View Full Version : Can we talk about the Contras?
Roguish Lawyer
03-09-2004, 18:01
I'd be interested in anything anyone from 7th Group can share. Stories, observations, whatever. If there's nothing, that's OK too.
Roguish Lawyer
03-10-2004, 11:56
Wasn't this 20 years ago?
OK, I take it that the answer to my question is no. Perhaps after another 10 years? :)
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 15:30
I won't talk about what you asked, but if you want to discuss the Contras in general terms using open source, I'll play.
DunbarFC
03-16-2004, 15:32
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I won't talk about what you saked, but if you want to discuss the Contras in general terms using open source, I'll play.
Can you recommend anything said open source worth reading on this issue ?
Just trying to help the economy by keeping my local Borders books afloat
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 15:43
No, I don't have any recommended reading on it. I ran with one some later on. Its not a very good subject really, very straight forward, no surprises, not very interesting personalities IMO.
DunbarFC
03-16-2004, 15:44
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
No, I don't have any recommended reading on it. I ran with one some later on. Its not a very good subject really, very straight forward, no surprises, not very interesting personalities IMO.
Ok cool thanks
Roguish Lawyer
03-16-2004, 16:40
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I won't talk about what you saked, but if you want to discuss the Contras in general terms using open source, I'll play.
OK. First topic:
Contras and cocaine smuggling.
Roguish Lawyer
03-16-2004, 16:45
Open source:
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 16:46
Don't know anything about it.
Roguish Lawyer
03-16-2004, 16:47
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Don't know anything about it.
OK, you pick the topic. :munchin
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 16:51
Women, beer, skydiving, sacamuelas new pistol
What does that document prove? Operations other than intel could be anything. (except intel).
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 16:55
Look, they already admitted what they did, were tried and sentenced and pardoned. What's to discuss?
Roguish Lawyer
03-16-2004, 17:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What does that document prove? Operations other than intel could be anything. (except intel).
The document proves nothing. I just thought it looked cool. LOL
NousDefionsDoc
03-16-2004, 17:06
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
The document proves nothing. I just thought it looked cool. LOL
LOL - because it has CIA written on it?
Roguish Lawyer
03-16-2004, 17:09
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - because it has CIA written on it?
Anything signed by Ronald Reagan is cool. :)
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Look, they already admitted what they did, were tried and sentenced and pardoned. What's to discuss?
how many people were tried or lost their job?
Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 15:57
OK, how about this:
Were our efforts in Nicaragua successful? Were they worth the fallout?
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:01
What fallout? Reagan did two terms and his VP won.
Yes, it was worth it on a global strategic level. IMO
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:03
Originally posted by pulque
how many people were tried or lost their job?
Like always - as many as it took to make it go away and protect the POTUS.
How many lost their jobs because of the Bay of Pigs?
Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 16:20
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What fallout? Reagan did two terms and his VP won.
Yes, it was worth it on a global strategic level. IMO
Reagan was somewhat paralyzed and not as effective in his second term. Part of that was Iran-Contra fallout, but it primarily was due to the takeover of the Reagan Administration by the Bush people IMO.
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Like always - as many as it took to make it go away and protect the POTUS.
How many lost their jobs because of the Bay of Pigs?
That is a slightly different scenario. JFK wanted to maintain deniability for himself and the US for "diplomatic" reasons. Is it against policy to employ exiles in an uprising on foreign soil?
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:29
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Reagan was somewhat paralyzed and not as effective in his second term. Part of that was Iran-Contra fallout, but it primarily was due to the takeover of the Reagan Administration by the Bush people IMO.
Yep, you're right, paralyzed
Reagan Paralyzed LOL (http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/wall.asp)
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:31
Originally posted by pulque
That is a slightly different scenario. JFK wanted to maintain deniability for himself and the US for "diplomatic" reasons. Is it against policy to employ exiles in an uprising on foreign soil?
Well now Missy, that would depend on who's setting policy wouldn't it? Its not against my policy. LOL
Originally posted by DunbarFC
Can you recommend anything said open source worth reading on this issue ?
I like this book: The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua By Timothy C. Brown
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Well now Missy, that would depend on who's setting policy wouldn't it? Its not against my policy. LOL
Hypocrisy is an enemy of policy, no matter who is setting it.
I'm sure policy is overated, but it does help to have one, to gain support among the people.
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 16:49
I don't begin to understand that.
I will tell you that IMO "Hypocrisy is an enemy of policy, no matter who is setting it. " is a noble statement, but far removed from reality in most cases.
Is it hypocritical to sign an Executive Order prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state, then bomb the crap out of a country when you know full well that less than a dozen people are causing the problem?
Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 16:57
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Yep, you're right, paralyzed
Reagan Paralyzed LOL (http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/wall.asp)
I said somewhat. On domestic policy, he was a disappointment in term 2.
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 17:03
Ok Lib, in what sense?
Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 17:10
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Ok Lib, in what sense?
You must not be talking to me. Unless you mean "libertarian" or "classical liberal," of course. :)
NousDefionsDoc
03-21-2004, 17:11
Whatever, what was the domestic policy failure?
Roguish Lawyer
03-21-2004, 17:26
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Whatever, what was the domestic policy failure?
I have to get some work done, but I did find this, which touches on the issue a little bit. It wasn't just in the second term, but I think it got a lot worse then.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't begin to understand that.
I will tell you that IMO "Hypocrisy is an enemy of policy, no matter who is setting it. " is a noble statement, but far removed from reality in most cases.
Is it hypocritical to sign an Executive Order prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state, then bomb the crap out of a country when you know full well that less than a dozen people are causing the problem?
I'm back. You're right my statement about hypocrisy is crappy and vague. I just want to know how many people lost their jobs or had a trial regarding the contra/drugs.
The axe I am grinding is that IMO, zero-tolerance and the mandatory minimum sentencing brought in with 1986 Anti Drug Abuse Act were the wrong direction for domestic policy.
What we had was a domestic policy postured on morality and foreign policy postured on success by any means.
I'm speculating that is a pretty uncomfortable situation to be in, if you are one of the 500,000 citizens in the big house for drug offences, or if you have had property and asset seizure.
Now let's go back to your example:
Is it hypocritical to sign an Executive Order prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state, then bomb the crap out of a country when you know full well that less than a dozen people are causing the problem?
That is an excellent, thought-provoking question. I knew there was a reason I haunt this place. Obviously 12333 can be a fly in the ointment. I have wondered how often it really boils down to a dozen people causing problems compared to a more systemic problem. Assassinations may appear cleaner but have more unpredictable consequences (eg the continuing fallout from the Gaitan assassination. this differs from foreign policy in that it was probably internal. nonetheless, as a civil war action may still not have acheived its objective).
Please clarify which situation you had in mind for your example of a dozen people.
edited to add: just to head this off and stay on topic, I know its been discussed around here before that the people in jail broke the law. it's "missy libertarian" to you. :munchin
brownapple
03-22-2004, 00:30
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
OK, how about this:
Were our efforts in Nicaragua successful? Were they worth the fallout?
Ask Daniel Ortega. My opinion? Yes and yes.
Originally posted by pulque
The axe I am grinding is that IMO, zero-tolerance and the mandatory minimum sentencing brought in with 1986 Anti Drug Abuse Act were the wrong direction for domestic policy.
What we had was a domestic policy postured on morality and foreign policy postured on success by any means.
I'm speculating that is a pretty uncomfortable situation to be in, if you are one of the 500,000 dirtbags(fixed that one for you) in the big house for drug offences, or if you have had property and asset seizure.
Uncomfortable for WHO? Easy way around that, Just Say No. :munchin
DunbarFC
03-22-2004, 10:11
Originally posted by Jimbo
I like this book: The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua By Timothy C. Brown
Thanks Jimbo
Appreciate the recommendation
Catwoman
03-23-2004, 11:13
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I'd be interested in anything anyone from 7th Group can share. Stories, observations, whatever. If there's nothing, that's OK too.
Let me try to reset the topic. I am hopeful that one or more of the new members may be able to share some thoughts.
(I saw one starting, then changing his mind! :) )
[Edit: This is RL using wife's login. Oops]