Bolivia refuses to be U.S. slave: VP

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Xinhua

Bolivia refuses to be U.S. slave: VP
2010-01-05 11:51:17

LA PAZ, Jan. 4 (Xinhua) -- The Bolivian government said on Monday that it refuses to blindly cater to the economic or political desires of the United States.

Bolivia's Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said that as La Paz wanted to reset its diplomatic ties with Washington, based on mutual respect, the country should not become a slave of the United States, which he described as "the most important power and the market of the world."

In an interview with Radio Erbol, Bolivia's national radio, Garcia said Bolivia had been "the most subordinated" Latin American country to the United States in the past. "We do not want a market in exchange for them (Americans) telling us who must be the master. We do not want tax preference in exchange for them telling us what must be our economic policy, because that will make us become a slave and a colony again," Garcia said.

According to Garcia, U.S. President Barack Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, had a "strong war policy" which did not allow ties between the two countries to improve. "When he (Obama) learns to recognize that the world is a community of sovereign states, which voluntarily are independent, we will have better ties with the United States," Garcia said.



Read more: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/05/content_12757492.htm

[zeemike]

1. Well I guess that Bolivia is where the next terrorist threat will come from.

Or will it be drugs....who can tell.

[blackbear79]

35. Force the Airlines to conduct their own security

If a country does not want to cooperate with the US security requirements then each airline flying into US airports should be required to conduct satisfactory security checks. The cost of security will be added to the ticket price. If there is a terrorist act on the flight, the airline will be subject to a Civil Lawsuit. Risk management and insurance underwriting will result in better security. Like sending the Pinkerton force to Bolivia after Butch Cassidy and Sundance.

[lsewpershad]

123. Wonder which airines are those

American, United, Delta etc. Every time I fy in or out of the USA I fly one of those.

[roberto]

124. you're the terrorists

[jakefrep]

214. What a bunch of bullshit.

[tblue]

2. Good for them.

Takes guts to stand up to the US & the multinational corporations.

[Wilms]

3. Obviously they're jealous that Obama can get a Nobel while running so many wars. n/t

[winyanstaz]

86. good point :)

[im1013]

4. k&r

:toast:

[Demeter]

5. Viva Alvaro Garcia Linera! Viva Bolivia! Y Chavez y Venezuela, tambien!

[Goldstein1984]

39. Y lo mismo de yo.

I'm very sympathetic to what the leaders of Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba or any country in Latin America fear from the U.S.

Hugo Chavez game President Obama a book--"Open Veins of Latin America," by Eduardo Galeano. It should be required reading from anybody making geopolitical decisions regarding U.S. actions in the region.

[Vidar]

6. K&R.

[CubicleGuy]

7. Who do they think they are?

Standing up to the US like that?

Don't they know that they should be glad we give them the opportunity to grovel in the dirt before us, so as to make the American way of life the pleasant thing that it is?

[Ken Burch]

8. And OUR country's leaders need to learn to stop trying to enslave other countries

President Obama was elected to make a complete break from the OLD U.S. policies towards Latin America.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

11. Is the U.S. trying to enslave Bolivia?

Frankly, I'm not sure how this even qualifies as a news story, much less made the front page of the discussion forum. It's a fluff piece.

[Ken Burch]

12. This administration has better values than the last one, but it's still tied to the globalist agenda

And the trade liberalization campaign IS about making small countries economic slaves of the larger ones.

President Obama is a good man, but he needs to break totally with the whole "free trade" myth.

[Goldstein1984]

41. Agreed--He is a good man

But his decisions regarding Latin America (e.g. Bolivia and Honduras) suggest he still supports, or is being forced to support, the long-standing U.S. imperialistic practices of the U.S. in Latin America.

I just shake my head anytime I hear anyone from our government refer to democratically elected Latin American leaders as dictators, simply because they resist U.S. business interests.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. Which decisions regarding Bolivia, if I may ask?

Secondly, since the Congress reaffirmed the decision of the Court to order the removal of Zelaya in Honduras, what would you propose Obama should have done?

[Goldstein1984]

79. Regarding Bolivia...

I was referring to as the extension of the suspension from tax benefits of ATPDEA mentioned in the article.

Regarding Latin American in general, I was very disappointed with the support for the coup regime in Honduras.

Right now, I'm watching the situation with Columbia and Venezuela very closely. A company I worked for, Williams Energy, was deeply involved in the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez, and I believe Chavez is absolutely justified in his mistrust of the U.S. (I applauded along with many when he made the "I smell sulfur" remark, and when he recently repeated the remark in response to the U.S. stance on Honduras and the military base agreement with Columbia).

As I wrote in another post, if a conflict breaks out between Venezuela and a US-backed government, I'll be finding a way to purchase Venezuelan war bonds.

I have friends in and from Honduras, Nicaragua, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico and Costa Rica. My wife and I most likely will be retiring in Latin America.

As a general rule, my desire that people in any country live in any way they prefer supersedes my concern for America's "vital national interests" because I believe our only true vital national interests must be consistent with the principles on which our nation was founded.

[SharonAnn]

78. They get that term from the right-wing radio talk shows. I have to correct our

contractor when he refers to them (esp. Chavez) as dictators. I explain to him that they were democratically elected by their citizens and that the U.S. foreign policy just doesn't like their stand on various things which affect the business interests of U.S. companies.

I explain to him that the Chavez brouhaha really started when he insisted on the U.S. oil companies paying their royalties on the oil they extracted from Venezuela. They had previously gotten huge "discounts" by bribing the previous Venezuelan oligarchy. And the Honduras issue really started because the president pushed through a minimum wage law which meant the U.S. companies had to pay their workers more. And we know that U.S. companies don't like to pay for labor or materials if they can find a way around it.

[Goldstein1984]

82. Our business interests in Latin America

have always been the reason behind our involvement there.

We do the same thing in our own colonies, or "territories," as we like to call them. Our business interests in Guam are fighting to keep American workers out of projects related the the huge military build-up there. Using labor from China, Japan and the Philippines keeps the wages low in the entire economy. Bringing more highly-paid people from the U.S. in would upset the economic status quo that keeps profits high for a very few.

The company I work for is exploring investment opportunities in Guam, so I've been been doing research on the Island. One of our potential business partners expressed concern when he learned that I was trying to learn some basics of the Chamoru (aka Chamorro) language. He was concerned that I might "go Native."

This is a repeated pattern by the U.S. across time and space. I have trouble even giving basic respect to arguments in denial of the obvious.

[AlphaCentauri]

92. He is walking with bureaucratic dinosaur

those are the people who have the reins of any administration

[Goldstein1984]

96. I believe that is true.

He's caught in a political rip tide.

[bread_and_roses]

127. second that and K& R the thread (n/t)

[mudplanet]

15. If by "enslave" you mean

to influence the political culture of a country (through corruption with money and through violence) so that that country will be, or will continue to be governed by a relatively small clique of rich people whose only guiding principle is that they remain in power and that they continue to profit (economically) by the political arrangements of the country, then, yes,

the U.S. IS trying to enslave Bolivia. And a host of other undeveloped countries.

It's only fluff to you, either through ignorance or moral indifference.

[Land Shark]

20. Thomas Paine: A person without the right to vote is rendered a slave.

To reserve, as Bolivia appears to be doing, the right in ALL instances to tell another country "No" is the analog of the right to vote and the sign of independence in a person or in a country. THe opposite of a slave is an independent person or country free to have their own opinion or path.

The opposite of independence is dependence. All forms of dependence are forms of slavery, but some forms of dependence are freely chosen and not necessarily bad (provided they're not classic slavery in the worst sense), and some may even be wise or at least valued rights - like the dependence of a marriage or partnership. Addiction is often described as a form of slavery.

The semantic debate over slavery here begins because of a slight lack of appreciation for when the speaker is using some of the broader definitions of the word "slavery." If we think only of the Old South, we may find the rhetoric over the top, but in reality, as the Thomas Paine close paraphrase in the title of this reply shows, the definition of slavery is broader than the Old South (and some of the North) which had some of the worst forms of slavery.

And slavery is still legal in the US, by the way, in among the worst forms, for those convicted of a felony, who can be sentenced to or have forced labor as part of their sentence (this was even excepted in the 14th amendment to ensure it would survive post-Civil War changes.). IT was after the Civil War, by the way, that felon disfranchisement of the right to vote started to take off.

[Goldstein1984]

44. We do the same thing in our territories

Guam, for example, is experiencing a huge military build-up. The build-up is advertised as being for the purpose of keeping a military presence in the Eastern Pacific after base closures in Okinawa. There are a number of business interests in Guam, and they are fighting every attempt to bring workers from the United States to do the work, because they are concerned that the higher wages that will be paid under such conditions will reset the traditional pay scale in Guam and reduce their profits. They prefer to bring in lower-paid laborers from Japan, China and the Philippines.

The Chamoru (aka "Chamorro") people of Guam currently have a decolonization effort ongoing in the U.N.

Latin American people have every reason in the world to resist U.S. influence.

[jakefrep]

70. If the US is trying to "enslave" Bolivia, so are the Chinese

[Judi Lynn]

109. Haven't heard of ANY thing similar perpetrated by China, do you have any examples?

Bush Spending U.S. Tax Dollars to Foment Unrest in Bolivia
By Benjamin Dangl, The Progressive. Posted March 10, 2008.

Documents show that Washington is backing Right-wing opposition to Bolivia's democratic reforms.

~snip~
From the Bush Administration's perspective, that turns out to mean Morales's opponents. Declassified documents and interviews on the ground in Bolivia prove that the Bush Administration is using U.S. taxpayers' money to undermine the Morales government and coopt the country's dynamic social movements--just as it has tried to do recently in Venezuela and traditionally throughout Latin America.

Much of that money is going through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In July 2002, a declassified message from the U.S. embassy in Bolivia to Washington included the following message: "A planned USAID political party reform project aims at implementing an existing Bolivian law that would . . . over the long run, help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors." MAS refers to Morales's party, which, in English, stands for Movement Toward Socialism.

Morales won the presidency in December 2005 with 54 percent of the vote, but five regional governments went to rightwing politicians. After Morales's victory, USAID, through its Office of Transition Initiatives, decided "to provide support to fledgling regional governments," USAID documents reveal.

Throughout 2006, four of these five resource-rich lowland departments pushed for greater autonomy from the Morales-led central government, often threatening to secede from the nation. U.S. funds have emboldened them, with the Office of Transition Initiatives funneling "116 grants for $4,451,249 to help departmental governments operate more strategically," the documents state.

"USAID helps with the process of decentralization," says Jose Carvallo, a press spokesperson for the main rightwing opposition political party, Democratic and Social Power. "They help with improving democracy in Bolivia through seminars and courses to discuss issues of autonomy."

"The U.S. Embassy is helping this opposition," agrees Raul Prada, who works for Morales's party. Prada is sitting down in a crowded La Paz cafe and eating ice cream. His upper lip is black and blue from a beating he received at the hands of Morales's opponents while Prada was working on the new constitutional assembly. "The ice cream is to lessen the swelling," he explains. The Morales government organized this constitutional assembly to redistribute wealth from natural resources and guarantee broader access to education, land, water, gas, electricity, and health care for the country's poor majority. I had seen Prada in the early days of the Morales administration. He was wearing an indigenous wiphala flag pin and happily chewing coca leaves in his government office. This time, he wasn't as hopeful. He took another scoop of ice cream and continued: "USAID is in Santa Cruz and other departments to help fund and strengthen the infrastructure of the rightwing governors."

In August 2007, Morales told a diplomatic gathering in La Paz, "I cannot understand how some ambassadors dedicate themselves to politics, and not diplomacy, in our country. . . . That is not called cooperation. That is called conspiracy." Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said that the U.S. Embassy was funding the government's political opponents in an effort to develop "ideological and political resistance." One example is USAID's financing of Juan Carlos Urenda, an adviser to the rightwing Civic Committee, and author of the Autonomy Statute, a plan for Santa Cruz's secession from Bolivia.

More:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/77572 /

[jakefrep]

116. How do we know Morales isn't a stooge for the Chinese?

[Bacchus39]

117. he's just a stooge period. Chavez and his stooge Morales want to direct US policy

just blame everything wrong in Bolivia on the US. oh, but they still want their trade preference back.

[pattmarty]

206. What in the holy fuck are you talking about?

[Judi Lynn]

118. Now that's the oddest thing I've EVER heard. Why the hell would he be?

His identity is totally tied to his country. You would know that if you'd ever bothered to learn about him. He has suffered far too much for his own national identity, his own ancestral heritage, to be ANY country's whore.

It's a pity you are unable to get a grasp of what you're attempting to discuss.

[pattmarty]

205. THEN, give us proof, oh mighty one!!!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

144. Tell me where I'm wrong here..

As I see it, more powerful nations always tend to funnel support to the factions they feel are acceptable in lesser powerful nations. This was certainly the name of the game during the Cold War, and likely remains true to this day. Whether one views it as meddling or stirring up unrest tends to depend on their political persuasion. For instance, people on the left tend to see nothing wrong with the fact that the Soviet Union was funneling support to Allende prior to the coup, whereas people on the right were convinced it was instrumental to his victory in the election. You focus very intently on where U.S. money goes, and that's fine and dandy, but I think you lose the broader scope of things sometimes and act as if this is a game only being played by the United States.

[dipsydoodle]

145. Are you able to support the statement

that the Soviet Union was funneling support to Allende prior to the coup ?

If you search I think you may find that ITT "lent" on the Republican Party to help prevent the copper mines from being nationalised. The ultimate outcome of course was the death of far more civilians than died on the second 9/11.

For other references to ITT see here : http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/CIA_Allende_LS.html

and here :

In 1970 ITT's board of directors concluded that Salvador Allende would be elected President of Chile. Allende was campaigning on a platform calling for the expropriation of American businesses, including ITT. ITT tried to get the CIA to support Allende's right-wing opponent with ITT funds and offered to pay the CIA $1 million to prevent the Chilean Congress from confirming Allende after he was elected. In October, 1971, after Allende nationalized ITT's 70% interest in the Chilean Telephone Company (Chiltelco), ITT proposed an 18-point action plan to the U.S. Government to strangle Chile's economy, create panic among its population, and cause social disorder, so the Chilean armed forces would overthrow Allende. Three months later President Nixon created a special inter-agency group to implement ITT's proposal, and the National Security Council's 40 Committee approved a plan to overthrow Allende. ITT directors John A. McCone, former head of the CIA, and Eugene R. Black, former head of the World Bank, were instrumental in getting the U.S. to approve ITT's plan. Funding for the covert actions was channeled through the CIA, and the World Bank was one of the 1st financial institutions to cut off credit to Chile. http://www.trivia-library.com/a/international-telephone-and-telegraph-itt-random-facts-and-trivia.htm

[Judi Lynn]

159. Thanks for the opening link. Anyone who doesn't know what Nixon's CIA did should read it.

There are still people who apparently don't have a clue about what actually happened there since their news propaganda sources haven't told them the truth, yet.

Excellent remark at the very end:

The ClA's operations in Chile are not merely of historical interest. Congressman Michael Harrington, after reading secret CIA testimony on Chile, wrote: "The Agency activities in Chile were viewed as a prototype, or laboratory experiment, to test the techniques of heavy financial investment in efforts to discredit and bring down a government."

The conscious among us are very well acquainted with their abilities to discredit governments as part of their program to deprive citizens in other countries of the results of their democratic elections. What a profound crime against humanity.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

175. Yes.

The files smuggled out of the Soviet Union by Vasili Mitrokhin make this pretty clear. It's covered quite nicely in "The World Was Going Our Way" which was co-written by Mitrokin and Christopher Andrew. As noted on page 69, "systematic contact" between the KGB and Allende began in 1961, which included his sharing of information with the KGB. Page 71 notes that the KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznhetsov coordinated "covert operations designed to ensure his success" in the 1970 election. Page 72 notes that the KGB gave Allende himself $50,000, though more money was sent to Allende through the Communist Party, which was also being pumped full of Soviet cash (the donation was for $100,000) and the KGB also paid off a left wing Senator to ensure Allende an easier path to victory ($18,000). This is all just in the election, support continued after he assumed power.

I assume my point has been made, powerful nations tend to play these little games in lesser powerful nations. The U.S. has historically hardly been the only nation doing so, and undoubtedly is not the only nation doing so today.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

74. Ridiculous.

You claim the U.S. is trying to enslave the nation of Bolivia. Great. Now where is your evidence? Are we invading them militarily, stomping out each and every instance of resistance as it pops up as say...the Nazis did in their quest to enslave Eastern Europe? No. Are we rounding up their supporters here in the U.S. and locking them away? Nope, the people on this board are evidence of that. Are we cutting off ties and attempting to isolate them internationally? Again, no. I've got to say, your definition of "enslave" is pretty vague, since it, in no way, entails direct control.

And yes, it is a fluff piece. A Latin American politician gave a speech lashing out at the United States. With all due respect, big whoop, we've all heard these speeches a thousand times. Where's the content? Where's the "news"?

[Political Heretic]

230. Here is my evidence:

Gustavo Guzmán, the Bolivian ambassador to Washington, said: "The U.S. embassy is historically used to calling the shots in Bolivia, violating our sovereignty, treating us like a banana republic." He claimed that the US was openly supporting autonomy-seeking Santa Cruz politicians including the mayor Percy Fernandez and the prefect Rubén Costas. In August 2008, US Ambassador Philip Goldberg, met with Costas in Bolivia. Immediately after the visit, Costas assumed power, declared that the Santa Cruz Department was autonomous and ordered the take-over of national government offices. The visit to Santa Cruz was the trigger for Goldberg's expulsion, with Gustavo Guzman being expelled in retaliation.

...

"The U.S. embassy is historically used to calling the shots in Bolivia, violating our sovereignty, treating us like a banana republic," says Gustavo Guzman, who was expelled as Bolivian ambassador to Washington following Goldberg's removal. In 2002, when Morales narrowly lost his first presidential bid, U.S. ambassador Manuel Rocha openly campaigned against him, threatening, "If you elect those who want Bolivia to become a major cocaine exporter again, this will endanger the future of U.S. assistance to Bolivia."

Because Morales led the Cocaleros Federation prior to assuming the presidency, the U.S. state department called him an "illegal coca agitator." Morales advocated, "Coca Yes, Cocaine No," and called for an end to violent U.S.-sponsored coca eradication raids and for the right of Bolivian peasants to grow coca for domestic consumption, medicinal uses and even for export as an herb in tea and other products.

"When Morales triumphed in the next presidential election," says Guzman, "it represented a defeat for the United States." Shortly after his inauguration, Morales received a call from President George W. Bush, offering to help "bring a better life to Bolivians." Morales asked Bush to reduce U.S. trade barriers for Bolivian products, and suggested that he come for a visit. Bush did not reply. As Guzman notes, "The United States was trying to woo Morales with polite and banal comments to keep him from aligning with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." David Greenlee, the U.S. ambassador prior to Goldberg, expressed his "preoccupation" with Bolivia's foreign alliances, while then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon began talking about "security concerns" in Bolivia.

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, the highest ranking U.S. official to attend Morales' inauguration, declared a willingness to dialogue with Morales. In fact, what followed were almost three years of diplomatic wrangling while the United States provided direct and covert assistance to the opposition movement centered in the four eastern departments of Bolivia known as "La Media Luna." Dominated by agro-industrial interests, the departments began a drive for regional autonomy soon after Morales, Bolivia's first Indian president, took office. (About 55 percent of the country's population is Indian.) Headed by departmental prefects (governors) and large landowners, the autonomy movement has been determined to stymie Morales' plans for national agrarian reform, and bent on taking control of the substantial hydro-carbon resources located in the Media Luna.

The Bush administration has pursued a two-track policy similar to the strategy the United States employed to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. The diplomatic negotiations initiated by Shannon centered almost exclusively on differences over drug policies, with the Bush administration continually threatening to cut or curtail economic assistance and preferential trade if Bolivia did not abide by the U.S. policy of coca eradication and criminalization. At the same time, the United States – through its embassy in La Paz and the Agency for International Development (USAID) – funded political forces that opposed Morales and MAS. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with 37 in-country agents, appears to have acted like the CIA in Bolivia, gathering intelligence and engaging in clandestine political operations with the opposition.

Intervention is evident from the very start of the Morales administration, with early USAID activities through the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). After Morales took office, USAID documents state that the OTI set out "to provide support to fledgling regional governments." Altogether the OTI funneled 116 grants for $4,451,249 "to help departmental governments operate more strategically." In an effort to establish expedient political ties, the OTI also brought departmental prefects to meet with U.S. governors. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), founded as a semi-public institute during the Reagan years, has been particularly active in Bolivia. It funds a number of groups and organizations with a clear political bias, among them the Institute of Pedagogical and Social Investigation. The Institute opposed Morales in the 2005 elections, declaring in a project summary report to the U.S. embassy that Morales and MAS are an "anti-democratic, radical opposition" that doesn't represent the majority. NED’s support of the Institute's activities continued into 2006, when the Institute filed a report saying that it intended to "contribute to improved municipal development through efficient and effective social monitoring."

In the Media Luna, USAID tried to organize Indians opposed to the Confederation of the Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivia (CIDOB), which is allied with MAS and Morales. Media Luna leaders were particularly concerned about CIBOD's capacity to mobilize and move in from the countryside to encircle departmental capitals when the prefect's leaders orchestrated activities against the Morales government, particularly in the department of Santa Cruz. Working out of the U.S. embassy, the Strategy and Operations Office and the Strategic Team of Integral Development for USAID set up a meeting between Ambassador Goldberg and Indian groups in February 2007. Internal emails from USAID officers who helped organize the event reveal that they only invited Indians opposed to CIDOB who "lacked experience and were immature politically." One of the officers recommended that these Indians be given field radios "to facilitate communications."

In late 2007, the U.S. embassy began moving openly to meet with the right-wing opposition in Media Luna. Ambassador Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading business magnate who backs the autonomy movement, and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Morales, in revealing the photo, said the trafficker was linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations in Colombia. In response, the U.S. embassy asserted that it couldn't vet everyone who appeared in a photo with the ambassador.

Then in January 2008, the embassy was caught giving aid to a special intelligence unit of the Bolivian police force. The embassy rationalized its assistance by saying, "The U.S. government has a long history of helping the National Police of Bolivia in diverse programs." U.S.-Bolivian relations were next roiled in February, when it was revealed that Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar had been pressured by an embassy official to keep tabs on Venezuelans and Cubans in the country (Burbach, U.S. Maneuvers to Carve up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote, http://globalalternatives.org/node/86 ). This violated the founding statutes of the Peace Corps, which prohibit any intelligence activities by volunteers.

(more at link)
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ccf4677d9b2df97d80a56879b2bf3d80

Source List
The following are books or materials that I have read entirely and/or consulted specifically for past research

Black, George. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. Highly recommended. An often amusing history of U.S. attitudes toward its southern neighbors.

Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventionism Since World War II. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.

Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1986.

Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End Press, Boston: 1993. Packed with documentation.

Ege & Makhijani. "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps" (History Division), Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982). Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (I don't have the book in front of me for citation)

Richard Grimmet, Instances of Use of Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2001. CRS Report for Congress, 2002.

Grossman, Zoltan. Over a Century of U.S. Military Interventions. Self-published, revised Jan. 1, 1995.

Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. Congdon & Weed, New York: 1984. By a former Wall Street Journal reporter.

Sklar, Holly. "Who's Who: Invading 'Our' Hemisphere 1831-," Z Magazine (Feb. 1990).

U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Affairs' Report. Background Information on the Use of United States Armed Forces in Foreign Countries. Washington, D.C.: 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row, 1980.

Supplemental Links and Material
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm|War is a Racket By Major General Smedley Butler>

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html|A Timeline of CIA Atrocities>

http://www.fpif.org/articles/empire_and_latin_america_in_the_obama_era">Empire and Latin America in the Obama Era (From Foreign Policy in Focus - progressive policy think tank with impeccable credentials)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

234. Thanks for posting this

I'm not sure if there are any, in particular, you'd like me to address, so I'll hit a few and if I miss any you consider to be of importance, I'll happily go back and cover those.

For starters, the use of aid to intelligence groups is not, to me anyway, evidence of some effort to "enslave" Bolivia. We have an intelligence community tasked with finding out all sorts of information about nations around the globe and they do so through a variety of means - giving aid selectively is one of them.

The same is true of the Peace Corps. allegations (if accurately reported here). A bit sketchy, as it's done under the guise of legitimately helping the nations in question, but hardly off the table in terms of intelligence gathering - by us or any other nation.

Third, the evidence that the U.S. sponsored or was somehow calling the shots in what took place in Santa Cruz is circumstantial at best. Now maybe you're guessing correctly, but maybe you're not. The first question that comes to mind when I read this account is "to what end would the U.S. have supported such a move?". What would we have hoped to gain by such a move? As it stands, it seems very litte. Politically risky with very little payoff. That sends up a red flag.

Anyway, here's a start. Again, let me know if I missed anything in particular that you wanted me to address.

[Judi Lynn]

71. Your opinion would be worthwhile if you had bothered to know something about the subject. n/t

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. And somehow you think that's a retort. Wow.

[Judi Lynn]

84. You should have spent some time getting informed on Bolivia's history,

both recent, and older. The U.S. has been intimately involved in horrendous actions against a very poor, helpless country, assisting monsters in getting and keeping power, even harbors a scum US-educated Bolivian President right now who had his soldiers bear down on, and massacre dozens of Bolivians protesting his vicious actions.

Here's a prominent example of US assisting a monster:

COLONEL HUGO BANZER
President of Bolivia

In 1970, in Bolivia, when then-President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests, and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union, he was playing with fire. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by US-trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Once in power, Banzer began a reign of terror. Schools were shut down as hotbeds of political subversive activity. Within two years, 2,000 people were arrested and tortured without trial. As in Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, the native Indians were ordered off their land and deprived of tribal identity. Tens-of-thousands of white South Africans were enticed to immigrate with promises of the land stolen from the Indians, with a goal of creating a white Bolivia. When Catholic clergy tried to aid the Indians, the regime, with CIA help, launched terrorist attacks against them, and this "Banzer Plan" became a model for similar anti-Catholic actions throughout Latin America.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

90. Sigh, look Judi

I'm not unaware of this history, however, one should keep in mind that you're citing an instance from nearly forty years ago. Insisting that policy hasn't evolved or changed in any way since that time seems a bit ridiculous. And you know, don't get me wrong, you're wonderful at citing sources for your posts, but not so wonderful at putting all the pieces together to understand that policies shift to meet the perceived needs of the time. The perceived needs felt by the Nixon Administration in 1970 are not the same as the perceived needs of the Obama Administration of 2009. A lot has changed in that time - not just the men in office and their own personal governing styles, but the entire balance of power in the world and with it, the way the United States conducts itself in places like Latin America. It hasn't always been a clean break, trust me, I realize that, but to pretend the U.S. policy today is the same that it was under Nixon (or even Reagan) is absurd...

[mudplanet]

102. Once again. Try reading a book.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

142. As if that's a retort? Try again...

[Judi Lynn]

105. Only 5 years ago Rumsfeld arranged, behind Bolivia's President's back,

for Bolivian military officers to remove their missiles. Surely you remember that:

US Denies Removal of Bolivian Missiles Was Secret

The United States denied Thursday that it removed anti-aircraft missiles from Bolivia without the knowledge of top officials in La Paz. The State Department says the operation was at the request of Bolivian authorities and in line with an Organization of American States resolution.

Officials here acknowledge that the United States removed a small number of MANPADS, man-portable air defense system, from Bolivia earlier this year as part of a broader effort to keep the shoulder launch missiles out of the hands of terrorists.

But they are denying charges from Bolivia, which figured in that country's presidential election campaign, that the operation was conducted without the knowledge of senior Bolivian officials.

Bolivian President-elect Evo Morales, the victor in last Sunday's election, has alleged that the 28 Chinese-made missiles were spirited out of the country in June in an operation he described as international intervention.

He says he will press for an investigation of the affair and is quoted as saying he would punish those responsible and evict U.S. military advisers from the country.

Questioned about the issue here, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. officials had worked with the Bolivian government on the removal of a small quantity of missiles he said were in a deteriorating condition.

He said the removal came at the request of the Bolivian government consistent with an O.A.S. resolution last June and said suggestions to the contrary are untrue:

"As for who was told in Bolivia about the action, you'll have to talk to the Bolivian government about that. As for these other allegations, it's just not true. This was done at the request of the Bolivian government, and it was done in partnership and consistent I would note with an Organization of American States resolution on the matter," he said.

More:
http://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm/74308?articleid=74308

~~~~~~~~

Furore as US destroys Bolivia-bound missiles
sent by Simon McGuinness

Once again the USA reveals its sensitivity to its neighbour's possession
of surface-to-air missiles. The currently unfolding story of the Iraqi
resistance's ability to deny US control of the skys over Iraq by the use
of such missiles must highlight the need for such weapons in any country
wishing to repel a potential US invasion.

Every invading army relies on continuous resupply of its forces; land
based resupply convoys are easily identified and attacked so the
military fall back on helicopters for resupply missions. These are
rendered ineffective in the presence of surface-to-air missiles. It was
the provision (by the CIA) of SAMs to the Taliban Mujahideen that
resulted in the defeat of the Soviet army in Afghanistan. The IRA's
acquisition (but non-use, at least in Ireland) of surface-to-air
missiles was the turning point in the British military campaign in
northern Ireland.

The message is clear: if you want to oust a democratically elected
government and install a US puppet, make sure you decommission their
surface-to-air missiles first. On the other hand, if you want to deter
a US invasion the best weapon is clearly a nuclear missile (during the
Cold War it used to be good enough just to have a friend who had a
nuclear missile).-SMcG]

Reuters via The Irish Times - January 19, 2006

or:
http://www.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20060116/030596.html

~~~~~~~~~

Bolivia's Defense Chiefs Ousted in Missile Scandal
Reuters
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A11


LA PAZ, Bolivia, Jan. 18 -- A scandal in Bolivia over surface-to-air missiles prompted the defense minister's resignation and the army chief's dismissal Tuesday, plunging the military into a political crisis days before socialist president-elect Evo Morales is to be sworn into office.

The outgoing interim president, Eduardo Rodriguez, said he had accepted the resignation of Defense Minister Gonzalo Mendez, and fired Gen. Marcelo Antezana over apparent irregularities in the destruction in the United States of a batch of Chinese-made missiles in October.

"I have relieved the commander of the army of his duties and accepted the defense minister's resignation," Rodriguez told reporters after a cabinet meeting Tuesday.

At the height of campaigning for last month's presidential elections, Morales denounced the destruction of the 28 to 30 Chinese HN-5 shoulder-fired missiles, the only arms of their kind in the military's arsenal.

Antezana, the army chief, told reporters that Washington initiated the drive to destroy the missiles because it feared Morales would win the presidency of the South American country.He later retracted his remarks.

Morales, who will be sworn into office Sunday, has lodged a legal complaint over the transfer, accusing the president of "putting Bolivia under foreign domination."

Rodriguez said that he had authorized the destruction of the missiles, but not their transfer to the United States.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011800124.html

~~~~~~~~
Surely you recall the U.S. Peace Corps worker who was assigned to Bolivia who went public and told the world the US embassy had told him to relay information on any Venezuelan and Cuban people in Bolivia, don't you?

American scholar says US Embassy official asked him to spy on Venezuelans, Cubans in Bolivia

The Associated Press
Saturday, February 9, 2008

LA PAZ, Bolivia: A Fulbright scholar said Friday that a security official at the U.S. Embassy asked him to keep tabs on Venezuelan and Cuban workers in Bolivia — a request Washington said would violate U.S. policy.

The same embassy official made a similar request to a group of Peace Corps volunteers last year, ABC News reported.

"I was shocked," the scholar, Alex van Schaick, told The Associated Press. "I mean, this man's asking me to spy for the U.S. government."

More:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/09/america/LA-GEN-Bolivia-US.php

~~~~~~~

Alleged U.S. Espionage Angers Bolivia
President Labels Embassy Worker "Undesirable" Over Reports He Solicited Intelligence

LA PAZ, Bolivia, Feb. 12, 2008

(AP) President Evo Morales declared a U.S. Embassy security officer to be an "undesirable person" on Monday after reports that the officer asked an American scholar and 30 Peace Corps volunteers to pass along information about Cubans and Venezuelans working in Bolivia.

It was not immediately clear whether Morales intended to seek the expulsion of the official, Vincent Cooper, who according to the U.S. Embassy was recalled to Washington for consultations.

Morales said Cooper is, "for Bolivia, for the government, an undesirable person," and accused him of sending U.S. citizens in Bolivia out as spies. "I feel that this man has not only violated the rights of these citizens, but also violated, offended and attacked Bolivia," the president said.

~snip~
Quote
Nobody at the embassy has ever asked American citizens to participate in intelligence activities here.

U.S. ambassador Phillip Goldberg On Friday, Fulbright scholar Alex van Schaick told The Associated Press that Cooper, the embassy's assistant regional security officer, asked him to pass along the names and addresses of any Venezuelan and Cuban workers he might encounter in the country. "We know they're out there, we just want to keep tabs on them," Schaick quoted Cooper as telling him on Nov. 5.

ABC News reported that Cooper made a similar request to 30 newly arrived Peace Corps volunteers on July 29, angering the organization's programming and training officer for Bolivia, Doreen Salazar, who told Cooper that the request violated policy and told the volunteers to ignore it. Salazar would not talk to the AP about the incident.

More:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/world/main3820200.shtml

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

143. And again, even this example is far different in scale that the earlier example you cited.

If anything, you're proving my point. One cannot pretend U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America under Nixon is exactly the same beast today, forty years later. If it were, you wouldn't be citing missiles being extracted from Bolivia, you'd be talking about how Morales was overthrown by a U.S. backed military coup.

[Judi Lynn]

88. Here's a case of a US former Peace Corps worker who helped himself to Bolivian wealth,

instead of helping Bolivian people:
http://machetera.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/04/larsens.jpg

Ronald Larsen, and his Montana State fraternity sonny boy,Dusten,
who was "Mr. Bolivia, 2005" at the male beauty competition.

Landowners’ Rebellion: Slavery and Saneamiento in Bolivia
Written by Alexander van Schaick
Monday, 28 April 2008

In recent weeks, cattle ranchers and landowners in Bolivia’s Cordillera province, located in the south of the department of Santa Cruz, resorted to blockades and violence in order to halt the work of Bolivia’s National Institute for Agrarian Reform (INRA – Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria). As a referendum on Departmental Autonomy for Santa Cruz draws near, the conflict calls into question the central government’s ability to enforce the law in the Bolivian lowlands.

The dispute centers on the region of Alto Parapetí, south of the provincial capital of Camiri, where INRA is currently trying to carry out land reform and create an indigenous territory for the Guaraní indigenous people. Additionally, it claims various communities of Guaraní live and work on white or mestizo-owned ranches in conditions of semi-slavery.

For nine days landowners and their supporters blockaded major highways and virtually sealed off Alto Parapetí. The blockades continued until Bolivia’s Vice-minister of Land, Alejandro Almaráz, left the region on April 18. At the end of February, Ronald Larsen, a major landowner in Santa Cruz, and other ranchers took Almaráz hostage at gunpoint for several hours when he and other government officials tried to enter the region.

~snip~
Following the incident, on the evening of February 29, the Vice-minister of Land, Almaráz, the national director of INRA, Rojas, the President of the APG, Wilson Changaraya, and other INRA officials entered Alto Parapetí. Their goal was to notify property owners that the saneamiento process was commencing. According to an interview with Almaráz and accounts published in the press, as the INRA vehicle drove by the property “Caraparicito,” a large cattle ranch owned by an American, Ronald Larsen, they came across a tractor blocking the road.

A group of landowners surrounded their vehicle, led by Larsen, who was armed with a revolver and a rifle. Larsen proceeded to shoot out the tires of the INRA vehicle to prevent the escape of the land reform officials. He reportedly yelled, "Now we are going to carry out community justice on you." He ordered the INRA vehicle to be dragged onto his property with the tractor. Later, he bragged to Almaráz that he had shot and killed three robbers that had come on to his property and no authority had ever found out. Another local landowner, Lino Medrano, allegedly threatened "No one is going to leave here alive, now blood will run.” Two members of the INRA team escaped to Camiri, where they obtained reinforcements who returned and freed the remaining INRA officials after their eight-hour ordeal.

Interestingly, no immediate action was taken against Larsen. According to Almaráz, witnesses are giving testimony before the public prosecutor of Camiri in order to bring a case against Ronald and Duston Larsen for sedition, criminal association, impeding and extorting official government activity, attempted murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping.

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1254/1 /

~~~~~~~~

Land reform to free Indians from servitude in Bolivia

25 April 08 - Alto Parapetí, a rural area in the eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz, is caught up in a dispute between large landowners and the government, which is trying to free more than 2,700 Guaraní Indians from a state of servitude.

Interview by Franz Chávez/IPS, La Paz - Forty inspectors from the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INRA) are attempting to draw up a land registry in the area and restore the land rights of 19 indigenous communities in the area.

Alto Parapetí, in the province of Cordillera, is located 1,200 km southeast of the administrative capital, La Paz.

The inspectors’ access to the disputed land, where Guaraní families are living in a state of servitude and forced labour on remote estates, according to the ombudsman’s office and human rights groups, has been blocked by local landowners.

The medium and large landholders have the backing of the local government and the pro-business Santa Cruz Civic Committee, who are staunch opponents of the leftwing government of indigenous President Evo Morales.

The presence of government inspectors in the area has fanned the flames of a conflict with the Morales administration, which is attempting to regularise land ownership and redistribute idle or fraudulently obtained land (involving expropriation with economic compensation) in the extensive plains and forests of Bolivia’s Chaco region, which covers the eastern and southeastern portions of the provinces of Santa Cruz, Chuquisaca and Tarija.

But the government’s land reform efforts have run into stiff opposition from the powerful agribusiness interests and landowners in the relatively wealthy eastern part of the country, who have accumulated huge extensions of fertile farmland and property rich in natural gas and water, which has served as the basis of their political power.

Santa Cruz and three other eastern provinces have adopted "autonomy statutes" in open defiance of the government of Morales and the constitution. (In Bolivia, which is made up of nine provinces, the western highlands are home to the impoverished indigenous majority and the eastern lowlands concentrate most of the country’s natural gas production, industry and gross domestic product).

~snip~
Why did you choose such a touchy moment to carry out this operation in the most conflict-ridden area, especially when a U.S. citizen is one of the landowners involved?

After their Jan. 28, 1892 defeat by the Bolivian army in the battle of Kuruyuqui, where they suffered 5,000 casualties, the Guaraní Indians lost their land, which was distributed among landowners as political perks and favours. After that, the surviving indigenous people lived in a state of near-slavery, which evolved into the servitude of today.

In the years since the INRA land reform law was passed, before the Morales administration took office (in January 2006), there was no interest in addressing indigenous peoples’ claim to 157,000 hectares in that area, either because of a lack of political interest on the part of the authorities, or because the land was occupied by agribusiness interests, (non-indigenous) small farmers and people with links to the political factions in power at the time.

The Morales government committed itself to enforcing the land reform law and making the process of land redistribution transparent, and our inspectors began to visit the area, also in response to a 2005 resolution by the Office of the People’s Defender (ombudsman), which found that there were communities living in servitude.

More:
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Land-reform-to-free-Indians-from,3049

http://snsimages.tribune.com.nyud.net:8090/media/photo/2010-01/51404200.jpg

FILE - This Nov. 28, 2006 file photo shows a protester tied to a rope and a chain as a symbolic protest against the working conditions of the indigenous Guarani people, during a rally demanding land reform in La Paz, Bolivia. Bolivia already has made giants steps toward ending a centuries-old legacy of mistreatment of its third-largest ethnic group by white overlords. But for now, several thousand Guarani live in a penniless limbo waiting for the government to make good on its promises to give land to Indians who have broken free of a life the U.N. has classified as "forced labor and servitude." (AP Photo/Dado Galdieri, File) (DADO GALDIERI, AP / November 28, 2006)

U.S. Rancher in Bolivia Showdown
By Jean Friedman-Rudovsky/La Paz Friday, May. 02, 2008

In his native Montana, Ronald Larsen's current legal straits might be the stuff of an old-fashioned Western movie: A cattle rancher who believes the government and its allies are unfairly trying to seize his land, and picks up a rifle to signal his displeasure. But in contemporary Bolivia, where Larsen makes his home, his recent clash with the authorities is but another instance of rising tension over land-ownership between, on the one hand, left-wing President Evo Morales and his supporters among Bolivia's indigenous population, and on the other, political opponents backed by the country's wealthy eastern elite.

"A small group of ranchers is preventing us from carrying out rightful land reform in the eastern region of Santa Cruz," says Bolivia's Vice Minister of Land, Alejandro Almaraz, who accuses Larsen of attacking his convoy this spring. "U.S.-born Ronald Larsen is leading this violent resistance." But critics counter that Morales is hyping the case to build support ahead of Sunday's referendum in Santa Cruz, where opposition parties are pressing for autonomy from the central government — and ahead of a constitutional referendum later this year on changes that include capping the amount of land that can be owned by a single individual in Bolivia.

Both the autonomy and land-reform issues have sparked violent unrest over the past year, pitting the largely white farmers and ranchers of Bolivia's more affluent lowland east against the impoverished indigenous majority who back Morales, himself an Aymara Indian and the nation's first indigenous President. Little surprise, then, that a national furor has erupted over a confrontation involving government officials and Larsen, 64, who along with his two sons, owns 17 properties totaling 141,000 acres throughout Bolivia, three times as much land as the country's largest city. (Larsen insists his holdings amount to less than 25,000 acres.)

Last month, when Almaraz and aides tried to pass through Larsen's Santa Cruz property — they insist it was the only route by which to reach to nearby indigenous Guarani residents to whom they were delivering land deeds — witnesses say the caravan was fired on by Larsen and his son Duston, 29. The incident was followed by two weeks of rancher roadblocks and violent protests that left 40 indigenous people injured.

Larsen, who arrived in Bolivia in 1968, told a La Paz newspaper that Almaraz's vehicle had entered his property at around 3 a.m. Almaraz, he said, "had not presented any identification. He was drunk and being abusive ... I quieted him with a bullet to his tire. That's the story." But the government insists this wasn't Larsen's first run-in with Almaraz: the rancher is accused of kidnapping the vice minister for eight hours in February. The two alleged incidents prompted the government to file a criminal complaint of "sedition, robbery and other crimes" against Larsen and his son two weeks ago. Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to press formal charges. Neither father nor son has responded publicly to the accusations, and neither responded to repeated requests by TIME for comment.

U.S.-educated Duston Larsen, referring to Morales' efforts to empower Bolivia's indigenous, wrote on his MySpace page in 2007, "I used to think democracy was the best form to govern a country but ... should a larger more uneducated group of people (70%) be in charge of making decisions, running a country and voting?" The fact that Duston, in 2004, won the Mr. Bolivia beauty pageant, in the eyes of many government supporters, puts him in the company of the country's European-oriented elite. (That same year, Miss Bolivia, Gabriela Oviedo, also from the country's east, suggested Bolivia shouldn't be considered an indigenous nation: "I'm from the other side of the country. We are tall, and we are white people, and we know English.") Morales backers say it is precisely this disdain for the indigenous that is driving what they call the secessionist agenda behind Sunday's autonomy referendum — which is not legally sanctioned by the National Electoral Court or recognized by the Organization of American States. But autonomy supporters say they're only seeking states' rights on questions such as taxation, police and public works. "This is a historic demand based on long-standing differences with a La Paz-based central government," says Edilberto Osinaga, managing director of the Chamber of Eastern Farmers.

More:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1737244,00.html

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/0a3M4ipaZe9Tm/610x.jpg

Reuters Pictures 18 months ago
Bolivian Guarani men eat lunch at the Caraparicto ranch, property of U.S.-born rancher Ronald Larsen, near the town of Camiri June 10, 2008. Together with other land owners in eastern Bolivia, Larsen has vowed to fight plans by the leftist government of Evo Morales to seize large, "idle" land holdings to redistribute them among the poor. Picture taken June 10, 2008.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_GEDUTlyzpkI/SCSenUaRReI/AAAAAAAAAVs/deIeCWubL7c/s320/DUSTON_LARSEN_MT19_001.jpg

Little Mr. Dusten Larsen, daddy's own "Mr. Bolivia, 2005."

[Oerdin]

9. Typical nonsense.

Tin pot rule #1 always try to get your people fixated on an outside enemy. That way instead of looking at how badly you have botched things they can blame some unseen foreigners who supposedly secretly plot from far away lands. Evo claimed he was nationalizing the country's small oil & gas fields to fight evil American imperialists but the fields he nationalized belonged to companies from Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Spain. To make matters worse Brazil retaliated by stopping subsidized electricity going to Bolivia (Brazil has a lot of hydro plants) and this caused massive rolling black outs in Bolivia; even now after shipments resumed Brazil no longer subsidizes Bolivian electricity purchases and instead charges them market rate while the small hydrocarbon fields in Bolivia now sit mostly unworked because there are few skilled operators or capital now that the foreigners have been chased out.

This same stupid populist rhetoric has back fired over and over and over again in Africa and Latin America not because of some big plot but because of the stupidity and lack of common sense of the tin pots who run these programs. Evo says he wants to give Bolivian gas away free to the Bolivian people, and that's honorable, but the country lacks a distribution system and the capital or expertise to build one. So it sites there undeveloped, yet another empty promise left unfulfilled.

[Boswells_Johnson]

10. Hmmm...

""Tin pot rule #1 always try to get your people fixated on an outside enemy. That way instead of looking at how badly you have botched things they can blame some unseen foreigners who supposedly secretly plot from far away lands."

That sounds familiar...can't quite put a finger on it.

[pattmarty]

13. You "got him" before I did. What he left unsaid is how the US.............

.............ever since WWII has exploited and outright been involved in coups and economic exploitation of South America. AND, is still doing it with the "war on drugs":sarcasm: and other interferences to this day. That's the BIGGEST reason that they don't like us there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. It seems to me, you're ignoring the meat and potatoes of his post

[pattmarty]

146. "meat and potatoes"???? Ugh, I don't fucking think so................

..............War on drugs, Henry Kissinger, support for fascist killers since WWII, Chiquita banana, ALL the US oil companies, that enough meat for your potatoes????

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

178. You don't dare deviate from your talking points, do ya?

What struck me most from his/her post was the claim that "the small hydrocarbon fields in Bolivia now sit mostly unworked because there are few skilled operators or capital now that the foreigners have been chased out." No one has since refuted this claim. Will you do so now or will you ignore it and rattle off another list, expecting me to be impressed that you too have picked up one or two Chomsky books in your day?

[pattmarty]

203. I like the way you assumed that I read Chomsky. I don't. I just read.......

.......newspapers from the 60's to present. In doing just that "little" bit of reading the MSM papers for 40 yrs you don't have to have an IQ of 150 to see that at the very least we were interfering BIG TIME in ALL of the South American countries affairs. We still do it to this day using the "War on drugs" bullshit to do so. Your "friend" Zorro/PacerLJ35 either was military or a "private contractor" somewhere in South America at one time. He is spewing a very narrow "party line" as far as South America goes. Read his bio, with the "pro-Chavez, Pro-Farc bullshit. He is a reactionary "teabagger" trying to disrupt a liberal site. I AM NOT AGAINST DISCUSSION, I am against the teabagger mentality of disruption for disruption's sake.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

222. Quite frankly

your recent wave of attacks in this thread is far more disruptive than anything being posted by someone who simply has a legitimately opposing viewpoint.

With that said, I don't think anyone, in this entire thread, has denied the negative role that the U.S. has, at times, played in Latin America, so I'm not exactly sure why you're lashing out.

[Goldstein1984]

50. "This same stupid populist rhetoric has back fired ..."

"...over and over and over again in Africa and Latin America..."

And now it's backfiring in the U.S.

I'm always amazed by those who deny we are an empire, with all the negative implications of empire.

[mudplanet]

14. Nonsense? Please explain what you'd be satisfied with here. If

Morales is "a tin pot dictator" then what exactly qualifies as a democratically elected populist government?

We get treated to some marginal freeper bullshit here on the DU and it's pretty disgusting. It's time to start holding their feet to the fire.

Please explain why you think that popularly elected, democratic governments such as the left in South America aren't justified in focusing on outside threats. Historically it's a fact that anti-democratic forces (i.e., the US) have been active in preventing any indigenous efforts to improve conditions in their countries.

What you're saying here is that democratic efforts to improve conditions in Brazil, Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc have "failed because of the stupidity and lack of common sense of the tin pots who run these programs." That's just bullshit, plain and simple. It doesn't even began to be supported by the historical facts.

A - There ARE anti-democratic forces at work to undermine the efforts of these peoples to run their own affairs

B - These folks are entitled to run their own affairs, even if they screw them up big time

C - The statement that "the fields he nationalized belonged to companies from Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Spain" reflects your stance that an undeveloped nation's natural resources can belong to a corporation, which is just criminal nonsense. Corporations can enter into contracts to develop national resources for a profit as long as the arrangement is beneficial to those that own the resource. When it stops benefiting the people that own the resources the corporation can take a hike.

[qazplm]

26. We aren't the cause of all ills in the world

Quite frankly, we aren't the cause of most of the ills in the world. Yes, we cause more than our fair share. Yes there are all sorts of evil, horrible things we have done and will do in the future. But that doesn't mean that there aren't also folks in other places who over-magnify our influences for domestic consumption which I think was his point.

In fact, every country does this including us. I dont think that is "marginal Freeper bullshit." I think it's true. I also suspect that on our list of things to meddle in, Bolivia is probably way, way, way down on the list right now. So the idea that we "run their affairs" or really have much concern at all with them is a bit far-fetched. In fact, there are only a couple of Central and South American countries I can think of that we are probably less involved in than Bolivia. Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua are all nations we probably have significantly more interest in right now than Bolivia.

I also dont think that the goal or aim of the US is to "prevent any indigenous efforts to improve conditions." I suspect we'd love to see them improve conditions because it means more money to spend on our products.

[mudplanet]

40. I didn't say the U.S. is the cause of all, or most of the ills in the world. I do say

the U.S. is a principal cause of, or major contributor to perpetuating, many of the social ills in Latin America and many other developing countries.

U.S. involvement in Bolivia's internal affairs may be way down (even at the bottom)of the list of priorities at the State Dept and the CIA, but it exists and it is profound. Just because it's limited to, in Bolivia's example, to channeling a half million dollars to anti-Morales forces and providing support in the form of intelligence services from a handful of individuals, doesn't mean it doesn't have a profound influence on what happens in Bolivia.

"every country does this including us. I dont think that is "marginal Freeper bullshit." I think it's true." Does what? Spends millions of dollars (or hundreds of millions, or billions (in the 1980's the U.S. was giving a million dollars a day to the fascist government of El Salvador)) to prop up anti-democratic governments? Bullshit. I can't emphasize it enough. BULLSHIT.

And even if everyone does it, it's not an excuse. I don't have any control or responsibility over what the Bolivian (or Israeli, or French) government does. But when the U.S. government uses my tax dollars to underwrite the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians - I don't know, IT JUST KIND OF PISSES ME OFF.

Granted, the goal of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America isn't "to "prevent any indigenous efforts to improve conditions." As long as the locals can improve conditions in a way which doesn't negatively affect U.S. influence or interests (politically, economically) they are free to run the country in whatever way they see fit. HOWEVER, if the locals decide that that relationship (you slaves are free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively affect my interests) sucks, the U.S. aligns itself with power centers that are willing to run the country as Washington sees fit. Fuck democracy and justice.

The history of Latin America, especially in the 20th century, supports this analysis of U.S. influence in Latin America over and over again. If you can provide me some substantive historical evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to read it.

[qazplm]

49. does what?

Does the outside forces are holding us back, elect me and I'll fight them off instead of here are the problems WE need to fix to make our nation better and here is how I am going to do it.

What is "bullshit" is the idea that we are CURRENTLY spending much money at all trying to "hold down" Bolivia.

Tallying what we did 30 years ago in another country is not an argument that it happens in all countries in South America or anywhere else, that has happened continuously or that it is happening now.

There is no evidence there is anything "profound" about our involvement in Bolivia. Even taking your last large paragraph as truth, there is precious little I can see that Bolivia has that would affect our national interests at all. We haven't tortured or murdered a whole lot of Bolivian citizens as far as I know. If you have evidence otherwise please let us know.

Again, just because we've done something bad in another country doesn't mean we do it the same way in all countries. The problems in Bolivia and most of the world are due to their own problems, not the big bad evil United States. We could disappear from the world tomorrow, and it wouldn't lead to utopia anywhere. The problems of the world would pretty much go on as they have been.

Now granted, we add to the world's problems, of course we do. And we don't do nearly as much as we could to reduce problems. We have tortured folks, and killed them, we have done bad things. And yes a lot of other nations have too, and yes a lot of nations do so internally as well. Doesn't excuse us, but this all goes back to the poster you responded to's point.

Most of the problems in Bolivia are highly likely INTERNAL problems unrelated to the United States. Which makes the statement highlighted here likely intended for internal consumption by creating an external bogeyman to rally against. Certainly, a credible enough bogeyman in the sense that it's pretty easy to blame the US for reasons fair and unfair. But not in the sense that the US is really responsible for most of the ills going on in Bolivia today.

[mudplanet]

66. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Without U.S. interference in Bolivia's internal affairs, who knows what Bolivia might be today.

Granted, they'd have problems, just like everyone else. But they wouldn't be dealing with the social ills the U.S. has helped to perpetuate. Or at least not to the extent they are today.

" just because we've done something bad in another country doesn't mean we do it the same way in all countries" Jesus Christ wept! Try reading a history book, and not one written by a war criminal like Henry Kissinger. The U.S. has been a major supporter of brutal, anti-democratic regimes in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala - and that's just a short list of the ones I know about that are close to us! They continue to support murderous political regimes in Colombia, Haiti, and Honduras today. Just recently they tried to engineer a political coup against a popularly and legally elected government in Venezuela.

So what am I missing? Was there some large-scale humanitarian and beneficent activity carried out by my government in some country near to us that I failed to hear about? Did we move in with our money and military and put a stop to some large scale slaughter that was being carried out by the dictatorial government of some Latin American country? Did we move in to stop the genocide in Rwanda or East Timor and I just failed to hear about it? Oh, yea, I forgot - we did prop up a succession of corrupt governments in Vietnam and murdered three million people to save them from the evils of communism, a system in which they now enjoy the highest standard of living in the history of their country. Chalk one up for liberty.

Can you provide me with some concrete examples of how the U.S. has been a positive actor in some undeveloped countries?

[qazplm]

69. emotion is blinding you

A. You listed a bunch of countries there, none of them named Bolivia. I read plenty of history books and wouldn't read anything by Kissinger much less have done so, so please can the personal attacks and the attempts to minimize the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

They most certainly would be dealing with many of the same social ills. I never the said the US was some force for good, so not sure what you are prattling on about large-scale humanitarian or beneficient activity.

I never said it happened. Not doing great things does not translate into being the source of ills.

I am sure there are examples of the US being a positive actor in undeveloped countries. There are unfortunately also a lot of examples of us being a negative actor too. But there are also plenty of countries where we haven't had a tone of influence or actions one way or the other.

You talk about examples, please provide examples of:

A. What specific social ills Bolivia is currently going through
B. How we are primarily responsible for said social ills.

[mudplanet]

97. Did I forget to mention Bolivia?

"You listed a bunch of countries there, none of them named Bolivia"

In January 1954, while United States officials in Washington were developing plans to overthrow a left-leaning nationalist government in Guatemala, a very different policy had been developing toward the leftist Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR) then ruling Bolivia. U.S. officials acknowledged that some level of radical reform was necessary in that country which might require challenging certain elite interests that had been on good terms with the U.S. government.

At first glance, it could appear that the approach the Truman and Eisenhower administrations took in handling Bolivia's revolutionary government represented an unusually enlightened episode in a history of unwarranted U.S. intervention against nationalist movements in the hemisphere. Indeed, it is sometimes cited as a positive manifestation of the Good Neighbor Policy, which respected the national integrity of Latin American nations and pledged to resolve differences without use of military force.

On closer examination, however, the U.S. policy toward the MNR government appears to be simply an alternative form of intervention. The United States demonstrated its ability to profoundly influence the policies of the ruling party in Bolivia, manipulate the republic's balance of forces, and take advantage of the economic relationship between the two countries as a means of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals short of a direct overthrow of the government. from http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4701 you can read the whole story.

I'm not sure how it is that you believe emotion is blinding me, maybe because I have the moral sense to get angry when other's use my tax dollars to torture and murder innocent people. I'm funny that way.

A. What specific social ills Bolivia is currently going through
- you name it, but what stand out are gross economic inequality, water shortages, and movements by wealthy elites in oil rich areas to secede from the country or overthrow the Morales govt. with the help of the U.S. Gross economic inequality might not exist in Bolivia but for U.S. interference over the last five decades. Maybe it would, but the historical record shows that every time Bolivians worked to change the system from oligarchy the U.S. intervened to help prevent that change.

Bechtel Drops $50 Million Claim to Settle Bolivian Water Dispute

SAN FRANCISCO, California, January 19, 2006 (ENS) - Bechtel, a global engineering and construction company based in San Francisco, today reached agreement with the government of Bolivia, dropping a legal demand for $50 million after a revolt over privatizing water services in the city of Cochabamba forced the company out of Bolivia in April 2000.

Bechtel and its chief co-investor, Abengoa of Spain, had been seeking $25 million in damages and $25 million in lost profits in a case filed before a World Bank trade court, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-19-04.asp

Booted Ambassadors

Following the violence in Santa Cruz Tuesday, President Morales put in a call to Bolivia's Foreign Minister who was in a meeting with U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg. He called, according to press reports, to pass along the message that Bolivia was invoking its right to send Goldberg back to the U.S., an announcement he made on televsion shortly afterwards. Morales blamed Goldberg and the U.S. for inciting the Santa Cruz violence, citing the Ambassador's recent visit to two of the opposition governors. from http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/2008/09/violence-in-bolivia.html

What I mean when I suggest you read a book. Do a little research.



B. How we are primarily responsible for said social ills. I never said the U.S. is PRIMARILY responsible for these social ills. What I am saying is that the U.S. is, and apparently always has acted against the interests of the Bolivian people and in the interests of rich elites and fascists in Latin America.

[qazplm]

108. you do realize

that 1954 was almost 60 years ago. That's three generations.

And your primary listing is where the US, apparently, actually helped left leaning groups. Again, 60 years ago.

But you say that means that the US is responsible for gross economic inequality, water shortages and the actions of wealthy elites in Bolivia?

That's absolute bullshit. What those wealthy elites would be enlightened but for actions from 1954? There'd be plentiful water but for the actions of 1954? There'd be economic equality? Bullshit.

You cite a dispute between a global company and Bolivia, a dispute that had implications for the actual water suplly (well actually the cost not the supply) for less than a year ten years ago. They left. The actual privatization of of water happened in ONE city, was approved by the Bolivian government, and was retracted less than a year later.

This is from your own link. And yet you talk about water shortages as if today, ten years later, kids don't have water because the US. Again, that's bullshit.

Your second cite talks about Morales blaming the US for violence, with no actual proof that the US was inciting violence. Again, you don't actually cite to anything substantive.

[Judi Lynn]

112. The governing company, Bechtel, is headquartered in San Francisco,

and is closely connected to George H. W. Bush.

Fomenting violence? The President at that time became the President in a vicious, violent coup in the 1060's, aided and supported materially by the U.S. He was sustained in office while he stole land from the indigenous people whose families had lived there for centuries, and gave it to imported white settlers from South Africa with whom he expected to create a "White Bolivia." During his first reign of terror, he murdered and tortured MANY Bolivian citizens. He also employed German Nazi "The Butcher of Lyons" Klaus Barbie, whom had been protected by the U.S. CIA, and spirited out of Europe after WWII to avoid prosecution.

During Banzer's second term, during the Water War, he sent his soldiers into houses, grabbed people, tortured them, brought a sniper in, a former SOA graduate, like him, who successfully scared the bejesus out of Bolivian protesters by firing directly into crowds, and was successful in killing one of them where he stood.

The US is currently harboring Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada who was assisted in his presidential campaign by James Carville and company, who after election managed to massacre Bolivians with gusto.

The attorney general of Bolivia formally charged former President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada (1993-1997, 2002-2003) with genocide and eight other crimes and also charged ministers and military commanders in office during his second presidency. The announcement came on the fourth anniversary of Sanchez de Lozada's resignation following violent street protests of plans to export natural gas. The 77-year-old Sanchez de Lozada continues living in the US, and his legal team has so far been successful in keeping US courts from agreeing to an extradition request, claiming in part that it would be unsafe for the ex-president to return to Bolivia.

Genocide, torture, and massacre among the charges

The charges, denied by Sanchez de Lozada, relate to police and military actions that killed 67 protesters and wounded more than 400. Bolivian Attorney General Mario Uribe presented nine charges, including genocide, against Sanchez de Lozada to the Corte Suprema de Justicia (CSJ) in the southern city of Sucre Sucre, city (1992 pop. 131,769), S central Bolivia, constitutional capital of Bolivia and capital of Chuquisaca dept. Since 1898, La Paz has been the administrative capital of Bolivia. on Oct. 17.

Eight members of Sanchez de Lozada's government and five high-ranking military officers were also charged with a range of crimes, including murder and torture. Uribe said the crime of genocide occurred in the form of a "bloody massacre." The list of charges also included extremely serious injury, privation of liberty, abuse and torture, attacks on freedom of the press, and making claims and resolutions contrary to the law.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BOLIVIA:+FORMER+PRESIDENT+GONZALO+SANCHEZ+DE+LOZADA+FORMALLY+CHARGED...-a0170259132

Please take the time to get informed on subjects you hope to discuss compentently with DU'er who DO take the time to know what they're talking about.

[mudplanet]

115. Apparently you want me to do all of your work for you.

If you had bothered to read the entire story you'd have noted that the U.S. didn't actually help the left leaning groups, but used this as a pretext.

U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, for fifty years, has been to repress progressive, democratic forces through any means necessary. Now, after fifty years of this, your point is - that we're not doing that at this moment so we have no responsibility for unsolved problems that these people attempted to address and solve over five decades and that we worked so hard to prevent them from solving every chance we got?

The Bechtel incident is just one of hundreds of such incidents taking place globally (and in some small communities in the U.S.) in which U.S. foreign and domestic policy has been employed, backed up by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, to implement what they refer to as a "global free market," but which would more accurately be described as a corporate free-for-all at the poor's expense. This occurred in Bolivia, relatively speaking, yesterday.

You want proof, PROOF, that the US is engaged in and is inciting violent action in Bolivia. Do your own fucking research. For over twenty years I've been involved, in one way or another, in activities that have sought to shed light on US involvement in human rights violations in Latin America. In almost every incidence where the U.S. is involved in human rights violations in Latin America the response from the U.S. government has been, "We didn't do it and you can't prove it." But the only definitive proof is to have that same government open it's books and let independent parties read the evidence for themselves. And the U.S. response has been, virtually invariable, that to do so would endanger national security. Fuck your proof. When the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates to anyone of sound reason that the U.S. is doing something both illegal and wrong, chances are they are doing it.

Qazplm, you either work for one of those intelligence agencies or you're both very naive and not very smart.

[Judi Lynn]

91. If only you were speaking of the Bolivia many of the DU'ers have taken the time to study,

in person, or through research, or ordinary active awareness of Latin American current events.

It would make this a different conversation if we all referred to established facts.

[mudplanet]

100. But, Wait! Wouldn't that involve joining the reality-based community?

[Judi Lynn]

106. Reality can be so limiting, some people would rather free-style, apparently.

[EFerrari]

58. Well, that would be wrong. Natural gas and lithium in Bolivia.

And USAID is all over the place, funding the white separatists that would do business with our corporations.

[defendandprotect]

138. We do the majority of the warmonngering, the majority of the war-making, the majority

of the bullying -- and we've been doing these evils in the world from day one --

if you remember how we came to be living in this country?

Coup on JFK and our "people's" government and the Democratic Party was an adjustment

the right wing made, mainly in returning to overt political violence.

[Mudoria]

19. +1

[Judi Lynn]

73. If only you had taken the time, made the effort to inform yourself of Bolivia's recent history,

and the horrendous past Bolivians have had to endure. Amazing you have such a pronounced negative view of a country which has been wildly abused and is making great headway improving life for the majority of Bolivians, the indigenous citizens who couldn't vote, nor were they allowed to walk on the very sidewalks financed by their very own taxes until 1952. Stunning!

Bolivia's Economic Success
By regaining public ownership of natural resources and focusing on social programs, the Morales administration has achieved record growth despite the recession.

by Sara Kozameh
posted Dec 16, 2009

Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, recently re-elected indigenous President Evo Morales for another four-year term in a landslide vote. According to a new study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington D.C.-based think tank, Morales’ sometimes controversial policies—such as returning privatized resources to public control—have helped Bolivia thrive during the recent economic crisis. Bolivia has the highest projected growth in the Southern hemisphere for 2009.

The report, “Bolivia: the Economy During the Morales Administration” highlights Bolivia's economic growth—with rates averaging 5.2% annually during the last four years, growth has been faster than at any other time during the last 30 years. The last two years of growth are even more remarkable given the global economic context. Remittances from abroad have fallen as a result of the economic crisis, and in 2008, the United States suspended Bolivia from the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which had provided preferential treatment for some of Bolivia’s exports to the U.S.

According to the report, an essential condition of Bolivia's successful macroeconomic policies has been the increase in the government's collection of hydrocarbon revenues. Morales reversed an earlier administration’s privatization of the sector, ensuring that natural gas exports benefit the Bolivian people instead of foreign corporations.

Government revenues from hydrocarbons increased from 5.6 percent of GDP in 2004 to a peak of 25.7 percent at the end of 2008. Bolivia dramatically increased its foreign reserves, from under $2 billion in 2005 to over $8 billion in 2008, providing a cushion against economic shocks like the current global downturn. This increase in revenue and reserves allowed Bolivia to implement expansionary macroeconomic policies that kept the Bolivian economy growing through the world recession.

It also helped fund one of the most important policies taken up by the Morales administration: a significant increase in public spending. The Morales administration has ramped up public support for education, health care, loans to small businesses, infrastructure, and public pensions to reduce extreme poverty among the elderly. It is also making conditional cash transfers available to poor families, enabling them to keep their children in school and providing health care for pregnant women and children up to the age of two.

According to the report, public spending has increased from 34 percent of GDP in 2005 to 45 percent of GDP in 2008.

Morales' administration has succeeded in maintaining growth during the world recession, and has continued to put the interests of the poor at the forefront of his policies, which undoubtedly helps to explain the president’s popularity in Bolivia. Nevertheless, much more must be done to reduce extreme poverty. According to the CEPR report, Bolivia’s large international reserves can be used to raise social spending and support development projects that will create employment and reduce poverty.

More:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/bolivias-economic-success

~~~~~~~

Morales' Big Win: Voters Ratify His Remaking of Bolivia
By Jean Friedman-Rudovsky / La Paz Monday, Dec. 07, 2009

http://img.timeinc.net.nyud.net:8090/time/daily/2009/0912/morales_1207.jpg

Bolivian President Evo Morales speaks during a
news conference at the presidential palace in
La Paz on Dec. 7, 2009
Gaston Brito / Reuters

Bolivian President Evo Morales isn't South America's first indigenous head of state — that honor belongs to Alejandro Toledo, a Quechua Indian who was President of Peru from 2001 to 2006 — but he's certainly the first to capture the imagination of the world outside South America. Morales, first elected in 2005, was the continent's Barack Obama before there was Obama. He is an Aymara Indian and former coca-growers union leader who won the presidential palace while still in his 40s, just decades after a time when Bolivians of his class and skin color weren't even allowed to vote. Morales hit the global stage with retro, Che Guevara–inspired leftist politics and colorful Aymara fashions. But the real question was whether he could actually govern and even improve South America's poorest and most volatile nation.

Bolivian voters, at least, issued a resounding yes in Sunday's presidential election: the initial tally shows Morales, now 50, winning re-election with 63% of the vote, almost 10 points better than his 54% showing four years ago. He defeated his closest opposition candidate by 40 points. His party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), won two-thirds of the seats in Bolivia's Congress. As a result, said Morales, "I am obligated to accelerate the pace of change." The statement was sure to buoy the indigenous majority that makes up his base while vexing the more conservative white minority he has sometimes violently butted heads with.

Morales sailed to victory thanks largely to that indigenous cohort, which is concentrated in Bolivia's Western highlands and makes up about two-thirds of the country's population. Like Hugo Chávez, his left-wing counterpart in Venezuela, Morales has lavished unprecedented social programs on the poor, including free medical care, stipends for new mothers and the elderly, and a massive program for literacy that includes payments to low-income families who make sure their children attend school. "Evo knows what it's like to be like us," said Ilda Condori, an indigenous voter waiting outside a polling station in the impoverished city of El Alto that adjoins the capital, La Paz, 12,000 ft. high in the Andes. Looking down at her 8-year-old daughter, Condori added, "Because of Evo, I can afford to buy this one schoolbooks and some clothes every year."

But analysts say it wasn't just Morales' social largesse that ensured a larger landslide this time. Critics foresaw macroeconomic disaster three years ago when Morales, fulfilling a campaign promise, nationalized Bolivia's vast natural-gas reserves. Among the doubters was the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington. Today the IMF is hailing Bolivia's projected economic growth rate of almost 3%, one of the hemisphere's highest, as well as the fact that the country's economy has averaged almost 5% annual growth since Morales came to office, Bolivia's best performance in three decades. "Bolivia is the most profound example that the conventional wisdom of economic growth — that you need to attract foreign capital at all costs — is just not true," says Mark Weisbrot, director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

More:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945989,00.html

[Prometheus Bound]

93. I believe you have your facts wrong.

Morales did not claim he was nationalizing oil and gas fields to fight evil American imperialists

BP (British) and Total (French) were also involved in the Bolivian oil and gas industry.

Bolivia imports just a tiny percentage of its electricity from Brazil.

I like your tin pot rule #1 though.

[tsuki]

16. Came across this article on the BBC. Apparently Bolivia is being

courted by several countries, including China, due to having 50% of the world's lithium.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8390614.stm

[Jester Messiah]

17. Uhhh.... ok, Bolivia, whatever. *rolls eyes*

What the hell brought that on all of a sudden?

[defendandprotect]

24. Imperalism . .. as usual --

[Jester Messiah]

67. Ah, another "-ism" to be batted around like it means anything.

Right up there with Marxism and Socialism from the other side. Wake me when somebody says something meaningful.
:boring:

[defendandprotect]

80. Try US/CIA warmongering for natural resources, terrority . . .

Not one "ism" there!

[PacerLJ35]

129. Yes, because we're just a-warmongerin' all over Bolivia these days...

I'm in the military and I've been to a few central/south American countries, and Bolivia isn't one of them. Nearly all the US military efforts in that part of the globe are focused on counter drug/counter terrorism ops. From my experience we always worked with the host countries, we didn't twist their arms. In my direct experience there is very little aggression going on with regard to US military ops. We always had a pretty good welcome from the nations we did work with. Like Chavez, it appears Morales needs to continue to focus on the outside threat to avoid attention on the internal issues. We all criticize Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq (on a much grander scale)...this is the same thing, just different circumstances.

[defendandprotect]

131. And what a surprising opinion . . .

from someone who supports our military/drug operations!!

:evilgrin:

[PacerLJ35]

132. That's because I don't buy into the tabloid-like description

of our operations down there. Our civilian government says "go down there and assist the local governments find drug facilities" and we do that. Simple.

[defendandprotect]

133. Drug War is being used for co-opting of other nations . . . much as many of our

other foreign polices have been used --

[PacerLJ35]

134. "Co-opting"...

Truth is you really don't know what goes on when our guys fly missions out there (most of the military mission is airborne)...it's an ISR mission.

[defendandprotect]

135. You mean like . .. eh, Ollie North's "missions" . . . ???

[PacerLJ35]

136. That was over 20 years ago and in a different time

The ops I've been involved in have nothing to do with that

[defendandprotect]

137. Oh, of course we have no interest in drugs now . . . !!

Did you happen to see the video posted here some months back --

British military official in Afghanistan looking at the new PEAK heroin production

and commenting on "how the Americans just love to sell drugs" . . . !!!

You're right -- this is conspiracy free America --

well, at least after Vietnam is what you're trying to suggest???


Try some of this ---


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS -- US creation of VIOLENT Islamic teachings and
moving them into Middle East



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[PacerLJ35]

139. Sigh...sure, it's all a great big conspiracy

As someone who's been down there and flown around the region in a military airplane (and planned such ops), it's not as hideous, glamorous or whatever you might think it is. It's really pretty basic...and sorry, we didn't have "evil" intentions of trying to force our way into any nation. In fact, Bolivia (as well as Ecuador) asked us to leave and we did. For what it's worth, the people in Ecuador I worked with were actually very friendly and didn't have the attitude their elected leadership possessed. But I suppose that sort of tactic is what makes them popular among the poor and uneducated masses.

I will say this...I was literally amazed with the extent of the poor neighborhoods. In fact we used to joke if we went off the end of the runway at Guayquil, we'd kill a million people because there were literally hundreds upon hundreds of shacks and other "housing" stacked on on top of the other literally a few hundred feet from the runway overrun.

Yes, I realize we have a very checkered past in various parts of Latin America, but from my experience the vast majority of what the US is doing down there is either operationally focused (ie anti-drug monitoring) or actually helping the folks out. It's not like it used to be, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, if you even remotely act like you are doing something outside your approved mission, the authorities down there will (and have) revoke your dip clearances and deny you overflight in a heartbeat. We mind our Ps and Qs down there because we know what kind of reputation our ancestors gave us 20, 30 and 50 years ago.

The idea and notion that the US just operates at will and goes where it likes in Latin America is laughable. That's not my experience at all. You can get away with doing that over much of Africa, but not S. America.

[defendandprotect]

140. Oh . . . think again . . .

don't wait decades to find out what's really going on --

Good luck!

:)

[Zorro]

155. The majority of Ecuadoreans in Manta did not want the base to close

They recognized the economic impact of the US presence.

[Judi Lynn]

161. The President of Ecuador promised he would end US involvement at Manta, and WON with that promise.

I would ASSUME the winning majority of people who elected him supported that significant promise, since they had been protesting US presence at Manta for YEARS.

As U.S. Closes Military Post, Ecuador Hails Restoration of 'Sovereignty'
By Gonzalo Solano
Associated Press
Saturday, September 19, 2009

QUITO, Ecuador, Sept. 18 -- The last 15 U.S. troops in Ecuador left the country's Manta air base Friday, officially closing the American military post in what Ecuador's government calls a recovery of sovereignty.

The small U.S. mission flew anti-narcotics flights meant to help catch cocaine smugglers close to the point of production.

But Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, promised in his 2006 election campaign that he would not renew the United States' 10-year lease on the base, located on the Pacific coast. A new constitution approved in a referendum last year officially prohibited foreign military bases on Ecuadoran soil.

"The Ecuadoran government is very satisfied to comply with a constitutional mandate and deliver on a campaign promise . . . by fully recuperating our sovereignty over the Manta base," Ecuador's security minister, Miguel Carvajal, said.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803407.html

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

176. What strikes me about this is if the U.S. were half as hell bent on dominating Latin America as you

tend to insist, we wouldn't have quietly abandoned our presence in Ecuador.

[PacerLJ35]

193. And the US did as it was asked

We left. But in the same thought I am puzzled by the statement that said "in what Ecuador's government calls a recovery of sovereignty". We only operated out of Manta out of the grace and hospitality of the Ecuadorian government in the first place. In other words, we were there because they allowed us to be there. When they stopped allowing us to operate there, we ceased operations. There's no taking away anybody's sovereignty in that arrangement.

That's like saying the German Luftwaffe operating in the United States is somehow impinging on our sovereignty...that would be laughable because they only do so with our permission, thus it's not an erosion of sovereignty. You don't see the US accusing Germans of spreading Deutsche hegemony in the US with their Tornado and F-4F fighters...do you?

[Zorro]

208. Well, I was in Ecuador prior to Correa's election

Closing Manta base was not a major campaign issue. There were many other more pressing issues that Correa promised to address.

Do you think there's some rampant anti-US sentiment in Ecuador? Not hardly.

[pattmarty]

168. Who do you work for????????

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

177. Who do YOU work for?

[pattmarty]

199. None of your fucking business.

[Political Heretic]

226. That seems a bit contradictory. I've got no problem disclosing my own ties.

My last job was with Boise State University School of Social Work Child Welfare Center.

Before that it was El Ada Community Action Partnership.

Before that it was American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho as a community organizer.

[pattmarty]

232. It wasn't directed at you. Zorro has in his bio under hobby............

.........."Educating pro-FARC, pro-Chavez, pro-Castro bullies", so since he put this crap out front and center I thought he would enlighten us with his military or "contractor" status. See, I have a problem being a liberal, I don't like to be bullied by what I believe are right wing ass holes. Character flaw I suppose. I have no argument with you, if you thought this I apologize.

[Zorro]

211. You seem to have an unhealthy fixation

Asking Zorro to reveal his true identity doesn't work, something every schoolkid knows.

But here's something I think might work.

Go down to the local holler, stick your finger up your nose (the usual nostril) and a thumb up your posterior, click your heels three times, hold your breath, and make a wish.

It might come true.

[pattmarty]

212. So that's what you had done to you when you were "in the military"..........

.....I knew it was something that a "little fella" like you would find sexually exciting. Seriously though, are you really fucking for real???????? Tell all of us sissy liberals on this website how manly you were sitting on your ass in South America fucking whores and smoking dope while serving your country and protecting the "people of South America" for two years.

[pattmarty]

213. Ooooooooh, you're scaring "every schoolkid" now. Why don't you........

.........now try to scare "every adult"? I don't think that could happen, mainly because your dick is bigger than you. Is this the kind of "school yard" talk you wanted to descend to? Zorro to reveal his true identity, stick your finger up your nose, thumb up your posterior (you really have a fixation on that), click your heels (you are familiar with that). C'mon, admit you sat on your ass in South America doing drugs and fucking whores ALL the time you were down there and didn't do a fucking god damn thing to protect me or your mama.

[PacerLJ35]

220. Why don't you stereotype just a wee bit more

I'm sure those drugs and hookers would go over well with the random drug testing and annual physical exam (where they check for HIV). Goofball...

[Political Heretic]

227. This isn't helping.

Sigh.

[Political Heretic]

183. Do you have a source for that?

:)

[pattmarty]

147. Ooooooooh, ISR mission. Is that the one that the Terminator.........

.......goes on when he wants to get laid? Speak fucking english.

[Zorro]

171. Well...

since you obviously never progressed beyond the letter "F" in elementary school, it's not surprising the letters ISR (they're in the English dictionary, BTW) are foreign to you.

Oh, I forgot...T and W are probably alien symbols to you, too. And I'm not so sure you ever encountered a "B", either.

[pattmarty]

174. Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. You and Pacer are the same persons.

[PacerLJ35]

196. Look it up using Google, since folks like you are so keen on doing research...

Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance...just in case google fails you.

[pattmarty]

200. Oooooooooh, I am so fucking impressed. Do you work for XE now?

[PacerLJ35]

216. What does Xe have to do with military ISR?

[Political Heretic]

229. Actually, related news - given the blackwater/xe contractors killed on the cia base in Afghanistan

..after the CIA denied ongoing mission ties with blackwater/xe, I'd say they probably have a lot to do with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions still.... :shrug:

Has nothing to do with the topic, I know... but just throwing it out there.

[pattmarty]

201. Let me ask you something, did you get "ISR" tattooed on your ass?.......

........Then you would be really cool whenever you spout all your militarized bullshit crap. What the fuck do YOU do to protect anything?

[PacerLJ35]

217. Feelings hurt a bit? Look, folks like you are usually the first ones to point the finger

when others don't do any research or don't bother to hit up google. I can turn your question right around...what do YOU do to protect anything?

And no, I don't like tattoos. But thanks for the idea.

[Political Heretic]

185. IT STANDS FOR INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE

Imagine my fucking shock.

:crazy:

[pattmarty]

202. you know, I just love these "tough guys" that were in the military..........

..........and just jerked off for 2 yrs why your neighbors brother got both his legs blown off. These ass holes think they are "cool" by rapping off their "specialties", ISR, ASS, JOKE, FUCK-OFF etc. This way they can feel EXTRA superior to us lowly "civilians". They forget, REAL MEN don't have to brag about bullshit.

[PacerLJ35]

218. Chip on your shoulder much?

I don't think I ever implied I'm "tough". Stop watching GI Joe movies to get your opinions about military people. FYI I'm in the Air Force, and I take my physical fitness test just serious enough to pass. I sit in an airplane. I'm not Rambo, although you love implying that the other mil people and myself are self-styled wannabes.

Are you really that sensitive when someone throws out an acronym that's easily found (and highly relevant to the discussion)?

[Zorro]

209. There are too many syllables in those words

[pattmarty]

215. C'mon Zorro, I want to play more. Don't run away to your mama........

.......Are you afraid of a liberal with balls (that obviously you don't have)???
You being paid by the military to smoke dope and fuck whores in South America?
C'mon and play. AND, you, who seemed so intellectual by referring to me picking my nose?
C'mon, let's play, motherfucker.

[Political Heretic]

184. "From the other side?" Sorry, that's our side, pal. Perhaps you're on the wrong site?

Kind of gave yourself away there, didn't ya.

[Jester Messiah]

197. uh... our side is throwing around "socialism" and "marxism" as epithets?

Could you try not to be such an idiot?

[Political Heretic]

225. Nice try.

No one's buying.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. One Question....

How does this bullshit non-story get to the top of the Greatest Page? Some second-banana politician from a third world country bloviating for the Chinese press and I'm supposed to give two shits?


whatever....

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

179. +1

[Political Heretic]

182. "third world country"

Nice.

Take your bigoted sense of rich, wealthy first class, oh I mean "first world" exceptionalism and shove it up your ass.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

186. Perhaps you need to look up where the term Third World originated...

because it's pretty clear you haven't a clue.

[Political Heretic]

187. Actually, I know full well. It has little to do with how things have evolved, does it?

No. It doesn't.

It isn't just the term either - its the post, why should I give a shit about some whining leader in some dirt poor country? That's the sentiment.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

189. When one considers how many times we've heard similar speeches over the years

I'm asking the same thing. How in God's name is this "news"?

[Political Heretic]

190. There's a reason we hear them so often.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

195. There are multiple reasons we hear them so often - some of them valid, some not so much.

Either way, I'm left wondering "where's the 'news' in this story?"

[Political Heretic]

231. More of them valid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4210408&mesg_id=4216851

[Nye Bevan]

21. Hear hear. Obama should *immediately* drop his policy

of enslaving and colonizing Bolivia. :eyes:

[varelse]

22. How would we be giving a foreign country "tax benefits"?

Bolivian-U.S. ties were frozen since September 2008, when La Paz expelled U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg for allegedly interfering with internal affairs, and Washington took the same retaliatory measure.

This incident also had consequences in the commercial area, as the Obama administration decided to extend Bolivia's suspension from tax benefits of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act.

Does this move mean that Bolivia has powerful friends and is no longer afraid to take tough stances with the US?

[Bacchus39]

59. import taxes levied on Bolivian products. Bolivia is upset we cut their trade preference

thats what this is about.

[midnight]

23. k&R

[DFW]

25. Interesting source of the article

Xinhua is the Chinese government news agency. The Chinese have been recently engaged in getting cozy with the governments
of third world countries rich in raw materials, buying up those raw materials at cheap prices, often by bribing officials
of the local government, and then saying xie xie ni and going their merry way. My daughter, who was in Sierra Leone for the
UN, saw exactly that happening in Africa. A country like Bolivia has no business letting themselves get exploited by anyone,
including us AND China. The Chinese see it differently, of course. I haven't been back in that region of South America for
a couple of years now, but if the Chinese are doing this in Australia and Africa, I'd be surprised if they weren't up to
exactly the same tactics in South America. It makes perfect sense from the Chinese point of view, and demonizing the USA
in the eyes of potential customers (whether justified or not) certainly won't hurt their chances with their temporary hosts.

[clear eye]

28. If the U.S. corps. & intelligence community had behaved better toward

them in the past, we might be the ones getting good deals on lithium. A history of enabling crude smash and grab is what created this. It's blowback.

[DFW]

128. Agreed on that

The boorish behavior of our countrymen did indeed pave the way for the Chinese to get a warm welcome, despite their
blatant intentions. They probably seemed like gentlemen by comparison, even though their purpose was and is no more
noble than that of locusts--devour and move on. I would have thought that Morales had the street smarts to see through
this, though. For that matter, I'm pretty sure he does, not that it is of much comfort if that is indeed the case.

[roody]

37. The Chinese do not need to demonize the US. The US

is doing a fine job of it.

[Prometheus Bound]

158. The original source was Radio Erbol, Bolivia's national radio station.

Perhaps Bolivia put this out as a press release or something because Xinhua and BusinessGhana both put out exactly the same article and claim credit for it.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/05/content_12757492.htm
http://www.businessghana.com/portal/news/index.php?op=getNews&news_cat_id=&id=119813

[Judi Lynn]

163. If you had actually comprehended the article you would have noticed he made those remarks to a radio

station during an interview. The interview involving only BOLIVIANS was held in BOLIVIA:

In an interview with Radio Erbol, Bolivia's national radio Garcia said Bolivia had been "the most subordinated" Latin American country to the United States in the past.

His comments were made publicly in Bolivia, and heard by a BOLIVIAN public.

[Judi Lynn]

164. His comments to a Bolivian radio station also appear in an article in Spain,

translated here using the google translator:

This week, the Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said his country hopes to develop relations with "the power and the world's largest market," referring to the U.S., but not to change to become "slaves" of that nation.

"We want to change market to tell us who should be the minister, we do not change preferences to tell us what should be our economic policy, because we will be slaves, we would be a colony again, a government subservient," said Garcia Linera.

These are the last two lines from this link:
http://www.adn.es/internacional/20100105/NWS-2248-EEUU-Morales-Bolivia-posesion-reanudar.html

[DFW]

173. I gave the Spanish article a lot more weight, thanks for the link.

I don't pay attention to google translations, as my Spanish is fluent. I have lived there, gone to school there,
and just read the article in the original. I found the Chinese article predictably negatively biased, and the Spanish
article far more balanced. I didn't find García Linera's comments nearly as negatively weighted after reading the whole
thing. I have been down in the region, talked with government officials there (Ecuador's government has a similar
take on relations with the USA). The Chinese article conveniently omitted the rather significant remarks of the
new diplomatic representation of the Obama administration, which take a far different tone: "Algunas críticas hemos
recibido, que están bien, pero al mismo tiempo recibimos el compromiso de seguir en el proceso y de buscar una mejor
relación. Creo que de los dos lados seguimos con ese encargo." To omit stuff like that is being rather selective. I
expect it of Xinhua, who represents a government with their own selfish economic interests in Bolivia. I'd expect it
from Fox Noise, too, but I found the article from Spain, which seemed to omit far less of the full story, to be the most
informative.

[Zorro]

27. Linera must think public whining will lead to a restoration in preferential tariff treatment

Apparently the change in US policy is affecting Bolivian exports to the US, and he wants the preferential tariff treatment restored without any conditions.

Hint to Linera: talking smack about the US and this administration is not likely to get you what you want.

And didn't Venezuela pledge to pick up the slack?

[clear eye]

29. No. What he thinks is that he can sell his lithium to someone who doesn't

then go ahead and use the money to fund groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy (unlike U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends), and he's telling DC so. It doesn't hurt his position that China holds potentially ruinous amounts of U.S. debt.

The bigshots in our country have gotten us in a position regarding historic behavior in Latin America and looting of the U.S. Treasury that will have us hearing a lot more of this in the future. Get used to it.

[Zorro]

31. Which U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends

have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy?

Can you cite some examples to authoritatively substantiate your assertion?

[clear eye]

32. Look up Gulf Oil & 1952. n/t

[Zorro]

36. I did

Nothing there.

Want to try again?

[clear eye]

38. Sorry. I disagree.

I was writing shorthand for the whole period starting in '52 and going through the '60s. The assumption by U.S. backed multi-nationals that they can ride roughshod over the gov'ts and people of Latin American countries just b/c they have a contract to extract some natural resource really is the reason that democratically elected gov'ts there are so eager to grab onto alternatives, even China. If you doubt that, you're just missing the whole picture.

How many massacres, how many coups and attempted coups by elites backed w/ U.S. money and disinformation expertise would it take to convince you? Doubting it is like doubting that the Eastern European bloc was under the thumb of the Soviets. It flies in the face of all available evidence.

[Zorro]

42. So again I ask

Which U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy?

Can you cite some examples to authoritatively substantiate your assertion?

A rhetorical response is easy to make and repeat, but not necessarily the truth.

[clear eye]

47. Go back and learn more about the era in my comment above.

Other DUers will find the info there, whether or not you can.

[Zorro]

48. Seems that all you have is rhetoric

Thought so.

[Goldstein1984]

52. Recommended Reading: "Open Veins of Latin America"

by Eduardo Galeano. This was the book handed to President Obama by Hugo Chavez.

Plenty of history regarding 500 years of colonialism in Latin America, beginning with exploitation of the indigenous people Bolivia for silver and extending to the late 20th Century.

IMHO, nobody who hasn't read this book, or become familiar with the events documented in the book through other sources, can have a well-informed opinion about geopolitical issues in Latin America.

Another recommendation: "Stripping Bare the Body: Politics Violence War," by Mark Danner

[Zorro]

54. How about somebody who's actually lived in South America?

You think they might have a well-informed opinion about geopolitical issues in Latin America?

[EFerrari]

57. Galeano lives in Montevideo.

[Goldstein1984]

63. Or how about somebody, like me, who in his younger and less-

informed days flew "spooks" into Central America and responded to every muzzle flash on the ground with overwhelming return fire from an M60 or a Gau 2B?

"Spooks" here is not used in the racial context. It's what we called members of clandestine operations whose missions we did not know. We just flew them in, dropped them off, picked them up, flew them back to the ship, and shot back at anything that shot at us in the process.

This is nothing new. General Smedley Butler documented his efforts on the part of empire early in the 20th Century.

On edit: Fixed typo.

[AlphaCentauri]

98. What about Jeremy Bigwood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_u969gKXQY

English subtitles

[EFerrari]

55. I want to read Mark's book. He's very impressive --

Laura Flanders just had him on. I bet there's video at her website.

[clear eye]

56. O.K. You forced me to do your research for you. Here it is:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/bolivia.htm

"Paz Estenssoro reduced employment in the government mining corporation by 75 percent and broke the power of the tin miners union. He also instituted a value-added tax. Bolivia obtained favorable treatment from the IMF and other international source of funds. Later, in May of 1989, a principal architect of the NEP, Gonzalo Sanchez de Losada won a plurality in the elections. Gonzalo Sanchez de Losada is an individual with profound economic insights to the problems of Bolivia; Jeffrey Sachs referred to him as a genius."

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/who3.html

"The bank's biggest contributors (the United States, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Germany) wield the greatest influence, as they each get to appoint a representative to the 24-member executive board. The other 19 members of the board are nominated by the remaining 170-plus member nations. "

"...a set of economic operating principles that often compels cash-strapped nations to open their economic doors to foreign investment. Nations like Bolivia are often unable to secure loans from the IMF and the World Bank unless they agree to sell off public utilities, such as water and sanitation services, that once may have been under local control. "

Gonzalo Sanchez de Losada that privatization of Cochabamba's municipal water system, SEMAPA, was a prerequisite for receiving debt relief assistance from the World Bank and IMF.26 In February 1996, Cochabamba's mayor had received a similar message when World Bank officials refused to consider lending further aid for local water development without privatization of his city's water system.27

"On August 25, 1998, the Bolivian government, in collaboration with World Bank and IMF staff, published the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) Policy Framework Paper, 1998-2001. The document presented a blueprint for implementing free-market economic reform in Bolivia, through fiscal decentralization and privatization, to help reduce inflation and spur economic growth. The report makes specific mention of the government's intention to sell Cochabamba's municipal water company, SEMAPA, by December 1998.28

"In December 2001, when Bechtel appealed for adjudication of the matter, the World Bank became entangled in the events of Cochabamba once again. On February 25, 2002, the case of Aguas del Tunari (the consortium led by International Water Ltd., a subsidiary of the Bechtel Corporation) was officially registered with the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Bechtel and Aguas del Tunari claim that the Bolivian government violated a bilateral trade agreement between Bolivia and the Netherlands when it cancelled Aguas del Tunari's contract to distribute water and provide sanitation services to Cochabamba.29 The consortium is seeking $25 million in damages.30 The two parties are now in the process of selecting a tribunal of arbitrators (some of whom may be chosen from ICSID's "Panel of Arbitrators") for settling the dispute.

U.S. backed "structural trade adjustments" leading to massive unemployment and the privatization of water in an arid country. Notice the neo-liberal apologist in my first citation using Jeffrey Sachs as an expert on what works well.

[Zorro]

111. Seems that neither example you cite

Supports your assertion that U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy.

[pattmarty]

167. Who do you work for???????

[Political Heretic]

191. ISR Missions will give you a clue. Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance

[Political Heretic]

101. Are you fucking serious?

This is actually a matter of historical record now, and not even in dispute.

Do I honestly have go spend the next 1-2 hours pulling historical information and referencing for you?

This is the problem when people so disingenuously go "can you prove all that" - is that when its a matter of record, I'm not sure its fair to me to be expected to go out and do all of the work just to fix someone else's ignorance.

Why don't YOU do some key word searches on things like "Bolvia global economy" "Bolivia IMF" "Bolivian government history" "US intervention in Bolivia" "Corporations Bolivia."

How about you use cites like the Global Exchange to do some research? How about you go to amazon and do a search on Bolivia, CIA intervention, or try Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Corporate influence in Latin America, that would be another place to start.

By the way, our long standing history of US intervention in other countries and the destabilization of democratic governments and their replacement by us-backed, pro-western business friendly dicators isn't in any sort of historical disupte by anyone.

If you want detail on a few of these interventions, you could start with The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein. All the book is meticulously sourced with footnotes and references for every statistic and tidbit of information.

Now go have fun and leave me to drink my morning coffee without feeling like somehow you "win" the argument by being ignorant, unless I drop everything to educate you.

[Zorro]

110. So again I ask

Which U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy?

If it's a matter of historical record, what seems to be the problem with providing some authoritative examples?

[Dr.Phool]

113. Thick as the wall!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Zorro]

114. Well doc

are you likewise incapable of responding to the question?

Apparently so.

[Political Heretic]

120. See post above

See post above

[Zorro]

122. Can you be a little less specific?

[Political Heretic]

141. Goddammit Zorro - I'm writing from the road, I'm busy and not at home. DO YOUR OWN WORK!

Jesus Christ, I can't frigging drop everything every time someone says, "can you please research everything for me?" - especially when most of the time, the person asking knows the request is unrealistic.

This wasn't even my thread, and I wasn't the one that you even responded to. I just happened to know that what was being said was true... so.... from the road, I just gave you a TON OF LEADS TO FIND THE INFORMATION YOU WANT and I cited several books which you could consult for more information, all of which I have of course read myself.

I'm not going to sit here tonight, in this Motel 6, and write a research paper for you on subjects I've already busted my ass to learn for myself. DO IT YOURSELF.

Here is the post AGAIN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4210408&mesg_id=4211215

You asked to name one corporation, and while I am sure you won't take my word for it (nor should you) I can, off the top of my head start with this one: Dupont. Follow that with Betchel. And by all means, please seak out books in the history of CIA interventions in latin American. You should be able to get a list by googling the phrase, also from the reference list for books like the Shock Doctrine which - as I said is meticluously researched. Now YOU go research it out for yourself.


PS - noam chomsky also wrote a bit about bolivia, if you can find it. And you can also go here:

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/

Start on this page and dig - I don't have time to dig for you and find the best reports, because I studied from that site half a decade ago... I don't have the annotated proof-text history of Bolivia at my beck and call. I can just tell you where to go get the information FOR YOURSELF

[Zorro]

151. Well, it was not my assertion

that U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy. It's NOT my task to confirm an assertion I question.

If the request to provide an authoritative example is "unrealistic", then one could conclude the original assertion is not real. Is that logic too difficult to comprehend?

Perhaps it's heretical to challenge what passes for the gospel in LatAm threads, but I think I have a good grasp on regional history.

[Political Heretic]

180. It wasn't MY assertion either. It wasn't my post, or my thread, and yet I've given you everything

You know look like a disingenuous schmuck - because you stead fastly refuse to engage any of the informational options given to you.

That's because its not your agenda to learn. You already know what you think is right. You've given yourself away:

"Perhaps it's heretical to challenge what passes for the gospel in LatAm threads, but I think I have a good grasp on regional history."

So, as I thought, your "request" for information was bullshit. You already "know" that you are right. Despite the fact that I've given you TONS of options for getting factual information about transnational and us-funded destablization and intervention campaigns in boliva and latin america, you don't care.

You're so hell bent on making your point that noone has any references to support their assertions that you fail to get that I've given you references, along with tons of leads to do your own research. But I've also given you direct references.

[Political Heretic]

181. OK Zorro, since you are being so disingenuous about this,I've taken MY time to get you a source list

Sigh...

Sources:

Black, George. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. Highly recommended. An often amusing history of U.S. attitudes toward its southern neighbors.

Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventionism Since World War II. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995.

Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1986.

Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End Press, Boston: 1993. Packed with documentation.

Ege & Makhijani. "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps" (History Division), Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982). Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (I don't have the book in front of me for citation)

Richard Grimmet, Instances of Use of Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2001. CRS Report for Congress, 2002.

Grossman, Zoltan. Over a Century of U.S. Military Interventions. Self-published, revised Jan. 1, 1995.

Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. Congdon & Weed, New York: 1984. By a former Wall Street Journal reporter.

Sklar, Holly. "Who's Who: Invading 'Our' Hemisphere 1831-," Z Magazine (Feb. 1990).

U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Affairs' Report. Background Information on the Use of United States Armed Forces in Foreign Countries. Washington, D.C.: 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row, 1980.

And finally, a special addition, for more long term historical context:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm|WAR IS A RACKET BY MAJOR GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER, USMC>

I won't be surprised if this still isn't enough for someone involved in INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE MISSIONS in latin America. Imagine my shock that you attempt to kick dust up dust in the eye when it comes to accurate observation of the long history of what's happening down there.

[pattmarty]

148. Are you fucking deaf AND lazy? He pointed you in the right..............

........direction, now be a good boy and EDUCATE yourself.

[Zorro]

149. "Go read a book"

does not answer my question:

Which U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends have funded groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy?

Seems as if it's so well-known and part of the historical record as the savants rhetorically repeat, then why can't they provide an authoritative description?

BTW, it's not nice to be insulting. If you can't answer my question, it would be better for you to keep your yap shut.

[pattmarty]

150. Go back to worldnut daily where you belong. A right wing instigator.......

.......is all that you are, I don't think you CAN read.

[Zorro]

152. Since you seem incapable of accurately responding to a simple question

You obviously ain't no smartie, pattmarty.

Go read a comic book and let the adults debate.

[pattmarty]

154. Uh huh. You are a really cool right wing fanatic.

[Zorro]

156. Being unable to provide credible evidence to support an assertion when challenged

indicates a lack of preparation characteristic of a loudmouthed know-nothing.

Now back to your comic book, junior.

[pattmarty]

160. Uh huh. Sure. Whatever you say, mein Fuher!!

[Political Heretic]

194. I've given you a comprehensive source list, tons of links to resources, and named 2 corps specific

I realize I kind of threw a monkey wrench in your attempt to come in here and throw shit at the fan, by actually having a source list, actually having professionally researched and studied the issues, and knowing what I'm talking about...

But there it is.

Now the ball's back in your court, and this will clarify who you actually are.

Either you are a person who seriously is interested in understanding the truth and facts of things

Or you are a person with a political agenda and a goal of shouting down or discrediting anyone who disagrees, right or wrong.

If you are the former, you'll talk the material, links, resources, and books and source lists provided and learn.

If you are the latter, you'll ignore all of that, and continue with the same tedious talking points about how "we've got nothing" and "you've lived in LA" (yes while you were carrying out Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance missions for our government, apparently according to you.)

We'll see.

[Zorro]

207. "Tons of links to resources, and named 2 corps specific..."

And yet it seems impossible for you or the other savants to provide an authoritative example of U.S.-tied multi-nationals & their agency friends funding groups to destabilize the Bolivian democracy. Your "argument" would be made mincemeat in court, since you have evaded providing any documented and accurate evidence.

Apparently a degree in philosophy leaves one ill-prepared to understand plain English. If you have difficulties comprehending the request, perhaps you should find a third grader to explain it to you. That is, if you're legally allowed to get that close to a third grader.

And nope, I've never been on an ISR mission in South America. Guess again.

[Political Heretic]

221. You probably missed it, but I came back and gave you a comprehensive source list.

Including the authoritative detail on Bechtel and the water prioritization scandal in Bolivia, including money funneling to US anti-democratic efforts in the country; and also Dupont's interests and money funding into our government lobbying for anti-democratic action in LA

The reference list is large enough to support any effort to explore a larger data-backed evidence base.

I can't provide you more detail without retyping large sections of several of the books I mentioned, which I'm simply not willing to do as it would take hours and hours.

And now I'm done with this. Writing on discussion forums is an interesting thing, because to me its not about simply the exchange between two persons. It's about how well you make your case to everyone else reading. You feel despite taking ridiculous amounts of time out of my day to get your resources, source material, and locations to hard data sources, historical sources - basically everything you need for a robust understanding of the history of us interventions in Bolivia and Latin American and the corporate interests that financially support those interventions - despite all that somehow you've been given nothing.

So be it. That's how you feel. Now we'll see what everyone else reading this exchange things. So far, I think I've fared pretty well and convincing others that I've provided more than enough opportunities for you to get all the information you could possibly want on the issue were you serious about doing so, which of course you are not. On the other hand, I feel equally as confident that you come off looking like a shit bag.

Works for me. :hi:
Cheers.

[Political Heretic]

223. PS - I stumbled across this on accident:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ccf4677d9b2df97d80a56879b2bf3d80

Gustavo Guzmán, the Bolivian ambassador to Washington, said: "The U.S. embassy is historically used to calling the shots in Bolivia, violating our sovereignty, treating us like a banana republic." He claimed that the US was openly supporting autonomy-seeking Santa Cruz politicians including the mayor Percy Fernandez and the prefect Rubén Costas. In August 2008, US Ambassador Philip Goldberg, met with Costas in Bolivia. Immediately after the visit, Costas assumed power, declared that the Santa Cruz Department was autonomous and ordered the take-over of national government offices. The visit to Santa Cruz was the trigger for Goldberg's expulsion, with Gustavo Guzman being expelled in retaliation.

...

"The U.S. embassy is historically used to calling the shots in Bolivia, violating our sovereignty, treating us like a banana republic," says Gustavo Guzman, who was expelled as Bolivian ambassador to Washington following Goldberg's removal. In 2002, when Morales narrowly lost his first presidential bid, U.S. ambassador Manuel Rocha openly campaigned against him, threatening, "If you elect those who want Bolivia to become a major cocaine exporter again, this will endanger the future of U.S. assistance to Bolivia."

Because Morales led the Cocaleros Federation prior to assuming the presidency, the U.S. state department called him an "illegal coca agitator." Morales advocated, "Coca Yes, Cocaine No," and called for an end to violent U.S.-sponsored coca eradication raids and for the right of Bolivian peasants to grow coca for domestic consumption, medicinal uses and even for export as an herb in tea and other products.

"When Morales triumphed in the next presidential election," says Guzman, "it represented a defeat for the United States." Shortly after his inauguration, Morales received a call from President George W. Bush, offering to help "bring a better life to Bolivians." Morales asked Bush to reduce U.S. trade barriers for Bolivian products, and suggested that he come for a visit. Bush did not reply. As Guzman notes, "The United States was trying to woo Morales with polite and banal comments to keep him from aligning with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." David Greenlee, the U.S. ambassador prior to Goldberg, expressed his "preoccupation" with Bolivia's foreign alliances, while then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon began talking about "security concerns" in Bolivia.

Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, the highest ranking U.S. official to attend Morales' inauguration, declared a willingness to dialogue with Morales. In fact, what followed were almost three years of diplomatic wrangling while the United States provided direct and covert assistance to the opposition movement centered in the four eastern departments of Bolivia known as "La Media Luna." Dominated by agro-industrial interests, the departments began a drive for regional autonomy soon after Morales, Bolivia's first Indian president, took office. (About 55 percent of the country's population is Indian.) Headed by departmental prefects (governors) and large landowners, the autonomy movement has been determined to stymie Morales' plans for national agrarian reform, and bent on taking control of the substantial hydro-carbon resources located in the Media Luna.

The Bush administration has pursued a two-track policy similar to the strategy the United States employed to overthrow the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. The diplomatic negotiations initiated by Shannon centered almost exclusively on differences over drug policies, with the Bush administration continually threatening to cut or curtail economic assistance and preferential trade if Bolivia did not abide by the U.S. policy of coca eradication and criminalization. At the same time, the United States – through its embassy in La Paz and the Agency for International Development (USAID) – funded political forces that opposed Morales and MAS. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with 37 in-country agents, appears to have acted like the CIA in Bolivia, gathering intelligence and engaging in clandestine political operations with the opposition.

Intervention is evident from the very start of the Morales administration, with early USAID activities through the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). After Morales took office, USAID documents state that the OTI set out "to provide support to fledgling regional governments." Altogether the OTI funneled 116 grants for $4,451,249 "to help departmental governments operate more strategically." In an effort to establish expedient political ties, the OTI also brought departmental prefects to meet with U.S. governors. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), founded as a semi-public institute during the Reagan years, has been particularly active in Bolivia. It funds a number of groups and organizations with a clear political bias, among them the Institute of Pedagogical and Social Investigation. The Institute opposed Morales in the 2005 elections, declaring in a project summary report to the U.S. embassy that Morales and MAS are an "anti-democratic, radical opposition" that doesn't represent the majority. NED’s support of the Institute's activities continued into 2006, when the Institute filed a report saying that it intended to "contribute to improved municipal development through efficient and effective social monitoring."

In the Media Luna, USAID tried to organize Indians opposed to the Confederation of the Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Bolivia (CIDOB), which is allied with MAS and Morales. Media Luna leaders were particularly concerned about CIBOD's capacity to mobilize and move in from the countryside to encircle departmental capitals when the prefect's leaders orchestrated activities against the Morales government, particularly in the department of Santa Cruz. Working out of the U.S. embassy, the Strategy and Operations Office and the Strategic Team of Integral Development for USAID set up a meeting between Ambassador Goldberg and Indian groups in February 2007. Internal emails from USAID officers who helped organize the event reveal that they only invited Indians opposed to CIDOB who "lacked experience and were immature politically." One of the officers recommended that these Indians be given field radios "to facilitate communications."

In late 2007, the U.S. embassy began moving openly to meet with the right-wing opposition in Media Luna. Ambassador Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading business magnate who backs the autonomy movement, and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Morales, in revealing the photo, said the trafficker was linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations in Colombia. In response, the U.S. embassy asserted that it couldn't vet everyone who appeared in a photo with the ambassador.

Then in January 2008, the embassy was caught giving aid to a special intelligence unit of the Bolivian police force. The embassy rationalized its assistance by saying, "The U.S. government has a long history of helping the National Police of Bolivia in diverse programs." U.S.-Bolivian relations were next roiled in February, when it was revealed that Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright scholar had been pressured by an embassy official to keep tabs on Venezuelans and Cubans in the country (Burbach, U.S. Maneuvers to Carve up Bolivia with Autonomy Vote, http://globalalternatives.org/node/86). This violated the founding statutes of the Peace Corps, which prohibit any intelligence activities by volunteers.

(more at link)

[Judi Lynn]

233. Thank you so much for posting this superb article. Instantly added it to my files. Photo follows

which is connected to your article, this paragraph:

In late 2007, the U.S. embassy began moving openly to meet with the right-wing opposition in Media Luna. Ambassador Goldberg was photographed in Santa Cruz with a leading business magnate who backs the autonomy movement, and a well-known Colombian narco-trafficker who had been detained by the local police. Morales, in revealing the photo, said the trafficker was linked to right-wing paramilitary organizations in Colombia. In response, the U.S. embassy asserted that it couldn't vet everyone who appeared in a photo with the ambassador.

http://bp1.blogger.com.nyud.net:8090/_IcA5rZf1N2o/RzMdQM_saOI/AAAAAAAAASQ/yiL3ujAiMuo/s400/0066.preview.jpg

"The Bolivian Foreign Ministry demanded explanations Tuesday from US Ambassador to La Paz Philip Goldberg about a photo in which Goldberg appears together with Colombian-born criminal Jhon Jairo Venegas.
The photo, part of a police investigation against a recently dismantled international crime ring operating in Bolivia, was shot in September at the Expo Cruz Fair in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Well-known Bolivian opposition member Gabriel Dabdoub, president of the Bolivian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CAINCO), is also in the photo with Goldberg and Venegas, the latter now in Palmasola Prison.

Goldberg and Dabdoub denied knowing Venegas and said the photo was simply, like many others, taken with unknown people.

Foreign Minister Choquehuanca, who has sent a note to the US Embassy requesting an explanation, stated it was strange that someone unknown had a picture taken with the US ambassador when the Embassy security corps habitually does not allow anyone to get near him.

Bolivian President Evo Morales mentioned the photo in an interview with Italian daily Il Manifesto when discussing right-wing destabilization attempts in his country."

http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-ambassador-in-photo-with-crime-lord.html

Also, a Bolivian tv news crew followed Goldberg one evening AFTER MIDNIGHT and found him going into a building, accompanied by his security, whom he left outside, to go in and meet with Santa Cruz politicians. They ran it on TV.

Very dirty behavior for a _{George W Bush} ambassador, but maybe it was typical.

We should all have such great accidental finds as yours! Thanks for posting it.

[Political Heretic]

192. Dupont and Bechtel to name 2.

[pattmarty]

157. I will quote you in your own words; "educating pro-Farc, pro-Chavez...........

.............pro-Castro bullies". Who in the fuck do you work for??? AND, who in the fuck HAVE you worked for??? Inquiring minds want to know. I don't want to hear that it's none of my business either. You are the one that has the crap in your "bio" and is arguing pro fascist bullshit without any backup at all. You only whine like a bitch.

[Zorro]

165. Since I've spent a fair amount of time in South America

I probably have better insight into Latin American events than most posters -- certainly more insight than you, whose experience is no doubt limited to visiting the local Taco Bell.

Go brush your tooth, Goober.

[pattmarty]

166. Yeah, but you didn't answer the question, douchebag.

[Zorro]

170. Hey, you get a gold star!

Perhaps I'm an educator. Like the schooling you're getting, Goob?

[pattmarty]

172. Then educate. Who did you work for? Not a hard question for an educator........

.....right? C'mon, were you military working in South America? Were you working for a multi-national/American company? Carmon you like to brag, let all of us know. I have a new hero now, that dashing, bitchy, whining ZORRO!!!!!

[Zorro]

210. Why do you have this fixation on knowing who I work for?

I am a very busy person. Reviewing the verbal diarrhea you've been flinging around, you are not.

Go polish that tooth, Goober, and maybe at your next job interview you can get that position as a can opener.

Oh, and change your diaper before you go.

[Political Heretic]

224. It's a prefectly responsible question, when assessing someone's opinion.

The fact that you are so afraid to answer it, in the interest of full disclosure, says volumes.

We might want to know who you work for for the same reasons we might want to know who pays the salary of spokespersons for Americans for Prosperity... if you can do the math on that, then you've got bigger problems to worry about for yourself.

[pattmarty]

169. Who do you work for???????

[Bacchus39]

60. right on the mark!!! yeah, where is the big ALBA windfall??? n/t

s

[Judi Lynn]

162. Apparently you didn't catch any of the information concerning Morales' superb economic record so far

He's not desperate to get any handouts from the US as he's been doing very well on his own, of course. There have been so many articles on it you would have had to intentionally miss it.

Bolivia's Economic Success
By regaining public ownership of natural resources and focusing on social programs, the Morales administration has achieved record growth despite the recession.

by Sara Kozameh
posted Dec 16, 2009

Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, recently re-elected indigenous President Evo Morales for another four-year term in a landslide vote. According to a new study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington D.C.-based think tank, Morales’ sometimes controversial policies—such as returning privatized resources to public control—have helped Bolivia thrive during the recent economic crisis. Bolivia has the highest projected growth in the Southern hemisphere for 2009.

The report, “Bolivia: the Economy During the Morales Administration” highlights Bolivia's economic growth—with rates averaging 5.2% annually during the last four years, growth has been faster than at any other time during the last 30 years. The last two years of growth are even more remarkable given the global economic context. Remittances from abroad have fallen as a result of the economic crisis, and in 2008, the United States suspended Bolivia from the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which had provided preferential treatment for some of Bolivia’s exports to the U.S.

According to the report, an essential condition of Bolivia's successful macroeconomic policies has been the increase in the government's collection of hydrocarbon revenues. Morales reversed an earlier administration’s privatization of the sector, ensuring that natural gas exports benefit the Bolivian people instead of foreign corporations.

~snip~
Morales' administration has succeeded in maintaining growth during the world recession, and has continued to put the interests of the poor at the forefront of his policies, which undoubtedly helps to explain the president’s popularity in Bolivia. Nevertheless, much more must be done to reduce extreme poverty. According to the CEPR report, Bolivia’s large international reserves can be used to raise social spending and support development projects that will create employment and reduce poverty.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/bolivias-economic-success

[earcandle]

30. Go Bolivia! Long live Bolivia!

Glad some countries are getting some sense.  This may be the
only way to stop us. 

[Union Yes]

33. America is the enemy of the worker everywhere on planet Earth. knr nt.

[ItNerd4life]

68. LOL. That's funny!

oh wait, were you being serious? :crazy:

[marmar]

34. Third World Rising !!!!!

[Oerdin]

65. Nice map

I do like it though technically all the former Soviet Republics are, by definition, second world while Greenland is part of Denmark so it's 1st world, and I would also include Hong Kong and Singapore on the list of 1st world places.

[Judi Lynn]

121. Shouldn't be allowed! Here's the real American world map.

http://www.johnnyfirecloud.com.nyud.net:8090/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/american-map.jpg

[peacetalksforall]

43. "... based on mutual respect." What beautiful words. Think about the ideal.

Believe in idealism. Heroes have.

"When he (Obama) learns to recognize that the world is a community of sovereign states, which voluntarily are independent, we will have better ties with the United States, Garcia said"

Soverign states. What beautiful words.

If only we would listen and learn.

Our barons and ceo's and foundation/institutions will not allow it. Our politicians all(?) agree. Or.... our politicians are placed into position to secure that the barons, ceo's get what they want.

[Sultana]

45. LOL, whateva, Bolivia

Obama doesn't equal Bush

[skipos]

46. After spending much time in Bolivia, I'd say they have much greater problems than the US

But I see why this kind of fluff gets people excited.

[PacerLJ35]

130. Exactly...

I haven't been to Bolivia, but I have been to some of their neighbors. The region has greater issues than worrying about US making them a "slave".

[Bragi]

51. Need to nip this now lest it start a trend /nt

[OllieLotte]

53. We should sail the Nimitz over there and kick some ass!

[mudplanet]

104. Who needs the nimitz. We can just drive over there in our pickup trucks with the rebel flags in the

back window and our shotguns.

[Judi Lynn]

119. Their "youth movement" racist thugs have their own creepy trucks they use

to drive to communities where there's a large indigenous population to wade into with their bully clubs studded with spikes, to beat the holy bejesus out of them, put a little fear into them, keep them in their place.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_VNcxKqUd2eM/Sg02KG_ONlI/AAAAAAAAAoU/DfRbV_Bngr0/s400/SantaCruzGovernorNacistJeep.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_MKLsgAEmlco/SMjDuT_UU6I/AAAAAAAAAMk/ala7NOm-MdY/s400/Jovenestomando.jpg
The level of racism in Bolivia as it is currently has been compared to the U.S. South prior to civil rights legislation.

Their racist white population has been wildly hostile to the native inhabitants from the first days of their bloody, filthy invasion, land theft, and imperious occupation.

[mudplanet]

125. Worst than I thought, and I've spent some time in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

[Goldstein1984]

61. The U.S. always struggles with the

sovereign and independent state thing. If conflicts with our perceived exceptionalism.

We prefer more of a banana republic quality in our neighbors to the south. Better for business with peasants know their place we have U.S. puppets like those in Honduras looking out for out interests.

[ooglymoogly]

62. wish we had that option. kr nt

[RedCloud]

64. just when the corporate elite thought they had control of the world without a fight

up spring the masses who refuse to go silently to their graves. Go masses

hasta la victoria siempre

Sí podemos

[slackmaster]

72. I'm visualizing the map of Siam in the movie The King And I

It shows Siam as a huge country and the rest of the world disproportionately small.

Bolivia isn't important enough to even bother "enslaving" it.

[Bucky]

89. Bolivia has been getting punked by its neighbors (& a bit by the US) since 1860s

Its best mining resources and only port facilities were taken over by Chile in a war or two in the late 19th Century. Today they have large natural gas deposits, which makes them entirely "important enough" to be enslaved exploited. Right now they're taking some tough stands in trade talks. They have high poverty and pretty high inflation rates, so I can see why it's politically popular to go out and trash the United States. The guy's language is a bit hysterical, but they don't have that many cards to play to counter the financial, trade, and political leverage the US can and probably is hitting them back with.

[salib]

81. Wow, our economy must really be bad

If we cannot bribe (and threaten with military and coups) them into submission any more.

I guess it is worse than any of us thought.

[burning rain]

83. If it's any comfort to Bolivia....

The US is busy creating a feudal society and economy for its own people, too, albeit in a somewhat kinder and gentler way. Same basic principle, though: ownership as lords, workers as serfs, and no middle class to speak of.

[winyanstaz]

85. a brave man to speak out so boldly ....

I expect to hear of his ties with "The Terrorist/Taliban/el' ciada any day now.

[Bucky]

87. Let me guess: Mr. Garcia plans to run for president some time soon

Is there anyone who actually disagrees with these sentiments?

[Political Heretic]

94. Bolivia has a remarkable history of resistance to the IMF, World Bank and US corporate interests.

I am rooting for them with all my heart.

[Political Heretic]

95. PS - I thought our reputation was all better in the eyes of the world now?

I guess people just meant the eyes of the "European Western world" - screw the other 75% of the globe. :)

[amyrose2712]

99. K

[Bacchus39]

103. Bolivia wants their trade preference back. That's what this is about n/t

s

[Political Heretic]

107. That's part of it. However, "this" that you are describing is not new.

[varelse]

126. I am glad to see that Bolivia is willing to stand up to us (nt)

[dysfunctional press]

153. lithium.

bolivia has it, electric car batteries need it.

they need to protect their interests.

[Political Heretic]

188. I haven't been in many DU latin american threads: what is up with the army of pro-fascists?

Seriously.

Crawling out of the woodworks are posters I never see posting anywhere else defending the CIA, defending transnational corporate interference in Latin American, defending rationalizing or trivializing US military and CIA involvement in destabilization efforts in the region, or our long history of undermining democratic governments supported by the people in favor of dictatorships with western-friendly business attitudes.

I didn't even think extreme pro-corporate right wing gas bags even tried to deny or spin this stuff anymore, and yet its being denied or spun here. That's what's cracking me up - I didn't think anyone was even seriously trying to dispute this stuff anymore, given the mountains of documentation and concrete evidence of our actions.

(sources)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4210408&mesg_id=4213141

Who are these guys? Where the heck to they come from? The appear for a keyword Latin America thread, and then disappear into the mist, never to be seen on in any other discussions?

:wtf:

[PacerLJ35]

198. I'm not defending the true interventions in Latin America

But this Bolivia stuff, along with most of the crap Hugo spews, is fear mongering. I fly for the military and I've been all over Latin America and never have I been down there to interfere with their sovereign rights.

[pattmarty]

204. If you "fly for the military" why in the fuck don't you take your lazy..........

.........cowardly ass to Afghanistan? They need the help over there mighty mouse. I just love "you guys", all mouth and NO BALLS.

[PacerLJ35]

219. Wow, that's a pretty big assumption! You know what they say...

To assume is to make an ass out of u and me...

Cowardly...lol. You crack me up. 4x tours in Iraq (one was a year working with the Iraqi Air Force) and 1 x tour in Afghanistan flying airdrop/airland missions in C-130s.

Jeez, people like you make me shake my head.

[EFerrari]

228. Then you have a little reading to do to figure out what it is you are doing.