Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
fuck you jackass. Just state your opinion. Stop making teams. That is the problem with our political environment.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
fuck you jackass. Just state your opinion. Stop making teams. That is the problem with our political environment.
I did state my opinion. Clearly everyone else understood that, except you.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
We were actually having a civilized discussion here until you started with your 'communist dictator' hyperbole.
Anybody can copy & paste. How about you stop attacking people and talk a little more about Bolivia, which seems to be the topic of this thread.
Oh, I'm sorry. That was not your talking point? What is your point? What do you REALLY want to talk about? Mass murdering communist dictators?
If you can't stay on topic, the fuck you too and GTFO.
Bolivia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Racially segregated.
Moving towards worse govt.
You said less bad, so therefore you're in more agreement with Rjv than SnC.
Bolivian hats<<<<<<<< Sombreros.
What's remarkably nuanced about Bolivia's govt compared to the other shithole latin american gubmints?
Read again. I did said less bad than another alternative proposed by Rjv, not SnC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Are you going to add anything substantive to this thread, or you merely came to display your reading comprehension fail?
Exactly. Thus the hypocrisy of singling out the Bolivian government by the WSJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
What you can't devote an entire article on a single country because you have to include all others. IF the argument is legit, who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
It makes it seems like Bolivia is the exception, when it's nothing like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Furthermore, the article is entirely speculation. Morales is still in his first term after being elected democratically. Now, I agree that he's trying to perpetuate himself in power. This is what we were arguing with rjv.
But this is far from the end of Bolivian democracy, considering that the military have absolutely nothing to do with this.
His alternative was not merely an alternative but a justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
So in essence you still agreed with him, and SnC doesn't think Morales is anygood or worth justifying like RJV was trying to do.
Glad i could help.
It's strikingly obvious SnC doesn't know the recent history of Bolivia or how they even arrived to Morales in the first place. That's why he couldn't possibly understand that rjv was not justifying anything, but merely pointing out the reason Evo was elected to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Unlike his Saddam 100% support cliché, nobody in Latin America has any doubt whatsoever that Evo win his election in 2005 fair and square.
It doesn't make any conclusion but yours. Do you think the WSJ writes fluff pieces on CHavez?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I think this has less to do with other shady characters and more with your dislike of the US backed Columbian figure.
Also less bad? How less bad than his predecessor Lozada?
Both have had blood on their hands.
Lozada by trying to remove radicals to keep the natural gas sale going, and Morales killed people who protested lockout of dissidents.
So less bad?
Explain.
Also, the 59 deaths that occured under Lozado were military confrontations with "armed civilians."
Did they have death squads like RJV was suggesting.
Again. Make yourself clear.
Lozada took away the main means of production from the Bolivian population, and did not provide any alternatives when the crops suggested as replacement didn't grow. Instead of protecting the interest of their people he aligned himself with the wishes of external countries/organizations. It was no surprise when he quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Morales just came to fill a need of popular representation of the average Bolivian.
He's just doing a disservice to democracy by modifying the constitution to sit his ass in power for as long as possible.
Of course you're correct. Embarrassing, all the more so because I spotted the error, and unbelievably failed to correct it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc
I thank the gentleman for his correction. :lol
Why should that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
On the contrary, you do practically nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Still haven't checked, have you? You act like you're a stickler for verification, but don't bother to check for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Telling.
It didn't work. You need to read better.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Conservatives nowadays are so quick to put on the victim slippers.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Go ahead, blame someone else, tough guy. :lol
like always, you are short on substance and long on squabble. About the verification: When someone quotes another, it is expected for him to cite it. so others can verify their source. if i went around and had to reference liberals for facts, I would never find time reading the articles you submit from salon and nyt. I enjoy reading what you more cultured people think of us fly-over country folk. So go drink your fat tire and watch PBS, and I will anxiously await your next insightful and unbiased article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Indeed. You should hold yourself to this standard. You don't always.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Selective. I also post regularly from WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, FT, Takimag, NR, Reason, Amconmag, RCP, even occasionally from the Weekly Standard and Chronicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Do you even know what Chronicles is?
I live in the flightpath, does that count?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Back when I worked at the package store, we called it Fat Ass. It's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Get off your high horse. Everyone has an axe to grind. Including you. Don't even pretend you don't, SnC.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Morales is an easy target. What the article fails to mention, is that what is happening in Bolivia is far from unique. At least half of the countries in the region have gone, or are going in that direction (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela). I don't think they left out that little tidbit by mere chance. I think it unfairly puts the onus in Bolivia, when this is a bigger, regional problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by elnono
The real question is: which would you rather have in front of you in the movie theatre?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
nice try. you clearly know you are out of your league. you tried to flex some muscle regarding postmodernism with some half baked wiiticism and cheap copy and paste from a history professor and when your obvious lack of knowledge of philosophy was exposed you ran off behind your abusive tangents. they are not even fallacies at this point because you have not even been able to muster up anything even resembling a syllogism.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
and for the record i spent 4 years in undergrad and another 3 years in graduate school.
operation ajax-this is the one that sent iran downhill. along with britain, the CIA helps to overthrow the democratically elected mossadeq so as to assuage britain's fears over the nationalization of the anglo-iranian oil company. the murderous shah takes over and the rest is history.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...155/25954.html
guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected jacob arbenz in a military coup. arbenz threatened to nationalize the rockefeller-owned united fruit company (ah yes, those chiquita bananas), in which CIA director allen dulles (was this man the devil himself) also owns stock. arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 guatemalans (mostly of indigenous background) in the next 40 years (plenty of US presidents sat on their asses while this went on).
the CIA carried out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify laos’ democratic elections and the pathet lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. the CIA even creates an army of asian mercenaries to attack the pathet lao, but the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats so the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. 25 % of all laotians will eventually become refugees.
in 1959, US military helps "papa doc" duvalier become dictator of haiti. he creates his own police force (tonton macoutes), who terrorize the population with machetes. they kill over 100,000 during the duvalier reign. the US does not protest.
in 1961, the CIA assassinated democratically elected lumumba of zaire. public support for lumumba politics was so high that the CIA could not install his opponents in power. as a result, four more years of political turmoil follow.
in 1963 in ecuador, the CIA-backed military coup overthrew president arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies became unacceptable to washington. a military junta assumed command, cancelled the 1964 elections, and began abusing human rights.
in 1964, a CIA-backed military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of joao goulart in brazil. the junta that came into power for the next 2 decades, became one of the most bloodthirsty in history. general branco created latin america’s first death squads, bands of secret police who hunted down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. often these "communists" were no more than political opponents. it was later revealed that the CIA trained the death squads.
in 1970, the CIA ousted prince sahounek of cambodia, who was highly regarded among cambodians for keeping them out of the vietnam war. he was replaced by CIA puppet lon nol, who immediately threw cambodian troops into battle. this unpopular move strengthened what had once been minor opposition parties like the khmer rouge, which achieved power in 1975 and went on to slaughter millions of its own people.
in 1973, the CIA assassinated salvador allende, who was latin america’s first democratically elected socialist leader. the problems began when allende privatized american-owned firms. ITT offered the CIA $1 million for a coup. the CIA replaced allende with general augusto pinochet, who went on to torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left. pinochet's regime was so historically brutal that he had to beg countries to offer him asylum in his dying years.
Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974 ("Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years"), writing that "a check of the CIA's domestic files ordered last year… produced evidence of dozens of other illegal activities… beginning in the nineteen fifties, including break-ins, wiretapping, and the surreptitious inspection of mail."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm
from the book, "inside the company", by former CIA operate philip agee:
Dear Mr Helms,
I respectfully submit my resignation from the Central Intelligence Agency for the following reasons:
I joined the Agency because I thought I would be protecting the security of my country by fighting against communism and Soviet expansion while at the same time helping other countries to preserve their freedom. Six years in Latin America have taught me that the injustices forced by small ruling minorities on the mass of the people cannot be eased sufficiently by reform movements such as the Alliance for Progress. The ruling class will never willingly give up its special privileges and comforts. This is class warfare and is the reason why communism appeals to the masses in the first place. We call this the 'free world'; but the only freedom under these circumstances is the rich people's freedom to exploit the poor.
Economic growth in Latin America might broaden the benefits in some countries but in most places the structural contradictions and population growth preclude meaningful increased income for most of the people. Worse still, the value of private investment and loans and everything else sent by the US into Latin America is far exceeded year after year by what is taken out - profits, interest, royalties, loan repayments - all sent back to the US. The income left over in Latin America is sucked up by the ruling minority who are determined to live by our standards of wealth.
Agency operations cannot be separated from these conditions. Our training and support for police and military forces, particularly the intelligence services, combined with other US support through military assistance missions and Public Safety programmes, give the ruling minorities ever stronger tools to keep themselves in power and to retain their disproportionate share of the national income. Our operations to penetrate and suppress the extreme left also serve to strengthen the ruling minorities by eliminating the main danger to their power.
American business and government are bound up with the ruling minorities in Latin America - with the rural and industrial property holders. Our interests and their interests - stability, return on investment - are the same. Meanwhile the masses of the people keep on suffering because they lack even minimal educational facilities, healthcare, housing, and diet. They could have these benefits of national income were not so unevenly distributed.
To me what is important is to see that what little there is to go around goes around fairly. A communist hospital can cure just like a capitalist hospital and of communism is the likely alternative to what I've seen in Latin America, then it's up to the Latin Americans to decide. Our only alternatives are to continue supporting injustice or to withdraw and let the cards fall by themselves
lfirst of all, latin america is not a continent. secondly, after the first oil price rise of 400% in the 1970s, countries such as brazil and argentina, borrowed heavily to finance needed oil imports, or trade deficits. they borrowed dollars from major international banks operating in the london eurodollar market. london was the center for, in effect, the recycling of the large sums of petrodollars from arab OPEC countries to US and other major banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
the major banks took the new oil dollars and immediately relent them at a nice profit, to countries like argentina. before the 1970s argentina had been a fast-growing economy developing modern industry, agriculture and a rising standard of living for its people. it had almost no foreign debt. ten years later, the country was under control of the IMF and foreign banks. The US changed the rules, in the process creating the debt crisis. their cheap dollar loans cost them 300% more interest charge. paul volcker of the federal reserve in the US, unilaterally changed US interest policy to force the dollar higher against other currencies. the effect was to raise US interest rates 300% and rates in the london bank market by even more. the bank loans to argentina and other countries had been made in "floating" rate agreements. If the key international rate in the london bank market was low, Argentina would pay a low rate on its dollar loans. but when it suddenly rose 300% in 1979-1980, many countries suddenly faced a payments crisis. then in 1982 the crisis reached default level. at that point, washington demanded the IMF be brought in to police a debt collection process on developing debtor nations. this came to be called the third world debt crisis. the impression was created that countries like Argentina were guilty for mismanagement. in reality, whatever political corruption may have existed in the debtor countries, the corruption of the IMF system and the petrodollar recycling was even greater. the Volcker interest rate shock completed the package of destruction of living standards on behalf of dollar debts.
you may not know what a book is SnC but a nobel prize winning author and former world bank employee and economist has a great chapter in his book "globalization and its discontents". it is chapter 8 in the book and it is entitled "the IMF's other agenda". in that chapter he lists his study that basically illustrates that the IMF had constructed a ponzi debt pyramid, in which the more a country paid, the more it owed.
You just copied and pasted from a website of the top CIA bad points.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv