Senate Member
Posts: 5,212 
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
January 22nd, 2008, 12:34 PM
I see some problems with your post.........first of all, the Russians in Afghanistan were there in support of a puppet gov't (OK, some parallel), but they cared NOTHING about the population......they set out to de-populate the country, sending 1 out of 4 Afghans fleeing the nation. Since 2001, Afghans have been returning to Afghanistan (and not all of them wearing black turbans and carrying AKs and RPGs
) That in itself speaks to a HUGE difference between Russian and western attitudes in the nation.
War death and destruction is an unfortunate consequence, but it is sometimes necessary in defense of our way of life.....the 9-11 attacks were planned and set in motion from Afghanistan.....our enemy, the Islamo-fascists that would drag a major part of the world back to the Dark Ages, found succor, comfort, and support in Afghanistan. And YES, they are our enemy, and we need to face up to that.....us all joining the NDP, pulling our soldiers out, having lovely negotiations (just don't send any women), having the UN write a peace plan, and then hold hands and sing Kumbaya...will simply result in the return of the Taliban, the subjugation and murder of Afghanis by the tens of thousands, a return of Afghani women to conditions never even dreamed of in the Christian west, and, eventually, the return of training camps and major attacks on the west.
The place to meet these threats is Afghanistan............with 63 grains of steel, lead and coppwer moving at about 2900 fps.
There is no other rational chioice.....
Now, if our NATO "allies" do not step up to the plate..........#$@! em! Withdraw.........and hope Germany and France pay the price, not the USA, Canada, and Great Britain.
Quoting MikeyDB
Hi Mikey!
It's interesting to watch and compare contributions from posters. Obviously we have some who feel that war and conflict is prefferable to diplomacy and negotiated settlement....
Alternatives are dismissed as lacking reason since the only reasonable point of view is to continue to send folk into war to die. That's been happening a lot in Afghanistan and although these reasonable folk seem to believe that this situation is black and white it isn't. Russians with far greater investment in this theater lost, so there's no reason to believe that Canadians should triumph... The bloodlust of some Canadian Content posters is a clear indication of how and why conflicts rage for decades and the answer to everything from international terrorism to the treatment of people caught up in the tumult of religious fanaticism and big-business frustrations. The attitude that the answer to these issues is more war an more death and destruction appears to be popular. We've entertained the "cycle of poverty" and we've talked about the cycle of abuse/violence, and we've noted time and time again how repetative the human dynamic seems to play out.
The reasonable answer regarding why this is true is obvious.
Alternatives are dismissed as lacking reason since the only reasonable point of view is to continue to send folk into war to die. That's been happening a lot in Afghanistan and although these reasonable folk seem to believe that this situation is black and white it isn't. Russians with far greater investment in this theater lost, so there's no reason to believe that Canadians should triumph... The bloodlust of some Canadian Content posters is a clear indication of how and why conflicts rage for decades and the answer to everything from international terrorism to the treatment of people caught up in the tumult of religious fanaticism and big-business frustrations. The attitude that the answer to these issues is more war an more death and destruction appears to be popular. We've entertained the "cycle of poverty" and we've talked about the cycle of abuse/violence, and we've noted time and time again how repetative the human dynamic seems to play out.
The reasonable answer regarding why this is true is obvious.
I see some problems with your post.........first of all, the Russians in Afghanistan were there in support of a puppet gov't (OK, some parallel), but they cared NOTHING about the population......they set out to de-populate the country, sending 1 out of 4 Afghans fleeing the nation. Since 2001, Afghans have been returning to Afghanistan (and not all of them wearing black turbans and carrying AKs and RPGs
) That in itself speaks to a HUGE difference between Russian and western attitudes in the nation.War death and destruction is an unfortunate consequence, but it is sometimes necessary in defense of our way of life.....the 9-11 attacks were planned and set in motion from Afghanistan.....our enemy, the Islamo-fascists that would drag a major part of the world back to the Dark Ages, found succor, comfort, and support in Afghanistan. And YES, they are our enemy, and we need to face up to that.....us all joining the NDP, pulling our soldiers out, having lovely negotiations (just don't send any women), having the UN write a peace plan, and then hold hands and sing Kumbaya...will simply result in the return of the Taliban, the subjugation and murder of Afghanis by the tens of thousands, a return of Afghani women to conditions never even dreamed of in the Christian west, and, eventually, the return of training camps and major attacks on the west.
The place to meet these threats is Afghanistan............with 63 grains of steel, lead and coppwer moving at about 2900 fps.
There is no other rational chioice.....
Now, if our NATO "allies" do not step up to the plate..........#$@! em! Withdraw.........and hope Germany and France pay the price, not the USA, Canada, and Great Britain.
January 22nd, 2008, 12:34 PM
Pearsons vision was UN mandated PeaceKeepers, a valid and glorious vicion at that.
Trudeau's was a nuetered force of pot smoking peacelovers.
Martin's was a vision of placation of an Internation obligation.
Nothing like trumping the entire NATO process cuz it suits your aganda.
No, the US does not negotiate with terrorists, the Taliban supported, protected and funded a know terrorist organisation, therefore by defacto being a terrorist entity, running a failed state.
No need for negotiation, as was further proved by the UN mandate to forcably continue the removal of the Taliban from power.
Furthermore, not that matters to the opinion class around here, we were invited and asked to stay the course by the elected Gov't of Afghanistan.
Hypocracy at its best.
Thank God he didn't though, but to equate his actions to some moral high ground, is tantamount to equating the Nazi Empire to a hippy commune.
That way you can keep putting food on the table...
I wonder just how simplistic it would be to just tell the US to get stuffed and ride the globe on our own...
Quoting dancing-loon
Well at least you have the players right and some of the facts that go along with that.
Beaver, again you are so right!
Listening to Manley earlier gave me the impression that Canada, as a Nato Force, is continuing what Lester Pearson started, what Trudeau endorsed and supported, what Martin got us into and Harper is continuing.
Listening to Manley earlier gave me the impression that Canada, as a Nato Force, is continuing what Lester Pearson started, what Trudeau endorsed and supported, what Martin got us into and Harper is continuing.
Pearsons vision was UN mandated PeaceKeepers, a valid and glorious vicion at that.
Trudeau's was a nuetered force of pot smoking peacelovers.
Martin's was a vision of placation of an Internation obligation.
Quote:
All that is correct as I know it, BUT that is not the whole story. Canadians know, just as my humble self does, that we are there to support and to finish a war the Americans started.
Quote:
Ya...OK.
They didn't start it because they wanted the Afghan people to have a better and more modern life, No...they started it under the false pretense of getting Osama bin Laden, because they say he is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yet, before the start of the war the Americans were asked to provide proof that he did it, before handing him over, they couldn't provide any proof and flatly dismissed the request by saying,... "we don't negotiate on that matter... hand him over or face the consequences"! And so the Americans, not the Canadians, went to war against Afghanistan.
Nothing like trumping the entire NATO process cuz it suits your aganda.
No, the US does not negotiate with terrorists, the Taliban supported, protected and funded a know terrorist organisation, therefore by defacto being a terrorist entity, running a failed state.
No need for negotiation, as was further proved by the UN mandate to forcably continue the removal of the Taliban from power.
Quote:
Other countries got involved because they are NATO nations, look it up and see what the Mandate and inclusion in NATO means.
Now, after more than six years of fighting and all sorts of countries gotten involved as well, the war is no longer about bin Laden and 9/11.... it wqas changed to a humanitarian war. Let's help the poor people in Afghanistan to free themselves from the Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban. I have never heard the Afghan people asking us to come and help them, they were simply confronted with the Western Generosity.
Furthermore, not that matters to the opinion class around here, we were invited and asked to stay the course by the elected Gov't of Afghanistan.
Quote:
Amazing how the opinion based on assumptions of puppet states and inuendo has become fact to some, but the very thought of weapons being transferred to Syria is a made up defence theory...
It is the same situation in Iraq! Saddam had WMD and was a threat to USRAEL. It was imperative, to go in there and destroy those weapons. As it turned out, there were none! Therefore, the reason for the war against Iraq was change to a humanitarian one... let's free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator.
Hypocracy at its best.
Quote:
I would say Jean had a lot things, guts ain't one of them, just look around this board at the loathsome commentary of card carrying Liberals and you will know why he refused to join in...
All sorts of countries were asked to join in that war, and many heeded the threat = if you are not with us then you are against us! Then you are a terrorist supporter.
Our PM at the time, Jean Chretien, had the guts to refuse; so did Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Our PM at the time, Jean Chretien, had the guts to refuse; so did Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Thank God he didn't though, but to equate his actions to some moral high ground, is tantamount to equating the Nazi Empire to a hippy commune.
Quote:
Thank God eh?
The US is simply too powerful and will make any country that refuses to participate in their efforts for global supremacy, suffer dearly through economic manipulations. Canada, as a next-door neighbor, got a taste of it during the Chretien years. Finally, after Mulroony, the Conservatists are back in the saddle and we are brought in line again with the wishes of the Americans. As soon as we are not behaving, like not pulling our weight in Afghanistan or putting the US and Israel on a list with the worlds tortures, we get sternly reprimanded. Of course, our Harper Government retracts immediately any "misteps" to keep us compliant with the wishes of our dear neighbor.
That way you can keep putting food on the table...
I wonder just how simplistic it would be to just tell the US to get stuffed and ride the globe on our own...
World Police
Posts: 4,634
Videos: 1
Videos: 1
January 22nd, 2008, 12:51 PM
By the way, your baseball analogies suck pal.
Quoting dancing-loon
Pretty misleading thread title if I may say so, can you explain exactly how we are "stepping up to the American Plate"?
Just as I expected... we stay in Afghanistan and will very likely provide more troops, too!
Read here what Manley's panel has recommended:
"The Manley panel's report will recommend that Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan to train the Afghan army and police, but only if NATO provides more troops and equipment, CTV News has learned.
http://tinyurl.com/3564gh
Read here what Manley's panel has recommended:
"The Manley panel's report will recommend that Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan to train the Afghan army and police, but only if NATO provides more troops and equipment, CTV News has learned.
http://tinyurl.com/3564gh
By the way, your baseball analogies suck pal.
January 22nd, 2008, 02:09 PM
But that title is too long
Quoting DurkaDurka
Yah, it's more like we're the third pitcher in the rotation, demanding that they trade for more support players, or we're going to explore the free agent market.
Pretty misleading thread title if I may say so, can you explain exactly how we are "stepping up to the American Plate"?
By the way, your baseball analogies suck pal.
By the way, your baseball analogies suck pal.
But that title is too long
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 02:25 PM
This is what Canadians are fighting and dying for in Afghanistan, this is what many Afghans have written and spohen of for years.
So if we remain we will in effect be paying to have our own soldiers and any aid work we've managed to carry out destroyed by the very insurgencys we in fact fund through covert drug sales. Now that's the actual state of the conflict, both sides are funded by the same interest in maintenance of the conflict to ensure that there is no stability and that democracy never thrives in the region because that Anglo-American coalition must destabalize the entire region or loose it's strangle-hold on the present status-quo extant now on the planet.
We are there for that purpose and no other, the exact same scam can be seen at work in Africa where it worked and continues to work for over a hundred years. When I discussed with you missionary work in Africe this was what I was explaining, charity work is largely an ineffectual front for affect only not ever meant to make a meaningfull difference. Not making a difference maintains our way and standard of living and has for many decades. Most western NGOs are funded by big money to act a part noting has changed with the basics of this for over a century and none will unless we stop interferring in the internal politics and life of third world countrys. They are in fact slaves and assets of the western world.
Quoting karrie
OK I'll try just one more time. The poppys are grown by the local mob under the protection of the coalition, they are shipped to and refined into heroine in northern Pakistan then shipped by covert elements of the CIA/ISA to markets all over the world, the money collected goes to pay for arms which then go back to Pakistan and are distributed to the warring insurgent factions as required to perpetuate the conflict. Many of the insurgents do not realize where or why the arms get to them, they are recruited and hired and put to working under the umbrella of Islamic Fundementalist Insurgenceys in all countries of the region including Iraq where the poppy has since the Anglo-American invasion and occupation become a crop in the oldest cultivated lands known to man.
If that's true, then perhaps it's right that we stay and clean up our mess.
This is what Canadians are fighting and dying for in Afghanistan, this is what many Afghans have written and spohen of for years.
So if we remain we will in effect be paying to have our own soldiers and any aid work we've managed to carry out destroyed by the very insurgencys we in fact fund through covert drug sales. Now that's the actual state of the conflict, both sides are funded by the same interest in maintenance of the conflict to ensure that there is no stability and that democracy never thrives in the region because that Anglo-American coalition must destabalize the entire region or loose it's strangle-hold on the present status-quo extant now on the planet.
We are there for that purpose and no other, the exact same scam can be seen at work in Africa where it worked and continues to work for over a hundred years. When I discussed with you missionary work in Africe this was what I was explaining, charity work is largely an ineffectual front for affect only not ever meant to make a meaningfull difference. Not making a difference maintains our way and standard of living and has for many decades. Most western NGOs are funded by big money to act a part noting has changed with the basics of this for over a century and none will unless we stop interferring in the internal politics and life of third world countrys. They are in fact slaves and assets of the western world.
January 22nd, 2008, 02:44 PM
It is a lovely Op/Ed piece, based on and supported by Op/Ed pieces, though.
Quoting darkbeaver
Not that your piece was void of truth, but your truth seems to change as the sun rises and sets.
OK I'll try just one more time. The poppys are grown by the...
It is a lovely Op/Ed piece, based on and supported by Op/Ed pieces, though.
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,867
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 4
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
January 22nd, 2008, 03:21 PM
What I don't get is that is a country where everyone has grown up during wartime, and knows little more than fighting wars, why we have to train people as police officers? I saw some Afghans squatting with pink rubber guns pretending they were going to do some police work.
I don't think there is a single Afghan that doesn't know everything there is to know about using a weapon, moving and handling people at gun point. I kind of think we're being had there.
As to the question "should we be there" hell yeah we should. This place was used as a training ground for terrorists to come to our countries and kill people. So yeah we should be there. But we are farting around. Terrorists are terrorists and this place is ripe with them. Same with Pakistan. Everyone in NATO should be stepping up.
What I don't get is that is a country where everyone has grown up during wartime, and knows little more than fighting wars, why we have to train people as police officers? I saw some Afghans squatting with pink rubber guns pretending they were going to do some police work.
I don't think there is a single Afghan that doesn't know everything there is to know about using a weapon, moving and handling people at gun point. I kind of think we're being had there.
As to the question "should we be there" hell yeah we should. This place was used as a training ground for terrorists to come to our countries and kill people. So yeah we should be there. But we are farting around. Terrorists are terrorists and this place is ripe with them. Same with Pakistan. Everyone in NATO should be stepping up.
January 22nd, 2008, 03:22 PM
Your premise relies on the belief and assumption that our governments are involved in the illegal drug trade. In all my time on the forums, I've never gotten more than conspiracy theories to that effect. Until such a time as I have solid proof (and no, no amount of internet essays or links to conspiracy sites will provide that for me) otherwise, I will assume that this is an issue of western governments attempting to put down criminal organizations that, while they may be funded from the west, we should not be turning a blind eye to. Because frankly, from what I've seen, if we do, then in order to maintain the status quo of conflict and strife, the alternative is genocides and tribal wars, and warring between drug factions. All we've done in that case is say 'our boys are too valuable, let your own people die'. Is that really better?
Quoting darkbeaver
Now that's the actual state of the conflict, both sides are funded by the same interest in maintenance of the conflict to ensure that there is no stability and that democracy never thrives in the region because that Anglo-American coalition must destabalize the entire region or loose it's strangle-hold on the present status-quo extant now on the planet.
We are there for that purpose and no other....
We are there for that purpose and no other....
Your premise relies on the belief and assumption that our governments are involved in the illegal drug trade. In all my time on the forums, I've never gotten more than conspiracy theories to that effect. Until such a time as I have solid proof (and no, no amount of internet essays or links to conspiracy sites will provide that for me) otherwise, I will assume that this is an issue of western governments attempting to put down criminal organizations that, while they may be funded from the west, we should not be turning a blind eye to. Because frankly, from what I've seen, if we do, then in order to maintain the status quo of conflict and strife, the alternative is genocides and tribal wars, and warring between drug factions. All we've done in that case is say 'our boys are too valuable, let your own people die'. Is that really better?
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 03:54 PM
If you do not depend on your own ability to study and read from multiple sources you will always be a slave. There are none so blind. Our boys, as you put it,will always be the victims of the rich and powerful ,who expend them in every generation to maintain thier own positions of unearned privilage. Why Afghanistan and why Iraq and why Iran Syria Yugoslavia and scores of others all destroyed or to be destroyed when not one attack was conducted by any of them on the countrys of the coalition? And not one bit of proof that Afghanistan had the slightest thing to do with 9/11. Seems you will forgive wholesale genocide easily, so I will assume that when it's our turn you'll be just fine untill the officials tell you different eh. I won't actually bother to get you a link you're ain't worth my time.
Quoting karrie
Well what do you consider a reliable source of information Karrie? The drug trade conducted by the CIA is documented, (see Iran contra) some of the Americans participants actually went to prison. I'll get you a link. You may also recall the recent siezure of a plane in Mexico after a crash that was found to be leased to the CIA. What is a conspiracy site? Any thing that does not agree with your assesment of reality apparently. It is a fact that we are part of an invasion and occupation of some six years duration that has failed to eradicate the poppy when the Taleban had done so in one year. It is also a fact that the poppy has been under cultivation in Iraq for at least two years under the noses of the exact Anglo-American forces. What is your answer to that? Further to that you may easily study the connections of what was called the "golden triagle" the former center of the heroin production and trade. Do you really think that the people who legally sell tax and licence cigarretts booze and thousands of dangerous destructive legal pharmasueticals would have any hesitation about moving smack under the table to keep clandestine operations off the books. You will never get solid proof from your masters they will continue to sell you pulp fiction of the thinest tackiest kind because you seem to buy it wholesale, and that's how and why the sleezy system we live in works so well, it depends on the gullability and fear of the average mean consumer and on those whose interest mass murder and theft depend.
Your premise relies on the belief and assumption that our governments are involved in the illegal drug trade. In all my time on the forums, I've never gotten more than conspiracy theories to that effect. Until such a time as I have solid proof (and no, no amount of internet essays or links to conspiracy sites will provide that for me) otherwise, I will assume that this is an issue of western governments attempting to put down criminal organizations that, while they may be funded from the west, we should not be turning a blind eye to. Because frankly, from what I've seen, if we do, then in order to maintain the status quo of conflict and strife, the alternative is genocides and tribal wars, and warring between drug factions. All we've done in that case is say 'our boys are too valuable, let your own people die'. Is that really better?
If you do not depend on your own ability to study and read from multiple sources you will always be a slave. There are none so blind. Our boys, as you put it,will always be the victims of the rich and powerful ,who expend them in every generation to maintain thier own positions of unearned privilage. Why Afghanistan and why Iraq and why Iran Syria Yugoslavia and scores of others all destroyed or to be destroyed when not one attack was conducted by any of them on the countrys of the coalition? And not one bit of proof that Afghanistan had the slightest thing to do with 9/11. Seems you will forgive wholesale genocide easily, so I will assume that when it's our turn you'll be just fine untill the officials tell you different eh. I won't actually bother to get you a link you're ain't worth my time.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 04:03 PM
Summary of Prosecutions
After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.
Completed Trials and Pleas
Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Carl R. Channell -- Pleaded guilty April 29, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Channell on July 7, 1989, to two years probation.
Thomas G. Clines -- Indicted February 22, 1990, on four felony counts of underreporting his earnings to the IRS in the 1985 and 1986 tax years; and falsely stating on his 1985 and 1986 tax returns that he had no foreign financial accounts. On September 18, 1990, Clines was found guilty of all charges. U.S. District Judge Norman P. Ramsey in Baltimore, Md., on December 13, 1990, sentenced Clines to 16 months in prison and $40,000 in fines. He was ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on February 27, 1992, upheld the convictions. Clines served his prison sentence.
Alan D. Fiers, Jr. -- Pleaded guilty July 9, 1991, to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan contras. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Fiers January 31, 1992, to one year probation and 100 hours community service. Fiers was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Clair E. George -- Indicted September 6, 1991, on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction in connection with congressional and Grand Jury investigations. George's trial on nine counts ended in a mistrial on August 26, 1992. Following a second trial on seven counts, George was found guilty December 9, 1992, of two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth set sentencing for February 18, 1993. George was pardoned on December 24, 1992, before sentencing occurred.
Albert Hakim -- Pleaded guilty November 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor of supplementing the salary of Oliver L. North. Lake Resources Inc., in which Hakim was the principal shareholder, pleaded guilty to a corporate felony of theft of government property in diverting Iran arms sales proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras and other activities. Hakim was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on February 1, 1990, to two years probation and a $5,000 fine; Lake Resources was ordered dissolved.
Robert C. McFarlane -- Pleaded guilty March 11, 1988, to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced McFarlane on March 3, 1989, to two years probation, $20,000 in fines and 200 hours community service. McFarlane was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Richard R. Miller -- Pleaded guilty May 6, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Miller on July 6, 1989, to two years probation and 120 hours of community service.
Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.
John M. Poindexter -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel.
Richard V. Secord -- Indicted March 16, 1988 on six felony charges. On May 11, 1989, a second indictment was issued charging nine counts of impeding and obstructing the Select Iran/contra Committees. Secord was scheduled to stand trial on 12 charges. He pleaded guilty November 8, 1989, to one felony count of false statements to Congress. Secord was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., on January 24, 1990, to two years probation.
Pre-trial Pardons
Duane R. Clarridge -- Indicted November 26, 1991, on seven counts of perjury and false statements about a secret shipment of U.S. HAWK missiles to Iran. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene set a March 15, 1993, trial date. Clarridge was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Caspar W. Weinberger -- Indicted June 16, 1992, on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in connection with congressional and Independent Counsel investigations of Iran/ contra. On September 29, the obstruction count was dismissed. On October 30, a second indictment was issued, charging one false statement count. The second indictment was dismissed December 11, leaving four counts remaining. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a January 5, 1993, trial date. Weinberger was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Dismissal
Joseph F. Fernandez -- Indicted June 20, 1988 on five counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing the inquiry of the Tower Commission and making false statements to government agencies. The case was dismissed in the District of Columbia for venue reasons on the motion of Independent Counsel. A four-count indictment was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on April 24, 1989. U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the four-count case November 24, 1989, after Attorney General Richard Thornburgh blocked the disclosure of classified information ruled relevant to the defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., on September 6, 1990, upheld Judge Hilton's rulings under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). On October 12, 1990, the Attorney General filed a final declaration that he would not disclose the classified information.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Many of these individuals are still at work in and for the Washington machine, they are the toast of your establishment. Filthy murdering scum everyone.
Summary of Prosecutions
After Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh's appointment in December 1986, 14 persons were charged with criminal offenses. Eleven persons were convicted, but two convictions were overturned on appeal. Two persons were pardoned before trial and one case was dismissed when the Bush Administration declined to declassify information necessary for trial. On December 24, 1992, President Bush pardoned Caspar W. Weinberger, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams, Alan D. Fiers, Jr., and Robert C. McFarlane.
Completed Trials and Pleas
Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Carl R. Channell -- Pleaded guilty April 29, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Channell on July 7, 1989, to two years probation.
Thomas G. Clines -- Indicted February 22, 1990, on four felony counts of underreporting his earnings to the IRS in the 1985 and 1986 tax years; and falsely stating on his 1985 and 1986 tax returns that he had no foreign financial accounts. On September 18, 1990, Clines was found guilty of all charges. U.S. District Judge Norman P. Ramsey in Baltimore, Md., on December 13, 1990, sentenced Clines to 16 months in prison and $40,000 in fines. He was ordered to pay the cost of the prosecution. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., on February 27, 1992, upheld the convictions. Clines served his prison sentence.
Alan D. Fiers, Jr. -- Pleaded guilty July 9, 1991, to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan contras. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Fiers January 31, 1992, to one year probation and 100 hours community service. Fiers was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Clair E. George -- Indicted September 6, 1991, on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction in connection with congressional and Grand Jury investigations. George's trial on nine counts ended in a mistrial on August 26, 1992. Following a second trial on seven counts, George was found guilty December 9, 1992, of two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth set sentencing for February 18, 1993. George was pardoned on December 24, 1992, before sentencing occurred.
Albert Hakim -- Pleaded guilty November 21, 1989, to a misdemeanor of supplementing the salary of Oliver L. North. Lake Resources Inc., in which Hakim was the principal shareholder, pleaded guilty to a corporate felony of theft of government property in diverting Iran arms sales proceeds to the Nicaraguan contras and other activities. Hakim was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on February 1, 1990, to two years probation and a $5,000 fine; Lake Resources was ordered dissolved.
Robert C. McFarlane -- Pleaded guilty March 11, 1988, to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced McFarlane on March 3, 1989, to two years probation, $20,000 in fines and 200 hours community service. McFarlane was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Richard R. Miller -- Pleaded guilty May 6, 1987, to one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. U.S. District Judge Stanley S. Harris sentenced Miller on July 6, 1989, to two years probation and 120 hours of community service.
Oliver L. North -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts. After standing trial on 12, North was convicted May 4, 1989 of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service. A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of Independent Counsel.
John M. Poindexter -- Indicted March 16, 1988, on seven felony charges. After standing trial on five charges, Poindexter was found guilty April 7, 1990, on all counts: conspiracy (obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents); two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Poindexter June 11, 1990, to six months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently. A three-judge appeals panel on November 15, 1991, reversed the convictions on the ground that Poindexter's immunized testimony may have influenced the trial testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court on December 7, 1992, declined to review the case. In 1993, the indictment was dismissed on the motion of Independent Counsel.
Richard V. Secord -- Indicted March 16, 1988 on six felony charges. On May 11, 1989, a second indictment was issued charging nine counts of impeding and obstructing the Select Iran/contra Committees. Secord was scheduled to stand trial on 12 charges. He pleaded guilty November 8, 1989, to one felony count of false statements to Congress. Secord was sentenced by U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., on January 24, 1990, to two years probation.
Pre-trial Pardons
Duane R. Clarridge -- Indicted November 26, 1991, on seven counts of perjury and false statements about a secret shipment of U.S. HAWK missiles to Iran. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene set a March 15, 1993, trial date. Clarridge was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Caspar W. Weinberger -- Indicted June 16, 1992, on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in connection with congressional and Independent Counsel investigations of Iran/ contra. On September 29, the obstruction count was dismissed. On October 30, a second indictment was issued, charging one false statement count. The second indictment was dismissed December 11, leaving four counts remaining. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a January 5, 1993, trial date. Weinberger was pardoned December 24, 1992.
Dismissal
Joseph F. Fernandez -- Indicted June 20, 1988 on five counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing the inquiry of the Tower Commission and making false statements to government agencies. The case was dismissed in the District of Columbia for venue reasons on the motion of Independent Counsel. A four-count indictment was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia on April 24, 1989. U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the four-count case November 24, 1989, after Attorney General Richard Thornburgh blocked the disclosure of classified information ruled relevant to the defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., on September 6, 1990, upheld Judge Hilton's rulings under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). On October 12, 1990, the Attorney General filed a final declaration that he would not disclose the classified information.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/
Many of these individuals are still at work in and for the Washington machine, they are the toast of your establishment. Filthy murdering scum everyone.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 04:10 PM
January 16, 2008
by Daniel Hopsicker
Two American-registered drug planes busted in Mexico carrying four and 5.5 tons of cocaine are just the "tip of the iceberg" in a blockbuster aviation deal which sold 50 American-registered aircraft to the Sinaloa Cartel, the MadCowMorningNews has learned.
According to an indictment released over the holidays by Mexico’s Atty. General, Pedro Alfonso Alatorre, already indicted as the cartel’s chief financier, purchased the DC9 (N900SA) airliner, the Gulfstream II business jet (N987SA), and 48 other planes not yet identified for Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel with laundered drug money, using a company he controls which owns currency exchanges at major airports in Mexico.
Now we know who bought the airplanes. The trickier question is: who sold them? The answer, normally, would be, "Their local counterparts in international organized crime."
But these aren't normal circumstances. Why? Because the U.S. doesn't even have any Drug Lords. Ask anybody at the DEA. Apparently, we don't even bother to field a team.
Elusive seldom-photographed American Drug Lords
News of a 50-plane fleet of drug smuggling aircraft being sold to a Mexican Cartel by mysteriously unnamed American owners confirms rumors of a mushrooming scandal, one which may eventually implicate top officials in the U.S., Mexico, and Colombia.
The reason was left unspoken in the Mexican Atty. General’s statement, because it lies on the American side of the equation, in the identity of the sellers of the planes...
The DC9 and the Gulfstream II, the two American jets now known to be part of a 50-plane sale, share interlocking ownership. The stock of two corporations which owned the planes was used in the massive recent Adnan Khashoggi-led stock fraud.
Khashoggi, currently a fugitive from justice in the case, engineered the biggest brokerage bankruptcy in America since the Great Depression, costing investors and taxpayers over $300 million.
With gas prices over $3 a gallon, you wouldn't think the Saudi billionaire needed the money. So, what did 'they' do with the money?
Upcoming Presidential elections, perhaps?
http://www.madcowprod.com/01162008.html
January 16, 2008
by Daniel Hopsicker
Two American-registered drug planes busted in Mexico carrying four and 5.5 tons of cocaine are just the "tip of the iceberg" in a blockbuster aviation deal which sold 50 American-registered aircraft to the Sinaloa Cartel, the MadCowMorningNews has learned. According to an indictment released over the holidays by Mexico’s Atty. General, Pedro Alfonso Alatorre, already indicted as the cartel’s chief financier, purchased the DC9 (N900SA) airliner, the Gulfstream II business jet (N987SA), and 48 other planes not yet identified for Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel with laundered drug money, using a company he controls which owns currency exchanges at major airports in Mexico.
Now we know who bought the airplanes. The trickier question is: who sold them? The answer, normally, would be, "Their local counterparts in international organized crime."
But these aren't normal circumstances. Why? Because the U.S. doesn't even have any Drug Lords. Ask anybody at the DEA. Apparently, we don't even bother to field a team.
Elusive seldom-photographed American Drug Lords
News of a 50-plane fleet of drug smuggling aircraft being sold to a Mexican Cartel by mysteriously unnamed American owners confirms rumors of a mushrooming scandal, one which may eventually implicate top officials in the U.S., Mexico, and Colombia. The reason was left unspoken in the Mexican Atty. General’s statement, because it lies on the American side of the equation, in the identity of the sellers of the planes...
The DC9 and the Gulfstream II, the two American jets now known to be part of a 50-plane sale, share interlocking ownership. The stock of two corporations which owned the planes was used in the massive recent Adnan Khashoggi-led stock fraud.
Khashoggi, currently a fugitive from justice in the case, engineered the biggest brokerage bankruptcy in America since the Great Depression, costing investors and taxpayers over $300 million.
With gas prices over $3 a gallon, you wouldn't think the Saudi billionaire needed the money. So, what did 'they' do with the money?
Upcoming Presidential elections, perhaps?
http://www.madcowprod.com/01162008.html
January 22nd, 2008, 04:11 PM
One of your socialist dictator heroes?
You sure do make a conveluded point Beav.
Quoting darkbeaver
As apposed to who?
Many of these individuals are still at work in and for the Washington machine, they are the toast of your establishment. Filthy murdering scum everyone.
One of your socialist dictator heroes?
You sure do make a conveluded point Beav.
January 22nd, 2008, 04:16 PM
Conspiracies tied together with starnds of hair.
How many companies hold shares in other companies, how many companies hold holding companies that own shares in other companies.
If I dig deep enough, I could likely link Micheal Eisner to the repuplication of Mein Kampf.
That doesn't make him a Nazi, nor does it mean he funded death camps.
Conspiracies tied together with starnds of hair.
How many companies hold shares in other companies, how many companies hold holding companies that own shares in other companies.
If I dig deep enough, I could likely link Micheal Eisner to the repuplication of Mein Kampf.
That doesn't make him a Nazi, nor does it mean he funded death camps.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 04:24 PM
"Your premise relies on the belief and assumption that our governments are involved in the illegal drug trade. In all my time on the forums, I've never gotten more than conspiracy theories to that effect. Until such a time as I have solid proof (and no, no amount of internet essays or links to conspiracy sites will provide that for me) otherwise, I will assume that this is an issue of western governments attempting to put down criminal organizations that, while they may be funded from the west, we should not be turning a blind eye to. Because frankly, from what I've seen, if we do, then in order to maintain the status quo of conflict and strife, the alternative is genocides and tribal wars, and warring between drug factions. All we've done in that case is say 'our boys are too valuable, let your own people die'. Is that really better?" __________________
There's your post characterizing my post as the contribution of a "conspiracy therorist" , your single question was answered by my reply to that post. The solid proof that you require does exist but you refuse to recognize the validity of jouralism and scholarship as well as hard won demanding research. I have observed your steering of the forum in these past couple of weeks, where you have attempted to limit and mold discussion to your own taste buy burying anything controversial with your subjects. Now if you can't stand my subject matter stay out of the threads as I have respected for the most part your threads, if you don't like discussing reality don't engage in it. You get lots of attention elsewhere and don't need mine.
"Your premise relies on the belief and assumption that our governments are involved in the illegal drug trade. In all my time on the forums, I've never gotten more than conspiracy theories to that effect. Until such a time as I have solid proof (and no, no amount of internet essays or links to conspiracy sites will provide that for me) otherwise, I will assume that this is an issue of western governments attempting to put down criminal organizations that, while they may be funded from the west, we should not be turning a blind eye to. Because frankly, from what I've seen, if we do, then in order to maintain the status quo of conflict and strife, the alternative is genocides and tribal wars, and warring between drug factions. All we've done in that case is say 'our boys are too valuable, let your own people die'. Is that really better?" __________________
There's your post characterizing my post as the contribution of a "conspiracy therorist" , your single question was answered by my reply to that post. The solid proof that you require does exist but you refuse to recognize the validity of jouralism and scholarship as well as hard won demanding research. I have observed your steering of the forum in these past couple of weeks, where you have attempted to limit and mold discussion to your own taste buy burying anything controversial with your subjects. Now if you can't stand my subject matter stay out of the threads as I have respected for the most part your threads, if you don't like discussing reality don't engage in it. You get lots of attention elsewhere and don't need mine.
January 22nd, 2008, 04:28 PM
this isn't YOUR thread.
And I haven't been trying to bury anything db... I've been posting, plain and simple, trying to bring topics to the table to discuss. Much as you do.
I have no desire to quash anything you have to say. If I do, I challenge it. Like I did with you discussing how you'd like to see the US nuked. I brought it to you... I didn't try to bury it.
this isn't YOUR thread.
And I haven't been trying to bury anything db... I've been posting, plain and simple, trying to bring topics to the table to discuss. Much as you do.
I have no desire to quash anything you have to say. If I do, I challenge it. Like I did with you discussing how you'd like to see the US nuked. I brought it to you... I didn't try to bury it.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 9,226
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 04:29 PM
Quoting CDNBear
Why don't you purchase a three dollar dictionary and at least make an attempt to improve your contributions instead of makeing a fool of yourself with every post.
As apposed to who?
One of your socialist dictator heroes?
You sure do make a conveluded point Beav.
One of your socialist dictator heroes?
You sure do make a conveluded point Beav.
January 22nd, 2008, 04:30 PM
Quoting darkbeaver
LOL... I always love when that happens. Nothing beats the attempted smack down over spelling than the post with a spelling mistake. lol.
Why don't you purchase a three dollar dictionary and at least make an attempt to improve your contributions instead of makeing a fool of yourself with every post.
