Re: To all you unapologetic assholes out there ...



Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 6, 1:41 pm, Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 5, 9:44 pm, Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 5, 1:09 pm, Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 4, 9:01 pm, Bill Bonde <tributyltinpa...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

Rand Simberg wrote:
What planet are you posting this from? One doesn't have to "look for
a fight with Iran." We've been in one since 1979.

And our first major action in that fight was for Reagen to give them
weapons.

Militarily insignificant quantities and types for the purpose of getting
our hostages back and to try to make diplomatic inroads back into Iran.
What was the problem with that?

It didn't work! They hate us more now that ever.

It's not clear from the bellicose behaviour of the current Iranian
regime what the people of Iran think about anything. I've heard that
they aren't too happy that their president is bringing down wrath and
suggesting nuking his enemies.

I am certainly aware that the effort to trade arms to get hostages and
build diplomatic inroads into Iran only accomplished the former and not
the latter. It's too bad and it was a bold gambit, one must admit.

Not to mention illegal. When the Executive Branch circumvents the
Legislative Branch to run a secret war, the LB should take the EB to
the Judicial Branch for a trial. Iran/Contra was just a little wrist
slapping and nothing more.

Iran-Contra wasn't a secret war. Certainly the Iran part wasn't. The
president does have authority to use force for 90 days without first
getting approval.

Iran/Contra was specificially done to avoid Congress. That is why when
Congress heard about it Ollie North was called to testifiy and lie his
ass off.

Congress specifically had North testify even though the independent
council office asked them not to, congress wanted to try to embarrass
Reagan. It was purely political by the Democrats who'd been turning on
and off the money for the Contras for years.

And since the CIA budget is secret, you know this how? No, Congress
saw that they had allocated certain money slated to fight communism in
Central America but when it was discovered that more was going to the
Contras, then an investigation ensued.

That's not what happened. The Contras were getting on again and off
again funding:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HZ00934:
#begin quote
H.AMDT.934
Amends: H.R.5052
Sponsor: Rep Edwards, Mickey [OK-5] (offered 6/25/1986)

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
An amendment to provide $300 million for economic assistance to Central
American countries other than Nicaragua; to provide $100 million to the
contras for humanitarian and military aid, to be released in three
portions of $40 million, $20 million, and $40 million.

AMENDMENT TITLE: *** TITLE NOT FOUND ***

STATUS:

6/25/1986:
Amendment Offered by Representative Edwards, of OK.
6/25/1986:
Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Recorded Vote.
#end quote

During a down time in funding, the monies diverted from the excess
charges for the weapons traded/sold to Iran in exchange for the hostages
was used to fund the Contras. When this was publicly known, the congress
had already allocated yet another 100 mil in aid to the Contras.



Also, the on again and off again funding of the Contras, which was 100
million here, then nothing, then 100 million, nothing, 100 million, made
the whole thing into a joke. By the time Iran-Contra was public
knowledge, the congress had authorized another 100 million dollars in
military aid for the Contras.

It was no joke. The fact that the Reagan administration got away with
it was a mockery of our checks and balance system.

Got away with what? When North's plot was exposed, the congress had
already allocated another 100 mil for the Contras.

To the Contras or fighting communism in Central America?

To the Contras.



What kind of ethical
political party funds a war and then doesn't and then does and then
doesn't? If people are dying, I think leaving them to twist in the wind
is the real mockery.

Congress wasn't funding any war. They never declared any war. Having
Reagan's administration allow the CIA to run amok like the days of the
Eisenhower administration was the concern of Congress. A Church
Committee-type inquiry is what occurred.

What are you talking about? There is no doubt that Congress funded the
Contras.




And your twist in the wind comment, was that supposed to refer to JFK
and the Bay of Pigs?

That hadn't occurred to me. I was referring to how people who vote to
fund military operations and then take funding away can leave those
involved "twisting in the wind". I oppose that sort of thing because I
think it's morally wrong.



The whole commie scare tactic used by a bunch of clandestine operators
to make some extra money was easy due to Reagan's paranoia of
communism, an easy button to push.

I'm not sure what you are talking about? The Contras? Remember that the
congress had just agreed to fund them for 100 mil again. That's proof
they, at least a changing majority of them, took the threat or the
project seriously.

Why don't you provide a citation for the congressional funding of the
Contras. I'd like to look at when it occurred, to whom it went, etc.
It makes no sense that Congress would simply go after Reagan for a
project, covert or not, that they backed via funding, just to create a
political witchhunt.

They didn't back the diversion of funds from the sale of arms to Iran,
they backed the Contras again after a hiatus.



That is more like what Republicans would do, as
they tend to like to think they own the intelliegnce community,
especially it's covert operations sector.

I find this difficult to believe. The Republicans figured they owned the
intelligence community when Clinton was president? Present some
evidence.


--
Thus, if the problem of technological hopelessness is caused by absence
of care, both by technologists and anti-technologists; and if care and
Quality are external and internal aspects of the same thing, then it
follows that what really causes technological hopelessness is absence of
the perception of Quality in technologists and anti-technologists.
Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
.

Quantcast