to death, do we automatically assume that the entire police force of LA, and the Mayor had prior knowledge of that event and authorized it? No, at least rational people don't jump to those conclutions. Unfortunately, since these horrid acts were committed by idiot soldiers many people automatically assume that Bush said "Yeah, go ahead. Beat and kill those people, take photos of them in embarassing situations why you stand next to them doing thumbs-up and smoking a cigarette."

People also have to realize that, while in no ways Right, the things that happen in our own prison systems here in america are far worse than anything that has happened in Abu Garaib prison since US occupation.

Also, unfortunately, media distorts the situation and presents it as if the individuals who were subjected to the torture are innocent bystanders, and completely guiltless of any crime. While torture is a horrid and reprehensible act, I perhaps would take a more pragmatic view of the whole thing if I found out that the individual who was being tortured by US troops was a part of Uday's rape machine, or was a mass murderer, etc.

Does this make torture right? No. However we are just human beings, and we are imperfect. And sometimes the only way to get justice for the wrongs inflicted upon the innocent, we have to toe the line of being wrong ourselves.

If you doubt that, just think of what would happen to Osama Bin Laden if he was captured and turned over to the mourning families of those 3000+ people that were killed in the WTC.

Personally, I wouldn't have any trouble sleeping at night no matter what they did to him... unless, of course, they let him go.

After all, we do (well, some of us do anyway) live in a society that punishes Murder with Murder.

“Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

Unforunately most of the time that that argument occurs, there is some misunderstanding. The sins of a few stupid soldiers or individuals does not make the government responsible/culpable, while the attrocities of Hussein's Reign were supported, sponsored, and encouraged by the government itself.

If one cop in LA beats a suspect to death, do we automatically assume that the entire police force of LA, and the Mayor had prior knowledge of that event and authorized it? No, at least rational people don't jump to those conclutions. Unfortunately, since these horrid acts were committed by idiot soldiers many people automatically assume that Bush said "Yeah, go ahead. Beat and kill those people, take photos of them in embarassing situations why you stand next to them doing thumbs-up and smoking a cigarette."

Yes I would hold the higher-ups somewhat responsible especially if the police commissioner was found to have documents from legal counsel rationalizing the torture/beating of suspects. Management is responsible for the things that go wrong within organizations. Management is held responsible by the people outside the organization and then lower-level people are held responsible by management. That is my philosophy.

People also have to realize that, while in no ways Right, the things that happen in our own prison systems here in america are far worse than anything that has happened in Abu Garaib prison since US occupation.

Also, unfortunately, media distorts the situation and presents it as if the individuals who were subjected to the torture are innocent bystanders, and completely guiltless of any crime. While torture is a horrid and reprehensible act, I perhaps would take a more pragmatic view of the whole thing if I found out that the individual who was being tortured by US troops was a part of Uday's rape machine, or was a mass murderer, etc.

Does this make torture right? No. However we are just human beings, and we are imperfect. And sometimes the only way to get justice for the wrongs inflicted upon the innocent, we have to toe the line of being wrong ourselves.

WRONG!!! That isn't justice, that is revenge. I can understand that people would take action for themselves, but that doesn't make it right. If Osama were handed over to the families (as suggested below) and he was ripped to shreds by them, I would totally understand their anger and rage and desire for revenge. I would still call it WRONG. It would still be murder.

If you doubt that, just think of what would happen to Osama Bin Laden if he was captured and turned over to the mourning families of those 3000+ people that were killed in the WTC.

Personally, I wouldn't have any trouble sleeping at night no matter what they did to him... unless, of course, they let him go.

After all, we do (well, some of us do anyway) live in a society that punishes Murder with Murder.

Ah, Capital Punishment rears its ugly head again: STATE SPONSORED MURDER!! Just as wrong as any other kind of murder.

That isn't justice, that is revenge.

Sometimes it's the same thing.

RIK

OK, I disagree with possibly everything you just said in that last post. And don't tell me that my sources are any less valid than your sources who "know what really happened." All I have heard you reference are Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter who are so right wing that they lean when they walk. So basically anything is excusable if it is used to fight the communists. Another News Flash: The Contra "freedom fighters" and the mujahideen (sp?) in Afghanistan were TERRORISTS. Do you get that?!?! We supported terrorists all in the name of defeating the communists. Sure, we "beat" the communists, but now we have to clean up the mess that we made in the process. It is what happens when you become involved in foreign afairs. Now we have to pay the piper. Don't be surprised if 10, 20, 50 years down the road we are in a war with this new government we just installed in Iraq.

Oh and by the way, here is the link to the SW DVDs: Star Wars DVD Box Set. It comes out in September. And make sure you buy the Widescreen edition or else you are a Communist!!! LOL :p

The freedom fighters were terrorists but they were attacking our enemy, not us.

And now it sounds like you are saying that communism is better then modern day Russia? Correct me if I'm wrong. We supported terrorists all in the name of defeating the communists. Sure, we "beat" the communists, but now we have to clean up the mess that we made in the process. Do you not think that the "mess" is a lot better then having Nukes pointed at us all the time? To be living in fear because some crazies in the USSR want to rule the world? Which do you perfer?

Don't be surprised if 10, 20, 50 years down the road we are in a war with this new government we just installed in Iraq. I don't think that it will be as big a chance of occuring as it would have if we had just pulled out after the war. The problem is Syria. I just hope that something is in place for the borders. We are keeping our troops there for that purpose, no?

Haha. I'm one of those lessor minded losers that likes watching all of my TV. So, I will probably go with full screen.

All I have heard you reference are Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter who are so right wing that they lean when they walk.

The difference is that they give you back up when they read. Like I said earlier, they give you reference points on everything they tell you. So, if one thinks its a lie, go and look it up. That way, right-winged ideals can be double checked with fact.