Why did Reagan sell weapons to Iran?

to be honest i'm not up on the numbers…but Reaganomincs was like crack..lots of people got super wealthy and lots of people were able to work…buy homes and live the credit dream…

all that fell…ruining the world economy…they are trying to place laws in effect to thwart this type of banking economics…Canada never partook in them…conservative forces tried to force the liberal government into changing banking laws…we did not change and are now not only praised for our banking system but world governments want to mimic it…

the head of the bak of Canada is not the head of the Bank of England..the first foreigner to be put in that position…
and don;t kid yourself…economically britain owns more of what makes america , america,than america owns America…lol...

 

The hell it didn't work. He deprived the Soviets of gas and dropped the price of oil so low the Soviets didn't even want to sell it, but they had to. He all but bankrupted them with that, his military build up and the huge losses the Soviets took in Afghanistan.

Now to say look at them now. You want to blame Reagan for the Russians being on their feet? While they are till a dictator country sort of. They have dropped Communism and went to a market society and at least now vote for a President, if we can really call it voting.

But we had a chance of having much better relations with Russia. Boris Yeltsin asked to join NATO but Clinton wouldn't do it. Would the Russians be different if he had?

The thing you also forget is Reagan fought Soviet expansion everywhere they tried. From Afghanistan, to Nicaragua to Grenada. Millions of Eastern Europeans are now free because of what Reagan did.

 

By that standard we should judge Obama when he leaves office...got it.

 

Our banking system and forcing them to give credit to people who couldn't afford it is what helped bring down our economy. I know you Liberals hate Reagan and don't want to give him credit for anything. But he is one of the most respected Presidents we have all around the world.

Go look at that web site I put up. Not only did the rich get wealthy, but so do most of the country.

 

He was trying to be a good capitalist and sell it if he has it.

 

You got that right. He is either going to be known as one of the better Presidents, or one that bankrupted the country.

 

Maybe illegal? Possibly not well thought out.

Impeachable? Possibly.

HIGH TREASON? Against whom?

 

Oh Crappy-Dah. That will cause many DIM sphincters to fail.

 

And think of where our debt would be if we hadn't spent the "peace dividend" and instead cut the budget by an equal amount.

 

There is no proof. As they were searching Allie North's office for proof, his secretary was shredding it all in another office at the same time.

 

The Soviets were pouring billions into arms buildup. Reagan wasn't about to let them get that much powerful than we are. He even told them so. Look how that buildup and Reagan's actions have caused the freedom of millions of people that were under Soviet domination. I would call that a great peace dividend wouldn't you?

 

The illegal selling of US military equipment to a foreign country is grounds for treason, especially when the country the weapons are being sold to is known to have acted aggressivly towards the US. Reagan sold weapons to the same country that took US citizens hostage just 6 years earlier. And he gave the money to a group that was known at the time to murder civilians and back drug cartels.

- - - Updated - - -

It fell because of it's unsustainable economic policies. It would have fallen no matter who was President.

 

I certainly do not mean to question your proof, but would you mind showing me that law.

As I recall, weren't the Sandinistas communists?

I seem to recall we lost 58000 men in 'Nam and not we trade with the bastards. Things and policies change from one President to another.

I certainly do not consider Reagan a great President. Mostly just adequate, but this hatred the lefties have for him is now past being ridiculous.

 

We have a peice treaty with Vietnam that allows for trade. No such treaty was made with Iran, and it's still illegal for a US company to buy oil from them.


The Contra were anti-communists terrorists who wanted to overthrow their government. But they also we drug lords and murderers.

 

I'm not talking about the military build up. I supported that. I'm talking about the spending of the peace dividend. As the soviet union crumbled so did our military spending. This decline in military spending as the cold war ended is called the peace dividend. Instead of simply cutting the budget equal to the natural decline in military spending Washington, democrats and republicans, simply continued to borrow and spend the same amount and moved it into other programs. It marks the first time that Washington continued spending at war time levels during peace time. If we had simply backed off from the war budget as we had always done a large portion of the debt wouldn't exist today as the base line would have dropped considerably.

 

Because Congress wouldn't let him legally fund death squads in Central America so they could commit war crimes and atrocities against civilians and Cathokic clergy, so he had to find an illegal way to do it.

 

Oh...I see. Lawbreaker and tyrant combined then? Nice.

 

Oil? Iran-Contra wasn't about oil.

I understand that.

 

I did not say it was. But trade with Iran is still illegal. Not just for oil. It was illegal to sell them the weapons because they were still considered an enemy state at the time. It's like if JFK had illegally sold a bunch of weapons to Cuba right after the missile crisis. Selling or giving arms to an nation that is considered a enemy of the US is treason.

Also, the president needs congressional approval to sell military equipment. He did not have it. Nor did he have permission to give the money to the Contras, which was also required, since aiding foreign rebels and supporting a coup is an act of war, which only congress can approve.

 

So Reagan was an incompetent boob.

 

It's called deniable plausibility, you know the same thing that Obama claims every other day.

 

Looking back Ronnie thought Mandela was a terrorist, last night they televised this on the news up here….
how wrong is that…

As for your banking system.

it all stems back to what reagan made legal.

wall street came up with derivatives and mortgages that anyone could have, and credit galore…it turned into crack…

it's not a good solid economic foundation.

and in the end …ronnie never came up with this stuff , people around did and conned him into selling it to the American people.

he was a glorified salesman is all..turning him into anything other than shill is inane..

i recall when McDonalds Canada first went to Russia.
Ronnie was on the air taking credit for it…and with that millionaire privileged smirk he said "and now ladies and gentlemen meat and potatoes are available to every russian"
like Rotton Ronnies is actual food.. and before their franchise hit russia, meat and potatoes was some sort of Commie dream..

a con man…thats all he was…and very good at it..

by the way i do not consider myself Liberal even though i support the Liberal Party of Canada.

this whole labelling people a liberal in the USA is another inane past time.
i wished you would get a tad more sophisticated …* braces for inevitable anti american verbiage "

 

Good grief, nothing like dancing on someone's grave..

And Mandela was not some Saint.

Must distract from the Obama and the here and now

 

The Iran-Contra affair was complicated and thus many Americans didn't follow it well. There were elements of international intrigue, Anti-communist warriors, Reagan's mythical Cowboy attitude, etc. etc. etc.

Reagan wasn't charged because the evidence was kept from the investigation if there was any. Destroyed and classified.

Broad strokes it was a political no-win. Reagan could violate the law and maybe get hostages back by in a sense bribing so-called moderate members of an enemy state and get some pull with the country funding terrorists or do nothing while again Americans were held by radical Muslim terrorists. Reagan chose to violate the law in order to help the hostages get home. I am not sure I wouldn't have done the same and since the Israelis were involved there is cover for the pragmatic reasons for doing it.

What was unable to justify was the diversion of funds to the Contras. A group of evil rebels who were war criminals trying to overthrow a democratically elected government that we just didn't like.

But that is the nature of international politics and nation security. The answers aren't easy nor always clearly moral. I was a member of a few groups in opposition of Reagan. But I understand in retrospect how hard it is for the man in the Oval to make decisions that involve lives. I wish the Reagan worshipers will use the same standard with the current President.

 

personally I hold Reagan responsible for arming the Taliban and 9/11 he is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing bastard. And the Republicans that prop him up like a saint are just as responsible.