Dubb-Ya's after it again...

[DeepIron]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1219099420080312

"As we speak, Colombia is under assault from a terrorist network known as the FARC, which aims to overthrow Colombia's democracy and aims to impose a Marxist vision on the country," Bush told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
"Hello? Earth to Dubb-Ya... FARC has been around for like ... 40+ years!"

What will it be this time? BMDs? Burritos of Mass Destruction? :damn:

[Ducimus]

resident George W. Bush said on Wednesday he intended to send a controversial free trade pact with Colombia to Congress soon for a vote and warned rejecting the pact would harm U.S. national security.

How, is anything in columbia have anything to do with national secruity? Unrestricted drug cartels? phhht.

A person can cry wolf only so many times. After awhile, you just stop believing anything that person says.

[DeepIron]

I think he's spoiling for a fight with Chavez.

[August]

Yeah Chavez and the rest of the reds in latin America should have every right to sponsor leftist guerilla movements in their neighborning countries. Is that what you two are saying?

[DeepIron]

No. I'm saying that once again, Dubb-Ya is pitching it hot and fast to Congress. "You guys need to pass this legislation just 'cause I say so"...
Suddenly, a "terrorist" group (before they were just a "leftist gueriila movement" as you point out) are threatening the stability in the region, yada, yada, yada. Colombia has been fighting them for years and if they hadn't made an excursion into Ecuador, would probably still be pursuing them off the average Americans radar...

What's next, more involvement with Spain to combat ETA? Shall we align with Turkey and take out the PKK?

[Ducimus]

Yeah Chavez and the rest of the reds in latin America should have every right to sponsor leftist guerilla movements in their neighborning countries. Is that what you two are saying?

As someone who's been deployed to a few of em.... i dont give a rats ass what goes on in some 3rd world hell hole. Not one little bit. The people there? I dont care. Really, i dont. They can all rott under some dictatorship - not our problem.

At least, not until it hits my pocket book. I believe in blunt honesty and im being blunt honest right now. I seriously, DO NOT CARE. They're nation, their problem, not ours. So, Hey if were going to go kick ass so the price at the pump goes down - at least lets be honest about it as a nation instead of spouting a bunch of BS rehtoric so we feel warm and fuzzy. (and no, im not referring to Iraq, i dont know what that clustef**k is about anymore, i really don't).

[August]

They're nation, their problem, not ours. So, Hey if were going to go kick ass so the price at the pump goes down - at least lets be honest about it as a nation instead of spouting a bunch of BS rehtoric so we feel warm and fuzzy. (and no, im not referring to Iraq, i dont know what that clustef**k is about anymore, i really don't).

If it were just "their nation" i'd agree but Venezuela and Ecuador are both sheltering that guerrilla force behind their borders. One that i might add also traffics in cocaine to fund their operations in Columbia so your mention of drug cartels is especially ironic.

[DeepIron]

One that i might add also traffics in cocaine to fund their operations in Columbia so your mention of drug cartels is especially ironic. An who is the number one market for their cocaine?

[August]

An who is the number one market for their cocaine?

Probably the USA. Do you have a point?

[Ducimus]

And how many years have they been smuggeling their poison accross our borders now? You know that old TV show "miami vice" as hollywood as it is, didnt find it's inspiration out of thin air. So i fail to see how anything changes in that regard now. The "war on drugs" has not, nor ever will be entirely won. Thats were stepped up border patrols, import inspections and coast guard comes in handy.

[Frau_Phillips]

Alright, you guys. You heard the president, we've got to start packing up and hauling our military to every country that's harbouring terrorists.

I think we ought to start in Great Britain. They've got the fastest rising Muslim population, including extremists. Then once we've swept Europe, (God knows France has some folks who aren't on our side) we can move on to all of Asia. Then once we've got Africa under control (shouldn't take much, they're all pretty sick anyway, not that we care) we can move on up through South America, and then Mexico. And let's not forget, that United States of America is pretty liberal with that "freedom of speech" thing, they've probably got a hefty number of dissenters lurking around. We probably ought to nuke the whole place to make sure.

Safely, I think the only place we can afford to skip is Antartica. Until we obtain intelligence, which we inevitably will, that there are some suicide bombing penguins, and then we'll have to occupy there too. Hell, I think there's some oil down there. Scratch that, Antartica is a threat to our national security too.

[DeepIron]

An who is the number one market for their cocaine?
Probably the USA. Do you have a point? Ironic isn't it? The US is largest consumer of Columbian cocaine in the world. In a sense, US citizens make it possible for FARC to fund itself and operate.

Instead for sending huge amounts of US $$$ to Columbia, (undoubtably to line some corrupt officials pockets) why not spend it at home to improve border security and choke off the coke entering the US? The direct benefits are much greater to US citizens. Tighter border security means fewer drugs, fewer illegals and better screening for potential "terrorists".

[baggygreen]

Frankly, i think smuggling boats should be sunk on sight and smugglers aircraft downed into the ocean.

thats gotta start making an impact doesnt it?

[Sailor Steve]

Hey, FP, nice to hear from you again.

Excellent points, every one. There are people here who truly believe that the only way our country can be safe is if the take over every other one. It's no wonder the rest of the world doesn't trust us anymore.

Oh, nice sig, too.

[DeepIron]

Frankly, i think smuggling boats should be sunk on sight and smugglers aircraft downed into the ocean.
Careful BG, you'll have Enviromentalists and Greenpeace down upon us... :shifty:

[baggygreen]

Thats ok DI, we can sink the ships to make environmentally friendly artificial reefs for fish - those fish might be very easy to catch due to their dazed state from the cargo, but thats ok, everyone will be happy man....

and as for the planes, they can be artificial reefs too! theres lotsa planes that can be dived on in the pacific!:lol:

[August]

An who is the number one market for their cocaine?
Probably the USA. Do you have a point? Ironic isn't it? The US is largest consumer of Columbian cocaine in the world. In a sense, US citizens make it possible for FARC to fund itself and operate.

Instead for sending huge amounts of US $$$ to Columbia, (undoubtably to line some corrupt officials pockets) why not spend it at home to improve border security and choke off the coke entering the US? The direct benefits are much greater to US citizens. Tighter border security means fewer drugs, fewer illegals and better screening for potential "terrorists".
All of this has nothing to do with the fact that FARC is a terrorist organization and they are being given safe haven, money and who knows what else just across the border in Venezuela and Ecuador.

It also shows no indication that Bush "is spoiling for a fight with Chavez" as you put it.

[mrbeast]

Yeah Chavez and the rest of the reds in latin America should have every right to sponsor leftist guerilla movements in their neighborning countries. Is that what you two are saying?

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.

[Platapus]

Yeah Chavez and the rest of the reds in latin America should have every right to sponsor leftist guerilla movements in their neighborning countries. Is that what you two are saying?

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.


Good one Mr. Beast nothing but net on that one.

So what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

It depends on whether you like em or not!

[bradclark1]

resident George W. Bush said on Wednesday he intended to send a controversial free trade pact with Colombia to Congress soon for a vote and warned rejecting the pact would harm U.S. national security.

How, is anything in columbia have anything to do with national secruity? Unrestricted drug cartels? phhht.

A person can cry wolf only so many times. After awhile, you just stop believing anything that person says.
Everything he does is a matter of national security. It does get old.

[August]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.

Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.

[DeepIron]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.
And your sleezy personal attack on him doesn't surprise me in the least. You call his character into question simply because he has a different point of view that differs from your own.

But I'm not surprised. After reading through a number of your past posts, it seems to be your "modus operandi". You basically "run down" posters by taking personal "pot shots" at them in lieu of having anything substantial to say...

You can't support your own point of view so you resort to denigrating others..

[DeepIron]

This is not the "be all, end all" of listings. But one can start here and research the rest:

Guatemala:
For the CIA backing of terrorism in Guatemala, see congressman Bill Delahunt's press release in 1999(1) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#1) or the Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA Annual Report 1997 - 1998(2) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#2).
Estimated civilian deaths: over 200,000 people.


Chile:"The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country ... Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to 'make the economy scream' in Chile to 'prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him,' prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate." ...
An unknown quantity of documents remain lost or classified, but those that have been released confirm efforts to 'destabilize' Chile economically. Chile has been suffering ever since."(3) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#3)
Occupied Palestinian territories:
The American government has paid Israel almost one hundred billion dollars over the years. Part of that money is used for occupying Palestinian land, in opposition to international law, and to kill dissenters. For details of American support and for the best known atrocity, see the Sabra and Shatila (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/sabra.asp) page. For the latest news, see The Palestine Chronicle (http://palestinechronicle.com/index.php). (Why not add up the number of Israelis killed and compare them to the number of Palestinians killed? Choose any year you like.) For how the west reports the news, see Palestine Media Watch (http://64.226.129.19/pmw/main.html). The parallels with South African Apartheid are striking, except in how it is reported."What if we had supported the apartheid regime of South Africa against the majority black population? What if we had lauded the South African white leadership as 'hard-line warriors' rather than racists? What if we had explained the shooting of 56 black protesters at Sharpeville as an understandable 'security crackdown' by the South African police. And described black children shot by the police as an act of 'child sacrifice' by their parents? What if we had called upon the 'terrorist' ANC leadership to 'control their own people'.
"Almost every day that is exactly the way we are playing the Israeli-Palestinian war. No matter how many youths are shot dead by the Israelis, no matter how many murders - by either side - and no matter how bloody the reputation of the Israeli Prime Minister, we are reporting this terrible conflict as if we supported the South African whites against the blacks. No, Israel is not South Africa (though it happily supported the apartheid regime) and no, the Palestinians are not the blacks of the shanty towns. But there's not much difference between Gaza and the black slums of Johannesburg; and there's not much difference between the tactics of the Israeli army in the occupied territories and that of the South African police. The apartheid regime had death squads, just as Israel has today. Yet even they did not use helicopter gunships and missiles."(4) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#4)
Estimated civilian deaths: 100,000 Palestinian people.


Panama
1980s"Systematically, the Contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. Remember the 'Assassination Manual' that surfaced in 1984? It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror to traumatize society so that it cannot function.
...
[after describing various atrocities - the kind of thing that makes Osama Bin Laden seem kind and gentle by comparison:] "These are the activities done by the Contras. The Contras are the people President Reagan called 'freedom fighters.' He said: 'They are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers.'"
"(7) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#6)
Estimated civilian deaths: over 13,000 people.


Vietnam
1945-1974
This is "The Big One." What America did in south-east Asia shocked all levels of American society - right up to the President:"President Ford was reacting to Senate and House committee reports both concluding that the CIA had become a 'rogue elephant' crushing foreign citizens under foot in its bid to win the Cold War. For instance, more than 20,000 Vietnamese were killed during the CIA-guided Operation Phoenix intended to weed out communist 'agents' from South Vietnam." (BBC report, "CIA's licence to kill" Tuesday, 23 October, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1613000/1613423.stm))
Testimony before congress indicates that these "agents" included women and children."At one point Congressman Ogden Reid pulled out a list signed by a CIA officer that named VC cadre rounded up in a particular action in 1967. 'It is of some interest that on this list, 33 of the 61 names were women and some persons were as young as 11 and 12,' noted Reid." (8) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#8)
"Between 1967 to 1973 an estimated 40,000 Vietnamese were killed by CIA-sponsored "counterterror" and "hunter-killer" teams, and hundreds of thousands were sent to secret interrogation centers."(8) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#8) It was an ugly time.(9) (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp#9) In the end the U.S. public decided that the U.S. was wrong to start this war, and the war was finally ended.
Estimated total civilian deaths: 2,500,000 - 3,500,000 people.

[August]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.
And your sleezy personal attack on him doesn't surprise me in the least. You call his character into question simply because he has a different point of view that differs from your own.

No, I call his character into question because he attempts to justify murdering, kidnapping and drug trafficking because it's by a group he supports.

But I'm not surprised. After reading through a number of your past posts, it seems to be your "modus operandi". You basically "run down" posters by taking personal "pot shots" at them in lieu of having anything substantial to say...

Friend, trying to make an argument based on a blatant falsehood, like for instance moving the start of the Iraq war forward an entire year in order to badmouth a pol you don't like deserves being "run down". What are we supposed to do? Accept your malarkey at face value and say nothing? Allow you to blow such a huge and telling "mistake" off by just saying "my bad" before continuing your attack?

Don't be such a bitter Betty. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

...Don't be such a bitter Betty. :roll:How about - Don't make me laugh! This is supposed to be serious! :D :rotfl:

-S

[DeepIron]

Friend, trying to make an argument based on a blatant falsehood, like for instance moving the start of the Iraq war forward an entire year in order to badmouth a pol you don't like deserves being "run down". What are we supposed to do? Accept your malarkey at face value and say nothing? Allow you to blow such a huge and telling "mistake" off by just saying "my bad" before continuing your attack?
First, I'm not your friend. Nor would I care to be. My friends treat each other with courtesy and respect each others opinions.

Secondly, invoking the mistake I made (and I willingly acknowledged) and applying it here has no relevance and is simply another ploy to sidestep the issue IMO.

So instead of attempting to divert attention towards me, why don't you and subman1 seeing as he's graced us with his presense, refute me? C'mon, let's see some of that intellectual "superiority" you obviously believe you both possess...

So, here's the question so that were all on the same playing field:

"It's alright for America to sponsor "terrorist groups" but not ok for anyone else?"

[Zayphod]

An who is the number one market for their cocaine?
Probably the USA. Do you have a point? Ironic isn't it? The US is largest consumer of Columbian cocaine in the world. In a sense, US citizens make it possible for FARC to fund itself and operate.

Instead for sending huge amounts of US $$$ to Columbia, (undoubtably to line some corrupt officials pockets) why not spend it at home to improve border security and choke off the coke entering the US? The direct benefits are much greater to US citizens. Tighter border security means fewer drugs, fewer illegals and better screening for potential "terrorists".

Solution: Anyone buying cocaine is funding terror. Supporting terror groups is now a Federal offense and those supporting terror groups financially should be put up against a wall and shot.

That'll fix the problem. :smug:

[August]

"It's alright for America to sponsor "terrorist groups" but not ok for anyone else?"

Of course it's not ok, but then again i'm not the one who attempted to make the moral equivalency either.

So now that i've answered your question how about answering mine?

[August]

And your sleezy personal attack on him doesn't surprise me in the least. You call his character into question simply because he has a different point of view that differs from your own.

But I'm not surprised. After reading through a number of your past posts, it seems to be your "modus operandi". You basically "run down" posters by taking personal "pot shots" at them in lieu of having anything substantial to say...

You can't support your own point of view so you resort to denigrating others..

Oh and BTW, pot, kettle, black... :roll:

[dean_acheson]

The President is simply calling a spade a spade.

Hugo is attempting to replace Castro as the purveyor of 'revolutionary' rhetoric and misery in the region.

I'm sure Che would be proud.

Whatever. I wouldn't mind the Columbians bloodying up Chavez's nose, he deserves it from supporting these murderous thugs.

The U.S. is 'just as bad' argument follows is 5...4...3...2... :-?

[Tchocky]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.
I don't think mrbeast is actually chucking his flag behind Chavez and FARC. Instead he's making the very relevant point that it's more than a little disingenous for a US president to complain about terrorist sponsorship in Latin/South America.

[DeepIron]

So now that i've answered your question how about answering mine?
Are you referring to this? (as it's the only question I see you posing in this thread)
Yeah Chavez and the rest of the reds in latin America should have every right to sponsor leftist guerilla movements in their neighborning countries. Is that what you two are saying?
Just as much their right as the US has shown in its support of "terrorists", oops! Sorry. "freedom fighters" outside the US in other sovereign nations.

[dean_acheson]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast.
I don't think mrbeast is actually chucking his flag behind Chavez and FARC. Instead he's making the very relevant point that it's more than a little disingenous for a US president to complain about terrorist sponsorship in Latin/South America.

Just as it is for Mr. Chavez to support these murderous thugs all the while calling our President the world's biggest terrorist.

All of this is besides the point.

As I watch the dollar weaken, our friends lambast us all over the world, and OPEC strangle us, in my weaker moments I consider starting a new local branch of the America First committee, but then I remember the last time we pulled out of the world...

[Tchocky]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast. I don't think mrbeast is actually chucking his flag behind Chavez and FARC. Instead he's making the very relevant point that it's more than a little disingenous for a US president to complain about terrorist sponsorship in Latin/South America.
Just as it is for Mr. Chavez to support these murderous thugs all the while calling our President the world's biggest terrorist. Agreed. I just don't agree with August's seemingly black/white interpretation.

All of this is besides the point. I think it's worth mentioning. Colombia's government isn't snow-white, but there seems to be a "good corruption" and a "bad corruption" as far as Bush is concerned.
Add good/bad territorial incursions to the mix.

As I watch the dollar weaken, our friends lambast us all over the world, and OPEC strangle us, in my weaker moments I consider starting a new local branch of the America First committee, but then I remember the last time we pulled out of the world... The demand for the dollar was always precarious. You can't run such trade deficits and expect the currency to remain stable. As usual, loose credit created an illusion. The dollar isn't so much falling as correcting.
I don't believe the US is distinguishing itself in the international sphere right now. Not every criticism is justified, naturally, but neither can it be rubbed away as anti-Americanism.
Opec? Criticising capitalists for capitalising is a bit rich. Cheap oil is over. The only reductions we'll see is the instability premium falling, the general trend will be upwards.

[August]

Just as much their right as the US has shown in its support of "terrorists", oops! Sorry. "freedom fighters" outside the US in other sovereign nations.


So you justify attacks on country A because country B has a history of similar actions? Do you even read what you write?

[August]

Agreed. I just don't agree with August's seemingly black/white interpretation.

It's black and white because there is absolutely nothing good about a group that deliberately targets innocent people as FARC has done for the last 40 years.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking. Are these the actions of any legitimate opposition group?

Take one example: In March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. Where is the shade of grey argument in that?

[mrbeast]

Just for the record August, I'm not a supporter of FARC. ;)

[GlobalExplorer]

If the USA intervenes one more country in this decade they will be f_cked. Atm the world is holding still because they are waiting for the new government. I have not much more to say to this.

[mrbeast]

Agreed. I just don't agree with August's seemingly black/white interpretation.

It's black and white because there is absolutely nothing good about a group that deliberately targets innocent people as FARC has done for the last 40 years.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking. Are these the actions of any legitimate opposition group?


Take this and substitute 'The Nicaraguan Contras' for FARC.

[Tchocky]

It's black and white because there is absolutely nothing good about a group that deliberately targets innocent people as FARC has done for the last 40 years.

Bombings, murder, mortar attacks, narcotrafficking, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking. Are these the actions of any legitimate opposition group?

Take one example: In March 1999, the FARC executed three US Indian rights activists on Venezuelan territory after it kidnapped them in Colombia. Where is the shade of grey argument in that?
Nobody's argued that FARC are doing good :-?.

You miss my point. Your response to mrbeast was personal and nasty, displaying a "with us or against us" mentality. That's where my black/white comment comes from.
Maybe I misunderstand you.

[SUBMAN1]

So helping Columbia is a bad thing?

Oh let me see - we get lamblasted for not acting when countries are in need, and when we do act, we get lamblasted for actually acting. This is hallarious! :D

-S

[August]

Take this and substitute 'Nicaraguan Contras' for FARC.

I don't see why I should mbeast. Perhaps you could explain how it justifies FARCs terrorism against Columbia. To me that's like saying the IRAs crimes were justified because the red Chinese supported the Viet Cong. One does not have anything to do with the other.

[SUBMAN1]

Take this and substitute 'Nicaraguan Contras' for FARC.
I don't see why I should mbeast. Perhaps you could explain how it justifies FARCs terrorism against Columbia. To me that's like saying the IRAs crimes were justified because the red Chinese supported the Viet Cong. One does not have anything to do with the other.I have to agree on that one as well. Its a pointless comparrison.

-S

[August]

Take this and substitute 'Nicaraguan Contras' for FARC.
I don't see why I should mbeast. Perhaps you could explain how it justifies FARCs terrorism against Columbia. To me that's like saying the IRAs crimes were justified because the red Chinese supported the Viet Cong. One does not have anything to do with the other.I have to agree on that one as well. Its a pointless comparrison.

-S

Well the point is, i think, to bash the US. In other words, anything that irritates the Americans, including pushing little old ladies down flights of stairs, is something to embrace.

I can't see any other reason for anyone to defend the actions of a gang of thugs like FARC or Chavez for that matter.

[Tchocky]

I can't see any other reason for anyone to defend the actions of a gang of thugs like FARC or Chavez for that matter.
Who's defended FARC here?

[SUBMAN1]

Well the point is, i think, to bash the US. In other words, anything that irritates the Americans, including pushing little old ladies down flights of stairs, is something to embrace.

I can't see any other reason for anyone to defend the actions of a gang of thugs like FARC or Chavez for that matter.Don't tell me you just now figured this out? There are several here, I can think of 4 off the top of my head that have not once said anything kind about the US of A, and jump on anything negative about it.

You left one thing out - it has nothing to to do with Chavez, Saddam, FARC, none of them. Only one word to describe it - 'Jealousy' - of the US of A's status. Nothing else.

-S

[Tchocky]

Don't tell me you just now figured this out? There are several here, I can think of 4 off the top of my head that have not once said anything kind about the US of A, and jump on anything negative about it. I can think of only one that fits this kind of every/always criteria - elite. No surprise there.

You left one thing out - it has nothing to to do with Chavez, Saddam, FARC, none of them. Only one word to describe it - 'Jealousy' - of the US of A's status. Nothing else.
It surely is. 100%

[mrbeast]

I don't see why I should mbeast. Perhaps you could explain how it justifies FARCs terrorism against Columbia.

I'm not saying that it does justify FARC's activities. What I'm trying to point out (in my first post too) is that the US has had no compunction in supporting terrorist groups in South America when it has suited her purpose. Groups which have been responsible for terrible attrocities. So to lambast Chavez for doing the same is to operate a rather pernicious double standard.

Or perhaps you deny that the US supported the Contras in Nicaragua or any of the other examples that Deepiron posted?

To me that's like saying the IRAs crimes were justified because the red Chinese supported the Viet Cong. One does not have anything to do with the other.

I don't really see where the analogy lies here. FARC and the Contras both operate in South America and commit many of the same atrocities yet one is viewed as bad while the other is either ignored or characterised as 'freedom fighters'. And that cuts both ways.

Well the point is, i think, to bash the US. In other words, anything that irritates the Americans, including pushing little old ladies down flights of stairs, is something to embrace.

Of course anyone who criticises the US must be 'Anti-American' its the only explanation! ;) :yep: :nope: :nope:

[GlobalExplorer]

You got us SUBMAN. Man it must be cool to be you.

[DeepIron]

Just as much their right as the US has shown in its support of "terrorists", oops! Sorry. "freedom fighters" outside the US in other sovereign nations.

So you justify attacks on country A because country B has a history of similar actions? Do you even read what you write?
I'm trying not to be hypocritical. How can I condone or comdemn the actions of another country when I can't honestly say my own government hasn't done the same? Wrapping it up in "patriotism" and the furthering of democracy doesn't work anymore. It hasn't worked since WWII, maybe Korea...

Yes, I do read what I write... I seem to have an entirely different perspective than you do.

Of course anyone who criticises the US must be 'Anti-American' its the only explanation! Sign me up then! If being critical of one's government is "anti-american" then I'll admit my guilt right now!

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

[dean_acheson]

Why not? The USA has sponsored its fair share of rightist guerilla groups in South and Central America over the years.
Somehow the fact that you are supporting Chavez and his murdering, kidnapping, drug trafficking friends doesn't suprise me in the least MrBeast. I don't think mrbeast is actually chucking his flag behind Chavez and FARC. Instead he's making the very relevant point that it's more than a little disingenous for a US president to complain about terrorist sponsorship in Latin/South America.
Just as it is for Mr. Chavez to support these murderous thugs all the while calling our President the world's biggest terrorist. Agreed. I just don't agree with August's seemingly black/white interpretation.

All of this is besides the point. I think it's worth mentioning. Colombia's government isn't snow-white, but there seems to be a "good corruption" and a "bad corruption" as far as Bush is concerned.
Add good/bad territorial incursions to the mix.

As I watch the dollar weaken, our friends lambast us all over the world, and OPEC strangle us, in my weaker moments I consider starting a new local branch of the America First committee, but then I remember the last time we pulled out of the world... The demand for the dollar was always precarious. You can't run such trade deficits and expect the currency to remain stable. As usual, loose credit created an illusion. The dollar isn't so much falling as correcting.
I don't believe the US is distinguishing itself in the international sphere right now. Not every criticism is justified, naturally, but neither can it be rubbed away as anti-Americanism.
Opec? Criticising capitalists for capitalising is a bit rich. Cheap oil is over. The only reductions we'll see is the instability premium falling, the general trend will be upwards.

10/4 on most of this, however, President Bush ISN'T supposed to be objective, he's supposed to do what is in the interest of the United States. I hired the guy to look out for the interests of the U.S., not the U.N., or some vague notion of the 'international community.' So, when we talk about this good/bad divide I certainly see that, and not everyone will agree on who's good/bad. I, however, firmly side with the President on this one, and don't, when it comes to the Saud family.

Having said that....

It will raise some shackles, but international freedom of trade is one of the first and foremost objectives of U.S. policy since the founding of the Republic, except for some obvious deviations, such as Jefferson's stupid embargo, and my party's idiotic embrace of Smoot-Hawley. It has also been a primary policy of this country to embrace, as much as possible, republican forms of government that support free market policies. Now, certainly there have been deviations from this, we can all point to many examples of this, esp. during the Cold War, when we supported our proxies, as did the Soviets. Certainly, I'd line our proxies up against some of the Soviet's murderous proxies any day.

Now, it has cost this country a great deal to man the ramparts in building the Global society that we live in today, in supporting the work over decades to integrate Europe, in providing the stablity necessary for South Korea to become a vibrant economy, in working to make sure that Japan can rebuilt without worrying about defense spending.

All of this digresses from the reason of the original post, but it is, I think, germane, since it began with a real poke at U.S. policy and the President of the United State. The orignal poster goes off on "Dubb-ya" which I found very humorous. In the late 1990s I was working on capitol hill for a certain Republican Senator who went on to a very important cabinet position for the current administration. While there I worked on foreign affairs issues. One of the issues that I did a great deal of research on was President Clinton's 'Columbia Plan,' in which a great deal of money and armed equiptment, as well as military advisors, were sent to Columbia in order to combat the FARC as well as other narco-terrorism.

So, when these snarky comments are thrown out about ol'stupid dubya, it should be clear that these issues are not as simple, not as easy, as they appear.

Most Columbians, and I dated one for a few years, would like to have a nice stable country, without the bombings and kidnappings that terrorized the country for years. Progress, with a great deal of American support, have been made in securing this objective. Obviously, Chavez does not support these objectives since to him it smacks of U.S. 'imperialism' in the area. He would love to see continued turmoil in Columbia in the hopes that the people, and government, of that country would turn from looking at the United States for the type of support we have provided.

Clearly, I'm not a fan of Chavez. That's fine, he hates the United States too. Guess it takes all kinds to make the world go around.

[GlobalExplorer]

I am not a fan of Chavez either. Actually quite the opposite.

[August]

I'm not saying that it does justify FARC's activities. What I'm trying to point out (in my first post too) is that the US has had no compunction in supporting terrorist groups in South America when it has suited her purpose. Groups which have been responsible for terrible attrocities. So to lambast Chavez for doing the same is to operate a rather pernicious double standard.

Double standard nothing, it's a world standard. Every country has gotten blood on it's hands at some point. However the past should never be used to silence criticism of current events like you and DeepIron are attempting to do in this thread.

I don't really see where the analogy lies here. FARC and the Contras both operate in South America and commit many of the same atrocities yet one is viewed as bad while the other is either ignored or characterised as 'freedom fighters'. And that cuts both ways.

Viewed as freedom fighters by who? You? DeepIron? Certainly not me. Whatever sympathy for their cause i may have had back then soon vanished when their true nature became public. But what do the Contras have to do with the current President or Chavez or Columbia or Venezuela? Nothing.

Of course anyone who criticises the US must be 'Anti-American' its the only explanation! ;) :yep: :nope: :nope:

Yeah. Not anti-American like being willing to fly an airliner into a building or bombing Pearl Harbor, but as your posts tend to show you're at least willing to excuse a devil like Chavez and FARC just for the opportunity to badmouth our current president.

[GlobalExplorer]

Yeah. Not anti-American like being willing to fly an airliner into a building or bombing Pearl Harbor, but as your posts tend to show you're at least willing to excuse a devil like Chavez and FARC just for the opportunity to badmouth our current president.

Hey, I am from the former GDR, and your lingo is strikingly familiar. A lot of brainwashed people there also tried to make you feel bad every time you where "badmouthing our republic" ..

What's wrong with criticising your current president? Do you think he is doing such a great job?

[August]

Yeah. Not anti-American like being willing to fly an airliner into a building or bombing Pearl Harbor, but as your posts tend to show you're at least willing to excuse a devil like Chavez and FARC just for the opportunity to badmouth our current president.
Hey, I am from the former GDR, and your lingo is strikingly familiar. A lot of brainwashed people there also tried to make you feel bad every time you where "badmouthing our republic" ..

What's wrong with criticising your current president? Do you think he is doing such a great job?
Well good for you. I spent three years staring across barbed wire at you people, but before we start with the 1984 references do try to stay with the thread topic won't you? I understand you dislike George Bush but as Dean points out above this shouldn't be about him.

Are you in favor or opposed to FARC guerrilla action in Columbia? Do you feel it was correct or incorrect for US President, and thereby the US, to condemn their actions?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Thats ok DI, we can sink the ships to make environmentally friendly artificial reefs for fish - those fish might be very easy to catch due to their dazed state from the cargo, but thats ok, everyone will be happy man....

and as for the planes, they can be artificial reefs too! theres lotsa planes that can be dived on in the pacific!:lol:

I can see it now:

"I'm Trouty Montana a political prisoner from Cuba.." :p

[Kapitan_Phillips]

You left one thing out - it has nothing to to do with Chavez, Saddam, FARC, none of them. Only one word to describe it - 'Jealousy' - of the US of A's status. Nothing else.

-S

If you honestly believe that, I pity you.

[mrbeast]

Double standard nothing, it's a world standard. Every country has gotten blood on it's hands at some point. However the past should never be used to silence criticism of current events like you and DeepIron are attempting to do in this thread.

Some have more blood on their hands than others. DeepIron and I are in no way attempting to silence criticsm of FARC. I can't speak for DeepIron but I just think that people should bear a few things in mind when they condem Chavez for doing something which their own country has previously.


But what do the Contras have to do with the current President or Chavez or Columbia or Venezuela? Nothing.

You're obviously having difficulty in seeing the wider context of all this; that being for the last century or so the US has meddled in South and Central American politics, mostly to the detriment of those areas. There are even suggestions that the CIA was involved in the attemped coup to overthrow Chavez in 2002.


Yeah. Not anti-American like being willing to fly an airliner into a building or bombing Pearl Harbor, but as your posts tend to show you're at least willing to excuse a devil like Chavez and FARC just for the opportunity to badmouth our current president.

You see now you are just playing to a stereotype.;)

But can you think of any reasons why people might like to badmouth George Bush?:hmm:

Do you feel it was correct or incorrect for US President, and thereby the US, to condemn their actions?

Have you ever heard of concept called 'moral authority'?

[dean_acheson]

You're obviously having difficulty in seeing the wider context of all this; that being for the last century or so the US has meddled in South and Central American politics, mostly to the detriment of those areas. There are even suggestions that the CIA was involved in the attemped coup to overthrow Chavez in 2002.



Well, again, here we go. Is this going to be a thread about Central America in toto, or is it going to be about Columbia and the FARC?

For one, I disagree with your characteraztion of the Contra movement, they certainly were not as blood thirsty as the FARC, and were fighting against a regime that was a great deal more repressive than the Columbian one. Now, if we want to have a discussion about that, that's fine, but I think that we need to change the title of the thread from one about the President's remarks on the currnet situation in Columbia, to one about North American politics since 1750ish.

Now, certainly U.S. relations with the rest of the hemisphere have had positive, and negative aspects, just as different European countries relations with the rest of the damned world.

Most countries in Central and South America would rather, outside of the heated politics of having it, sometype of trading relationship with the United States. Most of the folks that I met in school from this part of the world were a little less worried about what happened in Guatamala in 1958 (which seems to be a huge thing for some folks around here) and more worried about balance of trade payments, currency stablization, International Monatary Fund projects, and World Bank funding. All of these needed the cooperation of the United States, and less Chavez 'imperailism' rhetoric.

So, the Presdient goes in front of a group of folks, and is discussing a free trade deal with Columbia that is in the works. Columbia, with American help has finally seemed to turn the table and become a more stable country. These efforts will be enhanced by a free trade agreement with the United States.

Free trade is not a popular topic in this country right now. If you happen to follow politics, I mean, more than just fawn over Obama, which also seems to be a pretty popular stance on these boards, he and Hillary seem bound and determined to bad mouth trading agreements with every foreign country in the world right now, mainly to placate those labor unions that make up chunks of the Demcratic base.

Unlike those that would pander to nativism and isolationism (read our inclusive Democratic cadidates BHO and HRC) the President has said that it is in our security interests to have a stable Columbia, and that Columbia's neighbor, Venezuela, and its tinpot dictator, the oil profit stuffed Chavez, is working to forment turmoil in the region.

Why is that such a difficult arguement to understand and accept, except that hatred for the messenger is so much as to discount it out of hand? Would there be such a outcry if Obama said something like this? Trust me, once he's President, if he got there, he'd shrug off the Union thing, support free trade, and use the same arguement in discussing our relations with Columbia, as well as the rest of South and Central America.

[August]

But can you think of any reasons why people might like to badmouth George Bush?:hmm:
Sure I can. They range from the justified to just plain sour grapes. But what people like you and DeepIron (as the author of this threads starting post) either fail or refuse to see is your hatred of a single man has blinded you .

Read Deans post above this one. He does a great job of describing the situation.

[dean_acheson]

The first post was about how ridiculous GWB is to condemn FARC's action only now, it didn't say that FARC were good guys or whatever. That's always the same old song, "I'm not popular but I don't mind, I just need to point my finger at someone worse than me and people will follow". Pointing this out doesn't mean that you support or justify FARC's actions.

What?

So, the Presdient hasn't criticized the FARC enough, and he's only doing it now to look better? That's the point of this topic?

It seemed to me the point was, the Presdient's a liar and using the 'fear' arguement to sell a free trade agreement. Then it migrated to 'who's the President to call a terrorist supporter a terrorist supporter since he's a lying monkey and the U.S. has royally screwed up the southern half of the Western Hemisphere over the last __ number of years. Oh, and the Contras were terrorists too.

I have tried to address this meandering topic, sorry, it's hard to keep up sometimes, and my Latin American political knowledge was sharper about seven or eight years ago, as compared to now. I just don't try to keep up with it anymore.

Quit reading the Economist a few years ago, and started reading history again. Right now tromping through Morison's biography of John Paul Jones. It's just easier than trying to think about the world's problems all the time.

[GlobalExplorer]

Well good for you. I spent three years staring across barbed wire at you people, but before we start with the 1984 references do try to stay with the thread topic won't you?

We owe you something. I want to thank you for the time you served here. Many Berliners are actually missing the nice Americans. But let's not forget that was then and now is now.

Are you in favor or opposed to FARC guerrilla action in Columbia? Do you feel it was correct or incorrect for US President, and thereby the US, to condemn their actions?

I am on Americas side, as long as they stick with their principles and morale. I don't want Chavez or some other fool ruin democracy and destabilize the region and I support US foreign policy if it's sensible.

But the Bush administration is not in a position to condemn anyone anymore. Therefore it's irrelevant to me what they condemn. I only wanted to give a warning that with just 1 more attack on another country the US will lose the last sympathy it has left.

[GlobalExplorer]

Would there be such a outcry if Obama said something like this?

Good question. If Barrack would say something like this, I would listen. The title of this thread was "Dubb-Ya's after it again... (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=807290#post807290)". Meaning a perceived threat to yet another region that is opposing his policies. After he just destroyed a century worth of politics in Iraq, drove the people of Iraq and the reformist Iranian state into the hands of Islamism, brought the whole Islamic world into opposition to the West, and so on.

Give us a US government with a clean west, and all these things will be discussed. If the free world agrees these southern american megalomaniacs really need their butt whacked, so be it.

P.S. I enjoy reading your posts.

[dean_acheson]

Well, with any President, there is a certain tiredness after almost 8 years, and this President has been more controversial than most, from day one.

I like the President, but know that I am in a minority. Even when I disagree with him, which I have at times, heartily so, I like the fact that he knows who he is, and does what he says. I'm not going to belabor the point, but after eight years of Clinton, that's what I wanted, and that what we got. I'm still glad we have George over Al Gore or John Kerry.

Wow, really strayed off topic there, but since I think that maybe we all might kinda agree that we don't care much for the FARC, since they are murderous goons, the only debate here is that some folks don't care much for the President, and if he said the sky was blue, they would still have to go outside and check for themselves since he isn't trusted in some quarters today.

I'm fine with that.

I really didn't like the last President, but he was still the President, and I'd watch his speechs, and his State of the Unions, and would consider his arguements (such as the intervention in the Balkans and the bombing of the Sudan) before I'd make a decision. Now that was hard sometimes, because I couldn't stand the SOB, but as an American I tried to keep my personal feelings seperated from what I considered in the national interest.

Thanks global explorer for that last comment, I've always enjoyed using your very helpful programs.

[August]

After he just destroyed a century worth of politics in Iraq, drove the people of Iraq and the reformist Iranian state into the hands of Islamism, brought the whole Islamic world into opposition to the West, and so on.

This is why I have a difficult time taking you seriously GE. You have a bad habit of extreme exaggeration.

After he just destroyed a century worth of politics in Iraq
In the last 100 years Iraq has gone from being a part of the Ottoman empire to a Saudi controlled monarchy to an axis nation to a democracy to a dictatorship and since the US invasion back to a democracy. What exactly did George Bush destroy again?

the reformist Iranian state into the hands of Islamism
Iran has been an islamist controlled state since 1977. Again George Bush caused this how?

brought the whole Islamic world into opposition to the West
The "whole" islamic world huh? That's why we have bases at the invitation of half the islamic world.

Give us a US government with a clean west, and all these things will be discussed. If the free world agrees these southern american megalomaniacs really need their butt whacked, so be it.

That's the third threat you've made against my country in this thread. Since your military couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, how exactly do you intend to whack our butts? While you're at it kindly explain who elected you spokesman of the west. :roll:

[dean_acheson]

i think he was talking about whacking chavez.

[Tchocky]

This is why I have a difficult time taking you seriously GE. You have a bad habit of extreme exaggeration.

Since your military couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, how exactly do you intend to whack our butts? While you're at it kindly explain who elected you spokesman of the west. :roll:

Eh?

[GlobalExplorer]

This is why I have a difficult time taking you seriously GE. You have a bad habit of extreme exaggeration.

This is a valid observation. I do exaggerate at times.

After he just destroyed a century worth of politics in Iraq
In the last 100 years Iraq has gone from being a part of the Ottoman empire to a Saudi controlled monarchy to an axis nation to a democracy to a dictatorship and since the US invasion back to a democracy. What exactly did George Bush destroy again?

The state of Iraq is about to fall apart, very much like Yugoslavia did.

the reformist Iranian state into the hands of Islamism
Iran has been an islamist controlled state since 1977. Again George Bush caused this how?

Since the 90s, Iran was on its way to reform and democracy (and had actually helped fighting terrorism in Afghanistan) until public opinion was shifted by US hostility. Ahmadinedschad was elected in 2005 - it was the US attack two years earlier that brought Ahmadinedschad to power.

brought the whole Islamic world into opposition to the West
The "whole" islamic world huh? That's why we have bases at the invitation of half the islamic world.

So you do believe the Islamic world loves you/us now? They are blind with rage, and I can understand why.

Give us a US government with a clean west, and all these things will be discussed. If the free world agrees these southern american megalomaniacs really need their butt whacked, so be it.

That's the third threat you've made against my country in this thread. Since your military couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, how exactly do you intend to whack our butts? While you're at it kindly explain who elected you spokesman of the west. :roll:

Either you are paranoid or you cant read very well. As dean said I was referring to Chavez and the likes.

My impression is you are always taking anything as a "threat" against your country. Well you seem to be quite intelligent, so I take you must be in a state of paranoia like a lot of your fellows.

[August]

Either you are paranoid or you cant read very well. As dean said I was referring to Chavez and the likes.

Reread your own words:

"If the USA intervenes one more country in this decade they will be f_cked. Atm the world is holding still because they are waiting for the new government. I have not much more to say to this."

"I only wanted to give a warning that with just 1 more attack on another country the US will lose the last sympathy it has left."

[GlobalExplorer]

Either you are paranoid or you cant read very well. As dean said I was referring to Chavez and the likes.

Reread your own words:

"If the USA intervenes one more country in this decade they will be f_cked. Atm the world is holding still because they are waiting for the new government. I have not much more to say to this."

"I only wanted to give a warning that with just 1 more attack on another country the US will lose the last sympathy it has left."

I admit that first statement was bull****. But it was meant as a stern warning, not a threat: If you don't change your course you will find yourself alone in a political / economic / moral quagmire. The first signs are already there.

I am a friend the USA, and I oppose any hostility against her (I was mad on 9/11). But I am not willing to cooperate in this madness (torture / disregard of sovereign nations / greed / irresponsibility / ignorance of science / lies).

If you want to discuss former merits of US foreign policy, I could come up with many things a lot more enjoyable to you (see my expressed gratitude about your role in the reinstatement of germany), just today we have quite a new situation at hand.

[August]

None of that has anything to do with Bush's statements on FARC. If it is any consolation to you by now I seriously doubt that there is an American alive who isn't quite aware that many foreigners dislike our President intensely.

[GlobalExplorer]

I was just answering your questions.