Russia plans to arm Venezuela to counter US backed Colombia.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Ned


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.

Don't give me this UN bull****. This is what you said:

we have some sort of manifest destiny

People who think they have some sort of manifest destiny are nothing more than fundies. Period.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
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.

http://www.gregpalast.com/

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
did the Marxist revolutionaries, in wake of the supply crisis following the collapse of the Soviet Union,

We never got help from the USSR. The USSR was always trying to stop revolutionaries because they felt the revolutions worsed relations between the US and the USSR. In Columbia, the FARC did not "turn to drugs." They began taxing the drug lords in regions they controled and forcing the drug lords to pay the coca growers a fair price for their product.

Given that the government of Columbia cannot control drugs in the majority of the control they control, it's is unreasonable to expect the FARC to be able to do so as well. Nor do they have any reason to do so, as the drug lords are an able enough enemy, killing tens of thousands of Columbians each year, even including Supreme Court Justices. Why fight them and the government when you can tax them instead and use that money to fight the government?

There are no effective Marxist revolutionary guerillas outside Columbia in Latin America, and the FARC is only barely Marxist anymore.

[JCG]

Well yeah, they actually got far more help from Cuba, in any case.

A Cuba that, btw, has publicly admitted by now that the time for violent revolution in Colombia and in the continent has passed (despite the fact that many of the same objective socioeconomic conditions still persist, even if in a more open political environment, so there goes that argument), ask Castro himself.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In Columbia, the FARC did not "turn to drugs." They began taxing the drug lords in regions they controled and forcing the drug lords to pay the coca growers a fair price for their product.

As usual, that's fine if you keep your analysis to the late 1970s - early 1990s tops. But the story didn't stop there.

Why fight them and the government when you can tax them instead and use that money to fight the government?

Better yet, why not eventually cooperate willingly with some of them, and actually take up some of their roles, if it's profitable enough and helps to fuel the "good fight" in the long run?

A highly profitable source of income is available and it's hardly going to be wasted forever for the sake of principles (even if it shouldn't exist if drugs were to be legalized, but there's no chance of that happening anytime soon in this hemisphere).

The FARC might be revolutionaries, but that doesn't mean that they aren't human, prone to all the virtues and vices that anyone can display. They are not immune from greed, corruption, "easy money", or just simple Colombian/Latin American "macho" culture (ie: you just don't pass up on freebies when they show up).

the FARC is only barely Marxist anymore.

Kinda. Depends on which of their spokesmen you choose to talk to (or read, actually). Still, that "barely" is enough to show up in most (admittedly not all) of their communiques.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Typical communist propaganda. Communists know that with democracy comes free enterprise and it is free enterprise that they hate. Thus they oppose democracy and they oppose America.

See this is your mindset. A democracy can mean any type of economic system. All you really care about is capitalism. Anything other than that is undemocratic too you. That mindset is in fact anti-democratic.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
The benefits of a two party system seem obvious. The parties have the hue to the center in order to get elected. Radical opinions and views are never endorsed. So society is relatively stable.

Stability is democracy? I don't think so.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Hueij

Don't give me this UN bull****. This is what you said:

we have some sort of manifest destiny

People who think they have some sort of manifest destiny are nothing more than fundies. Period.

Well, I seem to be in a good crowd, then. All the commies here also believe in manifest destiny as well. True?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


See this is your mindset. A democracy can mean any type of economic system. All you really care about is capitalism. Anything other than that is undemocratic too you. That mindset is in fact anti-democratic.

Bull.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Stability is democracy? I don't think so.

Since we like to talk about the dictator Mossadegh being "elected," why don't we talk about Hitler being elected.

Both were usurpers, and both were radicals. It is therefor possible for a ruthless prime minister or president to assume total power. But, unless they do, they have to be restrained in their actions because they can be replace by the voters.

Democracies are inherently stable.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned

Democracies are inherently stable.

Assuming a growing economy, sufficient supply of power for demand, a free press, "useful" labour organisations, and a beauracracy that can cope with all the bull****.

Not exactly in plentiful supply in South America.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Assuming a growing economy, sufficient supply of power for demand, a free press, "useful" labour organisations, and a beauracracy that can cope with all the bull****.

Not exactly in plentiful supply in South America.

Well, democracies become unstable when they elect a radical who has no intention of surrendering power.

Now, just who rigged that recall election? Chavez?

[Mr. Harley]

Remember, Ned, Chavez is a strongman who is using the appearance of Communism to galvanize the masses and put him in power. His hero is that South American strongman general whose name escapes me, but was definitely no more a friend to democracy than President "Guided Democracy" Putin. Of course, for the peons they feel they cannot do any worse no matter what the system, and it is that kind of hopelessness that breeds the despair Chavez-types feed on. As an additon to Cruddy's conditions, you also need a largley uncorrupt system, also in hideously short supply in South America.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, democracies become unstable when they elect a radical who has no intention of surrendering power.

Now, just who rigged that recall election? Chavez?

Maybe he's been taking lessons from the Republicans...

EDIT: OK, fair point. If the incumbent doesn't surrender after their term is over it's not democracy.

However, there are other ways for democracies to become unstable... maybe less stable would be a better description.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, perhaps. I think we should insist on US or OAS monitors to the next regular election. If Chavez refuses and he wins a fraudulent election, then of course we let the Venezuelan military do its "thing."

Do you think that we should insist that we have monitored elections in the U.S. as well?

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, perhaps. I think we should insist on US or OAS monitors to the next regular election. If Chavez refuses and he wins a fraudulent election, then of course we let the Venezuelan military do its "thing."

That's antidemocratic of you!