Mena, Arkansa - CIA - Arms for Drugs to Contras - Iran/Nicaragua?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Mena, Arkansa - CIA - Arms for Drugs to Contras - Iran/Nicaragua?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 04:19:

Mena, Arkansa - CIA - Arms for Drugs to Contras - Iran/Nicaragua?

Anyone know anything about what happened in the 1980's regarding Mena, Arkansa and the CIA giving arms to Nicaragua contras for cocaine then the CIA bringing cocaine back into Arkansa to sell for money?

Why would the CIA give arms to the contras in Nicaragua and/or Iran...for what purpose?

Does this have anything to do with the Iran - Contra scandal...are tied to each other or separate trades (meaning contras in Iran and contras in Nicaragua?

Was it Arms to Nicaragua for Cocaine
and Arms to Iran for money?
2 separate scandals?

I searched the net but all i found was conspiracy junk...so i figured i would ask you guys.

Posted by occrider on Sep-16-2003 04:25:

Re: Mena, Arkansa - CIA - Arms for Drugs to Contras - Iran/Nicaragua?

quote:
Originally posted by tiesto14
Anyone know anything about what happened in the 1980's regarding Mena, Arkansa and the CIA giving arms to Nicaragua contras for cocaine then the CIA bringing cocaine back into Arkansa to sell for money?

Why would the CIA give arms to the contras in Nicaragua and/or Iran...for what purpose?

Does this have anything to do with the Iran - Contra scandal...are tied to each other or separate trades (meaning contras in Iran and contras in Nicaragua?

Was it Arms to Nicaragua for Cocaine
and Arms to Iran for money?
2 separate scandals?

I searched the net but all i found was conspiracy junk...so i figured i would ask you guys.

Well, I dunno about the whole CIA deal you're talking about, but the Iran-Contra scandal was NOT for money. The whole purpose of the Iran-Contra affair was to negotiate a trade with the Iranians of arms for hostages. If the US wanted to make money, I can think of far better methods such as the billion dollars weapons sales industry. But I haven't really studied the matter all that much.

Posted by occrider on Sep-16-2003 04:29:

But here is one snippet of credible news reporting that I could find that has some relevance to your claim:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/138439.stm

Posted by occrider on Sep-16-2003 04:32:

and more

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9611/26/c...ings/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9811/03/cia.drugs/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9903/16/cia.crack/index.html

I guess form your own opinion.

Posted by MrSquirrel on Sep-16-2003 04:39:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
and more

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9611/26/c...ings/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9811/03/cia.drugs/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9903/16/cia.crack/index.html

I guess form your own opinion.

Lol occrider....why not just give people a phrase you think would work and say "put this into Google"

Is it not amazing how easy it is to just search for something yourself than to ask someone else for the information?

MrS

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 04:43:

quote:
Originally posted by MrSquirrel
Lol occrider....why not just give people a phrase you think would work and say "put this into Google"

Is it not amazing how easy it is to just search for something yourself than to ask someone else for the information?

MrS

the reason i asked was because when i DID search Google, all i found was conspiracy sites...and i figured someone here would know with out a bias view...sooorrrryyyy

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 04:44:

Posted by MrSquirrel on Sep-16-2003 04:47:

quote:
Originally posted by tiesto14
the reason i asked was because when i DID search Google, all i found was conspiracy sites...and i figured someone here would know with out a bias view...sooorrrryyyy

I did not mean you specifically. I was speaking in generalizations because a lot of people will come on here and post some question like the whole "how dodgy is acid" thread in chill out and expect people to do their work for them.

occrider does have an ability to sift throught the bullshit results on searches fairly quickly (it takes a LOT of practice) so if his info is helpful I don;t begrudge you that.

I apologize if I offended you, I was just making a gross generalization. Not something worth starting a flamewar about.

Ciao,

MrS

Posted by rizo on Sep-16-2003 05:10:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
But here is one snippet of credible news reporting that I could find that has some relevance to your claim:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/138439.stm
a former lapd and cia agent would disagree with that. heres a direct link to a iran/contra page

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 05:23:

quote:
Originally posted by rizen
a former lapd and cia agent would disagree with that. heres a direct link to a iran/contra page

you do know that the guy who makes the fromthewilderness site and all those conspiracys spent some time in a mental hospital because of dellusional thoughts and paranoia right?...i tend to stay away from that site because the guy who started the newsletter is basically a quack.

Posted by ProDiGaL on Sep-16-2003 05:24:

zzzzzzz

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 05:30:

quote:
Originally posted by ProDiGaL
zzzzzzz

i dont get it....i mean in all honesty i wanted to learn and talk about this subject then you come in here and mock me with your "zzzzzzzz"....for what?...if you are not interested dont look, dont post and dont worry....

This is WHY we need a mod...because people like progigal....

i know i havent been flaming anymore...but prodigal FUCK OFF you attention wanting prick....

Posted by occrider on Sep-16-2003 05:32:

Well look ... I'll give you guys my take on most conspiracy sites. Assuming these conspiracy sites are correct, one must ask ones self, why aren't these stories reported in the news? Granted you have the typical response that the news is biased/intimidated/a government puppet, etc (but why did they report on Vietnam's failures, Iran-Contra Scandal, Watergate, etc., etc., etc.?). However, what about ALL the other news organizations?? BBC is so critical of its own government yet they are lax with our government because they like us??? Russian media, French media, Canadian media? Why aren't all these other news organizations reporting on the "blatantly obvious facts"? The answer 99.99% of the time: because they are unconfirmed facts and theories. Your best bet for understanding world events is to stick to history books and credible news sources for your "facts" and then do your own analysis from then on.

Posted by tiesto14 on Sep-16-2003 05:39:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Well look ... I'll give you guys my take on most conspiracy sites. Assuming these conspiracy sites are correct, one must ask ones self, why aren't these stories reported in the news? Granted you have the typical response that the news is biased/intimidated/a government puppet, etc (but why did they report on Vietnam's failures, Iran-Contra Scandal, Watergate, etc., etc., etc.?). However, what about ALL the other news organizations?? BBC is so critical of its own government yet they are lax with our government because they like us??? Russian media, French media, Canadian media? Why aren't all these other news organizations reporting on the "blatantly obvious facts"? The answer 99.99% of the time: because they are unconfirmed facts and theories. Your best bet for understanding world events is to stick to history books and credible news sources for your "facts" and then do your own analysis from then on.

I see your point...but it is very easy to find myself looking through conspiracy sites.....

Are you telling me you never indulge in them?...you dont bother ever?

And most of those conspiracy sites claim the French media buys the conspiracys about 9.11

ignorance is bliss soemtimes.

Posted by rizo on Sep-16-2003 07:04:

okay my mistake, i havnt watched or read his stuff in awhile. his not a cia, but his family has a long run of being in the cia, and he was going to join the cia until he found out they were into the business of trafficking drugs in 1977. yeah it does sound like conspiracy stuff, but he has hard facts as well as the backing of some US Congress members, such as CA-barbara lee and former congress woman GA-cynthia mckinney (shes also a potential green party persidential candidate for 2004), university professors, and even neocons like TX-ron paul. also if you can disprove any of his facts, you get $1000!

Posted by dj adagnitio on Sep-16-2003 17:46:

The CIA did however fund the contra rebels, because they wanted to get rid of the democratically elected socialist government of Nicaragua. The CIA has a long tradition of anti-communist and anti-socialist activities in central America. There is some founding to some people belief that the CIA not only knew of contra drug trafficking but had some involvement. However that claim has never been proven to any degree of certainty.

Posted by occrider on Sep-16-2003 17:52:

quote:
Originally posted by dj adagnitio
The CIA did however fund the contra rebels, because they wanted to get rid of the democratically elected socialist government of Nicaragua. The CIA has a long tradition of anti-communist and anti-socialist activities in central America. There is some founding to some people belief that the CIA not only knew of contra drug trafficking but had some involvement. However that claim has never been proven to any degree of certainty.

That is indeed a fact

Posted by DaveSZ on Sep-16-2003 17:54:

quote:
Originally posted by rizen
okay my mistake, i havnt watched or read his stuff in awhile. his not a cia, but his family has a long run of being in the cia, and he was going to join the cia until he found out they were into the business of trafficking drugs in 1977. yeah it does sound like conspiracy stuff, but he has hard facts as well as the backing of some US Congress members, such as CA-barbara lee and former congress woman GA-cynthia mckinney (shes also a potential green party persidential candidate for 2004), university professors, and even neocons like TX-ron paul. also if you can disprove any of his facts, you get $1000!

If you think Ron Paul is a Neocon, you must have very very leftish views.

Posted by rizo on Sep-16-2003 18:31:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSaenz
If you think Ron Paul is a Neocon, you must have very very leftish views.
lol my bad, his not really a neocon, i got a misinterpation from a google search on him. i have no real idea on ron's or cynthia mckinney's views/beliefs. i do know who barbara lee is though, and i trust her more than any other current politician in office. anyway i just read ron paul's speech to congress about neocon influences in america, heh he even mentions PNAC(!OMG CONSPIRACY!)

Posted by matty on Sep-24-2003 03:24:

Yes you are right about the CIA arming the contras in Nicaragua. Same could be said for the death squads in Brazil and Argentina. Anyways, if you want to learn more on this i suggest getting Noam Chomskys Washington Connection and the Third World Fascism. The book talks about the government involvement in central/south america, south korea, iran/iraq, and everywhere else in the world

Posted by Yoepus on Sep-24-2003 05:40:

The Iran-Contra affair a Dossier from the mind archives of Yoepus (so bear with me):

Early 1980s in Iran you have the Islamic Revolution - This is when the Shas comes to power. During the revolution the diplomatic immunity of the United States, the United Kingdom (and perhaps several other countries) embassies are overrun and the staff of these places are taken hostage.

After 100 odd days the US tries a daring raid to resuce all the hostages (they were all held in one centeral location) but fails miserablly. The hostages are then moved around the country in groups of 5-3 and scattered across making mass-rescue impossible (you rescue one group, they kill the others).

Also in the Early 1980s: The US is covertly supporting the Contras ("capitilist" rebels) against the commy influence in Nicaruga. US Latin American policy during the Cold War is basically a result from the threat the crisis of the missles on Cuba provided.

The US Government provided covert talks with the Iranians for the release of prisoners. They wanted arms for hostages. The US government would not do this OVERTLY under any circumstances. What happened is the CIA created a dummy company that was seen as funding the Contras in Nicaruga, this company then moved the arms from the Contras to Iran which upon receiving the arms released the western hostages (thats the short simple version of it).

Hence the whole "Iran-Contra Affair" - the affair being the fact that the US did this covertly, and it sold arms to both the Contra and the Iranians which was not a popular thing to do a the time.

Posted by IronDragon on Sep-24-2003 14:21:

Re: Mena, Arkansa - CIA - Arms for Drugs to Contras - Iran/Nicaragua?

quote:
Originally posted by tiesto14
Anyone know anything about what happened in the 1980's regarding Mena, Arkansa and the CIA giving arms to Nicaragua contras for cocaine then the CIA bringing cocaine back into Arkansa to sell for money?

Why would the CIA give arms to the contras in Nicaragua and/or Iran...for what purpose?

Does this have anything to do with the Iran - Contra scandal...are tied to each other or separate trades (meaning contras in Iran and contras in Nicaragua?

Was it Arms to Nicaragua for Cocaine
and Arms to Iran for money?
2 separate scandals?

I searched the net but all i found was conspiracy junk...so i figured i would ask you guys.

Sigh...another piece of unidentifable garbage trotted out by rapid right-wingers to attack Clinton with.

Once again, I have not been fully abreast of all the alleged goings-on here but I think if you believe this, you have to believe all the conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and Ron Brown too.

And then if you're a fair-minded lunatic, then you probably believe all those idiotic lefty conspiracies about 9/11 too.

Then you're pretty much in Lyndon LaRouche territory.

Posted by dj adagnitio on Sep-24-2003 16:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
Also in the Early 1980s: The US is covertly supporting the Contras ("capitilist" rebels) against the commy influence in Nicaruga. US Latin American policy during the Cold War is basically a result from the threat the crisis of the missles on Cuba provided.

I dont think that this is correct. It seems a VERY large simplification to say that U.S. policy during the eighties towards communism was a result of the Cuban missle crisis.

Posted by Yoepus on Sep-24-2003 17:06:

quote:
Originally posted by dj adagnitio
I dont think that this is correct. It seems a VERY large simplification to say that U.S. policy during the eighties towards communism was a result of the Cuban missle crisis.

Ya it is a simplification, but yes I think US Latin American policy during the Cold War was basically the result of both the Cuban revolution and then the Cuban Missle crisis expericenes.

Posted by occrider on Sep-24-2003 17:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
Ya it is a simplification, but yes I think US Latin American policy during the Cold War was basically the result of both the Cuban revolution and then the Cuban Missle crisis expericenes.

US economic interests also played a big role in combination with anti-Soviet fears.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »