(no subject)
2/6/11 11:08![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsGiven 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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 02:09 (UTC)There were actually two distinct arms for hostages instances, the first was an alleged negotiated by the Reagan camp in order to delay the release of the embassy hostages until after the 1980 election. This one fell through or never happened. But it should be noted that the hostages were released during Reagan's inauguration and McFarland's negotiations meetings with Iranian officials during the campaign has be verified.
The other was the the Iran Contra deal, arms for hostages. It is documented in the Walsh report and admitted to by Colonel North (on film, see A Perfect Candidate http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Candidate-Don-Baker/dp/B0001GH7VS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307066828&sr=8-1).
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 02:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 02:58 (UTC)The Embassy was captured in November of 1979, but the hostages were not released until January of 1981 - that was the first set of hostages. The Reagan campaign wanted to make sure the hostages were not released in October 1980. That would be what is colloquially referred to as an "October Surprise".
This is a news report from January 1981, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKa6f1eyoWc
The second set of hostages, (Terry Anderson is the most famous) where not captured by Iran, but by Hezbollah, which relied heavily on Iranian financing and training. The theory was that Iran could apply pressure to Hezbollah. Hezbollah did end up releasing three hostages, but they took three more hostages. Anderson was a reporter in Beirut, Weir was some sort of missionary. I do not know much about the rest.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:14 (UTC)Reagan might have wanted that, but as it turned out they weren't altogether released until January, while the Ayatollahs were murderous dicks who being petty dicks should not surprise anyone. Thank you for the second source that actually answered the question I asked. I'll do more research into it.