ext_23022 ([identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-06-02 11:08 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

(no subject)

Given that the "War on Drugs" appears to the rest of the world to be lost:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303 

I wonder what would make the US finally give it up as a lost cause?

Is it that there is just too much invested in the "War" for the US powers-that-be to relinquish one of its sacred cows? Or given the CIA's historic role in Latin America, and in various "drugs for weapons" and "drugs for freedom" operations world-wide (TM Oliver North, Taliban insurgency, et al) would liberalising the drugs laws run counter to US interests?

My own opinion is that we should legalise immediately. But I may just be an old hippie.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com 2011-06-03 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
Wrong hostages... the hostages in the arms for hostages deal were Americans who had been taken by the Iranian backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

[identity profile] hardblue.livejournal.com 2011-06-03 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
My main point was that we were giving arms to the Iranians for hostages, on which we seem to agree.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-06-03 02:18 am (UTC)(link)
As I understood it, US involvement in Lebanon was to try to keep Israel's fat out of the fire, that came to a screeching halt with the Beirut bombing and then Reagan cut and ran. I do know that proto-Hezbollah did that to the USSR and the Soviets ended terrorists fucking with them for the rest of the USSR's existence.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only