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

I can think of only one that fits this kind of every/always criteria - elite. No surprise there.

It surely is. 100%

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Sign me up then! If being critical of one's government is "anti-american" then I'll admit my guilt right now!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

I can see it now:

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

If you honestly believe that, I pity you.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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.