Originally posted by FarArcher

But back in the day, we were fighting communists and Sandanista in South America. The problem was the standard problem - our Congress was a group of candiasses - and wouldn't sufficiently fund the fight against the communists there.

You brought it up.

The fight against the labeled "communists" and the Sandanistas was not a legal one, that is why funding could not be done through congress and legal means. Thus, the whole Iran/Contra scandal.

The Contra part is the arming and funding of "counter-revolutionaries" in Nicaragua, they have this title because they were against the will of the common citizen. The popular Sandanista movement was conveniently labeled as "communists" simply because they believed that the resources of the country should benefit its citizens and not external private interests.

If you study history, it is a recurring theme.

If there is anything specific you have trouble understanding feel free to ask. This website is dedicated to discussion, so, discuss away.

the Billmeister

in the book "By way of Deception" By Victor Ostrovsky, he talks about how Israel was selling arms to middle east countries like Iran and Iraq, but when America started to sell weapons to them, the AIPAC lobby said it was horrible and it would be an endanger to Israel, but the real reason they did it was because they didn't want Americans to get a cut of the sales. As the book states in its title "By way of Deception"

Originally posted by filosophia
in the book "By way of Deception" By Victor Ostrovsky, he talks about how Israel was selling arms to middle east countries like Iran and Iraq, but when America started to sell weapons to them, the AIPAC lobby said it was horrible and it would be an endanger to Israel, but the real reason they did it was because they didn't want Americans to get a cut of the sales. As the book states in its title "By way of Deception"

Noted, and I will be going to my library to check it out. (I am due for a new book- thanks)

I am on the fence about this one.

On the one hand, I would like to think that honest and open diplomacy could be used to arrive at just and reasonable solutions to international disputes.

On the other hand, the elected leaders are supposed defend their nations best interest. (yes, I know that this could be a thread on its own!) And, by this thinking, their responsibility is to use whatever means necessary to achieve it.

As you validly point out, private and/or financial interests often blur the picture.

In a democracy, however, I think we should at least know what our leader's mindset is. If they would be honest and say "Screw the Geneva convention, if elected, I will do everything in my power to repay those who have financed my party, if in doing so a few countries get bombed, well so be it! Oh ya, and I will make sure the gallon of gas stays affordable for you!" well, at least we would know what to expect.

As I stated before, whatever way you lean, you must live with the consequences.

the Billmeister

My guess is they served as a proxy for the Iran-contra clique in Washington.

The answer is very simple...

Problems that WE, the regular joe/jane, see are not the real problems that happen in the world.

TPTB profit from fear, war, and destruction but "need" YOUR approval to do so... What better way than to tell you one thing and do another?

Israel sells/sold weapons to Iran. Now they "hate each other"... HELLO??? PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION ANYONE?????

Doesn't it sound eerily like the CIA funding Osama Bin Laden and now they are "after him"? or Maybe the funding and sale of weapons to Iraq and now look at what happened...

It's all a game. And we are the pawns...

Magnum

Israel will sell Hezbollah a truckload of ready made suicide vests, a ready to go nuclear device and blueprints to a store if they thought that they could make a tremendous amount of money on the deal. It's simple capitalism.

If you think that they are no longer buying and selling from one another you have another thing coming.

I think you should look into this isue with names like Johnathan Pollard and Shimon Peres and Casper Weiberger. Not because they are all Jewish. In fact, the only one amongst them who actually had the concerns of Israel at heart was Johnathan Pollard. He passed on sensitive information about the whole Iran contra deal to TPTB in Israel and his understanding of the situation. The likes of Shimon Peres saw a blackmail/bargaining chip and wanted their share of the deal.
It's a long, covoluted story that involved a concerned Jew with dual citizenship pissing off the US and being # on by people in high places of his nationality (Israel). Consequently, he will NEVER be released from prison.