When Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld sold Tom Cats to the Iranians wasn't the Sha already gone for years?

Question

http://www.iiaf.net/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0077.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Iranian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

Aren't Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld staunch hard right wingers? What about Ollie North? Staunch or Moderate?

Answer 1

Absolutely. And according to Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration is also using illegal methods to raise funds for its pet projects in the Middle East without the need for Congressional approval or public scrutiny.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

Answer 2

Yeah, the Shah was overthrown while Carter was President. Iran Contra was a secret arms deal that Reagan made with the Ayatollah Khomeni. Reagan had been secretly and illegally negotiating with Iran before he even took office. It was no coincidence that Iran released our hostages the day Reagan was inaugurated. The arms he sold Iran were completely illegal and violated legislation passed by Congress. Reagan claimed that he did not know what was going on. That didn't work for Ken Lay but Reagan was a polished and popular actor whose early Alzheimer's symptoms made his alibi believable. Liberals like Truman said "The Buck stops here". Unaccountable conservatives pass the buck. In Reagan's case the buck was passed to Ollie North. North, an extreme right winger, was the fall guy much like Scooter Libby is now. One major difference is that North, like G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate fame, refused to rat on his superiors. And yes, the Reagan administration supported both sides in the Iran Iraq war and the Taliban in their war against the USSR. American made weapons are all over the Mid East.

Answer 3

This is when Ronnie and Ollie both broke a mandate set by Congress regarding selling supplies to the Enemy.

Good thing it wasn't a democrat he'd still be in Prison for Treason

Answer 4

Considering the magnitude of that scandal, our senior government officials actually selling weapons to Iran, directly circumventing the congress, it is shocking that the conspirators didn't ,at a minimum, go to prison for life like Aldrich Ames.

What else would they have had to have done to commit high treason?

Answer 5

Yup...They wanted Iran to handle Iraq, Now if we get into a pissing match with Iran, we'll be going against our own weapons...Thanks Republicans!!

Answer 6

Yeas, and we put the Pro US Oil Shaw of Iran in Power by the CIA coducting terrorist attacks on an elected president in Iran!

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case,[2] The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force
On June 27, 1986, the Court found that:

The United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.
The United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on September 13 and October 14 1983, an attack on Corinto on October 10 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on January 4 and 5 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on March 7 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on March 28 and 30 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on April 9 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to [above] which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State.
The United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to [above], has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State.
By laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce.
The United States of America, by the attacks on Nicaraguan territory referred to [above], and by declaring a general embargo on trade with Nicaragua on May 1 1985, has acted in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on January 21 1956.
The United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas' ("Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare")[12], and disseminating it to Contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but [the Court] did not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed were imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America.

Answer 7

This isn't new news.