History of US involvement in Latin America
Comments
-
you can make that case with south america as a whole i think.Byrnzie wrote:Commy wrote:HaitiWhat does the government of the United States do when faced with a choice between supporting: (a) a group of totalitarian military thugs guilty of murdering thousands, systematic torture, widespread rape, and leaving severely mutilated corpses in the streets ... or (b) a non-violent priest, legally elected to the presidency by a landslide, whom the thugs have overthrown in a coup? ...
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/haiti2.htmAristide (peaceful, popular priest in Haiti) urged a boycott of the elections, saying "The army is our first enemy." The CIA, on the other hand, funded some of the candidates. The Agency later insisted that the purpose of the funding program had not been to oppose Aristide but to provide a "free and open election", by which was meant helping some candidates who didn't have enough money and diminishing Aristide's attempt to have a low turnout, which would have "reduced the election's validity". It is not known which candidates the CIA funded or why the Agency or the State Department, which reportedly chose the candidates to support, were concerned about such goals in Haiti, when the same electoral situation exists permanently in the United States.
What's really interesting with regards U.S involvement in Haiti is how this subject has been so successfully brushed under the carpet by Western mainstream media. America's history of interference and tyranny with regards to Haiti alone destroys any credibility the U.S government has when talking of wanting to spread democracy in the world.0 -
Uruguay
US policy embraces torture, big surprise.
"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect."{1}
The words of an instructor in the art of torture. The words of Dan Mitrione, the head of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) mission in Montevideo.
Officially, OPS was a division of the Agency for International Development, but the director of OPS in Washington, Byron Engle, was an old CIA hand. His organization maintained a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under OPS cover, although Mitrione was not one of them.{2}
Dan Mitrione did not introduce the practice of torturing political prisoners to Uruguay. It had been perpetrated by the police at times from at least the early 1960s. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and in particular Mitrione, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured.{4}
Dan Mitrione had built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo. In this room he assembled selected Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques. Another observer was Manuel Hevia Cosculluela, a Cuban who was with the CIA and worked with Mitrione. Hevia later wrote that the course began with a description of the human anatomy and nervous system ...
Soon things turned unpleasant. As subjects for the first testing they took beggars, known in Uruguay as bichicomes, from the outskirts of Montevideo, as well as a woman apparently from the frontier area with Brazil. There was no interrogation, only a demonstration of the effects of different voltages on the different parts of the human body, as well as demonstrating the use of a drug which induces vomiting -- I don't know why or what for -- and another chemical substance. The four of them died.{16}
In his book Hevia does not say specifically what Mitrione's direct part in all this was, but he later publicly stated that the OPS chief "personally tortured four beggars to death with electric shocks".{17}
On another occasion, Hevia sat with Mitrione in the latter's house, and over a few drinks the American explained to the Cuban his philosophy of interrogation. Mitrione considered it to be an art. First there should be a softening-up period, with the usual beatings and insults. The object is to humiliate the prisoner, to make him realize his helplessness, to cut him off from reality. No questions, only blows and insults. Then, only blows in silence.
Only after this, said Mitrione, is the interrogation. Here no pain should be produced other than that caused by the instrument which is being used. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was his motto.
During the session you have to keep the subject from losing all hope of life, because this can lead to stubborn resistance. "You must always leave him some hope ... a distant light."
"When you get what you want, and I always get it," Mitrione continued, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening-up. Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities."
The American pointed out that upon receiving a subject the first thing is to determine his physical state, his degree of resistance, by means of a medical examination. "A premature death means a failure by the technician ... It's important to know in advance if we can permit ourselves the luxury of the subject's death."{18}
Not long after this conversation, Manual Hevia disappeared from Montevideo and turned up in Havana. He had been a Cuban agent -- a double agent -- all along.
About half a year later, 31 July 1970 to be exact, Dan Mitrione was kidnapped by the Tupamaros. They did not torture him. They demanded the release of some 150 prisoners in exchange for him. With the determined backing of the Nixon administration, the Uruguayan government refused. On 10 August, Mitrione's dead body was found on the back seat of a stolen car. He had turned 50 on his fifth day as a prisoner.
Back in Mitrione's home town of Richmond, Indiana, Secretary of State William Rogers and President Nixon's son-in-law David Eisenhower attended the funeral for Mitrione, the city's former police chief. Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis came to town to stage a benefit show for Mitrione's family.
And White House spokesman, Ron Ziegler, solemnly stated that "Mr. Mitrione's devoted service to the cause of peaceful progress in an orderly world will remain as an example for free men everywhere."{19}
"A perfect man," his widow said.
"A great humanitarian," said his daughter Linda.{20}
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/uruguay.htm
The dissident Uruguayan writer, Eduardo Galeano, summed up his country's era of dictatorship thusly:
"People were in prison so that prices could be free."0 -
Interesting article here:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22813.htm
Peru: Blood Flows in the Amazon
By James Petras - June 12, 2009 "ICH"
'In early June, Peruvian President Alan García, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President García declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands...'0 -
Byrnzie wrote:Interesting article here:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22813.htm
Peru: Blood Flows in the Amazon
By James Petras - June 12, 2009 "ICH"
'In early June, Peruvian President Alan García, an ally of US President Barack Obama, ordered armored personnel carriers, helicopter gun-ships and hundreds of heavily armed troops to assault and disperse a peaceful, legal protest organized by members of Peru’s Amazonian indigenous communities protesting the entry of foreign multinational mining companies on their traditional homelands. Dozens of Indians were killed or are missing, scores have been injured and arrested and a number of Peruvian police, held hostage by the indigenous protestors were killed in the assault. President García declared martial law in the region in order to enforce his unilateral and unconstitutional fiat granting of mining exploitation rights to foreign companies, which infringed on the integrity of traditional Amazonian indigenous communal lands...'
that was interesting. especially this part...
The Obama regime has predictably not issued a single word of concern or protest in the face of one of the worst massacres of Peruvian civilians in this decade – perpetrated by one of America’s closest remaining allies in Latin America. García, taking his talking points from the US Ambassador, accused Venezuela and Bolivia of having instigated the Indian ‘uprising’, quoting a letter of support from Bolivia’s President Evo Morales sent to an intercontinental conference of Indian communities held in Lima in May as ‘proof’. Martial law was declared and the entire Amazon region of Peru is being militarized. Meetings are banned and family members are forbidden from searching for their missing relatives.
Throughout Latin America, all the major Indian organizations have expressed their solidarity with the Peruvian indigenous movements. Within Peru, mass social movements, trade unions and human rights groups have organized a general strike on June 11. Fearing the spread of mass protests, El Commercio, the conservative Lima daily, cautioned García to adopt some conciliatory measures to avoid a generalized urban uprising. A one-day truce was declared on June 10, but the Indian organizations refused to end their blockade of the highways unless the García Government rescinds its illegal land grant decrees.
In the meantime, a strange silence hangs over the White House. Our usually garrulous President Obama, so adept at reciting platitudes about diversity and tolerance and praising peace and justice, cannot find a single phrase in his prepared script condemning the massacre of scores of indigenous inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon. When egregious violations of human rights are committed in Latin America by a US backed client-President following Washington’s formula of ‘free trade’, deregulation of environmental protections and hostility toward anti-imperialist countries (Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), Obama favors complicity over condemnation.
looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.0 -
Byrnzie wrote:Commy wrote:looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
wouldn't surprise me. i'm actually surprised Chavez is even still alive.
US policy: assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's.0 -
Long live the cold war.
President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was overthrown in a military coup June 28 because he was about to conduct a non-binding survey of the population, asking the question: "Do you agree that, during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?" One of the issues that Zelaya hoped a new constitution would deal with is the limiting of the presidency to one four-year term. He also expressed the need for other constitutional changes to make it possible for him to carry out policies to improve the life of the poor; in countries like Honduras, the law is not generally crafted for that end.
At this writing it's not clear how matters will turn out in Honduras, but the following should be noted: the United States, by its own admission, was fully aware for weeks of the Honduran military's plan to overthrow Zelaya. Washington says it tried its best to change the mind of the plotters. It's difficult to believe that this proved impossible. During the Cold War it was said, with much justification, that the United States could discourage a coup in Latin America with "a frown". The Honduran and American military establishments have long been on very fraternal terms. And it must be asked: In what way and to what extent did the United States warn Zelaya of the impending coup? And what protection did it offer him? The response to the coup from the Obama administration can be described with adjectives such as lukewarm, proper but belated, and mixed. It is not unthinkable that the United States gave the military plotters the go-ahead, telling them to keep the traditional "golpe" bloodiness to a minimum. Zelaya was elected to office as the candidate of a conservative party; he then, surprisingly, moved to the left and became a strong critic of a number of Washington policies, and an ally of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia, both of whom the Bush administration tried to overthrow and assassinate.
Following the coup, National Public Radio (NPR) showed once again why progressives refer to it as National Pentagon Radio. The station's leading news anchor, Robert Siegel, interviewed Johanna Mendelson Forman, of the conservative think tank, Center for Strategic and International Studies:
Siegel: "There hasn't been a coup in Latin America for quite a while."
Forman: "I think the last one was in 1983"
Siegel did not correct her.14
This is ignorance of considerable degree. There was a coup in Venezuela in 2002 that briefly overthrew Hugo Chavez, a coup in Haiti in 2004 that permanently overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a coup in Panama in 1989 that permanently overthrew Manuel Noriega. Is it because the US was closely involved in all three coups that they have been thrown down the Orwellian Memory Hole?
-Bill Blum0 -
Romeo Vasquez, the leader of the recent coup in Honduras, is a graduate of the School of the Americas.0
-
FiveB247x wrote:That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
Links: http://www.eclac.cl (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean), I also recommend http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (UN's site for the MDGs)
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina0 -
Commy wrote:Byrnzie wrote:Commy wrote:looks like the treatment of latin america will continue, big surpirse. not a word in the media, not a word from officials. change we can believe in, sure.
I wonder if we'll see another attempt by the U.S at removing Chavez from power?
wouldn't surprise me. i'm actually surprised Chavez is even still alive.
US policy: assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's.
I'm not, because that's an absurd statement. It should read:
"US policy: fucking up attempts at assassinating democratically elected leaders since the 50's."0 -
CaterinaCK wrote:FiveB247x wrote:That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
Links: http://www.eclac.cl (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean), I also recommend http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (UN's site for the MDGs)
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight
jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!0 -
jlew24asu wrote:Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
0 -
Byrnzie wrote:jlew24asu wrote:Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
is something funny?0 -
jlew24asu wrote:Byrnzie wrote:jlew24asu wrote:Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
is something funny?
Yes.0 -
jlew24asu wrote:CaterinaCK wrote:FiveB247x wrote:That's some interesting news that most of the world and South America would like to hear considering its not true. Economically as a whole, most the nations in South America are in terrible debt and politically many have serious issues in terms of stability, drug wars, kidnapping, ridiculous separation wealth and varying other issues...
I won't enter the political debate. However, I have to clarify this statement, as a South American (South America includes: Colombia, Venezuela, The Guyanas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina).
It is safe to say that South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008). There's, also been a significant degree of political stability in the region (except for 2002 coup in Venezuela). If currents South Americans presidents are all competent or doing good things for their respective countries is another discussion (a very long one, BTW). Kidnappings are an issue in Colombia and Venezuela, every now and then here in Argentina.
I'll stick to the economy, though. In average poverty has been reduced both in relative and absolute terms; unemployments has decreased; socioeconomic indicators have improved; there's been some progress in reducing inequality (particularly in Brazil) and most South American countries are on track for the Millenium Development Goals. Furthermore, Chile has already reduced it's poverty rates by more than 50% and Brazil should accomplish that goal before 2015. Argentina's growth rate for the 2003-2008 period was, in average, 8%. Peru has been growing steadily, like Ecuador. Uruguay has always been a different animal, due to its social protection and political systemas. I'd say that Bolivia and Paraguay have had the worse perfomances in the region. But make no mistakes, we've made huge improvements. For instance, Brazil has the 8th largest world economy these days, it is a global player, there's no denying that. Chile could very well become a developed country in the upcoming 20 years...
About public debt, well, for the first time the public debt-GDP ratio is not dangerous for our countries fiscal stability. There's consensus among most economists, politicians and experts about the fact that our region is better prepared for this new global crisis.
Links: http://www.eclac.cl (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean), I also recommend http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ (UN's site for the MDGs)
I can't comment any further, have to get back to work...
Peace
Caterina
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.0 -
Kotov Syndrome wrote:
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
so its only acceptable to talk about America's so called crimes and completely ignore any positive influences we're had.0 -
feel free. you can do whatever you want.jlew24asu wrote:Kotov Syndrome wrote:
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
so its only acceptable to talk about America's so called crimes and completely ignore any positive influences we're had.
i was pointing out that any success today does not excuse any crimes. its doesn't make it ok. its like your iraq argument. we killed a million iraqis, but we built a mcdonalds so all is forgiven. fuck that. not gonna work here.0 -
Kotov Syndrome wrote:
feel free. you can do whatever you want.
i was pointing out that any success today does not excuse any crimes. its doesn't make it ok.
I agree. I'm not saying it makes ok. but it seems like any positive influences we have are non existent because we've committed "crimes" in south America.Kotov Syndrome wrote:its like your iraq argument. we killed a million iraqis, but we built a mcdonalds so all is forgiven. fuck that. not gonna work here.
LOL my Iraq argument? are you new here? I've never made such an argument. second of all, we didn't kill a million Iraqis.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help