 |
|
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.
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
To clarify - references to anyone esle besides Kate Harris, she's dirty as sin. Like that guy who ripped off the microphone, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
You mean Marxists are not convinced by carrots. But are they convinced by the whip?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JCG
|
 |
between a rock and a hard place
Feb 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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).
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
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 bullshit.
Not exactly in plentiful supply in South America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2004 09:53
|
|