Russia plans to arm Venezuela to counter US backed Colombia.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Central Balance that results from a two-party system?

Are you saying that there's a central balance today? Because if you haven't noticed, at least in the current administration, nothing of the sort exists.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Ned We believe that we have some sort of manifest destiny to bring democracy to the world.

What if you replace the word "democracy" with "Islam"? Seems to me you are just another scary fundamentalist...

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - except for the budget (reference 60% majorities in the Senate). That is a simple majority vote in the Senate. Spending money. Plus they've been "attaching" things to work around the rules, so controlversial tax cuts have been passed without facing filibusters.


Che, thanks. I was working purely from memory, you have the facts. By the way, do you know the book I'm talking about that was written on the Florida real vote fraud? I simply cannot remember the authors name? Do you also know who else they were able to connect it to in Jeb Bush's administation? Besides whats-her-name the Secretary of State.

[chequita guevara]

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast. He's a University of Chicago trained economist working for the Beeb and the Guardian out of New York. Conservatives hate him and don't consider him credible, despite the fact that what makes him great is his ability to get his hands on documents.

In an incredible telvised moment, he confronted the person responsible for sending an illegal memo to the company doing th scrub list. The guy denied they had told the company not to include everyone they could. Palast then showed him the memo. The guy ripped off his mic and quickly left the room.

Kate Harris should be in prison, not in Congress.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Central Balance that results from a two-party system?

Are you saying that there's a central balance today? Because if you haven't noticed, at least in the current administration, nothing of the sort exists.

Emperor, really? Bush cannot get legislation thru Congress without the Democrat's consent. I call that centrist.

[Mr. Harley]

Thanks, that's the name I couldn't remember - Kate Harris. Who else was definitively connected to this - should have been scandal, and who else was implicitly connected to it. Do you have any references - by the way, and I do believe it was Greg Palast who I was referencing, I heard him in an interview. He has almost as bad an opinion as I do about the press - liberal my butt. Like letting Rumsfeld get away with "We didn't know we'd need so many troops." This year, after what Shineki said before the invasion.

[Mr. Harley]

To clarify - references to anyone esle besides Kate Harris, she's dirty as sin. Like that guy who ripped off the microphone, etc.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Hueij

What if you replace the word "democracy" with "Islam"? Seems to me you are just another scary fundamentalist...

Scary?

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

If you listent to Bush, and to me, this is what we are fighting for.

Scary fundamentalist my ass.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned - except for the budget (reference 60% majorities in the Senate). That is a simple majority vote in the Senate. Spending money. Plus they've been "attaching" things to work around the rules, so controlversial tax cuts have been passed without facing filibusters.

Shawn, the Dems can block anything they want thru filibuster and can also block anything by having any Senator simply place a hold on a bill.

[Tripledoc]

October 6, 2004
U.S. Militarizing Latin America
OneWorld US

Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, Oct 6 (OneWorld) - Less than 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the United States government is increasingly militarizing its relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean, according to a new report released here this week.

U.S. military aid to the region has risen sharply since 2000, according to the report, which noted that, even during the height of the Cold War, military assistance was only a third or less than the amount of assistance the U.S. provided in economic aid to Latin America.

In 2003, however, military aid came to US$860 million dollars, just short of the $921 million spent on economic and humanitarian assistance in the same year. If recent trends hold, military aid may actually exceed economic assistance, according to the new report, 'Blurring the Lines: Trends in U.S. Military Programs in Latin America.'

Moreover, vague new doctrines propagated by the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom), such as "effective sovereignty'' -- which considers that U.S. security may be threatened by Latin American governments' failure to exercise control over vast "ungoverned spaces" within their borders, are providing new rationales for regional militaries to assert their power over civilian authorities.

And, with considerably more financial and other resources than the State Department or other U.S. agencies, Southcom is increasingly defining the U.S. role in Latin America, according to the report which was co-produced by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the Latin America Working Group (LAWG), and the Center for International Policy (CIP).

"Blurring the Lines" is a reference to the distinct roles that are supposed to be carried out by military and civilian institutions in government, and the major theme of the report is that Washington is encouraging Latin American militaries to encroach on what should be the jurisdiction of civilians.

"This is not academic question," said Joy Olson, WOLA's executive director. "It goes to the heart of democracy, particularly for countries where transitions away from brutal military dictatorships are far from complete.

"U.S. military programs are strongly encouraging Latin American militaries to carry out internal roles that civilians can fills, such as crime-fighting, road-building, and protecting the environment."

Thus, in his annual "Posture Statement" in early 2004, Southcom Commander Gen. James Hill, presented a list of emerging threats in Latin America that went far beyond the military's normal purview, identifying "radical populism" and street gangs as major new threats facing the region with the suggestion that the uniformed military -- rather than the police or other civilian-led institutions -- has a role in dealing with them.

"This risks politicizing the armed forces," said Adam Isacson, CIP's program director. "Too often in Latin America, when armies have focused on an internal enemy, the definition of enemies has included political opponents of the regime in power, even those working with the political system."

The report characterized Hill's identification of "radical populism" as "particularly disturbing" given the history the Latin American militaries have played in repressing leftist and populist groups in the name of "national security," the doctrine that the U.S. promoted in building up the region's armies during the 1960s.

Another problem identified by the report is Southcom's application of what it has called the "war on terrorism" to a whole variety of problems. "Terrorists throughout the Southern Command area of responsibility bomb, murder, kidnap, traffic drugs, transfer arms, launder money, and smuggle humans," Hill testified in his Posture Statement.

"While that may be an apt description of Colombia and its border zones, it does not apply to the rest of Latin America," noted the report, adding that also fails to distinguish between Colombia's homegrown guerrilla and paramilitary organizations from al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups that directly threaten the United States and its territory.

In fact, very little of the increase in military training and aid to the region since 2001, according to the report, has been directed to al Qaeda-type or related threats, although that justification may be the most effective justification for the Pentagon (news - web sites) to obtain budgetary increases from the White House and Congress.

"Only a sliver of security assistance goes to counter-terror programs like port, airport, and border security," according to LAWG director Lisa Haugaard. "What we're seeing are the same old programs to fight drugs and guerrillas re-packaged as part of the war on terror."

Of the 22,855 Latin Americans trained by the U.S. military in 2003 -- 50 percent more than in 2002 -- the greatest number, 5,506, took Light Infantry courses, which teach such traditional basic military skills as small-unit tactics, operations in difficult terrain, and marksmanship.

Another 1,650 Bolivian police took a civic action course, while 1,234 soldiers from a variety of countries took riverine skills for counter-drug and counter-insurgency operations, according to the report.

Most anti-terrorist assistance -- just a fraction of the total -- was used for anti-kidnapping programs in Colombia and border security programs in Mexico.

Indeed, war-torn Colombia was by far the largest recipient of military aid and training in the region. The U.S. provided training to almost 13,000 Colombian soldiers in 2003, almost 4,000 more than it provided to Iraqis and almost 8,000 more than to Afghans.

Moreover, the administration has pushed Congress to increase the 400-man legislative ceiling on the number of U.S. troops and contractors operating in Colombia in order to increase training and other operations in-country.

The Pentagon is also increasingly using its own programs to fund training rather than those, such as the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program which are controlled by the State Deaprtment.

Other concerns raised in the report were the strong increase in the number of Bolivian troops -- more than 2,000 -- in 2003, a year that was characterized by political upheaval and serious abuses committed by its army and police; Washington's efforts to press Latin American and Caribbean governments to sign bilateral "Article 98" agreements granting U.S. forces immunity from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for acts committed in their countries; and Washington's support for creating a multinational naval force through its 'Enduring Friendship' exercises.

The report said "the most egregious example of U.S. military training blurring the line between civilian and military roles was the training of nearly 2,000 Colombian National Police and 100 Panamanian National Police in light-infantry tactics during 2003. The training, which is clearly military in nature, was even conducted by U.S. Special Forces, rather than military police, the report noted.

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - you're wrong in this case - that's what I used to believe to. Budget bills cannot be filibustered under the current rules of the chamber, and I believe (unlike my previous statement, I'm not certain) that the Chairman of the Committee can always override a hold - which is why they are so damned powerful.

The Republicans have been abusing that in recent years by attaching non-budgetary items to budget bills, and claiming the combo-bill is immune to filibuster. Note I DO NOT KNOW if the Democrats pulled that stunt when they were in charge, I wasn't watching as closely because, like you, I believed in the primacy of the filibuster.

I am much more disturbed, profoundly so, about the abuse of joint committees to reconcile legislation. The Democrats played some games with those in the past, so understand this is nothing new. But DeLay/McConnel - I'm talking the real powers, if you notice - have been essentially assigning lapdogs to the committees and creating new legislation from whole cloth bypassing the usual committee and legislation system.

The "new" legislation is then immune to amendment, creating a highly partisan yes-no situation for legislators who are faced with legilation with poison-pill additions. The Democrats definitely played the same game in the committees of freezing out Republicans AT TIMES, but it has been taken to new heights by the Republicans since the Gingrich revolution. Reagan understood very well to be gracious in victory, the new partisanship from the right equals the viciousness of the left during the Vietnam war, and has prodcued an equally divided country, at a time we cannot afford it. IMHO on the last part.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, what that article tells me that Marxist revolutionairies are on the march in Latin America, fueled by drug money. A military response seems appropriate.

[Tripledoc]

Then I have to ask the following. Did Marxism turn to drugs, or did drugs turn to Marxism? In other words, did the Marxist revolutionaries, in wake of the supply crisis following the collapse of the Soviet Union, decide to finance their activities through control of the drug trade, or has the drug trade always been an inherent factor of the Marxist movemnet since the 50s?

The let me quote from the article now.

"In 2003, however, military aid came to US$860 million dollars, just short of the $921 million spent on economic and humanitarian assistance in the same year. "

What I percieve from this is that the whip is dangerously close to supercede the carrot in post-Cold War US foreign policy vis-a-vis Latin America. So it would seem that the ideological battle is not progressing along lines beneficial to Democracy. And I gather Democracy is universal, and its inherent superiority does not require the use of force as a means of convincing the people of its various benefits.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, Marxists are not influenced by carrots.

[Tripledoc]

You mean Marxists are not convinced by carrots. But are they convinced by the whip?