Dubb-Ya's after it again...

[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!

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

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]

Originally Posted by August

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) or the Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA Annual Report 1997 - 1998(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)

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 page. For the latest news, see The Palestine Chronicle. (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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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) It was an ugly time.(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]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

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

How about - Don't make me laugh! This is supposed to be serious! :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?"

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

"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]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

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...

[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...