I was waiting for someone to complain. fucked up browser. no control over it. Its not a plea for attention I promise. You will probably see this message again......right below here
I was waiting for someone to complain. fucked up browser. no control over it. Its not a plea for attention I promise. You will probably see this message again......right below here
For real? Japan? They had that whole colonial expedition called World War 2 which culminated in Mushroom clouds. Might have something to do with not wanting to send Japanees troops abroad since that was their last experience doing so. It's also a part of their constiution....which we wrote
...
You know... we are talking about the Japan of today... and not the Japan of 80 years ago, right? Are you saying that Japan does not engage with South America or the Middle East in commerce? They do not buy banana or light crude oil? Why does anyone need to deploy troops abroad... for commerce?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
OMG facts! From someone who actually lives on the continent. You realize now that 3/4 of the people on this board think Simon Bolivar is that dude from American Idol. Well said Caterina and hopefully are North American, European, and Australian friends understand what you are saying. Chavez has no dog in this fight at all and as you say he is intentionally stoking the flame of war for his own personal agenda. Reality is that Venezuela has a very small standing army and probably very few operating tanks so it's all talk, but it's dangerous talk for the whole continent. We were in Peru and Buenos Aires last year and my cousin is travelling your country right now and pray that someone muzzles Mr. Chavez soon. Buena Suerta.
If Chavez is giving money to FARC he has every right to do so. WHat we do know is the Clinton administration gave the Columbian military (and paramilitaries) $2 billion in military aid. These are guys that go into a village, round up all the men, and torture and burn them alive in front of the rest of the village, as a reminder not to fuck with Colombia. True story. The paramilitaries are basically death squads running around the country, with ties to the Columbian military...former offiers and so on end up working with the paramilitaries. ANd all of this is done with support and knowledge of the US authorities. Also called state sponsored terrorism.
If Chavez is giving money to FARC he has every right to do so. WHat we do know is the Clinton administration gave the Columbian military (and paramilitaries) $2 billion in military aid. These are guys that go into a village, round up all the men, and torture and burn them alive in front of the rest of the village, as a reminder not to fuck with Colombia. True story. The paramilitaries are basically death squads running around the country, with ties to the Columbian military...former offiers and so on end up working with the paramilitaries. ANd all of this is done with support and knowledge of the US authorities. Also called state sponsored terrorism.
So, just because someone (the Clinton administration) gave money to a terrorist organization it's OK for Chavez to do the same?
And what makes you think that Chavez has the right to do whatever he feels like with Venezuelans' money? Because, keep in mind that whatever money Chavez gives it is money from tax and oil revenues, hence, Venezuelans' revenues, not Chavez. If he wants to fund guerillas with his own personal fortune, then fine, he'll still be sponsoring a guerilla organization, but at least it won't be with everybody elses money.
Yes, the paramilitars are as vicious as FARC, so? Following your line of thought, Venezuela is also sponsoring terrorism. Or, since the FARC are more in line with your ideology it is OK?
So, just because someone (the Clinton administration) gave money to a terrorist organization it's OK for Chavez to do the same?
And what makes you think that Chavez has the right to do whatever he feels like with Venezuelans' money? Because, keep in mind that whatever money Chavez gives it is money from tax and oil revenues, hence, Venezuelans' revenues, not Chavez. If he wants to fund guerillas with his own personal fortune, then fine, he'll still be sponsoring a guerilla organization, but at least it won't be with everybody elses money.
Yes, the paramilitars are as vicious as FARC, so? Following your line of thought, Venezuela is also sponsoring terrorism. Or, since the FARC are more in line with your ideology it is OK?
Well, you failed to answer any of my questions. However, regardles of how vicious they were, at least paramilitars have given up their fight. On the contrary, FARC nowadays is just another branch of drug-trafficking.
However, do you think it is OK for Chavez to give money to an organization that currently has almost 1000 people kidnapped, and less than a 100 of those are politicians or public figures. The rest are just regular folks, for whom large amounts of money are being asked? Have you ever been to Colombia? Have you ever known people whose relatives have been kidnapped and/or killed by the FARC, for money and no other reason? Do you have any idea of the damage the FARC have generated to Colombia? Are you aware of the fact the FARC are extremely unpopular in Colombia, not even Cuba currently supports them anymore.
Well, you failed to answer any of my questions. However, regardles of how vicious they were, at least paramilitars have given up their fight. On the contrary, FARC nowadays is just another branch of drug-trafficking.
However, do you think it is OK for Chavez to give money to an organization that currently has almost 1000 people kidnapped, and less than a 100 of those are politicians or public figures. The rest are just regular folks, for whom large amounts of money are being asked? Have you ever been to Colombia? Have you ever known people whose relatives have been kidnapped and/or killed by the FARC, for money and no other reason? Do you have any idea of the damage the FARC have generated to Colombia? Are you aware of the fact the FARC are extremely unpopular in Colombia, not even Cuba currently supports them anymore.
I haven't seen any proof that Chavez has funded FARC, it wouldn't surpirse me, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. That said, US involvement in South America has been barbaric, violent, bloody. The US has turned what should be a VERY prosperous continent into a poor region run by corporations and tyrants. Every now and then figures and groups emerge that resist the status quo-and since it really can't get much worse, most of the time these individuals and groups get my support.
But it does seem FARC has turned from a revalutionary organization into gang of criminals worried more about ransom money than any social change, so it is hard to support them for now.
I haven't seen any proof that Chavez has funded FARC, it wouldn't surpirse me, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. That said, US involvement in South America has been barbaric, violent, bloody. The US has turned what should be a VERY prosperous continent into a poor region run by corporations and tyrants. Every now and then figures and groups emerge that resist the status quo-and since it really can't get much worse, most of the time these individuals and groups get my support.
But it does seem FARC has turned from a revalutionary organization into gang of criminals worried more about ransom money than any social change, so it is hard to support them for now.
Well, Colombia's chief of the police presented evidence from Raul Reyes (FARC nº2) computer, and called for international observers to check such evidence.
Yes, the US has intervened in our region -but so did the Soviet Union and Europe, at the same extent I might say- however, if South America has not fulfilled it potential it is mainly because of the incompetents that have ruled the region for so many years. To put the blame on the US, is actually an easy escapegoat for our politicians' mistakes and shortcomings. We, South Americans, are the ones to blame for not being as prosperous as we could be, simply because in most cases we've failed to elect honest politicians. furthermore, we've been lousy citizens by failing to held our elected officials accountable for their wrongdoings. There are exceptions, of course, like Costa Rica (which is actually in Central America), Chile, Uruguay and, lately Brazil. These countries prove that when you have responsible politicians and sound country projects good things can be accomplished.
Well, Colombia's chief of the police presented evidence from Raul Reyes (FARC nº2) computer, and called for international observers to check such evidence.
Yes, the US has intervened in our region -but so did the Soviet Union and Europe, at the same extent I might say- however, if South America has not fulfilled it potential it is mainly because of the incompetents that have ruled the region for so many years. To put the blame on the US, is actually an easy escapegoat for our politicians' mistakes and shortcomings. We, South Americans, are the ones to blame for not being as prosperous as we could be, simply because in most cases we've failed to elect honest politicians. furthermore, we've been lousy citizens by failing to held our elected officials accountable for their wrongdoings. There are exceptions, of course, like Costa Rica (which is actually in Central America), Chile, Uruguay and, lately Brazil. These countries prove that when you have responsible politicians and sound country projects good things can be accomplished.
There are factors during elections that affect the outcome.
For one, the US spent more than the combined democratic and republican campaign finances in the US on one election in south america, in the 90's.
In Nicauragua they had the contras. They hit soft targets. churches, schools, radio stations. When the people elected the Sandanistas the Contras went even further, torturing civilians, killing children. After a decade of terror the people voted teh US business candidate4 and the atrocities subsided.
These are just 2 examples. There are dozens. It really isnt' your fault, I dont' blame the people for choosing poverty over terror.
There are factors during elections that affect the outcome.
For one, the US spent more than the combined democratic and republican campaign finances in the US on one election in south america, in the 90's.
In Nicauragua they had the contras. They hit soft targets. churches, schools, radio stations. When the people elected the Sandanistas the Contras went even further, torturing civilians, killing children. After a decade of terror the people voted teh US business candidate4 and the atrocities subsided.
These are just 2 examples. There are dozens. It really isnt' your fault, I dont' blame the people for choosing poverty over terror.
And what South American country would that be?
Also, let's be geographically accurate, we've been discussing South America and Nicaragua is in Central America.
I know my history, thank you very much and I've had the opportunity to attend hundreds of meetings with South American politicians, so I know what I'm talking about. I'll stand by my affirmation, we've chosen lame Presidents one too many times and it is our fault.
Also, let's be geographically accurate, we've been discussing South America and Nicaragua is in Central America.
I know my history, thank you very much and I've had the opportunity to attend hundreds of meetings with South American politicians, so I know what I'm talking about. I'll stand by my affirmation, we've chosen lame Presidents one too many times and it is our fault.
I dont' recall off the top of my head, but it's from Chomsky, a very reliable source.
And I tend to lump south and central america together, my bad. I'll say latin America.
But you can't ignore the impact US foreign policy has had on Latin America. South America has slowly emerged from the policies, just this past decade, but Central America is still locked in poverty and tyranny.
But even so, Brazil has the resources to be a major world player, its only because of US trade policies and so on that are keeping it down. And that's true for most of the region. THe neofascists states that spread through Latin America in the 60's were in no small part the fault of the US. The US backed a military coup in brazil, installing a murderous regime that worked "miracles" for the economy while grinding the population int poverty, is just one case. I can go on. The elections are far from free, and the money spent on US candidates is in the millions.
I dont' recall off the top of my head, but it's from Chomsky, a very reliable source.
And I tend to lump south and central america together, my bad. I'll say latin America.
But you can't ignore the impact US foreign policy has had on Latin America. South America has slowly emerged from the policies, just this past decade, but Central America is still locked in poverty and tyranny.
But even so, Brazil has the resources to be a major world player, its only because of US trade policies and so on that are keeping it down. And that's true for most of the region. THe neofascists states that spread through Latin America in the 60's were in no small part the fault of the US. The US backed a military coup in brazil, installing a murderous regime that worked "miracles" for the economy while grinding the population int poverty, is just one case. I can go on. The elections are far from free, and the money spent on US candidates is in the millions.
I know who Noam Chomsky is, I've read him and I don't find him as reliable as you do, mainly because I feel he's too biased. Regarding numbers, in spite of sounding arrogant I'll trust my expertise. I don't deny that the US could be giving money to their candidates of choice, what I find highly unlikely is the amount you mention, it can't be simply because of our countries demographics, you don't need that kind of money to win, much less run, a campaign. Not even in Brazil such resources would be needed.
I'm not downplaying the US influence, what I'm trying to explain to you is this: what happened during the 70's (not the 60's) in South America was a consequence of the Cold War, for every penny the US entered the region, there was a penny from the Soviet Union, or who do you think funded the Montoneros (largest guerilla army ever), Tupamaros, MIR, FAR, ERP, Shining Path... the list is large.
About Brazil, which dictatorship are you referring to? To Getulio Vargas? If that's the man you're talking about, well he carried out a major revolution in Brazil and Brazilians are very fond of him.
Finally, you should be more respectful towards us South American citizens, what's this "elections are not free", you think we're all puppets? Don't you patronize me. Except for the outbursts with Venezuela, the US has been pretty much absent from South America for the past 20 years.
Anyway, it's been interesting talking to you, but I really have to work,
The Clinton and Bush Administrations, and the Congress, expressed concern about the connection between the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC and other groups in Colombia and the drug trade. The Colombian government has engaged in responding to this challenge.
....
In February 2002 the Bush Administration's 25-billion-dollar foreign affairs budget proposal for FY2002 included $98 million to help Colombia protect the strategic Cano-Limon-Covenas pipeline. The 700-kilometer long pipeline connects an oilfield in northeastern Colombia operated by the US-based Occidental Petroleum Corporation to a tanker port on the Caribbean coast. Guerrilla attacks had shut down the pipeline for 240 days during 2001, costing Colombia considerable revenue, causing serious environmental damage, and depriving the United States of an energy source. The pipeline-defense plan drew criticism from Senate Democrat Patrick Leahy, who said the proposal drew the United States further into what he termed a "military quagmire" in Colombia, and said Congress should be very reluctant to lend support. The US money would go to train two brigades of Colombian troops to protect the pipeline and eventually other parts of the country's infrastructure including power lines frequently targeted by guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.
On 06 March 2002 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution in support of Colombia and that country's efforts to "counter threats from U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations." The resolution called on President Bush to send legislation to Congress that would help Colombia protect itself from U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations and "the scourge of illicit narcotics."
On 18 March 2002 the United States indicted members of a Colombian guerrilla group for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and for manufacturing and distributing cocaine in Colombia with the intent of exporting it to the United States, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced. Ashcroft said the indictment charges three members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for drug trafficking, along with four other men, including three Brazilian nationals. Ashcroft said the indictment marks the convergence of two of the top priorities of his agency: "the prevention of terrorism and the reduction of illegal drug use."
In March 2002 The Bush administration drafted a plan to expand the US military role in Colombia from counterdrug training to anti-terrorism. The policy shift could require as many as 100 additional American troops to be sent to Colombia. On March 21, the Administration asked the Congress for new authorities. The terrorist and narcotics problems in Colombia are intertwined. President Bush recognized this link when he stated on April 18, after his meeting with President Pastrana, "We've put FARC, AUC on our terrorist list. We've called them for what they are. These are killers, who use killing and intimidation to foster political means... By fighting narco-trafficking, we're fighting the funding sources for these political terrorists. And sometimes they're interchangeable. It is essential for Colombia to succeed in this war against terror in order for her people to realize the vast potential of a great, democratic country ... I am confident that with the right leadership and the right help from America, ... Colombia can succeed. And it is in everybody's interests that she does succeed." The president added that he discussed with President Pastrana "how to change the focus of our strategy from counternarcotics to include counterterrorism."
In July 2002 the US Congress rolled back restrictions that had limited American aid to antidrug programs. The more broad-based U.S. assistance program for Colombia would enable Colombia to use U.S.-provided helicopters and the counter-drug brigade from Plan Colombia to fight terrorism some of the time, as needed. The White House proposal would maintain the 800-person cap on U.S. military personnel and contractors providing training and other services in Colombia. This will not exceed the 400-person cap on U.S. military personnel providing training in Colombia, nor the 400-person cap on U.S. civilian contractors. The new legal authorities sought by the White House allowed U.S. assistance to Colombia to be used to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats" to Colombia's national security.
In October 2002, eighteen months after an American missionary plane was mistakenly shot down, the United States resumed a campaign to help Colombia track and force down drug flights. The program was suspended in April 2001 in Colombia and Peru after a Peruvian warplane shot down the missionary flight over the Amazon, killing an American and her infant daughter. Colombian warplanes will intercept drug flights based on intelligence from the United States.
In a significant shift in American policy, in October 2002, United States Special Forces arrived in Colombia to lay the groundwork for training in counterinsurgency. Under a two year $94 million initiative, beginning January 2003 ten American helicopters will bolster the Colombian counterinsurgency efforts, and some 4,000 troops will receive American training. The troops will defend a 500-mile long pipeline, which snakes through eastern Colombia, transporting 100,000 barrels of oil a day for Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles. The pipeline has long been vulnerable to bombings by Colombia's guerrilla groups. Pipeline bombings by the guerrillas cost the government nearly $500 million in 2001. The two main rebel groups, which view Occidental as a symbol of American imperialism, have bombed the pipeline nearly a thousand times since the 1980's. The Colombian military increased security, deploying five of the six battalions in the 6,000-man 18th Brigade to pipeline protection, up from just two battalions in 2001. The number of bombings fell to 30 in the first nine months of 2002, down from 170 in 2001.
The United States helped the government of Colombia to resume drug interdiction flights, which were suspended in April 2001 after a missionary plane was mistakenly shot down in Peru. The mishap resulted in the deaths of US missionary Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter, prompting authorities to insist on more stringent safety procedures before the anti-drug flight program could be re-launched. With a stronger emphasis on safety protocols, the Airbridge Denial program resumed in Colombia in late August 2003. To ensure that safety standards are maintained, the program's certification process will take place each year. In April 2003 the United States signed a bilateral agreement with the government of Colombia that spelled out procedures that will be followed in this program.
As of September 2003 there were more than 2,000 US personnel from 32 US agencies at the US embassy in Bogotá. This US embassy has surpassed the US embassy in Cairo as the largest US embassy in the world. As of July 2003 there were 358 US troops in Colombia, three times the 117 US troops in Colombia in November 2001. Five US citizens employed as contractors were killed in Colombia during 2003, and a total of 21 US government-titled aircraft had been downed since 1998.
Violence by narcoterrorist groups and other criminal elements continues to affect all parts of the country, urban and rural. Citizens of the United States and other countries continue to be the victims of threats, kidnappings, and other violence. This threat has increased recently in urban areas, including, but not limited to, Bogota, Cartagena and Barranquilla. Colombian terrorist groups also operate in the border areas of neighboring countries, creating similar dangers for travelers in those areas. Bombings have caused civilian casualties throughout Colombia. Targets include supermarkets, places of entertainment, and other areas where U.S. citizens congregate. There have been no security incidents, to our knowledge, on San Andres Island (off the coast of Nicaragua).
About 3,000 kidnapping incidents were reported throughout Colombia in 2002. Since the year 2000, 27 Americans were reported kidnapped in various parts of the country. American kidnap or murder victims have included journalists, missionaries, scientists, human rights workers, U.S. government employees and businesspeople, as well as persons on tourism or family visits, and even small children. No one can be considered immune on the basis of occupation, nationality or any other factor. Most kidnappings of U.S. citizens in Colombia have been committed by terrorist groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), which have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the Secretary of State. Since it is U.S. policy not to make concessions to, or strike deals with, terrorists, the U.S. Government's ability to assist kidnapped U.S. citizens is limited.
Net coca cultivation in Colombia fell to 440 square miles in 2003 from 558 square miles in 2002 and 656 square miles in the peak growing year of 2001, according to the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. The US had spent about $3.15 billion in Colombia since 2000, including about $2.5 billion is military and police assistance. Aadditional roles include protecting an oil pipeline partly owned by Occidental Petroleum, helping the Colombian military create a unit to eliminate guerilla leaders, and providing logistical data to help the military recapture rebel-held territory. While no US troops have died in Colombia since a 1999 plane crash, 11 US contractors have been killed since 1998, including six in 2003. Companies with U.S. government contracts for work in Colombia include Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and the DynCorp unit of Computer Sciences Corp.
In March 2004 the Bush administration asked Congress to increase by 75 percent the number of US troops and contractors in Colombia, citing the need to bolster its fight against drug traffickers and rebel fighters. The Bush administration wanted Congress to raise the cap on US soldiers and advisers to 800 from 400, and to increase the limit on civilian contractors to 600 from 400. These increases were approved in October 2004.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I know who Noam Chomsky is, I've read him and I don't find him as reliable as you do, mainly because I feel he's too biased. Regarding numbers, in spite of sounding arrogant I'll trust my expertise. I don't deny that the US could be giving money to their candidates of choice, what I find highly unlikely is the amount you mention, it can't be simply because of our countries demographics, you don't need that kind of money to win, much less run, a campaign. Not even in Brazil such resources would be needed.
I'm not downplaying the US influence, what I'm trying to explain to you is this: what happened during the 70's (not the 60's) in South America was a consequence of the Cold War, for every penny the US entered the region, there was a penny from the Soviet Union, or who do you think funded the Montoneros (largest guerilla army ever), Tupamaros, MIR, FAR, ERP, Shining Path... the list is large.
About Brazil, which dictatorship are you referring to? To Getulio Vargas? If that's the man you're talking about, well he carried out a major revolution in Brazil and Brazilians are very fond of him.
Finally, you should be more respectful towards us South American citizens, what's this "elections are not free", you think we're all puppets? Don't you patronize me. Except for the outbursts with Venezuela, the US has been pretty much absent from South America for the past 20 years.
Anyway, it's been interesting talking to you, but I really have to work,
Peace
This is completely accurate. Sorry Caterina, there are alot of North Americans who purport to have expertise in politics who obviously flunked history. You are dead on.
Caterina, how dare you, as a resident of South America, attempt to argue with these Americans about the situation in Venezuela.
Despite the fact that they've never been south of the US border, they've read all of Chomsky, certainly this qualifies them as experts, why would you attempt to rebut their propaganda with facts?
It is funny to watch the leftists in America who championed Chavez absolutely scramble to come up with new defenses of him. He is wrecking his country inch by inch piece by piece, he has created the most specialized "economy" in modern history.
Also, I laugh at how militarism is the basest of all evils amongst my friends on the left, yet somehow it is acceptable and excuseable for Chavez.
It's a fascinating society he's building down there, a military junta built on the exchange of a single commodity.
I'm not a hate monger.
I don't hate anyone.
I'm more of a hate...stylist.
Caterina, how dare you, as a resident of South America, attempt to argue with these Americans about the situation in Venezuela.
Despite the fact that they've never been south of the US border, they've read all of Chomsky, certainly this qualifies them as experts, why would you attempt to rebut their propaganda with facts?
It is funny to watch the leftists in America who championed Chavez absolutely scramble to come up with new defenses of him. He is wrecking his country inch by inch piece by piece, he has created the most specialized "economy" in modern history.
Also, I laugh at how militarism is the basest of all evils amongst my friends on the left, yet somehow it is acceptable and excuseable for Chavez.
It's a fascinating society he's building down there, a military junta built on the exchange of a single commodity.
Nice edit, because Buenos Aires is in Argentina not Venezuela. When does a person have to live in a country to have an opinion about the events going on in said country? Being on the same continent doesn't necessary qualify a person to have more insight than someone from the outside. I am sure she understand this when she post her viewpoints just like the rest of the people on this board.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Nice edit, because Buenos Aires is in Argentina not Venezuela. When does a person have to live in a country to have an opinion about the events going on in said country? Being on the same continent doesn't necessary qualify a person to have more insight than someone from the outside. I am sure she understand this when she post her viewpoints just like the rest of the people on this board.
Of course I understand it, but I've also happened to live 17 years in Venezuela and I was there last year. Also, I work at a project devoted to the monitoring of Latin America's politics and current affairs, so I'm reading and analyzing this events on a daily basis. And of course, you don't have to live here to have comprehensive knowledge of what's going on in Latin America, I've never tried to imply that. However, there's a tendency to oversimplify the analysis, which is logical because the press outside Latin America does not follow the everyday politics of our region.
Anyways, in my first post all I wanted was to underscore the fact that Venezuela had no business whatsoever in the Colombia-Ecuador crisis. Thankfully, and in spite of Chavez' overreaction and flaming rethoric, the OAS -with the great help of Brazil and Chile's diplomatic efforts- was able to tone down the conflict and work towards a solution between the countries involved.
Nice edit, because Buenos Aires is in Argentina not Venezuela. When does a person have to live in a country to have an opinion about the events going on in said country? Being on the same continent doesn't necessary qualify a person to have more insight than someone from the outside. I am sure she understand this when she post her viewpoints just like the rest of the people on this board.
Everyone has an opinion, few have insightful opinions.
After reading Caterina's last post, do you feel that she's more qualified to comment on the situation than say...you? Or Commy? Or Abookamongstthemany?
Go ahead and follow Hugo right to the bitter end, you people look more foolish with each passing day.
I'm not a hate monger.
I don't hate anyone.
I'm more of a hate...stylist.
Comments
You know... we are talking about the Japan of today... and not the Japan of 80 years ago, right? Are you saying that Japan does not engage with South America or the Middle East in commerce? They do not buy banana or light crude oil? Why does anyone need to deploy troops abroad... for commerce?
Hail, Hail!!!
So, just because someone (the Clinton administration) gave money to a terrorist organization it's OK for Chavez to do the same?
And what makes you think that Chavez has the right to do whatever he feels like with Venezuelans' money? Because, keep in mind that whatever money Chavez gives it is money from tax and oil revenues, hence, Venezuelans' revenues, not Chavez. If he wants to fund guerillas with his own personal fortune, then fine, he'll still be sponsoring a guerilla organization, but at least it won't be with everybody elses money.
Yes, the paramilitars are as vicious as FARC, so? Following your line of thought, Venezuela is also sponsoring terrorism. Or, since the FARC are more in line with your ideology it is OK?
Well, you failed to answer any of my questions. However, regardles of how vicious they were, at least paramilitars have given up their fight. On the contrary, FARC nowadays is just another branch of drug-trafficking.
However, do you think it is OK for Chavez to give money to an organization that currently has almost 1000 people kidnapped, and less than a 100 of those are politicians or public figures. The rest are just regular folks, for whom large amounts of money are being asked? Have you ever been to Colombia? Have you ever known people whose relatives have been kidnapped and/or killed by the FARC, for money and no other reason? Do you have any idea of the damage the FARC have generated to Colombia? Are you aware of the fact the FARC are extremely unpopular in Colombia, not even Cuba currently supports them anymore.
I haven't seen any proof that Chavez has funded FARC, it wouldn't surpirse me, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. That said, US involvement in South America has been barbaric, violent, bloody. The US has turned what should be a VERY prosperous continent into a poor region run by corporations and tyrants. Every now and then figures and groups emerge that resist the status quo-and since it really can't get much worse, most of the time these individuals and groups get my support.
But it does seem FARC has turned from a revalutionary organization into gang of criminals worried more about ransom money than any social change, so it is hard to support them for now.
Well, Colombia's chief of the police presented evidence from Raul Reyes (FARC nº2) computer, and called for international observers to check such evidence.
Yes, the US has intervened in our region -but so did the Soviet Union and Europe, at the same extent I might say- however, if South America has not fulfilled it potential it is mainly because of the incompetents that have ruled the region for so many years. To put the blame on the US, is actually an easy escapegoat for our politicians' mistakes and shortcomings. We, South Americans, are the ones to blame for not being as prosperous as we could be, simply because in most cases we've failed to elect honest politicians. furthermore, we've been lousy citizens by failing to held our elected officials accountable for their wrongdoings. There are exceptions, of course, like Costa Rica (which is actually in Central America), Chile, Uruguay and, lately Brazil. These countries prove that when you have responsible politicians and sound country projects good things can be accomplished.
There are factors during elections that affect the outcome.
For one, the US spent more than the combined democratic and republican campaign finances in the US on one election in south america, in the 90's.
In Nicauragua they had the contras. They hit soft targets. churches, schools, radio stations. When the people elected the Sandanistas the Contras went even further, torturing civilians, killing children. After a decade of terror the people voted teh US business candidate4 and the atrocities subsided.
These are just 2 examples. There are dozens. It really isnt' your fault, I dont' blame the people for choosing poverty over terror.
And what South American country would that be?
Also, let's be geographically accurate, we've been discussing South America and Nicaragua is in Central America.
I know my history, thank you very much and I've had the opportunity to attend hundreds of meetings with South American politicians, so I know what I'm talking about. I'll stand by my affirmation, we've chosen lame Presidents one too many times and it is our fault.
I dont' recall off the top of my head, but it's from Chomsky, a very reliable source.
And I tend to lump south and central america together, my bad. I'll say latin America.
But you can't ignore the impact US foreign policy has had on Latin America. South America has slowly emerged from the policies, just this past decade, but Central America is still locked in poverty and tyranny.
But even so, Brazil has the resources to be a major world player, its only because of US trade policies and so on that are keeping it down. And that's true for most of the region. THe neofascists states that spread through Latin America in the 60's were in no small part the fault of the US. The US backed a military coup in brazil, installing a murderous regime that worked "miracles" for the economy while grinding the population int poverty, is just one case. I can go on. The elections are far from free, and the money spent on US candidates is in the millions.
or Manufacturing Consent
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
or Profit Over People
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You cant argue with this guy. His name speaks for itself. Better dead then red.
How many times have you been to central or south america? You seem to have your geography a little bit confused.
How many times have you been to central or south america? You seem to have your geography a little bit confused.
You guys appear to share the same thesaurus..
I know who Noam Chomsky is, I've read him and I don't find him as reliable as you do, mainly because I feel he's too biased. Regarding numbers, in spite of sounding arrogant I'll trust my expertise. I don't deny that the US could be giving money to their candidates of choice, what I find highly unlikely is the amount you mention, it can't be simply because of our countries demographics, you don't need that kind of money to win, much less run, a campaign. Not even in Brazil such resources would be needed.
I'm not downplaying the US influence, what I'm trying to explain to you is this: what happened during the 70's (not the 60's) in South America was a consequence of the Cold War, for every penny the US entered the region, there was a penny from the Soviet Union, or who do you think funded the Montoneros (largest guerilla army ever), Tupamaros, MIR, FAR, ERP, Shining Path... the list is large.
About Brazil, which dictatorship are you referring to? To Getulio Vargas? If that's the man you're talking about, well he carried out a major revolution in Brazil and Brazilians are very fond of him.
Finally, you should be more respectful towards us South American citizens, what's this "elections are not free", you think we're all puppets? Don't you patronize me. Except for the outbursts with Venezuela, the US has been pretty much absent from South America for the past 20 years.
Anyway, it's been interesting talking to you, but I really have to work,
Peace
You might want to re-evaluate this statement
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/colombia.htm
Plan Colombia
The Clinton and Bush Administrations, and the Congress, expressed concern about the connection between the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC and other groups in Colombia and the drug trade. The Colombian government has engaged in responding to this challenge.
....
In February 2002 the Bush Administration's 25-billion-dollar foreign affairs budget proposal for FY2002 included $98 million to help Colombia protect the strategic Cano-Limon-Covenas pipeline. The 700-kilometer long pipeline connects an oilfield in northeastern Colombia operated by the US-based Occidental Petroleum Corporation to a tanker port on the Caribbean coast. Guerrilla attacks had shut down the pipeline for 240 days during 2001, costing Colombia considerable revenue, causing serious environmental damage, and depriving the United States of an energy source. The pipeline-defense plan drew criticism from Senate Democrat Patrick Leahy, who said the proposal drew the United States further into what he termed a "military quagmire" in Colombia, and said Congress should be very reluctant to lend support. The US money would go to train two brigades of Colombian troops to protect the pipeline and eventually other parts of the country's infrastructure including power lines frequently targeted by guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.
On 06 March 2002 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution in support of Colombia and that country's efforts to "counter threats from U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations." The resolution called on President Bush to send legislation to Congress that would help Colombia protect itself from U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations and "the scourge of illicit narcotics."
On 18 March 2002 the United States indicted members of a Colombian guerrilla group for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and for manufacturing and distributing cocaine in Colombia with the intent of exporting it to the United States, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced. Ashcroft said the indictment charges three members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for drug trafficking, along with four other men, including three Brazilian nationals. Ashcroft said the indictment marks the convergence of two of the top priorities of his agency: "the prevention of terrorism and the reduction of illegal drug use."
In March 2002 The Bush administration drafted a plan to expand the US military role in Colombia from counterdrug training to anti-terrorism. The policy shift could require as many as 100 additional American troops to be sent to Colombia. On March 21, the Administration asked the Congress for new authorities. The terrorist and narcotics problems in Colombia are intertwined. President Bush recognized this link when he stated on April 18, after his meeting with President Pastrana, "We've put FARC, AUC on our terrorist list. We've called them for what they are. These are killers, who use killing and intimidation to foster political means... By fighting narco-trafficking, we're fighting the funding sources for these political terrorists. And sometimes they're interchangeable. It is essential for Colombia to succeed in this war against terror in order for her people to realize the vast potential of a great, democratic country ... I am confident that with the right leadership and the right help from America, ... Colombia can succeed. And it is in everybody's interests that she does succeed." The president added that he discussed with President Pastrana "how to change the focus of our strategy from counternarcotics to include counterterrorism."
In July 2002 the US Congress rolled back restrictions that had limited American aid to antidrug programs. The more broad-based U.S. assistance program for Colombia would enable Colombia to use U.S.-provided helicopters and the counter-drug brigade from Plan Colombia to fight terrorism some of the time, as needed. The White House proposal would maintain the 800-person cap on U.S. military personnel and contractors providing training and other services in Colombia. This will not exceed the 400-person cap on U.S. military personnel providing training in Colombia, nor the 400-person cap on U.S. civilian contractors. The new legal authorities sought by the White House allowed U.S. assistance to Colombia to be used to support a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats" to Colombia's national security.
In October 2002, eighteen months after an American missionary plane was mistakenly shot down, the United States resumed a campaign to help Colombia track and force down drug flights. The program was suspended in April 2001 in Colombia and Peru after a Peruvian warplane shot down the missionary flight over the Amazon, killing an American and her infant daughter. Colombian warplanes will intercept drug flights based on intelligence from the United States.
In a significant shift in American policy, in October 2002, United States Special Forces arrived in Colombia to lay the groundwork for training in counterinsurgency. Under a two year $94 million initiative, beginning January 2003 ten American helicopters will bolster the Colombian counterinsurgency efforts, and some 4,000 troops will receive American training. The troops will defend a 500-mile long pipeline, which snakes through eastern Colombia, transporting 100,000 barrels of oil a day for Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles. The pipeline has long been vulnerable to bombings by Colombia's guerrilla groups. Pipeline bombings by the guerrillas cost the government nearly $500 million in 2001. The two main rebel groups, which view Occidental as a symbol of American imperialism, have bombed the pipeline nearly a thousand times since the 1980's. The Colombian military increased security, deploying five of the six battalions in the 6,000-man 18th Brigade to pipeline protection, up from just two battalions in 2001. The number of bombings fell to 30 in the first nine months of 2002, down from 170 in 2001.
The United States helped the government of Colombia to resume drug interdiction flights, which were suspended in April 2001 after a missionary plane was mistakenly shot down in Peru. The mishap resulted in the deaths of US missionary Veronica Bowers and her infant daughter, prompting authorities to insist on more stringent safety procedures before the anti-drug flight program could be re-launched. With a stronger emphasis on safety protocols, the Airbridge Denial program resumed in Colombia in late August 2003. To ensure that safety standards are maintained, the program's certification process will take place each year. In April 2003 the United States signed a bilateral agreement with the government of Colombia that spelled out procedures that will be followed in this program.
As of September 2003 there were more than 2,000 US personnel from 32 US agencies at the US embassy in Bogotá. This US embassy has surpassed the US embassy in Cairo as the largest US embassy in the world. As of July 2003 there were 358 US troops in Colombia, three times the 117 US troops in Colombia in November 2001. Five US citizens employed as contractors were killed in Colombia during 2003, and a total of 21 US government-titled aircraft had been downed since 1998.
Violence by narcoterrorist groups and other criminal elements continues to affect all parts of the country, urban and rural. Citizens of the United States and other countries continue to be the victims of threats, kidnappings, and other violence. This threat has increased recently in urban areas, including, but not limited to, Bogota, Cartagena and Barranquilla. Colombian terrorist groups also operate in the border areas of neighboring countries, creating similar dangers for travelers in those areas. Bombings have caused civilian casualties throughout Colombia. Targets include supermarkets, places of entertainment, and other areas where U.S. citizens congregate. There have been no security incidents, to our knowledge, on San Andres Island (off the coast of Nicaragua).
About 3,000 kidnapping incidents were reported throughout Colombia in 2002. Since the year 2000, 27 Americans were reported kidnapped in various parts of the country. American kidnap or murder victims have included journalists, missionaries, scientists, human rights workers, U.S. government employees and businesspeople, as well as persons on tourism or family visits, and even small children. No one can be considered immune on the basis of occupation, nationality or any other factor. Most kidnappings of U.S. citizens in Colombia have been committed by terrorist groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), which have been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the Secretary of State. Since it is U.S. policy not to make concessions to, or strike deals with, terrorists, the U.S. Government's ability to assist kidnapped U.S. citizens is limited.
Net coca cultivation in Colombia fell to 440 square miles in 2003 from 558 square miles in 2002 and 656 square miles in the peak growing year of 2001, according to the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. The US had spent about $3.15 billion in Colombia since 2000, including about $2.5 billion is military and police assistance. Aadditional roles include protecting an oil pipeline partly owned by Occidental Petroleum, helping the Colombian military create a unit to eliminate guerilla leaders, and providing logistical data to help the military recapture rebel-held territory. While no US troops have died in Colombia since a 1999 plane crash, 11 US contractors have been killed since 1998, including six in 2003. Companies with U.S. government contracts for work in Colombia include Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and the DynCorp unit of Computer Sciences Corp.
In March 2004 the Bush administration asked Congress to increase by 75 percent the number of US troops and contractors in Colombia, citing the need to bolster its fight against drug traffickers and rebel fighters. The Bush administration wanted Congress to raise the cap on US soldiers and advisers to 800 from 400, and to increase the limit on civilian contractors to 600 from 400. These increases were approved in October 2004.
You're absolutely correct. So, I'll rephrase with the exception of Colombia and the outbursts with Venezuela.
This is completely accurate. Sorry Caterina, there are alot of North Americans who purport to have expertise in politics who obviously flunked history. You are dead on.
Despite the fact that they've never been south of the US border, they've read all of Chomsky, certainly this qualifies them as experts, why would you attempt to rebut their propaganda with facts?
It is funny to watch the leftists in America who championed Chavez absolutely scramble to come up with new defenses of him. He is wrecking his country inch by inch piece by piece, he has created the most specialized "economy" in modern history.
Also, I laugh at how militarism is the basest of all evils amongst my friends on the left, yet somehow it is acceptable and excuseable for Chavez.
It's a fascinating society he's building down there, a military junta built on the exchange of a single commodity.
I don't hate anyone.
I'm more of a hate...stylist.
Nice edit, because Buenos Aires is in Argentina not Venezuela. When does a person have to live in a country to have an opinion about the events going on in said country? Being on the same continent doesn't necessary qualify a person to have more insight than someone from the outside. I am sure she understand this when she post her viewpoints just like the rest of the people on this board.
Of course I understand it, but I've also happened to live 17 years in Venezuela and I was there last year. Also, I work at a project devoted to the monitoring of Latin America's politics and current affairs, so I'm reading and analyzing this events on a daily basis. And of course, you don't have to live here to have comprehensive knowledge of what's going on in Latin America, I've never tried to imply that. However, there's a tendency to oversimplify the analysis, which is logical because the press outside Latin America does not follow the everyday politics of our region.
Anyways, in my first post all I wanted was to underscore the fact that Venezuela had no business whatsoever in the Colombia-Ecuador crisis. Thankfully, and in spite of Chavez' overreaction and flaming rethoric, the OAS -with the great help of Brazil and Chile's diplomatic efforts- was able to tone down the conflict and work towards a solution between the countries involved.
Everyone has an opinion, few have insightful opinions.
After reading Caterina's last post, do you feel that she's more qualified to comment on the situation than say...you? Or Commy? Or Abookamongstthemany?
Go ahead and follow Hugo right to the bitter end, you people look more foolish with each passing day.
I don't hate anyone.
I'm more of a hate...stylist.