Journalist Gary Webb Gets the Last Word in

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Okay, cool. So the Koch Foundations are not corporations right?

What is my point? The point is showing the duplicity in America’s "War On Drugs"and what a farce it is.

The allegations date back to the Reagan administration. What bearing does that have on anything today?

According to Gary Webb and later confirmed by C.I.A. docs, the C.I. A. were complicit in the drug trade during the time of the Contra V. Sandinista war. There have been plenty of books written on the subject of America’s involvement in the drug trade i.e. Alfred C. McCoy’s Politics Of Heroin.

Uh…yeah? What’s that got to do with anything today? What’s the connection?

And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?[/quote]

To “reevaluate” = to take a second look at that period of contemporary history in light of the information you are relating? Why are you asking me if the CIA “ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade” etc? Can’t you have a normal conversation without throwing out these mad red herrings? I haven’t even challenged any of these claims. I’m merely asking what your point is. So your point is we should legalise drugs because the CIA was in some way involved with drug dealers in Latin America in the 1980’s? That’s not a logical train of thought. I was asking you to join these disparate strains of thought into some sort of coherent argument.

So your position is to let law breakers go as long as they work for the C.I.A. and enough time has passed?

[SexMachine]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Okay, cool. So the Koch Foundations are not corporations right?

What is my point? The point is showing the duplicity in America’s "War On Drugs"and what a farce it is.

The allegations date back to the Reagan administration. What bearing does that have on anything today?

According to Gary Webb and later confirmed by C.I.A. docs, the C.I. A. were complicit in the drug trade during the time of the Contra V. Sandinista war. There have been plenty of books written on the subject of America’s involvement in the drug trade i.e. Alfred C. McCoy’s Politics Of Heroin.

Uh…yeah? What’s that got to do with anything today? What’s the connection?

And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?[/quote]

To “reevaluate” = to take a second look at that period of contemporary history in light of the information you are relating? Why are you asking me if the CIA “ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade” etc? Can’t you have a normal conversation without throwing out these mad red herrings? I haven’t even challenged any of these claims. I’m merely asking what your point is. So your point is we should legalise drugs because the CIA was in some way involved with drug dealers in Latin America in the 1980’s? That’s not a logical train of thought. I was asking you to join these disparate strains of thought into some sort of coherent argument.

So your position is to let law breakers go as long as they work for the C.I.A. and enough time has passed?[/quote]

Er…read my comments again. I didn’t give a “position”. I asked what your point is.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Another trailer.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb[/quote]

Do you agree with Webb that the Sandinistas were “progressives?”[/quote]

The Sandinistas were part of the party that was democratically elected. The U.S.- as is often the case- were involved with the overthrow of the democratically elected officials. It is none of Americas business how other nations want to run their affairs especially when they are not bothering us. But in fact they are bothering the U.S. as another country can not set an example of another way to organize their affairs. 'Progressives" are usually associated with the more socialized of the political parties. So in that sense the Sandinistas were progressive.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Okay, cool. So the Koch Foundations are not corporations right?

What is my point? The point is showing the duplicity in America’s "War On Drugs"and what a farce it is.

The allegations date back to the Reagan administration. What bearing does that have on anything today?

According to Gary Webb and later confirmed by C.I.A. docs, the C.I. A. were complicit in the drug trade during the time of the Contra V. Sandinista war. There have been plenty of books written on the subject of America’s involvement in the drug trade i.e. Alfred C. McCoy’s Politics Of Heroin.

Uh…yeah? What’s that got to do with anything today? What’s the connection?

And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?[/quote]

To “reevaluate” = to take a second look at that period of contemporary history in light of the information you are relating? Why are you asking me if the CIA “ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade” etc? Can’t you have a normal conversation without throwing out these mad red herrings? I haven’t even challenged any of these claims. I’m merely asking what your point is. So your point is we should legalise drugs because the CIA was in some way involved with drug dealers in Latin America in the 1980’s? That’s not a logical train of thought. I was asking you to join these disparate strains of thought into some sort of coherent argument.

So your position is to let law breakers go as long as they work for the C.I.A. and enough time has passed?[/quote]

Er…read my comments again. I didn’t give a “position”. I asked what your point is.[/quote]

My point is painfully obvious and borne out by the information cited. Why is it okay for a government agency to break laws to overthrow another nations democratically elected officials?

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?

[Bismark]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Another trailer.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb[/quote]

Do you agree with Webb that the Sandinistas were “progressives?”[/quote]

The Sandinistas were part of the party that was democratically elected. The U.S.- as is often the case- were involved with the overthrow of the democratically elected officials. It is none of Americas business how other nations want to run their affairs especially when they are not bothering us. But in fact they are bothering the U.S. as another country can not set an example of another way to organize their affairs. 'Progressives" are usually associated with the more socialized of the political parties. So in that sense the Sandinistas were progressive.

[/quote]

Like it or, force is the ultima ratio in world politics. Are you surprised a regional hegemon would act in such a manner toward an avowed ideological enemy, much less one in its own hemisphere? You can’t cogently apply interpersonal ethics to the conduct of nations inhabiting an anarchic international political system. Structure constrains state behavior.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Okay, cool. So the Koch Foundations are not corporations right?

What is my point? The point is showing the duplicity in America’s "War On Drugs"and what a farce it is.

The allegations date back to the Reagan administration. What bearing does that have on anything today?

According to Gary Webb and later confirmed by C.I.A. docs, the C.I. A. were complicit in the drug trade during the time of the Contra V. Sandinista war. There have been plenty of books written on the subject of America’s involvement in the drug trade i.e. Alfred C. McCoy’s Politics Of Heroin.

Uh…yeah? What’s that got to do with anything today? What’s the connection?

And what aspect of “history” are we reevaluating? The government C.I.A. ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade and do so with impunity and citizens ought to go to prison?[/quote]

To “reevaluate” = to take a second look at that period of contemporary history in light of the information you are relating? Why are you asking me if the CIA “ought to be able to be involved in the drug trade” etc? Can’t you have a normal conversation without throwing out these mad red herrings? I haven’t even challenged any of these claims. I’m merely asking what your point is. So your point is we should legalise drugs because the CIA was in some way involved with drug dealers in Latin America in the 1980’s? That’s not a logical train of thought. I was asking you to join these disparate strains of thought into some sort of coherent argument.

So your position is to let law breakers go as long as they work for the C.I.A. and enough time has passed?[/quote]

Er…read my comments again. I didn’t give a “position”. I asked what your point is.[/quote]

My point is painfully obvious and borne out by the information cited. Why is it okay for a government agency to break laws to overthrow another nations democratically elected officials?[/quote]

That’s not a “point” it’s a question. A loaded question. Whose “laws” are you talking about anyway? US law? International law? Nicaraguan law?

[countingbeans]

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?
[/quote]

No one. They made a choice to do so, and the people that bought it made a choice to buy it. Then the people that smoke it, made a choice to smoke it.

No one forced anyone here. That is why your implication that “the government caused the crack epidemic” is completely fucking moronic.

People wanted to smoke crack, other people (illegally and immorally) sold them the crack. No one forced anyone here.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

Well they kinda did.
[/quote]

um, no. Might want to refresh your memory as to what “force” means.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?
[/quote]

No one. They made a choice to do so, and the people that bought it made a choice to buy it. Then the people that smoke it, made a choice to smoke it.

No one forced anyone here. That is why your implication that “the government caused the crack epidemic” is completely fucking moronic.

People wanted to smoke crack, other people (illegally and immorally) sold them the crack. No one forced anyone here. [/quote]

So, maybe I’m late to the conversation, but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers, unless the argument is that the drug laws are simply stupid and shouldn’t be enforced at all. No one forced the C.I.A to conspire with drug cartels to sell coke, but dealing is treated as a much more severe crime than using. Anyone associated with dealing should be prosecuted as long as the law criminalizes dealing, and, I would posit, especially if they are dealing while supposedly acting as agents on behalf of the American People because that is additionally a breach of public trust. I am not all the concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own home vis a vis drugs, but I am concerned that our intelligence agency is (or at least was) in the drug business apparently partnering with or providing aid to violent cartels.

[countingbeans]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers,
[/quote]

Because spanky said:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
leading to an epidemic of crack use in major US cities.

[/quote]

Whether people were “right-wing” or that is some bullshit heaped on top of the shit reporting of the likes of “US Uncut” or some other partisan shit hole is irrelevant.

And I already said the dealing was illegal and immoral, which I hope implies to reasonable people that I’m down with punishing them for doing illegal things.

What I’m not okay with is implying people’s choice to smoke crack is the fault of anyone but themselves and we can somehow blame the government for their crack use, therefore needing more government to fix a problem that government supposedly caused in the first place.

No. Not going to let that slide. They sold it? They should be punished. But that has zero to do with a crack epidemic and the people that choose to smoke it.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers,
[/quote]

Because spanky said:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
leading to an epidemic of crack use in major US cities.

[/quote]

Whether people were “right-wing” or that is some bullshit heaped on top of the shit reporting of the likes of “US Uncut” or some other partisan shit hole is irrelevant.

And I already said the dealing was illegal and immoral, which I hope implies to reasonable people that I’m down with punishing them for doing illegal things.

What I’m not okay with is implying people’s choice to smoke crack is the fault of anyone but themselves and we can somehow blame the government for their crack use, therefore needing more government to fix a problem that government supposedly caused in the first place.

No. Not going to let that slide. They sold it? They should be punished. But that has zero to do with a crack epidemic and the people that choose to smoke it. [/quote]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[theuofh]

Has anybody actually seen the flick yet?

[SexMachine]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?
[/quote]

No one. They made a choice to do so, and the people that bought it made a choice to buy it. Then the people that smoke it, made a choice to smoke it.

No one forced anyone here. That is why your implication that “the government caused the crack epidemic” is completely fucking moronic.

People wanted to smoke crack, other people (illegally and immorally) sold them the crack. No one forced anyone here. [/quote]

So, maybe I’m late to the conversation, but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers, unless the argument is that the drug laws are simply stupid and shouldn’t be enforced at all. No one forced the C.I.A to conspire with drug cartels to sell coke, but dealing is treated as a much more severe crime than using. Anyone associated with dealing should be prosecuted as long as the law criminalizes dealing, and, I would posit, especially if they are dealing while supposedly acting as agents on behalf of the American People because that is additionally a breach of public trust. I am not all the concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own home vis a vis drugs, but I am concerned that our intelligence agency is (or at least was) in the drug business apparently partnering with or providing aid to violent cartels.

[/quote]

The CIA didn’t “conspire to sell drugs.” The accusation is that they “knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.” And why should they? The CIA is not a law enforcement agency.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Another trailer.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/9/kill_the_messenger_resurrects_gary_webb[/quote]

Do you agree with Webb that the Sandinistas were “progressives?”[/quote]

The Sandinistas were part of the party that was democratically elected. The U.S.- as is often the case- were involved with the overthrow of the democratically elected officials. It is none of Americas business how other nations want to run their affairs especially when they are not bothering us. But in fact they are bothering the U.S. as another country can not set an example of another way to organize their affairs. 'Progressives" are usually associated with the more socialized of the political parties. So in that sense the Sandinistas were progressive.

[/quote]

Like it or, force is the ultima ratio in world politics. Are you surprised a regional hegemon would act in such a manner toward an avowed ideological enemy, much less one in its own hemisphere? You can’t cogently apply interpersonal ethics to the conduct of nations inhabiting an anarchic international political system. Structure constrains state behavior.[/quote]

They choose the system democratically. Whether you or the U.S. likes it or not should be irrelevant. It is not the business of our country to overthrow democratically elected governments because it is not favorable to the U.S. business class or as you put it a “anarchic international political system”.

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Foundations are not corporations.

[/quote]

Riiiigggghhhhhhttttt.

I suppose this little bit of incorrect information is as good as the implication that the government forced people to smoke & sell crack…

again… rrrrriiiiiggggghhhhhttt. [/quote]

And who forced the C.I.A. to sell cocaine to these individuals?
[/quote]

No one. They made a choice to do so, and the people that bought it made a choice to buy it. Then the people that smoke it, made a choice to smoke it.

No one forced anyone here. That is why your implication that “the government caused the crack epidemic” is completely fucking moronic.

People wanted to smoke crack, other people (illegally and immorally) sold them the crack. No one forced anyone here. [/quote]

So, maybe I’m late to the conversation, but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers, unless the argument is that the drug laws are simply stupid and shouldn’t be enforced at all. No one forced the C.I.A to conspire with drug cartels to sell coke, but dealing is treated as a much more severe crime than using. Anyone associated with dealing should be prosecuted as long as the law criminalizes dealing, and, I would posit, especially if they are dealing while supposedly acting as agents on behalf of the American People because that is additionally a breach of public trust. I am not all the concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own home vis a vis drugs, but I am concerned that our intelligence agency is (or at least was) in the drug business apparently partnering with or providing aid to violent cartels.

[/quote]

The CIA didn’t “conspire to sell drugs.” The accusation is that they “knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.” And why should they? The CIA is not a law enforcement agency.[/quote]

Even if what you say is true are they not supposed to do anything?

[Zeppelin795]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
but I’m not sure why it matters all the much that the C.I.A. had a willing pool of purchasers,
[/quote]

Because spanky said:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
leading to an epidemic of crack use in major US cities.

[/quote]

Whether people were “right-wing” or that is some bullshit heaped on top of the shit reporting of the likes of “US Uncut” or some other partisan shit hole is irrelevant.

And I already said the dealing was illegal and immoral, which I hope implies to reasonable people that I’m down with punishing them for doing illegal things.

What I’m not okay with is implying people’s choice to smoke crack is the fault of anyone but themselves and we can somehow blame the government for their crack use, therefore needing more government to fix a problem that government supposedly caused in the first place.

No. Not going to let that slide. They sold it? They should be punished. But that has zero to do with a crack epidemic and the people that choose to smoke it. [/quote]

So not even the street dealers are at all culpable for the epidemic that took place?

[SexMachine]

They choose the system democratically.

Actually no. They came to power in a violent revolution. The fact that they may have subsequently gained legitimacy five years later is neither here nor there. A violent, anti-democratic regime cannot gain legitimacy after the fact.

Whether you or the U.S. likes it or not should be irrelevant.

Actually you have that the wrong way around. Whether or not the Nicaraguans like their own government or not is irrelevant to the interests of the United States.

It is not the business of our country to overthrow democratically elected governments

Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so.

because it is not favorable to the U.S. business class or as you put it a “anarchic international political system”.

The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

They choose the system democratically.

Actually no. They came to power in a violent revolution. The fact that they may have subsequently gained legitimacy five years later is neither here nor there. A violent, anti-democratic regime cannot gain legitimacy after the fact.

[quote]

I am not sure about Australia, but here in the U.S. we celebrate a violent revolution every July 4.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Nonsense. It’s our business to overthrow any government when it is in our interests to do so.

[quote]

The fact that the international system is anarchic and lawless is justification in and of itself for dispensing with morality. The only consideration should be what is in the interests of the United States.[/quote]

When did you start vehemently agreeing with Bismark?