|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Iran-Contra
The Scheme[edit]
The reference to crack cocaine has been removed. Apart from being uncited and conspiratorial to a ridiculous extent, it doesn't make any logical sense as there's no reason to import crack: it can be made from powder cocaine in a kitchen with minimal risk to the cook and significantly better margin. Generally what's imported is relatively pure to save trips and isn't adulterated and subdivided until shortly before sale at the retail level. Frostbyte (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Costa Rica & the US[edit]
I'm puzzled by the claim that Costa Rica "is almost entirely dependent on the US for national defense." CR only borders Panama and Nicaragua and has had hostile relations with neither while its bloodiest conflict was the CR Civil War
in 1948 which prompted its government to abolish the army. Also, at least a brief WP check and the CIA World Factbook doesn't list any US/CR military defence arrangements, so how exactly is CR reliant on the US for defence and against who/what? That's why I [citation needed]-tagged the claim. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Historical Revisionism?[edit]
I've had some experience with a relative (my father, to be specific) saying that Jimmy Carter was responsible for this solely because he was in office when the Islamic Revolution happened. The same guy also claims that the Contras didn't commit any war crimes. Seeing as my father doesn't really do much on the internet aside from blab amongst his friends on fora, this isn't really notable, but I still thought it should get out there. TheMyon (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Before this devolves into puerile bickering[edit]
Which revision are you in favor of: this or this? Please explain your position... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- A crime against humanity is defined, under international law, as "murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated". Neither treason nor the funding of terrorism fits that definition.— Unsigned, by: 99.234.197.221 / talk / contribs
- Were the Contras guilty of murder? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, the Contras themselves were, but we're talking about the Reagan administration's actions, right? I don't think supporting someone who has committed a CAH should itself count, unless the Reagan administration was actually ordering them to commit crimes against humanity, which, as far as I know, they didn't. The International Court of Justice did try the US for this and reached the same conclusion, that while the Reagan administration had violated international law by supporting terrorists, they couldn't be held responsible for the crimes the Contras had committed unless it could be proven that they were in control of Contra operations at the time. I'm not sure if the Contras' actions were on a large enough scale to qualify anyways. They're estimated to have killed about 500 people, which seeing as "Contra" is actually a blanket term for any US-funded group which rebelled against the Sandinistas averages out to about 125 people killed per group, assuming all have the same body count. That's people, by the way, not civilians, so the number that would actually count towards a CAH would be probably much lower.
- So basically this whole argument is this: does supporting war criminals make you a war criminal? PBfreespace (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, the Contras themselves were, but we're talking about the Reagan administration's actions, right? I don't think supporting someone who has committed a CAH should itself count, unless the Reagan administration was actually ordering them to commit crimes against humanity, which, as far as I know, they didn't. The International Court of Justice did try the US for this and reached the same conclusion, that while the Reagan administration had violated international law by supporting terrorists, they couldn't be held responsible for the crimes the Contras had committed unless it could be proven that they were in control of Contra operations at the time. I'm not sure if the Contras' actions were on a large enough scale to qualify anyways. They're estimated to have killed about 500 people, which seeing as "Contra" is actually a blanket term for any US-funded group which rebelled against the Sandinistas averages out to about 125 people killed per group, assuming all have the same body count. That's people, by the way, not civilians, so the number that would actually count towards a CAH would be probably much lower.
- Were the Contras guilty of murder? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Shah of Iran was a Shia not Sunni[edit]
In the first line of "Background" section, it says Shah of Iran was a secularish Sunni of a Shia majority country. This is not true. Shah was a Shia. pls correct.
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. You can easily correct the section yourself. This is a wiki which anyone can edit. ClickerClock (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
