Socialist doctor wins Uruguay's sunday election

[fourier jr]

No turmoil as S America goes left
By James Painter
BBC Latin America analyst

The victory of the socialist doctor, Tabare Vazquez, in Sunday's elections in Uruguay has prompted analysts and left-wing presidents to talk of a "new South America".

They point out that left-leaning leaders run the big three economies of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and now predominate in most of the rest of the region.

The only exception is President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, who remains adamantly pro-Washington and free market policies.


What is more, both President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil did well in recent local elections.

Pro-government candidates won in 20 of Venezuela's 22 states and in Brazil, Lula's Workers Party won the most number of votes nationwide and doubled the number of local councils it won in 2000 -even though it lost Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre.

etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3975663.stm

this must be a nightmare for the USA. the good ol Monroe Doctrine goes something like this:
1. no countries are allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of other north & south american countries
2. but we are
3. ha ha ha.

so let's see here...
Venezuela -- Chavez
Brazil -- Lula
Argentina -- Kirchner
Cuba -- Castro
Canada -- ?? (Orchard? Layton? who?)

 

[Bartholomew]

the good ol Monroe Doctrine goes something like this:
1. no countries are allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of other north & south american countries
2. but we are
3. ha ha ha.

That's the Dave Barry doctrine.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm all in favor of modifying that: let them rot in their squalor if they choose to.

 

[fourier jr]

looks like they chose not to though

& here's more info from CBC:
Uruguay had been stable until more than two years ago, when a depression sank the country's economy by 11 per cent. Now one in three Uruguayans lives below the poverty line.

One of Vasquez's first projects as president is expected to be a $100 million social emergency plan aimed at helping poor people.

With roughly 3.5 million people, Uruguay is the sixth South American country with a government that identifies itself as socialist. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and Ecuador have all elected leftist governments within the past few years.

Conservative governments, interrupted by brief periods of military rule, have led Uruguay for the last 170 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/01/uruguay-vasquez050301.html

 

[cragwolf]

I'm all in favor of modifying that: let them rot in their squalor if they choose to.

There is one ugly mind under all that right-wing rhetoric.

 

[russ_watters]

There is one ugly mind under all that right-wing rhetoric.

Hardly, craig - I'm all for helping people who want (deserve) our help. If people want to promote an 'us vs them' mentality, they can have it. They will find that life is better when they work with the US, treat us with respect, and promote freedom in their own countries. I'm tired of people blaming the US for not doing enough to help and at the same time blaming us for being overbearing. Somalia comes to mind: you don't want our food? Fine. Same goes for Indonesia and the tsunami: the government of Indonesia used the misfortune of its citizens as leverage for a political game.

Contrast South America with Eastern Europe. We intervened in South America and they hate us. The Russians ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist and E Europe hates them. Now that they have been freed, the E Europeans love us. Why? Because they have seen the alternative and know that our way really is a better way. Its a shame that in S. America, pride keeps them from truly giving democracy a chance.

 

[EL]

"White or black. There's no gray."
/Americans.

 

[Bartholomew]

The US gives veeery little in foreign aid.

 

[russ_watters]

The US gives veeery little in foreign aid.

The US gives more foreign aid than any other country.

Both your statement and mine are factually true from different points of view. Don't you love spin?

 

[Burnsys]

Argentina and brazilian goverments are not lefties ... they only say they are but all they do is saying one thing in their speaches, and doing the oposite.. they still folow the IMF and washington "Advices", and they still impose the same economic model. they still pass conservative policies giving more power to the police and the military... If not they would be desestabilized by US government and covert actions just like with chavez who is really a left wing goverment...

 

[Burnsys]

Hardly, craig - I'm all for helping people who want (deserve) our help. If people want to promote an 'us vs them' mentality, they can have it. They will find that life is better when they work with the US, treat us with respect, and promote freedom in their own countries. I'm tired of people blaming the US for not doing enough to help and at the same time blaming us for being overbearing. Somalia comes to mind: you don't want our food? Fine. Same goes for Indonesia and the tsunami: the government of Indonesia used the misfortune of its citizens as leverage for a political game.

Contrast South America with Eastern Europe. We intervened in South America and they hate us. The Russians ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist and E Europe hates them. Now that they have been freed, the E Europeans love us. Why? Because they have seen the alternative and know that our way really is a better way. Its a shame that in S. America, pride keeps them from truly giving democracy a chance.

i am tied of sayng this... how can you talk about "Truly giving democary a chance" wher YOUR government suported.. helped... gived money and gived weapons to all the military dictatorships in the 70 to overtrown DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED GOVERMENTS in all latin america.
And they left us with thousens of disapeared and deaths and tortured... with millons and millons of dolars in debt that are imposible to pay... and an economic model that now has made 50% (in the lukyest cases) of poor people, has left us with comunications. water suply, electrical suply and oil industries in the control of the so called "Civilized Word"

and we don't want your help, not becouse of our pride.. but becouse we already know what your help means...

And your democracy is not a democracy. it's a two party dictatorship..

 

[klusener]

exactly man, they preach peace and brotherhood on sundays, but they practice it on no day.. they use violence everywhere, they used violence in Korea, they used violence in Vietnam, but when it comes time for you and me to fight for our freedom, our basic human rights, they tell us to be nonviolent. They are not a democracy, they are a hypocrisy.. (sorry, i was just listening to Malcolm's speech in Detroit, just in the mood to type it..)

Seriously, my actual point, Russ talks about all these helpful things the US has done for South America in an almost paternal way, and refers to the South Americans has the prodigal sons who have not yet returned, and are still out.. But the truth shows that the US has followed an almost ruthless policy towards the South Americans, and ever-changing policy that changes to suit America's interest.. History shows that anything the American army did in South America, it wasn't for the people of that land, it was for America herself, it was for Sam...

1954 - Arbenz, a democratically elected president of Guatemala, he seizes some lands of the United Fruit company, that has been idle for many years and promises them that he will pay back its worth... What does America do? It accuses him of communism, trains army to overthrow him, and thrones a dictator, Armas, who murders 100000 citizens.. Now if i was the prodigal son in this case, I would have burned down the father's house..

1961- US overthrows a democratically elected president of Ecuador, because he has close relations with Cuba..

1973 - the US, supposedly protecting the good interests of the S. American people according to Russ, puts in power a dictator named Pinochet in Chile who goes on to murder more than a 100,000 innocent civilians.. I suppose it was for the good of the people, eh russ? :uhh:

1989 - the US goes into remove Noreiga, because he doesn't follow their plans, even thought they were the ones who trained him..

Now I could go on and on, but I will stop here, because I think I have referenced my points enough...

Russ, good books to read -

Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World
The Good Neighbor
The Murder of Allende and the End of the Chilean Way of Socialism

 

[klusener]

Now Pinochet is a funny guy in terms of russ's points.. Most of Pinochet's victims were raped and tortured, Russ, you are probably right man, those Chilean women needed to really lose their virginity man and who better to provide the personnel to do the job, then good ol' Uncle Sam,eh?

..and you wonder why the S. Americans don't run to you crying for help.. They have already been catching hell from you for a century, they are not going to come to you begging for help, they already know what kind of help they get from you...

Coming to actual terms, for the rich people here, please help some of the victims of that US-puppet Pinochet, they are still out there needing your help, more info -
http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html

The military torture teams, graduates of the Americas School in the Canal Zone, have revealed a degree of human bestiality with Chilean women that puts them way ahead of their American trainers.9

A woman professor at the East Santiago campus of the University of Chile, married, with two children, was detained for forty days in the National Stadium. She wrote me this about the "female prisoners of war":

They were obliged to remain all day long face down with their hands on their necks and their legs spread. . . . There were lines of them kneeling or standing against the walls, and at the slightest movement they were struck or kicked - and, in several cases I saw, shot. In rooms fifteen by eighteen feet there were a hundred women. Food came only once a day, at 4 or 5 P.M. There were mainly two groups of women: workers and university professors. Girls and women were harassed, obliged to disrobe, manhandled, and insulted as a preamble to the interrogations. The academics among us had been taken out of our classrooms at gunpoint. One group of schoolteachers had a typically sad experience: at the investigatory commission one of them had her hair cropped off . . then at Los Cerros de Chena, the eyes were always blindfolded. To go to the bathroom, they had to be accompanied by guards who took the opportunity to manhandle and beat them. They were interrogated naked. Electric current was applied to the mouth, hands, nipples, vagina. Water was poured over their bodies to intensify the pain The language used with them was completely degenerate: they were forced to repeat, over and over: "I am a ****, I am a **** A hospital technician was taken to the Quinta Normal naval enclosure. She was kept there for three days without sleep, and subjected to electric tortures every few hours. She also had electricity applied to her vagina. Afterward they brought her t the National Stadium She was taken for interrogation there too, blindfolded as others were. This time she apparently was taken to the cycle track, where by then the torture chamber had been installed. Besides electric shocks, this time she was forced to take something in her hand. They had given her an injection, which she guessed was Sodium Pentothal, and it had made her dizzy but she was still conscious. At once she realized the object was a penis which on contact with her hand became erect. They thrust it into her mouth where it ejaculated.10

I have other memoranda from women prisoners who were able to write to me afterward.

Essentially they tell the same story, although they add that some officials would intimate that there were "hard methods of interrogation" to "soften." "extract information," and "morally intimidate."

Some novelties appear in those memoranda: "They stretched the women out on tables and dripped candle wax on their stomachs." "There were rapes, either in groups or individually. 'Move, you Marxist whore,' they would tell the victims. 'If you don't respond you're going to have to suck cock, even for General Pinochet, you ****ty whore. '" "Some officers started by sticking their fingers in my vagina. hoping to excite me..."

There are plenty of examples; the newspapers of the world are filled with them. The cemeteries of Chile are filled with mutilated corpses. I would like to quote, as a kind of summary of the art of torture the military uses in my country, the testimony published by Daniel Samper Pizano, a reliable columnist. in the Bogota daily El Tiempo, on March 26 and 27,1974, on the editorial page. The witness was a university student in Valparaiso.

I was arrested in mid-October right on the university campus where I attended classes. The rector appointed by the military would allow the naval intelligence thugs on campus, and I have the impression that the rector himself was informing against leftist students. They took us with the rest of the prisoners to the Navy Academy of War. This is a four-story steel building located on a promontory over the sea, at Cerro Playa Ancha. When we got there, we were blindfolded and made to climb up to the fourth floor on the iron staircase. The falls and their shoves were the beginning of the torture. As we went up, we heard terrible screams. We thought they were recordings to frighten us, but later we realized they were real cries from people being tortured. They stuck us in a room and forced us to remain standing, with our hands on our necks and without talking. Anyone who moved or talked was thrown on the floor and beaten with rifle butts and kicked. We spent a whole afternoon there waiting for them to call us for interrogation. They caught us and punished us brutally, but that was how I found out that in that room there were already people from Customs who were being tortured. One of them was a professor of literature at the University of Chile. There was also a Catholic priest, and another, a man named Juan, well known in the workers' districts of Valparaiso, who later died during a torture session. They gave us reasonably good food, but nobody could eat because of the ghastly screams in the area and the fear we felt. The guards would say sadistically: "You better take advantage of it, it's your last meal." Nobody slept the whole time I was in the building because the screams were really nerve-wracking. They were unbelievable howls of pain, and they never stopped, day or night.

The first day they took away a lot of people who had arrived before us: the Customs people, the literature professor, and the Catholic priest. They never came back. Later I caught a guard remarking to his companion: "The priest fell apart on them right away; they're going to make it look like suicide."

I was interrogated the second day for more than three hours. They undressed me and beat me, using their fists and boots all over my body. There seemed to be a lot of them. Then they applied electricity to my testicles. When they turned off the current, they began to hit me again with their hands and feet. feet. They concentrated on my stomach. This was because when the torture began I felt a karate chop and instinctively hardened my muscles. The torturer shouted at me: "So you're trained, eh? Now you're going to get it" During the entire interrogation they kept me blindfolded and my wrists handcuffed. The muscular contractions caused by the electricity made the handcuffs tighter each time, and the flesh of my wrists was cut down to the bone. By that point I didn't feel pain anymore. I only realized that I was being burned by the electricity. After the interrogation, in which they hoped to find whether there were weapons in the university, they led me to another room where they took off the blindfold so I could walk, but I kept falling down. They made me crawl to another room where there were tortured people lying on the floor. I knew one of them a university professor, by sight; one whole side of his body was black with 'bruises; they had punctured his eardrum, which made him howl with pain. The rest of them were all as badly beaten up as I was, or worse. Many had broken ribs and couldn't even breathe. None could walk; their legs were fractured both from the blows and from the muscular contractions produced by the electricity,. There were a lot of women as badly beaten up as the men were. They bad also been brutally raped; they had internal ruptures and were bleeding profusely. One kept moaning. The torturers had inserted a sharp object in her vagina, and it had cut through the peritoneum. Some of the people there said they had recognized the interrogators: they were Navy infantrymen trained at the American bases in Panama.

The third day they sent me over to the Lebu. which had been turned into a jail. I was put in Hold 3, where there were already 160 people. Going down, I smelled a nauseating stench of excrement There was no toilet, and we had relieve ourselves in cans right there in the hold. There were laborers, office workers, physicians, lawyers, students, professors. Among them, I remember, were Patricio Muñoz, president of the university of Chile Student Federation in Valparaiso; Sergio Fischer, a prominent cardiologist; Nelson Osorio, a physicist. and many others whom I cannot name. I lived with them forsixty-five days. The food was disgusting They served us poroto beans with grubs, that is, with worms. For a while they tried to be a little more humane and the commandant of the place, a naval officer named Osorio, let us go up on deck, but so they wouldn't be able to see us from the city, we were forced to stay seated without moving in the sun. Our heels and thighs were burned by the heat of the deckboards. Then Osorio realized that we were being photographed from an Italian boat, I think it was the Verdi; and after that he forbade going up on deck.

We were made to get up at 6 A.M. and do exercises naked. Offenses - smoking, talking, not saying "sir" when we were interrogated - were punished by blows with rifle butts and having to stand rigidly upright with our ands on our necks without moving for as long as twenty-four hours. The slightest movement was rewarded with rifle blows. Every morning and evening we were forced to sing the national anthem as the flag was struck or lowered. We were forbidden to sing the verse that goes "O la tumba serás de los libres, o el asilo contra la opresión" [Either you (Chile) will be the tomb of free men, or the asylum against oppression] because it seems that at the beginning the prisoners would sing those verses louder and the sailors took it as an innuendo against them.

One day we were very surprised because they made us clean up. They gave us mess kits, and lowered mattresses into the hold for all of us. That day a delegation came from the International Red Cross. As soon as the Red Cross left they took away our mattresses and we never saw them again. In rare cases the Navy was interested in hiding the very serious tortures inflicted on people the international organizations asked after, or whose death might cause a scandal abroad. These people were taken to the Naval Hospital, where some of them committed suicide. This happened, as I know for certain, with a girl who had been repeatedly raped. When she committed suicide, all the fourth floor personnel were summoned to the hospital to find out who had allowed the suicide to happen.

When the news came that the Lebu had been sold for scrap, they released me under the supervision of the military police district commissariat. I had to present myself there every day for checking. Once they had the new concentration camp ready [the torture camp in Colliguay Alto, Valparaiso, where the ships' prisoners were transferred in December], they rearrested the people who had been freed. Before they sent me home under guard, they tried to leave me psychologically conditioned and they took me to the Academy of War for a new torture session. I was there four days. I realized their methods had gotten much crueler and more refined They beat me more often and they used more electricity. I nearly lost my mind, not so much because of my own suffering hut because of that of people weaker than myself. I saw young university women who were unspeakably tortured; one of them, who was pregnant, had been repeatedly struck on the stomach and was showing symptoms of aborting. Men over sixty had been burned all over their bodies with cigarettes and electricity. Men and women had their fingernails pulled out with pliers. Afterward, they took me to the Navy Infantry's Silva Palma barracks. After two days, they inexplicably set me free, demanding that I present myself once a day for checking and not tell what I had seen. I never found out why I was arrested, since I didn't know about any weapons at the university. I wasn't an extremist, and I didn't belong to any leftist party. I had only participated in the volunteer youth work programs, as had all the other university students. I had excellent grades, and my professors thought highly of me. My parents asked the rector to intercede on my behalf, and perhaps that's why they let me go. The fascists are so arbitrary that I'll never know why.

 

[Bartholomew]

The US gives more foreign aid than any other country.

Both your statement and mine are factually true from different points of view. Don't you love spin?

No, your statement is factually false from any point of view. Japan gives more foreign aid than the USA in terms of sheer capital, not just percentage of GNP.

 

[Bartholomew]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don

 

[fourier jr]

re: pinochet yes i think torture has been the rule rather than an exception in south america.

 

[Burnsys]

re: pinochet yes i think torture has been the rule rather than an exception in south america.

And they where all trained in the School of americas.
-------------------------------------------------------
The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American security personnel in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians. (See Grads in the News.)

In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school. The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten vote margin.

In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation.

They tell us they are teaching DEMOCRACY.
We say "How do you teach democracy through the barrel of a gun?"

 

[russ_watters]

No, your statement is factually false from any point of view. Japan gives more foreign aid than the USA in terms of sheer capital, not just percentage of GNP.

Your numbers are old (1999 and 1997). http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html

In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion.

With the war on terror and reconstruction of Iraq/Afghanistan, our numbers would be off the scale today, but I can't find a good source. And it is important to note that Japan is a special case: since they don't have much of a military (due to the treaty ending WWII), they give a considerable amount of money to foreign militaries/military operations. Whereas we spent millions sending a carrier battle group to Indonesia after the tsunami (probably $100 million in material aid that does not get added to our total), Japan being almost right next door didn't have ships to send, so it sent money (which does get added to its total). Japan also spent a considerable sum financing part of Gulf I.

Following that reasoning, the US never gets any credit for the money spent on its military. Every time a European power (or Canada) decreases its military, its because the US is so strong and that is money spent by us so they don't have to spend money. And more directly, things like Kosovo, Somalia, and Gulf I cost the US a lot of money for the benefit of other countries. That's foreign aid. So while it is factually true using certain criteria that we rank last of 22 developed nations, I don't accept the criterea as being reasonable or objective.

 

[franznietzsche]

exactly man, they preach peace and brotherhood on sundays, but they practice it on no day.. they use violence everywhere, they used violence in Korea, they used violence in Vietnam, but when it comes time for you and me to fight for our freedom, our basic human rights, they tell us to be nonviolent. They are not a democracy, they are a hypocrisy.. (sorry, i was just listening to Malcolm's speech in Detroit, just in the mood to type it..)

Seriously, my actual point, Russ talks about all these helpful things the US has done for South America in an almost paternal way, and refers to the South Americans has the prodigal sons who have not yet returned, and are still out.. But the truth shows that the US has followed an almost ruthless policy towards the South Americans, and ever-changing policy that changes to suit America's interest.. History shows that anything the American army did in South America, it wasn't for the people of that land, it was for America herself, it was for Sam...

1954 - Arbenz, a democratically elected president of Guatemala, he seizes some lands of the United Fruit company, that has been idle for many years and promises them that he will pay back its worth... What does America do? It accuses him of communism, trains army to overthrow him, and thrones a dictator, Armas, who murders 100000 citizens.. Now if i was the prodigal son in this case, I would have burned down the father's house..

1961- US overthrows a democratically elected president of Ecuador, because he has close relations with Cuba..

1973 - the US, supposedly protecting the good interests of the S. American people according to Russ, puts in power a dictator named Pinochet in Chile who goes on to murder more than a 100,000 innocent civilians.. I suppose it was for the good of the people, eh russ? :uhh:

1989 - the US goes into remove Noreiga, because he doesn't follow their plans, even thought they were the ones who trained him..

And because Noriega was heavily involved in the drug trade. Noriega was a dictator, and not elected.

Also, not many people may know this, but the final hours of Noriega's freedom is an interesting story. He fled to the Papal nuncio to hide from american troops. So what did we do? We obviously couldn't storm the Vatican's embassy, so we blasted it with heavy metal rock music nonstop until he surrendered.

Of course our policy has always been to suit our own interest, what else would we do? That would be called capitalism, FYI.

I don't know how old russ is, but everyone of thos incidents that you quote happened before i was two years old (the only one in my lifetime was Noriega). Using them as counter-points to any modern policy opinions is pointless.

And as for our use of violnce...

I hate to break it to you, those were wars. You know, where other people shoot our people and we fight back. Vietnam was sparked by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There has been much speculation about what actually happened, but the official story is that a US destroyer (IIRC) was attacked.

In Korea we where defending an ally in a NATO style agreement, which dictates that if any country in the treaty is attacked, it is the same as attacking all of them. Incidently this also means that the European nations, ingrates that they are, still have our gauranteed protection should they be attacked, by terrorists or sovereign nations.

PLease fix your use of the word hypocrisy, its entirely incorrect in that usage. Your attempt at making a play on words was pitiful.

They tell us they are teaching DEMOCRACY.
We say "How do you teach democracy through the barrel of a gun?"

"Vote or Die" ?

*For those of you who don't get it, that was an add campaign by the american left on MTV to motivate young people to vote.




Ok for all you US-haters out there, here is my personal solution to all your problems:

US retracts all foreign aid(except Israel, since they're the only nation that is ever appreciative of anything we've done). Withdraws from UN, and NATO. Downsizes military to a primarily defensive force. Slam China on the trade deficit, either with massive taxes, or just flat out closing US markets to chinese goods. Or better yet, make any company selling a product in the US obey US labour laws wherever it is producing them (this essentially means all our companies going to India and china would be better off back here).

See how well off you are then.

 

[klusener]

I hate to break it to you, those were wars. You know, where other people shoot our people and we fight back. Vietnam was sparked by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There has been much speculation about what actually happened, but the official story is that a US destroyer (IIRC) was attacked.

In Korea we where defending an ally in a NATO style agreement, which dictates that if any country in the treaty is attacked, it is the same as attacking all of them. Incidently this also means that the European nations, ingrates that they are, still have our gauranteed protection should they be attacked, by terrorists or sovereign nations.

I am not saying it is wrong to retaliate in wars, but at the same time what your politicians were saying back in the 1960s was that black people shouldn't retaliate even when they were being lynched by racist whites, even MLK was saying it, and when somebody came (Malcolm, Kwame, Huey, H. Brown) saying that black people should defend themselves when they are being hung from a tree, the press and the gov. started accusing them of reverse racism... That's what I mean is wrong...

 

[klusener]

I don't know how old russ is, but everyone of thos incidents that you quote happened before i was two years old (the only one in my lifetime was Noriega). Using them as counter-points to any modern policy opinions is pointless.

So, what.. I am just saying if this was what the past "HELP" was like, why do you expect the S. Americans to come to you asking for help? (That's basically the query here, Russ says that they are being non-appreciative of America's help in the past and instead should be thankful).. I am asking why? For population reduction?

 

[Bartholomew]

Point taken, that my numbers are old. The US now is probably the largest distributor of foreign aid in terms of capital. Nonetheless, we spend a shamefully small amount on foreign aid for a country as large as we are.

If Japan gives money to foreign militaries, this is not included in Japan's foreign aid total. Foreign aid is defined to only apply to developing countries, and it must have a main purpose of promoting the economic development of those countries.

The "war on terror" as foreign aid is a joke. The war on terror is an election campaign combined with oil interests. In general, waging war is not foreign aid. Wars are always waged for foreign policy reasons.

As to our army allowing other countries to reduce the size of their armies, that's ridiculous. China has a huge army, you might as well credit them with the same. If any country has nuclear bombs it is in no danger of being taken over by military force.

 

[franznietzsche]

I am not saying it is wrong to retaliate in wars, but at the same time what your politicians were saying back in the 1960s was that black people shouldn't retaliate even when they were being lynched by racist whites, even MLK was saying it, and when somebody came (Malcolm, Kwame, Huey, H. Brown) saying that black people should defend themselves when they are being hung from a tree, the press and the gov. started accusing them of reverse racism... That's what I mean is wrong...

No you misunderstand MLKs message entirely.

He wanted that whites and blacks be equals, perfect societal equals. Malcolm verged on preaching black supremacy, putting him dangerously close to the same moral ground as the KKK.

What MLK knew was that if you fought back by killing whites, you would not win. Would it be fair, eye for an eye? Yes. Would it work? No. By being peaceful however, he took the moral high ground, by being peaceful he proved that he was better than those he was fighting against. That is why he is respected. Because he was a better man, a better human being than those he was fighting against.

Was reciprocal violence against whites a fair doctrine? Yes. But it was no better, morally, than what racist whites were doing. It was still racial violence.

I will be the first to say that violence is sometimes necessary, but it is still rarely the best choice.

The day the palestinians learn from MLK is the day Israel is royally screwed. Israel's hard liners will never back down, even now they're threatening to assassinate sharon for seeking peace. If the palestinians took up peaceful resistance against the israeli hardliners, even US opinion would turn against Israel. The American people would not permit their government to support a nation that killed people in peaceful protest. But because the palestinians insist on violence, and a culture of violence against civilians, they ensure that US support remains with Israel. Is palestinian retaliatory violence fair? Yes. Is it the best course of action for them? Absolutely not. But they are too blinded by a culture of violence to ever see that. They simply don't get it.

As to our army allowing other countries to reduce the size of their armies, that's ridiculous. China has a huge army, you might as well credit them with the same. If any country has nuclear bombs it is in no danger of being taken over by military force.

You have a rather weak grasp of international politics. By many many treaties (NATO and equivalents in particular) we are bound to protect our allies in the event that they are attacked by anyone. South Korea, Japan, most of Europe are all gauranteed our protection. So they can downsize their militaries all they want--they have ours to their fighting for them. China is at odds with us, and needs that military. China is one of the few major nations not in a mutual defense treaty with the US.

And as for nuclear weapons, that's not a good defenseive strategy. Russia, the US, and China all have policies of a total retaliatory response in the event of a nuclear attack by any sovereign power, and i would be very surprised if western europe was any different. Relying on nuclear weapons for self defense is a sure-fire way to gaurantee your people's extinction in the event of a war.

 

[klusener]

Absolutely not. But they are too blinded by a culture of violence to ever see that. They simply don't get it.

See when other countries are retaliating, you want them to be peaceful, but when your country gets bombed, you want to get revenge on those people...

 

[Bartholomew]

And as for nuclear weapons, that's not a good defenseive strategy. Russia, the US, and China all have policies of a total retaliatory response in the event of a nuclear attack by any sovereign power, and i would be very surprised if western europe was any different. Relying on nuclear weapons for self defense is a sure-fire way to gaurantee your people's extinction in the event of a war.

You don't do a nuclear _attack_, you do a nuclear _counterattack_. The threat is always there, so nobody will be dumb enough to attack you. Mutual Assured Destruction. If North Korea develops nukes with enough range to hit US cities, do you think we're going to invade them to topple their regime?

 

[klusener]

Was reciprocal violence against whites a fair doctrine? Yes. But it was no better, morally, than what racist whites were doing. It was still racial violence.

Franz, the people I am talking didn't want to go out in the streets murdering racist whites, they wanted black people to defend themselves when they were being lynched using any means necessary and when you defend yourself when someone is trying to kill you, that's not called violence, that'called self-defense, or in better terms intelligence...

What MLK wanted was black people saying "oh Lord, please forgive them for they know not what they do" when they were being lynched.. Well, as long as they (KKK, White Citizens Council, etc.. the racist orgs..) have been doing it, they are experts at it... I just can't stand that ideology, I am all for peace as the next person, but you don't just let yourself be killed without standing up..

 

[franznietzsche]

See when other countries are retaliating, you want them to be peaceful, but when your country gets bombed, you want to get revenge on those people...

Becuase if we sit in the middle of the road bloacking terrorist tanks...oh wait

They'd just kill us anyway and claim victory.

And i don't think the Israeli hardliners should act that way, i tihnk they are wrong. I think that Israel should pull out of WB, and let the Palestinians have their own state.

But Hamas murdering Israeli civilians does not help them get that.

 

[franznietzsche]

You don't do a nuclear _attack_, you do a nuclear _counterattack_. The threat is always there, so nobody will be dumb enough to attack you. Mutual Assured Destruction. If North Korea develops nukes with enough range to hit US cities, do you think we're going to invade them to topple their regime?

You get invaded by traditional military.

You launch a nuclear attack.

You get wiped out.

Thats about how it would go.

We wouldn't attack, but other countries might. Not all the world's governments care about their citizens. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. Do you think he would have cared?

 

[franznietzsche]

Franz, the people I am talking didn't want to go out in the streets murdering racist whites, they wanted black people to defend themselves when they were being lynched using any means necessary and when you defend yourself when someone is trying to kill you, that's not called violence, that'called self-defense, or in better terms intelligence...

Self-defense is a human right, sure. But Malcolm didn't preach peaceful self-defense. By all means, if someone is trying to hang you, fight back. Thats not the same as going out and hanging the KKK member who lynched a black man the week before.

 

[Bartholomew]

What if North Korea has twenty big ICBM nukes? Nobody--not Saddam Hussein, nobody--would be crazy enough to attack them then. N.K. could scrape the dirt off any small country with that, and demolish the economy (not to mention the population) of any large country.

 

[klusener]

Self-defense is a human right, sure. But Malcolm didn't preach peaceful self-defense. By all means, if someone is trying to hang you, fight back. Thats not the same as going out and hanging the KKK member who lynched a black man the week before.

Franz, explain what "peaceful self-defense" is.. How do you defend yourself peacefully when someone is trying to kill you?

 

[Bartholomew]

Hardly anybody would be crazy enough to invade a country with even two or three big ICBM nukes. I doubt Saddam Hussein would have done it, even if he had a very good reason to--he'd have to evacuate himself and all his friends from his country during the attack, and he'd probably be out of power within a week after his action.

 

[russ_watters]

If Japan gives money to foreign militaries, this is not included in Japan's foreign aid total. Foreign aid is defined to only apply to developing countries, and it must have a main purpose of promoting the economic development of those countries.

And that is my point. Why is this money not included?

The "war on terror" as foreign aid is a joke.

I could have worded that better: I don't mean the war itself, I mean the rebuilding of those two countries.

As to our army allowing other countries to reduce the size of their armies, that's ridiculous. China has a huge army, you might as well credit them with the same.

China is not a member of NATO. What do you think the debate sounds like in European countries (and Canada) when they discuss miliary funding? They come right out and say it: 'we don't need a military: the US will protect us.' (yeah, I'll look for a quote). But even if you don't buy the military funding itself, the uses of the military are straightforward: when the UN or NATO does a major military action, its the US doing most of the work.

http://heartofthematter.typepad.com/the_heart_of_the_matter/2005/01/canadas_militar.html is a Canadian blog on the subject:

I feel that the reason why Canada constantly harps on its peacekeeping role has everything to do with ideology and nothing with the rational defense of a country.

This is the mindset that befalls a country that has lived for too long under the wing of a far superior country. They get smug and self-righteous thinking they can sudenly dictate to others how war should be avoided and how we all need simple diplomacy to ease pains. They seem to forget that if it wasn't for the US, we'd be bowing either to Hitler, Stalin or Allah.

As much as certain Canucks like to claim Canada is not beholden to the US for anything -- is in fact under threat by America -- the fact of the matter is we all know that if a terrorist bomb goes off in Ottawa tommorrow, it will be US soldiers on the ground with canucks following them.

 

[Bartholomew]

The USA plays fast and loose with international law. We do what we want. If according to NATO we should do something or other, but it's in the interests of those in power to do something else, we're not going to follow NATO. The USA is a huge dangerous animal. By the way, your Canadian blog seems to be from someone on the political fringe.

--and it's not as if you need a big army to fight terrorists. You need a big police force and intelligence network to do that; the USA's huge army can't protect anyone, not even itself, from terrorist attacks. We can invade places, but we can't find the terrorists. If terrorists attack Canada, yes, the USA's troops will be right there in a few hours. So they mill around and "secure the perimeter." But the attack's already over; it's not as if we'd be "protecting" them from anything.

--and it's not as if terrorists are much of a threat anyways. Deaths to terrorists are miniscule. Every 7 hours as many people die in the USA as died in the 9/11 attacks.