IRAN/CONTRA - really! What did Iran use those weapons for at that time? Was it not against a "power" that the U.S. ultimately had to neuter?
Was that really to "improve exports" or for some other objectives?
RRS, it was a situation in which cash changed hands. If you Google up names such as John Poindexter, Ed Meese and Oliver North, you will discover this. I have been recently reading the Reagan WH Diaries on the matter.
HEY JP -
When you come to the part where the cash went, post it.
OH! And note "who" (what entity) transferred the weaponry.
With all due respect - since you are a great part of this site, and apparently have a deep background in the financial world, which is much appreciated.
British (and Scottish) moral corruption and cowardice is being denounced by all sorts fo people in - NEW JERSEY.
When the population of New Jersey think you are below their moral level (and they may well be correct), then you are in real trouble.
"Think of the terrible trouble there might have been if he had died in prison" may well be at the base of these matters.
Whatever Iran/Contra was about it certainly wasn't business. Reagan used it to fund efforts to beat back Marxists in South America and had hoped to gain an opening with "moderates" in Iran. This may have been naive at the time but it certainly wasn't outside the realm of foreign policy. You can question how he went about it but his motivations weren't economic ones.
Since the Man Made Disaster in the White House is drawing down the war on terror we will see a lot more deals being made for reasons other than the advancement of liberty I am afraid.
RRS, I raised the Iran/Contra(Link) business because it was one of the most egregious examples of an administration - the Reagan one - allowing its declared principles of not paying for the release of hostages to be undermined by the actions of some of its officials).
As to where the money ended up, I am not sure, and I am not claiming to know. But money changed hands: fact. There was a Congressional ban on arming the Contras and the administration's officials used underhand ways to get around this. Fact. Whether the cause of the Contras was or was not a good one was besides the point. What happened was illegal.
One might also mention that the Reagan and subsequent US administrations, as well as the UK and others, have been happy to sell arms on a big scale to the likes of the Saudis, despite that regime's less than stellar reputation in co-operating in stamping down on terror groups of one kind of another.
Now the London Times (no less) is reporting that this was an explicit "oil for terrorists" deal. Secret letters have been produced. The fallout will be interesting to watch.