On Iran Contra

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is really strange, btw. It seems, you, Rufus, along with GePap and Ramo are basically saying no one thought Iran-Contra was morally justified.

I used to head a College Republican club. On the issue of Iran-Contra half would tell you it was justified morally, the other half would say Reagan had no idea it was going on.

I think this is just an example of how lefties don't understand righties (ie, "Rufus' incredulous reaction at the justification advanced that desperate times caused for such desperate measures).

[Ramo]

No, not in the slightest. I seriously doubt the public did not know that Iran-Contra was against the law. However, significant sectors of country had moral justifications for it.

Ask Cheney on Gonzales about their theories on inherent executive power in certain aspects of foreign policy.

But my point is that this is not relevant to this debate. We're talking about approval of a policy, not accepting certain legal nuances.

[Ramo]

It seems, you, Rufus, along with GePap and Ramo are basically saying no one thought Iran-Contra was morally justified.

I'm saying that Iran-Contra was an unpopular policy, not that "no one" liked it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what is your point? That people in the public thought it was justified in fighting communism? Yeepee. We got that from Zkribbler in page 1.

Yes, but something that Rufus found to be not persuasive (disputing whether anyone could consider it a 'desperate time').

[q=Zkribbler]I stand by my statement that I've never heard anyone defend Iran-Contra as "good" (as opposed to "justified" or "not so bad").[/q]

Isn't "justified" basically the same thing in the end here though? If someone said it was morally justified, isn't that basically akin to saying it was something good.

[Ramo]

I think it's possible to find something a politician does utterly reprehensible, and still approve of the job that politician is doing. It's how I felt about Paul Wellstone's vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, for example.

Yep. I don't like Russ Feingold's position on Iraq (too far left) or Iran (too far right), in addition to unlimited numbers of other less mainstream issues, but am a huge fan and heartily of approve of him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm saying that Iran-Contra was an unpopular policy, not that "no one" liked it.

No one is saying that a majority of people liked it, but that a lot of people (on the right, naturally) considered it to be morally justified due to the threat of Communism.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is really strange, btw. It seems, you, Rufus, along with GePap and Ramo are basically saying no one thought Iran-Contra was morally justified.

I used to head a College Republican club. On the issue of Iran-Contra half would tell you it was justified morally, the other half would say Reagan had no idea it was going on.

I think this is just an example of how lefties don't understand righties (ie, "Rufus' incredulous reaction at the justification advanced that desperate times caused for such desperate measures).

But read my last post. "Justified" I understand just fine. But "justified," even "morally justified," is different from "good." And "good" was the term used in the OP.

And I also hung out with College Republicans -- my gf was one -- during the Reagan administration. I never heard them talk about Iran-Contra as a good thing, though they too called it justified. Maybe characterizing it as good is something done by those too young to remember it.

[Ramo]

No one is saying that a majority of people liked it, but that a lot of people (on the right, naturally) considered it to be morally justified due to the threat of Communism.

Didn't you imply that a majority of people liked it? Wasn't that why you brought up polls in the first place?

[Ramo]

My position, just = good. Let's drop this semantics arguement, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Didn't you say that a majority of people liked it? Wasn't that why you brought up polls in the first place?

I said a majority of people thought it was probably justified due to the times and thus moved on.

[Ramo]

So you're disputing the idea that it was an unpopular policy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
But read my last post. "Justified" I understand just fine. But "justified," even "morally justified," is different from "good." And "good" was the term used in the OP.

And I also hung out with College Republicans -- my gf was one -- during the Reagan administration. I never heard them talk about Iran-Contra as a good thing, though they too called it justified. Maybe characterizing it as good is something done by those too young to remember it.

Look at his OP clarification. He was looking for arguments in 'favor' of Iran-Contra (Post 8). I think justified fits that role.

As he stated:

I can't imagine how it could be anything but a disgrace.

So justification would be a way that it wouldn't be characterized as "a disgrace".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
So you're disputing the idea that it was an unpopular policy?

I'm disputing the idea that people didn't come to think there was suitable justification based on "desperate times".

[Ramo]

So you think at some point Iran-Contra became a popular policy, despite initially being 19 point anchor? Can you substantiate this in any way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think I used the word 'popular' until just now.


You can dislike something, but see the justification for it. You know, a grudging acceptance of something? I think a more modern example is the PATRIOT ACT. A lot of people were pissed over it initially after the shock of 9/11 (and the passage of the bill right after) wore off, but over time some people began to see the justification for it and grudgingly accepted that it was a necessary evil... which is why it was minorly modified but not scuttled wholesale when it was due to expire.