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.

Are you referring to this? (as it's the only question I see you posing in this thread)
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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Who's defended FARC here?