ooge wrote: thegreekdog wrote: Woodruff wrote: thegreekdog wrote:
Woodruff wrote:I was a classified military network system administrator during Iran-Contra. I know a lot about it. Essentially, there was an arms embargo against Iran, and our government arranged to get arms to them in an effort to secure the release of our hostages and in the hope of sending the money to those fighting Communism in Nicaragua.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying there was a reason for it, just like there are reasons why we are supporting the Arab Spring uprisings or selling weapons to countries whose leaders routinely violate human rights and/or will eventually be fighting us. It's not like the Reagan administration said "let's sell some weapons to Iran and see what happens" (although, that was kind of what it was).
Of course he wasn't, and I'm not saying that there wasn't some political reason for it. However...
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, my comparisons are valid.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, given the status of the nations those weapons are being sold to. I don't even understand why you think it's a valid comparison.
Because in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, if we are at war with those countries, they will use those weapons against us. We aren't even at war with Iran (nor were we ever). I'm not making an excuse for Reagan or his administration because I wouldn't sell weapons to anyone (if I was the dictator of the U.S.) and will continue to think it was a bad idea. But selling weapons in exchange for getting hostages back, selling weapons to corrupt allies, selling weapons to degraders of human rights, and selling weapons to future enemies are comparable.
I do not disagree with you.but you have changed the subject from selling weapons to a sworn enemy against the laws of congress, to arms proliferation.
And you keep leaving out the "to get hostages back" from your statement. Ostensibly, the purpose of your post was to show how the Reagan administration was corrupt because it sold weapons to a sworn enemy [who we were never at war with] against the laws of Congress [to get hostages back]. Is that better or worse than selling weapons to Iraq or Afghanistan, who we have gone to war with, in order to "protect our interests" in this regions. In the interest of full disclosure, I have no clue what administrations sold weapons to those countries. Is what the Reagan administration did better or worse than the Obama administration which sold weapons to ultra-zealous religious groups (or democratic rebels who then gave them to ultra-zealous religious groups) in the various Arab Spring uprisings (where the ultra-zealous religious groups have eerily similar views on the United States as Iran)?
Again, I'm not defending the Reagan administration. I'm partisan in the context of being a Libertarian and a constitutionalist. I have no skin in this game except to try to get you to acknowledge that the problem wasn't and isn't Reagan and Republicans and the Tea Party, the problem is presidential administrations and the Repocrats and all special interest groups. This is much like the IRS "scandal" - both sides engage in similar activities and the only time any side is called out is when the other side's partisans do it. It's ignorant and shameful and solves nothing.