# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Top Bolivian coup plotters were School of the Americas grads,served as attachés

## Origanalist

*Top Bolivian coup plotters were School of the Americas grads, served as attachés in FBI police programs*



The US played a key role in the military coup in Bolivia, and in a direct way that has scarcely been acknowledged in accounts of the events that forced the countrys elected president, Evo Morales, to resign on November 10. 

Just prior to Morales resignation, the commander of Bolivias armed forces Williams Kaliman suggested that the president step down. A day earlier, sectors of the countrys police force had rebelled. 

Though Kaliman appears to have feigned loyalty to Morales over the years, his true colors showed as soon as the moment of opportunity arrived. He was not only an actor in the coup, he had his own history in Washington, where he had briefly served as the military attaché of Bolivias embassy in the US capital. 

Kaliman sat at the top of a military and police command structure that has been substantially cultivated by the US through WHINSEC, the military training school in Fort Benning, Georgia known in the past as the School of the Americas. Kaliman himself attended a course called Comando y Estado Mayor at the SOA in 2003.

At least six of the key coup plotters were former alumni of the infamous School of the Americas, while Kaliman and another figure served in the past as Bolivias military and police attachés in Washington. 

Within the Bolivian police, top commanders who helped launch the coup have passed through the APALA police exchange program. Working out of Washington DC, APALA functions to build relations between US authorities and police officials from Latin American states. Despite its influence, or perhaps because of it, the program maintains little public presence. Its staff was impossible for this researcher to reach by phone.

It is common for governments to assign a few number of individuals to work at their countrys embassies abroad as military or police attachés. The late Philip Agee, a one-time CIA case officer who became the agencys first whistleblower, explained in his 1975 tell-all book how US intelligence traditionally relied on the recruitment of foreign military and police officers, including embassy attachés, as critical assets in regime change and counter-insurgency operations. 

As I found from the more than 11,000 FOIA documents I obtained while writing my book on the paramilitary campaign waged in the lead up to the February 2004 ouster of Haitis elected government and the post-coup repression, US officials worked for years to ingratiate themselves and establish connections with Haitian police, army, and ex-army officials. These connections as well as the recruitment and information gathering efforts eventually paid off.

In Bolivia, too, the role of military and police officials trained by the US was pivotal in forcing regime change. US government agencies such as USAID have openly financed anti-Morales groups in the country for many years. But the way that the countrys security forces were used as a Trojan Horse by US intelligence services is less understood. With Moraless forced departure, however, it became impossible to deny how critical a factor this was.

As this investigation will establish, the coup plot could not have succeeded without the enthusiastic approval of the countrys military and police commanders. And their consent was influenced heavily by the US, where so many were groomed and educated for insurrection.

Leaked audio exposes School of the Americas grads plotting a coup

Leaked audio reported on Bolivian news website la época (and by elperiodicocr.com and a range of national media outlets) reveals that covert coordination took place between current and former Bolivian police, military, and opposition leaders in bringing about the coup.

The leaked audio recordings show that former Cochabamba mayor and former presidential candidate Manfred Reyes Villa played a central role in the plot. Reyes happens to be an alumni of WHINSEC (the School of the Americas [SOA]) who currently resides in the US. 

The other four who are introduced or introduce themselves by name in the leaked audio are General Remberto Siles Vasquez (audio 12); Colonel Julio César Maldonado Leoni (audio 8 and 9); Colonel Oscar Pacello Aguirre (audio 14), and Colonel Teobaldo Cardozo Guevara (audio 10). All four of these ex-military officials attended the SOA. 

Cardozo Guevara, in particular, boasts about his connections amongst active officers.

The identities of these individuals are confirmed by cross-checking the data of the Schools of Americas Watch lists of alumni with Facebook and local Bolivian news articles and the leaked audio recordings. 

The School of the Americas is a notorious site of education for Latin American coup plotters dating back to the height of the Cold War. Brutal regime change and reprisal operations from Haiti to Honduras have been carried out by SOA graduates, and some of the most bloodstained juntas in the regions history have been run by the schools alumni. 

continued..http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...lice-programs/

----------


## Swordsmyth

I don't care.
Morales was a cheating commie swine.
Our government shouldn't be interfering in foreign countries and we should do what we can to stop it but I'm not going to shed one tear for Morales or think for one moment that Bolivia would have been better off if he had remained.

Bolivia is better off with Morales gone.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't care.
> Morales was a cheating commie swine.
> Our government shouldn't be interfering in foreign countries and we should do what we can to stop it but I'm not going to shed one tear for Morales or think for one moment that Bolivia would have been better off if he had remained.
> 
> Bolivia is better off with Morales gone.


That's kind of a conflicting statement. You can't really have it both ways. Either you're against our interfering all over the world or you're not.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's kind of a conflicting statement. You can't really have it both ways. Either you're against our interfering all over the world or you're not.


I'm against it because we shouldn't be involved but that doesn't mean that the outcome was bad this time or that Morales didn't cheat and shouldn't have been thrown out by the people of Bolivia.
Because I can't stop intervention by our government right now I also look at the event without considering that aspect and see what happened as a good thing, if some other country had done it or if it had been organic in Bolivia I wouldn't object at all.

----------


## Swordsmyth

*Bolivia: Police Arrest Cubans Caught Paying Socialist Rioters*

----------


## Swordsmyth

Morales was the one engaged in a coup:


*Former Bolivian President Evo Morales ran for a fourth term in office in  the October 20 election after forcing the nation’s constitutional court  to find that he had a “human right” to run despite constitutional term  limits.* This weekend, the Organization of American States (OAS) published  their preliminary findings from a probe of that election that amassed  significant evidence of election fraud. Morales responded to the report  by voluntarily resigning, fleeing to Mexico, then declaring that he was  the victim of a “coup.”

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...alist-rioters/

----------


## Origanalist

> *Bolivia: Police Arrest Cubans Caught Paying Socialist Rioters*






> Morales was the one engaged in a coup:
> 
> 
> *Former Bolivian President Evo Morales ran for a fourth term in office in  the October 20 election after forcing the nation’s constitutional court  to find that he had a “human right” to run despite constitutional term  limits.* This weekend, the Organization of American States (OAS) published  their preliminary findings from a probe of that election that amassed  significant evidence of election fraud. Morales responded to the report  by voluntarily resigning, fleeing to Mexico, then declaring that he was  the victim of a “coup.”
> 
> More at: https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...alist-rioters/


You trot out a couple articles from an obvious interventionist at Breitbart and make my case for me. This is a person that was giddy over Bolton. Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a interventionist or you're not. You can't say you refuse to listen to a "obvious propagandist" then roll out one of your own.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You trot out a couple articles from an obvious interventionist at Breitbart and make my case for me. This is a person that was giddy over Bolton. Again, you can't have it both ways. You're either a interventionist or you're not. You can't say you refuse to listen to a "obvious propagandist" then roll out one of your own.


It's a fact that Morales violated their constitution to run again.
It is also a fact that other communist countries intervene all over the world.

And I don't have to support American involvement to say it is a good thing he is gone.

----------


## Origanalist

Those Cubans must have some deep pockets..

*Massive Anti-Coup Protests Explode Across Bolivia*

Chanting “resign now” to Bolivia’s interim, self-declared president Jeanine Añez, protesters across the Latin American country on Friday made their displeasure with the overthrow of the government by right-wing Christian extremists last Sunday known.

Thousands of demonstrators marched through the cities of La Paz and El Alto. Friday’s protests follow days of unrest as the Bolivian people rejected Sunday’s coup, which forced democratically-elected President Evo Morales to resign and flee the country.

Friday’s demonstrations were a show of force by the Bolivian people against the coup government. Video and photographs from the country showed long stretching lines of people waving the Indigenous wiphala flag and calling for Añez to step down.

https://twitter.com/Gerrrty/status/1195387867595452418

----------


## r3volution 3.0

The popular view is that anything done by outside intervention, US or otherwise, is therefore wrong. This was a view often promoted by the Soviets during the Cold War (only in relation to US, French, etc intervention, not their own, of course). There was lots of talk of imperialists, capitalist raiders, mega-corporations, and other evil-sounding things. This apparently continues:




> As I found from the more than 11,000 FOIA documents I obtained while  writing my book on the paramilitary campaign waged in the lead up to the  February 2004 ouster of Haiti’s elected government and the post-coup  repression, US officials worked for years to ingratiate themselves and  establish connections with Haitian police, army, and ex-army officials.  These connections as well as the recruitment and information gathering  efforts eventually paid off.


The implication is that there's something wrong with this; that that coup d'etat which the US allegedly caused was for the worse. Was it? I don't know. I'm not a Haiti observer. Given the kinds of governments which Haiti has enjoyed since its independence from France, whatever dictatorship the CIA allegedly foisted upon the island may well have been an improvement - or maybe not. The point is that journalists almost always operate on the unspoken assumption that self-determination trumps all, and impress upon their audiences the idea that any changes wrought by foreign powers are necessarily for the worse. The Chileans (some of them) want to establish a bolshevik regime and slaughter their opponents? Great. What right do we (evil capitalist meddlers) have to interfere...?

Again, I reserve my judgment about this thing in Bolivia; this is a general comment.

----------


## acptulsa

At the end of the day, meddling empires sow money and reap resentment.  If the bankers can create money from debt like junk bonds which are legal tender, however, the bankers will bribe the government well to reap resentment.

Meanwhile, populations who shoot themselves in the foot don't tend to blame other countries.

----------


## Origanalist

> The popular view is that anything done by outside intervention, US or otherwise, is therefore wrong. This was a view often promoted by the Soviets during the Cold War (only in relation to US, French, etc intervention, not their own, of course). There was lots of talk of imperialists, capitalist raiders, mega-corporations, and other evil-sounding things. This apparently continues:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication is that there's something wrong with this; that that coup d'etat which the US allegedly caused was for the worse. Was it? I don't know. I'm not a Haiti observer. Given the kinds of governments which Haiti has enjoyed since its independence from France, whatever dictatorship the CIA allegedly foisted upon the island may well have been an improvement - or maybe not. The point is that journalists almost always operate on the unspoken assumption that self-determination trumps all, and impress upon their audiences the idea that any changes wrought by foreign powers are necessarily for the worse. The Chileans (some of them) want to establish a bolshevik regime and slaughter their opponents? Great. What right do we (evil capitalist meddlers) have to interfere...?
> 
> Again, I reserve my judgment about this thing in Bolivia; this is a general comment.


Good, then you pay for it. And while you're at it, make sure to let the rest of the world know that this sort of thing doesn't bother you and post your address.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Good, then you pay for it.


And take all the credit/blame for the results.

----------


## Origanalist

> And take all the credit/blame for the results.


I was editing my post as you typed.

----------


## Firestarter

How peculiar!
In another thread, @Swordsmyth took offence of some less than flattering remarks on poor Donald Trump, who apparently “_can give two positions in one speech_”.
In that thread Swordsmyth repeatedly wrote, that “_we should think for ourselves_”: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ch-(flashback)


Now in this thread, Swordsmyth apparently doesn’t agree that those silly Bolivians have the right to vote for some Socialist “commie”…



> I don't care.
> Morales was a cheating commie swine.





> Morales was the one engaged in a coup:





> It's a fact that Morales violated their constitution to run again.
> It is also a fact that other communist countries intervene all over the world.





> Bolivia is full of communists, it only takes enough money to pay the ringleaders.
> 
> Let me know when you think of a reason Evil Moralless should have been able to violate their constitution and run again.





> But that doesn't mean I'm going to spend one second crying for a cheating commie swine or think that his overthrow was a bad thing for his country.
> We shouldn't interfere for our own sake whether the result is good or bad but in this case the result was NOT bad.





> And even if right and wrong was determined by popular vote it seems Evil Moralless cheated and the vote was against him.





> But this can't be called a coup when Evil Moralless not only cheated in the vote counting but violated their constitution to even run.
> Those calling it a coup are commies trying to use the issue of foreign interference to portray the removal of a cheat as something bad.
> The commies always jump on situations like this and make martyrs of their tyrants, many people fell for it when the Chilean legislature impeached Allende and when he refuse to leave office told the military to remove him.
> And many people can't oppose our intervention without taking the side of whoever the target is even when the target is an evil commie cheat.



Personally I find it disgusting that some shyll doesn’t even try to hide that it contradicts itself over and over again in defence of some flavour of politrics…
But I sort of agree with this statement!


> You are making it very easy to expose you as a liar.

----------


## Firestarter

Look how wonderful, Yankee puppet Jeanine Anez has earlier “_recognized Juan Guaidó as acting president of Venezuela_”.

Maybe the motive for this coup was that Bolivia doesn’t export enough cocaine?!?
In 2017, Anez’s nephew was arrested in Brazil for smuggling 480 kilos of drugs. Because of this, security minister Carlos Romero called Anez’s position in the senate "rogue": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_%C3%81%C3%B1ez

----------


## Firestarter

Because of all of this “green energy” propaganda, Lithium has become a popular commodity (used in electric cars).
The military coup in Bolivia was staged within a week after President Evo Morales cancelled an agreement (on 4 November) with the German company ACI Systems Alemania (ACISA) for developing lithium.

Somewhat underreported were the protests from residents of the Potosí area about the pollution caused by developing lithium. The Potosí region in Bolivia has an estimated 50% to 70% of the world's lithium reserves: https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...s-lithium-deal
(http://archive.is/RFjTm)


Here’s a video on the military coup.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How peculiar!
> In another thread, @Swordsmyth took offence of some less than flattering remarks on poor Donald Trump, who apparently “_can give two positions in one speech_”.
> In that thread Swordsmyth repeatedly wrote, that “_we should think for ourselves_”: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ch-(flashback)
> 
> 
> Now in this thread, Swordsmyth apparently doesn’t agree that those silly Bolivians have the right to vote for some Socialist “commie”…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you think communists have a right to violate their own Constitution and commit voter fraud?

I find that disgusting.

----------


## Firestarter

> So you think communists have a right to violate their own Constitution and commit voter fraud?


None other than illegitimate usurper president Jeanine Anez breached articles 161 and 169 of the Bolivian Constitution.
According to art. 161 the Legislative Assembly’s include “_accept(ing) or reject(ing) the resignation of the president (and) vice president_”.

According to art. 169:



> In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days.
> 
> In case of temporary absence, the Vice President shall assume the Presidency for a term not to exceed ninety days.


Before the CIA coup, most Bolivians knew little or nothing about Anez, who was elected to Bolivia’s Senate in 2014 with (only) 91,895 votes (1.7% of 5,171,428 votes).

In support of the CIA-coup, Twitter created 4,492 accounts in only 2 days.
Luciano  Galup noted that 3,612 of those accounts have less than 2 followers: https://stephenlendman.org/2019/11/c...cy-in-bolivia/


Please show us some of the horrible misdeeds that "commie" Bolivian President Evo Morales perpetrated.
Or "evidence" of voter fraud...


Morales invited the international community to audit the election results, saying: “_Let them come here. Let them know how much they have earned_”.
So the Trump administration obviously doesn't want that!

During the time Morales was president, Bolivia had “_an unprecedented decade of political and social stability and a growth rate between 4% and 6%_” — a respectable 4.2% in 2018: https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-cou...orales/5694446


The CIA has always supported the most violent regimes...
Ironically Anglo-American intelligence (and funds) have actively supported (installed) the Communist regimes of the USSR, China and Cuba: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...hp?f=23&t=1154

----------


## Swordsmyth

> None other than illegitimate usurper president Jeanine Anez breached articles 161 and 169 of the Bolivian Constitution.
> According to art. 161 the Legislative Assembly’s include “_accept(ing) or reject(ing) the resignation of the president (and) vice president_”.
> 
> According to art. 169:
> 
> 
> Before the CIA coup, most Bolivians knew little or nothing about Anez, who was elected to Bolivia’s Senate in 2014 with (only) 91,895 votes (1.7% of 5,171,428 votes).
> 
> In support of the CIA-coup, Twitter created 4,492 accounts in only 2 days.
> ...


Since Evil Moralless was not eligible to run again then it matters little whether those who accuse him of fraud in the voting are correct because his running again was cheating in and of itself.

I don't know if the person who replaced him is legitimate or following the rules and I never said they were.

----------


## acptulsa

> Since Evil Moralless was not eligible to run again then it matters little whether those who accuse him of fraud in the voting are correct because his running again was cheating in and of itself.
> 
> I don't know if the person who replaced him is legitimate or following the rules and I never said they were.


Only problem is, term limits were struck down by their version of the Supreme Court in 2017.

And what brought this on?  They put Bolivia in violation of an agreement they had signed onto.

And what prompted them to sign onto this pact?  Meddling by the Organization of American States.

https://nacla.org/news/2017/12/20/bo...ye-term-limits

Always fun when U.S. meddling creates a problem which can only be solved by the U.S. military.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Only problem is, term limits were struck down by their version of the Supreme Court in 2017.
> 
> And what brought this on?  They put Bolivia in violation of an agreement they had signed onto.
> 
> And what prompted them to sign onto this pact?  Meddling by the Organization of American States.
> 
> https://nacla.org/news/2017/12/20/bo...ye-term-limits
> 
> Always fun when U.S. meddling creates a problem which can only be solved by the U.S. military.


He lost the vote to end term limits so he got activist judges to "interpret" them as in violation of an international agreement but such an international agreement can't override a Constitution.

Or do you support the breaching of the US Constitution through international agreements and judicial "interpretation"?

----------


## acptulsa

> He lost the vote to end term limits so he got activist judges to "interpret" them as in violation of an international agreement but such an international agreement can't override a Constitution.
> 
> Or do you support the breaching of the US Constitution through international agreements and judicial "interpretation"?


The Constitution itself names the judiciary as the ultimate arbitors of what the Constitution means.  So that part of that question means nothing.

As far as your theory about what prompted the ruling, the fact remains that the OAS clearly gave the court everything it needed to do it.  No meddling, no ruling.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The Constitution itself names the judiciary as the ultimate arbitors of what the Constitution means.  So that part of that question means nothing.
> 
> As far as your theory about what prompted the ruling, the fact remains that the OAS clearly gave the court everything it needed to do it.  No meddling, no ruling.


The court can't "interpret" away the plain meaning of the text and it didn't try, it found that an international agreement overrode the Constitution and it had to "interpret" the international agreement to claim that it allowed him to run an unlimited number of times in violation of the will of the people.

The people had every right to overthrow such a lawless government and even had a duty to do so, the only problem in any of it is that we shouldn't have been involved which I have said multiple times.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Good, then you pay for it. And while you're at it, make sure to let the rest of the world know that this sort of thing doesn't bother you and post your address.


The same applies to you paying for the security of your neighbors one county over.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The same applies to you paying for the security of your neighbors one county over.


The security of the next county over affects my security far more than the security of Bolivia.

----------


## Origanalist

> The same applies to you paying for the security of your neighbors one county over.


Who says I do?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Who says I do?


In a civilized society, the cost of basic security is socialized.

This is what a minarchist state means. 

I appreciate that some people here, yourself included evidently, are anarchists.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The security of the next county over affects my security far more than the security of Bolivia.


LOL, so, @Origanalist, this fellow agrees, except only certain, specific foreigners are to be outside the circle of protection.

Mexicans, for instance, do not deserve good treatment.

----------


## Origanalist

> In a civilized society, the cost of basic security is socialized.
> 
> This is what a minarchist state means. 
> 
> I appreciate that some people here, yourself included evidently, are anarchists.


Lol, I think we've gone just a tad beyond basic security. And I reject your premise anyway. Socializing the cost is what got us here.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL, so, @Origanalist, this fellow agrees, except only certain, specific foreigners are to be outside the circle of protection.
> 
> Mexicans, for instance, do not deserve good treatment.


Those who share our culture and values such as liberty are worth joining with as need and willing agreement dictate, those who do not and are far away do not affect us and must fend for themselves.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Lol, I think we've gone just a tad beyond basic security. And I reject your premise anyway. Socializing the cost is what got us here.


You're complaining about the current government, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

States aren't inherently oppressive; certain kinds of states are. 

Discussion of this is verboten, so, keep voting or conspicuously not voting, or whatever it is you do. 

Oh well.

----------


## Origanalist

> You're complaining about the current government, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
> 
> *States aren't inherently oppressive*; certain kinds of states are. 
> 
> Discussion of this is verboten, so, keep voting or conspicuously not voting, or whatever it is you do. 
> 
> Oh well.


Of course they are.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Those who share our culture and values such as liberty are worth joining with as need and willing agreement dictate, those who do not and are far away do not affect us and must fend for themselves.


There is no society on the planet which adheres to libertarians values, nor will there be so long as these societies are democratic.

So, what we (libertarians) have on the menu is nationalists on the one side, and bolsheviks on the other.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There is no society on the planet which adheres to libertarians values, nor will there be so long as these societies are democratic.
> 
> So, what we (libertarians) have on the menu is nationalists on the one side, and bolsheviks on the other.


There are those that are closer and can be moved in our direction and those that are farther away and will not listen.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Of course they are.


Sure, compared to a world ruled by angels, or consisting of angels, which therefore needn't be ruled. 

My point was that the type of state matters a great deal. 

Not every state is Stalin 1932.

There are very important differences of degree.

How do you think that Western civilization developed in the first place?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There are those that are closer and can be moved in our direction and those that are farther away and will not listen.


There are 51% of voters who want freestuff, and they will get it till the whole enterprise collapses (for a shortage of freestuff).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There are 51% of voters who want freestuff, and they will get it till the whole enterprise collapses (for a shortage of freestuff).


That's not true if you select the correct allies.

----------


## acptulsa

> That's not true if you select the correct allies.


51% of the voters won't want free stuff if who picks what allies?

----------


## Origanalist

> Sure, compared to a world ruled by angels, or consisting of angels, which therefore needn't be ruled. 
> 
> My point was that the type of state matters a great deal. 
> 
> Not every state is Stalin 1932.
> 
> There are very important differences of degree.
> 
> How do you think that Western civilization developed in the first place?


You mean when they weren't fighting to conquer each other or avoid being conquered? Much of it came from the various churches in later years, earlier it came from great thinkers of the times. Plato, Socrates etc.. You could make the case for Rome I suppose but there were empires less oppressive prior to them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's not true if you select the correct allies.


LOL, that's quaint, but it's not true.

I think at some level you understand that it's over.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You mean when they weren't fighting to conquer each other or avoid being conquered? Much of it came from the various churches in later years, earlier it came from great thinkers of the times. Plato, Socrates etc.. You could make the case for Rome I suppose but there were empires less oppressive prior to them.


Socrates (God rest his pagan soul), Plato, and the whole gang (Livy, Cicero, the divine Tacitus, etc) don't matter.

What matters was that this army here had more or more-well-armed men than that one; and it's always been this way, and always will be. 

Belisarius! What a tragedy! Justinian! Basileus! 

Anyway, the West rose to prominence because it was in a state of political chaos, with each little lord competing against the other. 

However, this also, in the long run, by 1914, caused the destruction of Europe and its civilization. 

...because no one had been able to conquer the whole continent (though Charles V tried). 

So, kind of a mixed bag..

----------


## Origanalist

> Socrates (God rest his pagan soul), Plato, and the whole gang (Livy, Cicero, the divine Tacitus, etc) don't matter.
> 
> What matters was that this army here had more or more-well-armed men than that one; and it's always been this way, and always will be. 
> 
> Belisarius! What a tragedy! Justinian! Basileus! 
> 
> Anyway, the West rose to prominence because it was in a state of political chaos, with each little lord competing against the other. 
> 
> However, this also, in the long run, by 1914, caused the destruction of Europe and its civilization. 
> ...


Well, that's true, but by 1914 they weren't really "little lords" as you put it. The city/state concept was long gone.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, that's true, but by 1914 they weren't really "little lords" as you put it. The city/state concept was long gone.


Right, but that's part of my point. 

In, say, 1600, there were around 500 independent states in Germany alone. 

Then, because of the pressure of war, these were united, ultimately into the German Empire in 1871.

The political anarchy which characterized pre-modern Europe was inherently unstable.

----------


## Origanalist

> Right, but that's part of my point. 
> 
> In, say, 1600, there were around 500 independent states in Germany alone. 
> 
> Then, because of the pressure of war, these were united, ultimately into the German Empire in 1871.
> 
> The political anarchy which characterized pre-modern Europe was inherently unstable.


Do you feel that way also about pre-constitution America?  Do you think that forming a united state (which is ultimately what happened) was a good outcome?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Do you feel that way also about pre-constitution America?  Do you think that forming a united state (which is ultimately what happened) was a good outcome?


America before c. 1900 isn't important or interesting.

It was an extended camping vacation for Europeans. 

But, to answer your question, I would have preferred that the South secede successfully, without a war.

----------


## Origanalist

> America before c. 1900 isn't important or interesting.
> 
> It was an extended camping vacation for Europeans. 
> 
> But, to answer your question, I would have preferred that the South secede successfully, without a war.


I agree. But I wasn't referring to the civil war but the aftermath of the revolutionary war.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I agree. But I wasn't referring to the civil war but the aftermath of the revolutionary war.


My bad, I misunderstood. 

So, the question is whether I think that the American revolution was a good thing, more or less?

I'm basically indifferent on this question.

Britain had already fallen to the revolution (1649); it was no longer a monarchy in any meaningful sense. 

If the US had not become independent then, it would have become independent as South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did.

In the world wars, which is when these relations really mattered, the US acted like a British colony anyway.

----------


## Origanalist

> My bad, I misunderstood. 
> 
> So, the question is whether I think that the American revolution was a good thing, more or less?
> 
> I'm basically indifferent on this question.
> 
> Britain had already fallen to the revolution (1649); it was no longer a monarchy in any meaningful sense. 
> 
> If the US had not become independent then, it would have become independent as South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did.
> ...


I'm sorry, I should be more clear. How do you think the various States should have proceeded after winning the Revolutionary War? Do you think writing and enforcing the Constitution was the optimal course to take or should the various States have remained as such with a much more limited agreement-alliance?

I believe the latter would have been much more beneficial to liberty and have resulted in a much less aggressive America/United States.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm sorry, I should be more clear. How do you think the various States should have proceeded after winning the Revolutionary War? Do you think writing and enforcing the Constitution was the optimal course to take or should the various States have remained as such with a much more limited agreement-alliance?


Assuming they were going to separate from Britain, they absolutely should have united. 

It delayed the war for half a century, and time has value. 




> I believe the latter would have been much more beneficial to liberty and have resulted in a much less aggressive America/United States.


If they hadn't united, they would have been gobbled up by Britain, piece by piece.

That wouldn't be a bad outcome either, since, as I said, the US functioned like a British colony anyway when it counted.

----------


## Origanalist

> Assuming they were going to separate from Britain, they absolutely should have united. 
> 
> It delayed the war for half a century, and time has value. 
> 
> 
> 
> If they hadn't united, they would have been gobbled up by Britain, piece by piece.
> 
> That wouldn't be a bad outcome either, since, as I said, the US functioned like a British colony anyway when it counted.


Britain already tried gobbling them up and failed, before the Constitution was written.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Britain already tried gobbling them up and failed, before the Constitution was written.


The colonies, clinging to the Atlantic coast, worried about oyarde, would have failed militarily and politically had they not united.

But for the French revolution and Napoleon, which provided a major distraction, Britain would have recovered these lands without much ado.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOL, that's quaint, but it's not true.
> 
> I think at some level you understand that it's over.


It's never over.
The cycle continues.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The colonies, clinging to the Atlantic coast, worried about oyarde, would have failed militarily and politically had they not united.
> 
> But for the French revolution and Napoleon, which provided a major distraction, Britain would have recovered these lands without much ado.


A weaker union somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution would have sufficed.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It's never over.
> The cycle continues.


The future of the West is quite bright, in fact, but it's going to take some time for forms of government to change. 

I'll be long dead by the time things get properly sorted out.

In the meantime, it'll  be important to enjoy life.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> A weaker union somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution would have sufficed.


It would have resulted in more or less the same outcome.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Bolivia's interim government presented a bill on Wednesday that aims  to forge a path to new elections and defuse street violence that has  racked the country and killed 32 people since a disputed October vote.The  South American country's two chambers of congress are expected to  debate the election bill beginning on Thursday and possibly extending  into Friday, which would annul the Oct. 20 poll and appoint a new  electoral board within 15 days of its passage, paving the way for a new  vote after long-term leftist leader Evo Morales resigned under pressure  this month.
A date for new elections was not included in the  proposal. The bill called for a "credible and professional" election  body "in order to pacify the country and redirect democratic  institutionality."


Conflict in the region of Cochabamba and the high-altitude city of El  Alto has rattled Bolivia over the last week since Morales' departure,  with clashes at a gas power plant blockade on Tuesday that left eight  people dead.
The Ministry of Defense in a statement Wednesday said  that supporters of Morales' MAS party were surrounding the plant with  the intentions of damaging it with explosives. The ministry said the  Armed Forces would safeguard the plant from any attack or takeover  attempt.


On Wednesday, hundreds of people queued to refill gas canisters in La  Paz, while lines of cars snaked though the city's roads waiting to  refuel after protests by Morales supporters choked off fuel and food  supplies in recent days.
In a news conference on Wednesday,  government minister Arturo Murillo claimed that Morales was continuing  to stoke unrest. He showed reporters a video of a phone call including  audio allegedly of Morales directing plans for blockades.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/bolivian-lawm...150322101.html

----------


## Firestarter

> Maybe the motive for this coup was that Bolivia doesnt export enough cocaine?!?
> In 2017, Anezs nephew was arrested in Brazil for smuggling 480 kilos of drugs. Because of this, security minister Carlos Romero called Anezs position in the senate "rogue": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_%C3%81%C3%B1ez


The following story certainly makes it more probable that a motive for getting rid of President Morales was that he took the War on drugs a bit too seriously. In a strange twist even rumours have been spread that Morales was promoting illicit drugs (while selected puppet president Jeanine Anezs nephew was caught smuggling drugs).

According to UNDOC, Bolivian farmers are helped to _develop licit farming alternatives to coca bush cultivation_. Related activities with Bolivian authorities continue _fight(ing) against drug trafficking and contribute to achieving the objectives of the National Alternative Development Plan_.
In February 2019, UNODC reported that Bolivia had _inaugurated port control to boost the fight against illicit drug trafficking_.

The project: 


> reduc(ed) illicit coca bush cultivation and cocaine trafficking (under Morales), providing licit economic alternatives, thus reducing poverty and social marginalization.
> It emphasizes the prevention and further expansion of illicit coca bush cultivation and the need to improve the living conditions of people in areas under such cultivation.


While there are many rumours that Morales won the presidential elections through fraud, an independent analysis by the Center for Economic Policy Research revealed no evidence of fraud or electoral irregularities: https://stephenlendman.org/2019/11/m...a-narco-state/

----------


## jmdrake

> The popular view is that anything done by outside intervention, US or otherwise, is therefore wrong. This was a view often promoted by the Soviets during the Cold War (only in relation to US, French, etc intervention, not their own, of course). There was lots of talk of imperialists, capitalist raiders, mega-corporations, and other evil-sounding things. This apparently continues:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication is that there's something wrong with this; that that coup d'etat which the US allegedly caused was for the worse. Was it? I don't know. I'm not a Haiti observer. Given the kinds of governments which Haiti has enjoyed since its independence from France, whatever dictatorship the CIA allegedly foisted upon the island may well have been an improvement - or maybe not. The point is that journalists almost always operate on the unspoken assumption that self-determination trumps all, and impress upon their audiences the idea that any changes wrought by foreign powers are necessarily for the worse. The Chileans (some of them) want to establish a bolshevik regime and slaughter their opponents? Great. What right do we (evil capitalist meddlers) have to interfere...?
> 
> Again, I reserve my judgment about this thing in Bolivia; this is a general comment.


Was Saddam an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Iraq better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our overthrow of him?  No.

Was the Soviet leaning government in Afghanistan bad?  Yes.  Is Afghanistan better or is the U.S. safer thanks to our funding the Muhjahadeen to overthrow it?  No.

Was Moyammar Ghaddafi an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Libya better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our overthrow of him?  No.

Is Assad an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Syria better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our attempt at overthrowing him?  No.

How much data do you need before you start to see the obvious trend line?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's not true if you select the correct allies.


You mean like the alt-right that supports democrat Andrew Yang because getting a check for $1,000 a month just cause you're 'Merican sounds good to them?

----------


## Origanalist

> The following story certainly makes it more probable that a motive for getting rid of President Morales was that he took the “War on drugs” a bit too seriously. In a strange twist even rumours have been spread that Morales was promoting illicit drugs (while selected puppet president Jeanine Anez’s nephew was caught smuggling drugs).
> 
> According to UNDOC, Bolivian farmers are helped to “_develop licit farming alternatives to coca bush cultivation_”. “Related activities” with Bolivian authorities continue “_fight(ing) against drug trafficking and contribute to achieving the objectives of the National Alternative Development Plan_”.
> In February 2019, UNODC reported that Bolivia had “_inaugurated port control to boost the fight against illicit drug trafficking_”.
> 
> The project: 
> 
> While there are many rumours that Morales won the presidential elections through fraud, an “independent analysis” by the Center for Economic Policy Research revealed no evidence of fraud or electoral irregularities: https://stephenlendman.org/2019/11/m...a-narco-state/


Never let facts get in the way of the narrative.

----------


## Firestarter

In 2009, Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger obtained (formerly) classified documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that show that since 2002 the US Agency for International Development (USAID) invested more than $97 million in “decentralization” and “regional autonomy” projects and political opposition parties in Bolivia.
For some reason, these documents have disappeared from the internet (I couldn’t find them)...

USAID apparently was the “first donor to support departmental governments” and “decentralization programs” in Bolivia.
Through the international branches of the Republicon-Democrook party, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI) that are funded by the Department of State and CIA-front the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID has funded and provided strategic political aid to opposition groups in Bolivia. The principal beneficiaries of this funding were opposition parties Podemos, MNR, MIR and more than 100 politically-oriented NGOs in Bolivia.
In 2007, $1.25 million was dedicated to “_training for members of political parties on current political and electoral processes, including the constituent assembly and the referendum on autonomy_”.

One document explains that this “decentralization” and “regional autonomy” program began in 2004, when USAID established an Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI) en Bolivia. The OTI contracted the US company Casals & Associates to coordinate a program based that included autonomy for the region surrounding the province of Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Eastern Bolivia where the hard core opposition to President Evo Morales is based: https://nacla.org/news/usaids-silent-invasion-bolivia
(http://archive.is/d1Wcs)

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You mean like the alt-right that supports democrat Andrew Yang because getting a check for $1,000 a month just cause you're 'Merican sounds good to them?


Nope.

----------


## Firestarter

> He lost the vote to end term limits so he got activist judges to "interpret" them as in violation of an international agreement but such an international agreement can't override a Constitution.


I don't know about Bolivia, but in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by Constitution, judges cannot judge based on the Constitition, but have to consider international treaties ABOVE local law.
Easily solved by taking them out of the international treaty...

Newly declared interim President Jeanine Anez, whose party received only 4% of the votes in October, has expelled hundreds of Cuban doctors, broken off ties to Venezuela and pulled Bolivia out of multiple international treaties and intercontinental organisations.
Anez declared that she is committed to taking all measures necessary to pacify the population. Anez has described indigenous Bolivians as satanic (there is some discussion on whether the following tweet is real and has been deleted since). 


Many people look to international human rights organisations to actually defend them against state terrorism. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has once again shown to endorse US-backed coups.
In its official communiqué, HRW didnt call it a coup, instead insisting Morales resigned. HRWs Americas Director José Miguel Vivanco claimed President Morales stepped down _after weeks of civil unrest and violent clashes_ and for some reason forgets to mention opposition violence against his party or the US-trained military suggesting, at gunpoint, that he resign.

HRW Director Kenneth Roth went even further, noting that elected president Morales having to flee the country is a refreshing step forward for democracy, and that Morales was _the casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy  against electoral fraud and his own illegal candidacy_.
Roth also presented President Morales as an out-of-touch strongman and claimed that Morales had ordered the army to shoot protesters, but didnt provide any evidence for this allegation: https://www.mintpressnews.com/human-...olivia/262887/


On the evening of 18 November, Bolivias government sent in helicopters, tanks and heavily armed soldiers to break the protests at and blockade of the Senkata gas plant in the indigenous city of El Alto. On 19 November, all hell broke loose when the soldiers began tear-gassing and then shot into the crowd of peaceful protesters. Some were just walking to work when they were struck by bullets.

At least dozens of people were taken to local clinics with bullet wounds of which 8 confirmed dead. A grieving mother whose son was shot cried out: _Theyre killing us like dogs_.
The 21 November peaceful funeral procession to commemorate the dead was also tear-gassed.

For some reason our wonderful media hasnt given much publicity to this event (and instead reported that the army overthrew Morales because HE had ordered to shoot protesters)
The Anez administration threatened journalists if they cover protests. Bolivias main TV station reported only 3 deaths and blamed the violence on the protesters, showing a speech by new Defence Minister Fernando Lopez, who lied that the soldiers did not fire a single bullet and claimed that terrorist groups had tried to use dynamite to break into the gasoline plant: https://www.globalresearch.ca/they-k...a-help/5695714

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I don't know about Bolivia, but in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by Constitution, judges cannot judge based on the Constitition, but have to consider international treaties ABOVE local law.
> Easily solved by taking them out of the international treaty...
> 
> Newly declared interim President Jeanine Anez, whose party received only 4% of the votes in October, has expelled hundreds of Cuban doctors, broken off ties to Venezuela and pulled Bolivia out of multiple international treaties and intercontinental organisations.
> Anez declared that she is “committed to taking all measures necessary to pacify” the population. Anez has described indigenous Bolivians as “satanic” (there is some discussion on whether the following tweet is real and has been deleted since). 
> 
> 
> Many people look to international human rights organisations to actually defend them against state terrorism. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has once again shown to endorse US-backed coups.
> In its official communiqué, HRW didn’t call it a “coup”, instead insisting Morales “resigned”. HRW’s Americas Director José Miguel Vivanco claimed President Morales stepped down “_after weeks of civil unrest and violent clashes_” and for some reason “forgets” to mention opposition violence against his party or the US-trained military “suggesting”, at gunpoint, that he resign.
> ...


And you again defend communism and globalism.

----------


## acptulsa

> And you again defend communism and globalism.


By posting a globalresearch article?  What?

You post the most random accusations when you don't want to take time to read the article...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Was Saddam an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Iraq better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our overthrow of him?  No.
> 
> Was the Soviet leaning government in Afghanistan bad?  Yes.  Is Afghanistan better or is the U.S. safer thanks to our funding the Muhjahadeen to overthrow it?  No.
> 
> Was Moyammar Ghaddafi an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Libya better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our overthrow of him?  No.
> 
> Is Assad an evil dictator?  Yes.  Is Syria better off or is the U.S. safer thanks to our attempt at overthrowing him?  No.
> 
> How much data do you need before you start to see the obvious trend line?


I'm talking about a principle, not endorsing any particular intervention.

However, if you want an example of a fairly successful intervention in recent history:






> Was Moyammar Ghaddafi an evil dictator?


It'll always be Burma to me.

----------


## acptulsa

> It'll always be Burma to me.

----------


## Firestarter

On Thursday, newly installed puppet Bolivian Foreign Minister Karen Longaric said Bolivia will "_restore relations with Israel_".
Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz was pleased and added: 


> The departure of President Morales, who was hostile to Israel, and his replacement by a government friendly to Israel, allows the fruition of the process.


In 2009, Evo Morales cut relations with Tel Aviv shortly after Israel carried out a three-week attack of Gaza, killing 1,282 Palestinians (of which 333 children). Morales also said that he would ask the International Criminal Court (ICC) to charge Israeli officials for the killings.
In 2010, Morales also formally recognised Palestine as a sovereign and independent state within the 1967-defined borders: http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2019/11...s-with-Israel-

----------


## Origanalist

> On Thursday, newly installed puppet Bolivian Foreign Minister Karen Longaric said Bolivia will "_restore relations with Israel_".
> Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz was pleased and added: 
> 
> In 2009, Evo Morales cut relations with Tel Aviv shortly after Israel carried out a three-week attack of Gaza, killing 1,282 Palestinians (of which 333 children). Morales also said that he would ask the International Criminal Court (ICC) to charge Israeli officials for the killings.
> In 2010, Morales also formally recognised Palestine as a sovereign and independent state within the 1967-defined borders: http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2019/11...s-with-Israel-


Well, isn't that just a huge surprise? Newly installed puppet is a zionist shill.

----------


## Ender

> Well, isn't that just a huge surprise? Newly installed puppet is a zionist shill.


Shocked, I tell ya!

----------


## Swordsmyth

Evo Morales, recently deposed in Bolivia, had been tied closely to the Vatican as the Pope’s favorite Latin American Dictator

----------


## Origanalist

> Evo Morales, recently deposed in Bolivia, had been tied closely to the Vatican as the Pope’s favorite Latin American Dictator


lol.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> lol.




Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo  Morales, presented  Pope Francis with a gift — a carved wooden  hammer-and-sickle cross on  which the figure of Christ is crucified.
 The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance   about the gift. And some commentators said that photos of the pope and   Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false —   probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that   he was keeping the hammer-and-sickle crucifix and taking it home,   saying, “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”





  And “Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . . . said he personally wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift” (the _Guardian_).
 The pope’s acceptance of Morales’s gift — along with his attacks on   capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the   most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic  Church  is currently led by a man whose social, political, and economic  views  have been shaped by leftism more than by any other religious or  moral  system.


In terms of evil committed, what is the difference between the hammer   and sickle and the swastika? Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a   Fascist, racist, or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of   course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering   than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered   under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and   murdered by any other doctrine in history.
 To make things worse, Pope Francis received this gift from a man   (Morales) wearing a picture of Che Guevara on his jacket. Is that, too,   not worthy of condemnation by the Vatican? Che Guevara devoted his life   to undermining human liberty, and to killing innocents in the name of   Communism.


What if, in a visit to an American museum, American artist Andres   Serrano had presented Pope Francis with a gift — his work of art, _Piss Christ_ — that features a crucifix in a jar of Serrano’s urine?



  Would the pope have accepted it? Would he have brought it home?
 There could not have been a gift that more accurately represents this   pope’s value system than Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle.   First, in a literal sense, that is exactly what Communists have done   wherever they have assumed power — crucified Christ by working to   violently destroy Christianity and murder Christians. Second, in a   figurative sense, the gift represents the mélange of Christianity and   Marxism, precisely what much of the Church — again, especially in Latin   America, and especially in the person of this pope — stands for.

More at: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...kle-communist/

----------


## Origanalist

> Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo  Morales, presented  Pope Francis with a gift — a carved wooden  hammer-and-sickle cross on  which the figure of Christ is crucified.
>  The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance   about the gift. And some commentators said that photos of the pope and   Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false —   probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that   he was keeping the hammer-and-sickle crucifix and taking it home,   saying, “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   And “Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . . . said he personally wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift” (the _Guardian_).
>  The pope’s acceptance of Morales’s gift — along with his attacks on   capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the   most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic  Church  is currently led by a man whose social, political, and economic  views  have been shaped by leftism more than by any other religious or  moral  system.
> ...


And the supposedly dead cold war rages on. Personally, I don't GAF what they do in Bolivia. I do care about our non stop intervention in the rest of the world.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And the supposedly dead cold war rages on. Personally, I don't GAF what they do in Bolivia. I do care about our non stop intervention in the rest of the world.


I care about liberty for all mankind and so I cheer the overthrow of a communist anywhere in the world but I also agree that we should keep our hands out of other countries' affairs.

----------


## Origanalist

> I care about liberty for all mankind and so I cheer the overthrow of a communist anywhere in the world but I also agree that we should keep our hands out of other countries' affairs.


I'll care about liberty for Bolivians when they care about it themselves. It's enough of a task to get people of this country to care about it.

----------


## Firestarter

> Originally Posted by Origanalist[/B
> 
> ]Well, isn't that just a huge surprise? Newly installed puppet is a zionist shill.
> 
> 
> Shocked, I tell ya!


That wouldn’t be some sort of “conspiracy theory” would it?
It does remind me of what happened in Brazil, not by a genuine coup, but by spinning the elections by the SCL Group’s Steve Bannon…

For some reason our “friend of liberty” was shylling for the Zionist president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, calling anybody that is against him a “commie”…



> Bolsonaro may not be perfect, I have never said he was, Ieven said that it sounded like Brazil didn't have any good choices but Bolsonarois the least bad and has some outright good things about him.



Why was Brazil’s president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva locked up in prison for 12 years? Could this have anything to do with Lula’s government recalling its ambassador to Israel because of that summer’s war in Gaza, calling Israeli military actions there a “massacre”, in 2014?

Jair Bolsonaro has promised to  move Brazil’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and shutdown the Palestinian embassy in Brazil.

See from left to right, Jair's sons, Carlos and Eduardo Bolsonaro walking in Israel, with t-shirts supporting Israel's intelligence services Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).



In Brazil, it is Trump’s long-time friend and adviser, the billionaire Carl Icahn, who will profit from the new policies of the Bolsonaro administration.
Icahn will also profit from the 25% tariff on steel, and exemption for Brazil, from the Trump administration: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6736726

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Why was Brazil’s president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva locked up in prison for 12 years?


Commies can do no wrong?

----------


## Origanalist

> Commies can do no wrong?


Idiot zionist post. You can spin it until 2035 but any national leader who rejects the dollar and Israel gets the same treatment.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Idiot zionist post. You can spin it until 2035 but any national leader who rejects the dollar and Israel gets the same treatment.




I am not a proponent of Israel and there are many other issues in the world.
Not everyone who opposes Israel is a saint and not everyone who supports Israel is worse than anyone who opposes it.

Trying to make everything in the world about Israel will cause you to take terrible positions.

----------


## Origanalist

> I am not a proponent of Israel and there are many other issues in the world.
> Not everyone who opposes Israel is a saint and not everyone who supports Israel is worse than anyone who opposes it.
> 
> Trying to make everything in the world about Israel will cause you to take terrible positions.


Wrong. Israel is THE main influence in our foreign policy and the main recipient of our welfare. Take those $#@!ers out of the equation and things would get a whole lot more sane in a hurry.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Wrong. Israel is THE main influence in our foreign policy and the main recipient of our welfare. Take those $#@!ers out of the equation and things would get a whole lot more sane in a hurry.


So you would vote for Bernie and let him turn America into a communist country as long as he cut off Israel?
And you would vote against a candidate that promised to reduce government across the board because they weren't anti-Israel?


Not everyone who opposes Israel is a saint and not everyone who supports Israel is worse than anyone who opposes it.

Trying to make everything in the world about Israel will cause you to take terrible positions.

----------


## Origanalist

> So you would vote for Bernie and let him turn America into a communist country as long as he cut off Israel?
> And you would vote against a candidate that promised to reduce government across the board because they weren't anti-Israel?
> 
> 
> Not everyone who opposes Israel is a saint and not everyone who supports Israel is worse than anyone who opposes it.
> 
> Trying to make everything in the world about Israel will cause you to take terrible positions.


WTF are you talking about? Bernie isn't anti -Israel. He would hump Netenyahoo as hard as Trump does.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> WTF are you talking about? Bernie isn't anti -Israel. He would hump Netenyahoo as hard as Trump does.


He claims he wants to cut off foreign aid to Israel.
But that's not the point.
I used him as a theoretical example and asked if you would support someone like him if they cut off Israel and oppose a small government candidate that supported Israel.

Would you support Stalin or Mao or Che if they opposed Israel?
Would you oppose Ron Paul if he supported Israel?

----------


## Origanalist

> He claims he wants to cut off foreign aid to Israel.
> But that's not the point.
> I used him as a theoretical example and asked if you would support someone like him if they cut off Israel and oppose a small government candidate that supported Israel.
> 
> Would you support Stalin or Mao or Che if they opposed Israel?
> Would you oppose Ron Paul if he supported Israel?


Lol, are you now or have you ever been a communist? My statement stands, Bernie would hump Israel as hard as Trump does.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Lol, are you now or have you ever been a communist? My statement stands, Bernie would hump Israel as hard as Trump does.


Lula was a communist.
We are talking about if Israel trumps all other issues or if communists are bad even if they oppose Israel.

----------


## CCTelander

> Lol, are you now or have you ever been a communist? My statement stands, Bernie would hump Israel as hard as Trump does.



Hey, don't laugh. SS actually has spoken out in favor of the resurrection of HUAC. Nothing says liberty like blacklisting thought criminals, after all.

----------


## Origanalist

> Lula was a communist.
> We are talking about if Israel trumps all other issues or if communists are bad even if they oppose Israel.


Sorry, but the Henry Kissinger approach doesn't work with me.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Hey, don't laugh. SS actually has spoken out in favor of the resurrection of HUAC. Nothing says liberty like blacklisting thought criminals, after all.


Apparently nothing says liberty like supporting communists as long as they hate Israel.

Or maybe just supporting communists?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Sorry, but the Henry Kissinger approach doesn't work with me.


Nice deflection, whatever it means.

This conversation is about an actual communist who opposes Israel vs. a relatively small government politician who does things like restoring gun rights to his people who happens to be on friendly terms with Israel.

Israel as an issue doesn't trump all other issues.

----------


## Origanalist

> Nice deflection, whatever it means.
> 
> *This conversation is about an actual communist who opposes Israel vs. a relatively small government politician who does things like restoring gun rights to his people who happens to be on friendly terms with Israel.*
> 
> Israel as an issue doesn't trump all other issues.


Whatever Henry.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Whatever Henry.


Liberty = Death to Israel!

Thanks for clearing that up.

----------


## Origanalist

> Liberty = Death to Israel!
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.


Oh, my mistake. Whatever Bill Kristol.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Oh, my mistake. Whatever Bill Kristol.


My mistake, I thought liberty was about individual rights and limited government.

Thanks for educating me , Ayatollah.

----------


## Origanalist

> My mistake, I thought liberty was about individual rights and limited government.
> 
> Thanks for educating me , Ayatollah.


Now you're just flailing. What does limited government have to do with interfering in other countries affairs?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Now you're just flailing. What does limited government have to do with interfering in other countries affairs?


What does communism have to do with liberty?

There are many different facets of liberty and you can't declare that one trumps all others and then support a communist because he opposes Israel and oppose another politician who holds far more liberty positions because he supports Israel.

----------


## Origanalist

> What does communism have to do with liberty?
> 
> There are many different facets of liberty and you can't declare that one trumps all others and then support a communist because he opposes Israel and oppose another politician who holds far more liberty positions because he supports Israel.


 More failing. You're on a roll. I'm not supporting anything but getting our government out of the business of intervention.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> More failing. You're on a roll. I'm not supporting anything but getting our government out of the business of intervention.


Nobody is arguing with that.
You entered a conversation that was about whether Lula (a communist) was a saint because he opposed Israel and whether Bolsonaro (someone who is reducing government and increasing liberty) is the devil because he is friendly with Israel.
You don't get to change the subject.

----------


## Origanalist

> Nobody is arguing with that.
> You entered a conversation that was about whether Lula (a communist) was a saint because he opposed Israel and whether Bolsonaro (someone who is reducing government and increasing liberty) is the devil because he is friendly with Israel.
> You don't get to change the subject.


You don't get to define the terms of the debate. It isn't confined to your perimeters.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You don't get to define the terms of the debate. It isn't confined to your perimeters.


The conversation already had a subject before you barged in, you don't get to change the subject in the middle of the conversation without even giving notice that you are now discussing something else.

----------


## Origanalist

> The conversation already had a subject before you barged in, you don't get to change the subject in the middle of the conversation without even giving notice that you are now discussing something else.


Barged in? I started this thread.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Barged in? I started this thread.


You didn't start the conversation about Bolsonaro vs. Lula.

----------


## Origanalist

> You didn't start the conversation about Bolsonaro vs. Lula.


Piss off.

----------


## Firestarter

> In Brazil, it is Trump’s long-time friend and adviser, the billionaire Carl Icahn, who will profit from the new policies of the Bolsonaro administration.
> Icahn will also profit from the 25% tariff on steel, and exemption for Brazil, from the Trump administration: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6736726


Bizarre, it sometimes happens that shortly after I post something, “news” with similar “keywords” is published…

Today, Donald Trump announced on Twitter to restore tariffs on Argentina and Brazil, calling out the countries for devaluing their currency.
Trump tweeted: 


> Brazil and Argentina have been presiding over a massive devaluation of their currencies. which is not good for our farmers. Therefore, effective immediately, I will restore the Tariffs on all Steel & Aluminum that is shipped into the U.S. from those countries


Carl Icahn had profited from the US importing about 3.8 million metric tons of steel from Brazil this year, about 3.5% of the 110 million tons of steel consumed in the US per year.

No information on how high the tariffs will be: https://business.financialpost.com/n...-swipes-at-fed

----------


## acptulsa

> The conversation already had a subject before you barged in, you don't get to change the subject in the middle of the conversation without even giving notice that you are now discussing something else.





> Barged in? I started this thread.





> You didn't start the conversation about Bolsonaro vs. Lula.


LOLOL

You have the right to tell the OP to shut up by right of prior threadjack?  Do your threadjacks overrule the OP to the point where you can demand a new thread title?

What, exactly, prevents that from being an $#@! assumption?  Or, to put it another way, who else would make that assumption?

----------


## Firestarter

To me it looks like the dirt poor Bolivia was doing relatively well in the period that Morales was president.

Bolivia had an average population growth of 1.9% per year from 2000 to 2016


In 2004, in a referendum a majority of Bolivians voted for expanding state control over the hydrocarbons sector.
In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales renationalized Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to spend on Bolivia’s government policy.

Bolivia also greatly expanded its international reserves, which has allowed Bolivia to gain its independence from the IMF.
Bolivia’s international reserves are currently at more than 48% of GDP, which is relatively high.


While our wonderful media often claim that nationalisations is the end of attracting international investment, Bolivia had the highest level of foreign direct investment in South America,  as percent of GDP, in 2013.


Head of the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean Alicia Barcena has praised Bolivia for decreasing economic inequality.
From 2005-2014, the real minimum wage in Bolivia increased by 87.7%.

In 2008, the US added Bolivia to its list of countries that had “failed demonstrably” to fight drugs. Bolivia has remained on the list, despite having considerably reduced the amount of coca cultivation: http://cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-b...o-in-10-graphs

----------


## Swordsmyth

> LOLOL
> 
> You have the right to tell the OP to shut up by right of prior threadjack?  Do your threadjacks overrule the OP to the point where you can demand a new thread title?
> 
> What, exactly, prevents that from being an $#@! assumption?  Or, to put it another way, who else would make that assumption?


I never told him to shut up and I wasn't the one who changed the subject.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> To me it looks like the dirt poor Bolivia was doing relatively well in the period that Morales was president.
> 
> Bolivia had an average population growth of 1.9% per year from 2000 to 2016
> 
> 
> In 2004, in a referendum a majority of Bolivians voted for expanding state control over the hydrocarbons sector.
> In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales renationalized Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to spend on Bolivia’s government policy.
> 
> Bolivia also greatly expanded its international reserves, which has allowed Bolivia to gain its independence from the IMF.
> ...


I think you have this site confused with CummunistForums.

----------


## acptulsa

> The conversation already had a subject before you barged in, you don't get to change the subject in the middle of the conversation without even giving notice that you are now discussing something else.





> I never told him to shut up and I wasn't the one who changed the subject.


Your spin is turning mighty slow.

----------


## Origanalist

> I think you have this site confused with CummunistForums.


I notice you didn't address anything he posted, just went straight to the communism slant.

I think you have the site confused with Free republic.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I notice you didn't address anything he posted, just went straight to the communism slant.
> 
> I think you have the site confused with Free republic.


I don't waste my time on people who claim communism is good for a country.

The same kinds of claims were made about Venezuela  and every other communist country that destroyed itself.

Communists are good at spending and redistributing wealth and that can give a temporary burst of "prosperity" but it destroys the economy in the long run, they also lie about their economic statistics.

Why am I the only one on a "libertarian" site that is opposing the communist?
Oh! I forgot, liberty = Death to Israel! and nothing else.

----------


## acptulsa

> Why am I the only one on a "libertarian" site that is opposing the communist?


We're supposed to leave your every half-thought-out utterance you make unchallenged because you sprinkle anti-communist plaritudes in here and there?  Or because you pretend you're the only member speaking out against the stuff?

You seem to be having a spin crisis today.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> We're supposed to leave your every half-thought-out utterance you make unchallenged because you sprinkle anti-communist plaritudes in here and there?  Or because you pretend you're the only member speaking out against the stuff?
> 
> You seem to be having a spin crisis today.


Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.

Nobody but me ever disagreed with him when he supported WOTUS and condemned Trump for getting rid of it, he spews communism unopposed around here.

----------


## Origanalist

> Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.
> 
> Nobody but me ever disagreed with him when he supported WOTUS and condemned Trump for getting rid of it, he spews communism unopposed around here.


Is there a cliff notes version of this wall of text?  https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...ted_states.pdf

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't waste my time on people who claim communism is good for a country.
> 
> The same kinds of claims were made about Venezuela  and every other communist country that destroyed itself.
> 
> Communists are good at spending and redistributing wealth and that can give a temporary burst of "prosperity" but it destroys the economy in the long run, they also lie about their economic statistics.
> 
> Why am I the only one on a "libertarian" site that is opposing the communist?
> Oh! I forgot, liberty = Death to Israel! and nothing else.


Your delusions of grandeur used to be amusing, now they're just annoying.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Is there a cliff notes version of this wall of text?  https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...ted_states.pdf





> On  Thursday, the Interior Department proposed  easing rules on oil and gas  drilling for millions of acres of range in  the West. And as soon as next  week, the Environmental Protection  Agency is expected to unveil its  proposed rewrite of a major 2015 Obama  rule that extended federal  protections to thousands of waterways and  wetlands.
> Supporters  and opponents expect the overhaul of the national water rule  could go  even further, also changing aspects of how the U.S. enforces  the 1972  Clean Water Act, one of the country's foundation environmental  measures.  Environmental groups say the rewrite could lift federal  protections for  millions of miles of streams and wetlands in the lower  48 states.
> The  broad outline of the administration water rule to emerge so far  points  to "an unprecedented rollback of Clean Water Act protections,"  said Jan  Goldman-Carter, senior director of wetlands and water  resources at the  National Wildlife Federation.
> The  pending water rule changes and other major rollbacks already  announced  give big wins to energy companies, farmers, builders and  others who've  fought for decades against environmental rules they see  aimed at  stalling or stopping projects until developers give up.
> 
> 
> A  set of White House talking points for the proposed new water rule   obtained by the Associated Press says the Trump administration would   remove federal protections for waterways including isolated wetlands and   ponds and creeks that run only after rain or snowmelt, among others.
> Up  to 60 percent of the stream miles in the continental U.S., not  counting  Alaska, and more than half of the wetlands appear to  potentially be  affected, Goldman-Carter, with the National Wildlife  Federation, said.
> The  overhaul, commanded by Trump in a 2017 executive order, deals with  what  kinds of waterways fall under protection of the Environmental   Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
> ...





> The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that  the Obama administration’s 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS) rule  would be redefined and no longer protect many of the nation’s streams  and wetlands.
> 
> Under the Trump administration’s proposal, which_ Common Dreams_ reported   as imminent last week, streams that flow only after rainfall or   snowfall will no longer be protected from pollution by developers,   agricultural companies, and the fossil fuel industry. Wetlands that are   not connected to larger waterways will also not be protected, with   developers potentially able to pave over those water bodies.
> 
> EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler suggested that WOTUS had created   unfair roadblocks for industries, farmers, and ranchers who wanted to   build and work near the nation’s waterways and were kept from doing so   because of the potential for water pollution.
> 
> More at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/in-ear...erways/5662694







> Wheeler and R.D. James, assistant secretary of  the Army for civil  works, signed a document overturning the rule and  temporarily restoring  an earlier regulatory system that emerged after a  2006 ruling from a  sharply divided Supreme Court.
> The agencies plan to adopt a new  rule by the end of the year that is  expected to define protected  waterways more narrowly than the Obama  policy.
> The Clean Water Act  requires landowners to obtain federal permits  before developing or  polluting navigable waterways such as rivers and  lakes. But disputes  have long persisted over what other waters are  subject to regulation —  particularly wetlands that don't have a direct  connection to those  larger waters, plus small headwater streams and  channels that flow only  during and after rainfall.
> 
> 
> Wheeler said regulators had gone far beyond the intent of Congress under the 1972 clean water law.
> "The  2015 rule meant that more businesses and landowners across the  U.S.  would need to obtain a federal permit to exercise control over  their own  property, a process that can cost tens of thousands of  dollars and take  months or even years to complete," he said. "It also  put more local  land-use decisions in the hands of unelected  bureaucrats. Many Americans  balked at this idea, and rightfully so."
> President Donald Trump had ordered the EPA and Army Corps to develop a replacement policy that has a more restrictive definition of protected wetlands and streams.
> 
> ...


...

----------


## CCTelander

> Your delusions of grandeur used to be amusing, now they're just annoying.



You just don't undetstand the terrible, terrible burden he bears being the only one standing between us and communist hell. He's so put upon.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Your delusions of grandeur used to be amusing, now they're just annoying.


Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You just don't undetstand the terrible, terrible burden he bears being the only one standing between us and communist hell. He's so put upon.


Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.

----------


## Origanalist

> ...


So it's still not a done deal. I'm hopeful, my poor mom went through hell after they designated her property a wetland. It was ridiculous.

----------


## Origanalist

> Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.


Show me posts where he pontificated about the glories of communism. I must have missed them.

But then I don't scrutinize every post here.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So it's still not a done deal. I'm hopeful, my poor mom went through hell after they designated her property a wetland. It was ridiculous.


Those are old posts, I haven't heard anything in a while but SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional so it's dead one way or another.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Show me posts where he pontificated about the glories of communism. I must have missed them.


...



> Originally Posted by *Firestarter*  
>  				To me it looks like the dirt poor Bolivia was doing relatively well in the period that Morales was president.
> 
> Bolivia had an average population growth of 1.9% per year from 2000 to 2016
> 
> 
> In 2004, in a referendum a majority of Bolivians voted for expanding state control over the hydrocarbons sector.
> In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales renationalized  Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to  spend on Bolivia’s government policy.
> 
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.
> 
> Nobody but me ever disagreed with him when he supported WOTUS and condemned Trump for getting rid of it, he spews communism unopposed around here.


Um, opposing totalitarianism and opposing Trump is kinda the same damned thing.  And claiming Trump isn't authoritarian because there are bigger authoritarians is about as not helpful as cheering for Trump to do authoritarian things--like regime change in Bolivia.

But you know.  If a RWSJW self-identifies as our Lord and Saviour, only a fool tries to reason with him.

----------


## Origanalist

> ...


That doesn't strike me as pontificating about the glories of communism, rather rebutting the bull$#@! by people cheering on our intervention.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That doesn't strike me as pontificating about the glories of communism, rather rebutting the bull$#@! by people cheering on our intervention.


Read carefully:

In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales *renationalized *  Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to   spend on Bolivia’s government policy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Um, opposing totalitarianism and opposing Trump is kinda the same damned thing.


Not when you are opposing him for decreasing government as firestater did about WOTUS.




> And claiming Trump isn't authoritarian because there are bigger authoritarians is about as not helpful as cheering for Trump to do authoritarian things--like regime change in Bolivia.


Please point out where I said either thing.
When I have something good to say about Trump it's about things he does to reduce government etc. and I specifically oppose any foreign meddling in this thread and elsewhere.

----------


## Origanalist

> Read carefully:
> 
> In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales *renationalized *  Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to   spend on Bolivia’s government policy.


Didn't Gaddafi do basically the same thing? Why do we have to bring someone down when they do this in their country? What business is it of ours?

----------


## acptulsa

> Read carefully:
> 
> In May 2006, then newly-elected president Evo Morales *renationalized *  Bolivia’s oil and gas industries. This has increased tax revenue, to   spend on Bolivia’s government policy.


And?  Are you saying it didn't happen?  Or are you saying what you quoted goes beyond stating the facts, and promotes something?

What?  What of it?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Didn't Gaddafi do basically the same thing? Why do we have to bring someone down when they do this in their country? What business is it of ours?


I never said we should bring anyone down.

Why are you pretending it isn't communism?

Is it a good thing when people end communism in their own country?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And?  Are you saying it didn't happen?  Or are you saying what you quoted goes beyond stating the facts, and promotes something?
> 
> What?  What of it?


Are you claiming it wasn't communism?
Or that firestarter wasn't saying it was a good thing?

----------


## acptulsa

> Are you claiming it wasn't communism?
> Or that firestarter wasn't saying it was a good thing?


What you quoted didn't pass judgment on communism at all.

----------


## Origanalist

> I never said we should bring anyone down.
> 
> Why are you pretending it isn't communism?
> 
> Is it a good thing when people end communism in their own country?


Total fail, I'm not pretending, you are. The US bought him down, period. I don't care what they do, I care what we do, and we did this.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What you quoted didn't pass judgment on communism at all.


LOL

Firestarter was passing judgement:




> To me it looks like the dirt poor Bolivia was doing relatively well in the period that Morales was president.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Total fail, I'm not pretending, you are. The US bought him down, period. I don't care what they do, I care what we do, and we did this.


I have said many times we shouldn't be involved.
But our involvement doesn't change a communist into a good guy or communism into liberty.
The majority of Bolivians wanted him gone and it was primarily Bolivians who got rid of him and that makes it a good thing.
But we still should have stayed out of it.

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL
> 
> Firestarter was passing judgement:


Did he credit communism?  Did he credit other variables for that?  Did he specify?  Are you putting words in people's mouths again?  Can't find something to nitpick him to death over, so you're imagining/manufacturing something?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Did he credit communism?  Did he credit other variables for that?  Did he specify?  Are you putting words in people's mouths again?  Can't find something to nitpick him to death over, so you're imagining/manufacturing something?


He defended Morales' record and Morales' record is a record of communism as the article he posted makes clear.

Try again.

----------


## Origanalist

> I have said many times we shouldn't be involved.
> But our involvement doesn't change a communist into a good guy or communism into liberty.
> The majority of Bolivians wanted him gone and it was primarily Bolivians who got rid of him and that makes it a good thing.
> But we still should have stayed out of it.


No. that's not what happened. You can spin it from here to Tuesday but the fact remains we brought him down. Just like Gaddafi.

----------


## acptulsa

> No. that's not what happened. You can spin it from here to Tuesday but the fact remains we brought him down. Just like Gaddafi.


It's like watching The Last Amway Salesman.  He's just depressing.

----------


## CCTelander

> Show me posts where he pontificated about the glories of communism. I must have missed them.
> 
> But then I don't scrutinize every post here.



I haven't read it nor do I plan to. Unlike Swordy, I don't feel any obligation or compulsion to correct every erroneous or objectionable commentary posted here. If I did I'd have to spenddall day every day just correcting Swordy's drivel. I don't have that kind of time to waste. I've got a real life to live.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I haven't read it nor do I plan to. Unlike Swordy, I don't feel any obligation or compulsion to correct every erroneous or objectionable commentary posted here. If I did I'd have to spenddall day every day just correcting Swordy's drivel. I don't have that kind of time to waste. I've got a real life to live.


You have plenty of time to waste attacking conservatives but not any time at all to argue with communists.

That's leftarians for you.

----------


## acptulsa

> You have plenty of time to waste attacking conservatives but not any time at all to argue with communists.
> 
> That's leftarians for you.


The self-identified "conservatives" attack him.  The _alleged_ communist simply posts stories about imperialism backfiring.

Try not attacking someone somewhere sometime and see if that doesn't help you sell that Amway.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The self-identified "conservatives" attack him.  The _alleged_ communist simply posts stories about imperialism backfiring.
> 
> Try not attacking someone somewhere sometime and see if that doesn't help you sell that Amway.




You'd love it if I let the commies spew commie propaganda unopposed, wouldn't you?

----------


## CCTelander

> The self-identified "conservatives" attack him.  The _alleged_ communist simply posts stories about imperialism backfiring.
> 
> Try not attacking someone somewhere sometime and see if that doesn't help you sell that Amway.



Belligerence he's got in spades. He's always looking for enemies and so he finds them. Must be a terribly lonely existence but he does it to himself.

----------


## juleswin

> The popular view is that anything done by outside intervention, US or otherwise, is therefore wrong. This was a view often promoted by the Soviets during the Cold War (only in relation to US, French, etc intervention, not their own, of course). There was lots of talk of imperialists, capitalist raiders, mega-corporations, and other evil-sounding things. This apparently continues:
> 
> 
> 
> The implication is that there's something wrong with this; that that coup d'etat which the US allegedly caused was for the worse. Was it? I don't know. I'm not a Haiti observer. Given the kinds of governments which Haiti has enjoyed since its independence from France, whatever dictatorship the CIA allegedly foisted upon the island may well have been an improvement - or maybe not. The point is that journalists almost always operate on the unspoken assumption that self-determination trumps all, and impress upon their audiences the idea that any changes wrought by foreign powers are necessarily for the worse. The Chileans (some of them) want to establish a bolshevik regime and slaughter their opponents? Great. What right do we (evil capitalist meddlers) have to interfere...?
> 
> Again, I reserve my judgment about this thing in Bolivia; this is a general comment.


The problem with interventionism is that they are usually done for the benefit of the interventionist country and not the target country. When the US spends millions of dollars and spends lots of political capital to perform a regime change in say Haiti or Venezuela, you better believe that they are planning to extract some benefit from their labour.

This is the problem I have with it. Also nations should be free to self destruct, they wanna implement communism? the Chileans wanna nationalize their copper mines? the US has no right to get in the way of that. Btw, I bet I can manage your life better than you can and I am sure seeing as you love interventionism so much, you would have no issues with me coming over and making a better person out of you.

----------


## Firestarter

> Let me know when you argue with firestarter about the glories of communism.


LIAR, I havent posted a single thing supporting Communism since I joined this forum.
Ive posted in this thread because I oppose another coup in the worst tradition of Operation Condor by the US government: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-attacks/page2


I oppose Communism, amongst others, because it was effectively orchestrated by Anglo-American intelligence and banking: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...3&t=1154#p5154


So far you havent posted anything on the horrible crimes by Evo Morales, yet
Despite me asking.



> Please show us some of the horrible misdeeds that "commie" Bolivian President Evo Morales perpetrated.
> Or "evidence" of voter fraud...



In between the anybody that supports Morales or is against Israel is a commie BS, so far you have made 2 interesting posts with actual information (I estimate that at about 5%)!
One of these 2 interesting posts (unfortunately you posted about this twice, which I rate as spam...) is about Morales meeting Pope Francis and gave him a present with Communist symbology.





> Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo  Morales, presented  Pope Francis with a gift  a carved wooden  hammer-and-sickle cross on  which the figure of Christ is crucified.


 Personally I wouldnt call it a crime against humanity though that he met the Pope and showed his respect.


Talking about symbology, your idol Donald Trump has the Double headed eagle for the Holy Roman Empire (the predecessor of the EU) and the lion of Judah (to show his love for the European nobility and Israel) in his coat of arms.
So now YOU are really a globalist, supporting the crimes against humanity by the Trump administration, IMF and World Bank.

----------


## acptulsa

> LIAR, I haven’t posted a single thing supporting Communism since I joined this forum.


SJW:  If you oppose the federal Education Department you're against education.

Right wing Shyll:  If you oppose military regime change against a socialist government you're pro commie.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> nations should be free to self destruct, they wanna implement communism? the Chileans wanna nationalize their copper mines? the US has no right to get in the way of that.


I'm not in favor of aggression, so I'll have to disagree.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm not in favor of aggression, so I'll have to disagree.


Ok Mr. Kissinger.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Ok Mr. Kissinger.


See, I, totalitarian monster that I am, find it objectionable that, for instance, Mao killed 60 million people. 

They weren't my neighbors (I don't live in Tsingtao), but it still irked me a tad...

And so, if there had been some way to off Mao and stop that, I'd have supported it.

But, thank you Che enthusiasts, I now appreciate the error of my ways; "nations should be free to self-destruct."

If Mao and friends want to murder 60 million people, who are we to stop that; it's like, their right n stuff...

(the 60 millions victims don't have rights, evidently)

----------


## Origanalist

*The New York Times’ Long History of Endorsing US-Backed Coups*

Bolivian President Evo Morales was overthrown in a US-backed military coup d’état earlier this month after Bolivian army generals appeared on television demanding his resignation. As Morales fled to Mexico, the army appointed right-wing Senator Jeanine Añez as his successor. Añez, a Christian conservative who has described Bolivia’s indigenous majority as “satanic”, arrived at the presidential palace holding an oversized Bible, declaring that Christianity was re-entering the government. She immediately announced she would “take all measures necessary” to “pacify” the indigenous resistance to her takeover. 

This included pre-exonerating the country’s notorious security services of all future crimes in their “re-establishment of order,” leading to massacres of dozens of mostly indigenous people.

The New York Times, the United States’ most influential newspaper, immediately applauded the events, its editorial board refusing to use the word “coup” to describe the overthrow, claiming instead that Morales had “resigned,” leaving a “vacuum of power” into which Añez was forced to move. The Times presented the deposed president as an “arrogant” and “increasingly autocratic” populist tyrant “brazenly abusing” power, “stuffing” the Supreme Court with his loyalists, “crushing any institution” standing in his way, and presiding over a “highly fishy” vote. 

This, for democratic-minded Bolivians, was “the last straw” and forcing him out “became the only remaining option,” the Times extolled. It expressed relief that the country was now in the hands of “more responsible leaders” and stated emphatically that the whole situation was his fault; “There can be little doubt who was responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales,” the editorial board stated in the first paragraph of one article.

The Times, according to Professor Ian Hudson of the University of Manitoba, co-author of “Gatekeeper: 60 Years of Economics According to the New York Times,” remains America’s most influential news outlet in shaping public opinion.

“Despite the changing media landscape and the financial troubles of old school journalism models – including the New York Times – it remains the agenda setter. Social media often use or respond to Times stories. It is still probably the single most referenced news outlet in the US Other websites, like Yahoo get more hits, but they do not report or create their own stories. The New York Times still ranks as the top investigative and opinion setting news organization” he told MintPress News.

The first draft of history

Newsrooms across America are sent advanced copies of the Times’ front page so they will know what is “important news” and adjust their own coverage accordingly. In this way its influence extends well beyond its nearly 5 million subscribers, its output becoming the first draft of history. Yet, when it comes to US intervention, the Times offers its “consistent support” for American actions around the world, Hudson says, claiming that the latest Bolivia example “very much followed this trend.” Indeed, there has rarely been an effort at regime change that the paper did not fully endorse, including the following six examples.

Iran 1953

In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup against the administration of Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah as an autocrat in his place. Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Western governments by nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, arguing that the country’s resources should be owned by and used to benefit the people of Iran. The Shah presided over decades of terror and human rights abuses, finally being overthrown in the revolution of 1979.

The Times expressed a “deep sense of relief,” many felt that Mossadegh, a “fanatical power-hungry man” and a Kremlin stooge who had “wrecked the economy” in his “bid for dictatorship” had been deposed. The editorial board gave a warning to others who might try to nationalize industries owned by American corporations: “Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism,” it wrote, two days after Mossadegh’s ouster.

Brazil 1964

Like Mossadegh, Brazilian President Joao Goulart was far from a communist; the center-left reformer who had been in power since 1961 modeled himself after John F. Kennedy. He was overthrown in a US-supported military coup d’état that brought about over twenty years of fascist dictatorship that saw tens of thousands of people arrested and tortured.

Two days after the event, the Times’ editorial board announced, “We do not lament the passing of a leader who had proved so incompetent and so irresponsible.” As with Bolivia, it refused to use the word “coup,” instead claiming that Goulart, who “had almost no supporters,” was deposed in “another peaceful revolution.”

One month later, a report entitled “Brazil relieved by Goulart’s Fall” claimed there was “no outcry or even concern” over the events, but instead a “widespread feeling of deep relief and optimism” in the country. It stated that all of Brazil had “written off” the “extremist” and “far leftist” “regime” and supported the “revolt” against him. In particularly Orwellian fashion, it claimed that the “nation appears to have been yearning” for a “political clean up” of “extremists,” applauding the widespread imprisonment of officials in the Goulart administration on the grounds that they were “communists.”

Chile 1973

The overthrow of the democratically-elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende in 1973 and his replacement with the fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet is one of the most well-known and infamous events in CIA history. The fallout from Pinochet’s economic mismanagement and reign of terror continues to this day and provides the backdrop for the enormous anti-government protest movement currently engulfing the country.

As soon as Allende was elected, the Times began a campaign to demonize the new leader, claiming that Chile’s “free institutions” likely would not survive the “sharp turn to the left” he was proposing. The day after the coup, when Pinochet’s forces bombed the presidential palace and forced Allende to commit suicide, the Times editorial board blamed the President for his own downfall, just as it did with Morales and with Mossadegh, claiming:

No Chilean party or faction can escape some responsibility…but a heavy share must be assigned to the unfortunate Dr. Allende himself. Even when the dangers of polarization had become unmistakably evident, he persisted in pushing a program of pervasive socialism for which he had no popular mandate.

It also pre-determined that the very obvious involvement of the US government, conducting a campaign of economic war against Chile, in order to “make the economy scream” in the words of President Nixon and Henry Kissinger to the CIA, was non-existent. The board advised that “It is essential that Washington meticulously keep hands off the present crisis…There must be no grounds whatsoever for even a suspicion of outside intervention.”

Venezuela 2002 and 2019

In April 2002, the US government bankrolled and supported a coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In a consistent pattern, the Times editorial board came out to heartily endorse proceedings, again deliberately refraining from using the word coup. Two days after the event it noted:

 With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chavez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.”

And like with other coups, the Times immediately treated the idea of US involvement as utterly impossible, adding, “Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair.”

What was unique about this event was that the coup was dramatically overturned by hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, who convinced military units loyal to Chavez to retake the presidential palace. Since then, successive US governments have dedicated significant resources to regime change in Venezuela. The Times also applauded self-declared President Juan Guaidó’s attempt to gain power earlier this year, presenting him as a man of the people, claiming he was “cheered on by thousands of supporters in the streets and a growing number of governments, including the United States.” 

But as Guaidó’s attempt collapsed under the weight of its own unpopularity, the Times expressed its anger that Maduro, a corrupt Russian agent, who pushed Venezuela “to utter ruin,” remained in power. “It would be a great relief for Venezuela to be rid” of Maduro, the editorial board mused, “the sooner the armed forces evict the thieves” the better, it said, disappointed that, for once, it could not celebrate a successful US coup.

Manufacturing consent

Studying the Times’ coverage of US-orchestrated coup attempts, it becomes clear that there is a checklist of talking points it employs time and again to justify events.

  - Blame all economic and political problems on the government; ignore the effect of any US sanctions.

  - Constantly present the targeted leader as a tyrannical autocrat crushing dissent, no matter what the reality is.

  - Insist that the leader is actually a Russian plant controlled by the Kremlin.

  - Refrain from using the word “coup”. Prefer instead words like “uprising”, “revolt” or “transition”.

  - Express ridicule at the idea that the US could be involved in the affair.

  - Depict the new US-backed rulers as democratically-minded and downplay any violence they commit in establishing their rule.

  - Blame the deposed leaders for their own overthrow.

To be sure, the New York Times is not the only major media outlet guilty of reflexively supporting every US action around the world. The Economist and the Washington Post both came out to support the coup in Bolivia, as they had done before with Venezuela. But the Times’ position as “the paper of record” sets it apart in terms of importance. 

This position makes it a crucial weapon in the propaganda war waged on the American people in order to manufacture consent for regime change abroad.

Reprinted with permission from MintPress News.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...-backed-coups/

----------


## Origanalist

> - Blame all economic and political problems on the government; ignore the effect of any US sanctions.
> 
> - Constantly present the targeted leader as a tyrannical autocrat crushing dissent, no matter what the reality is.
> 
> - Insist that the leader is actually a Russian plant controlled by the Kremlin.
> 
> - Refrain from using the word “coup”. Prefer instead words like “uprising”, “revolt” or “transition”.
> 
> - Express ridicule at the idea that the US could be involved in the affair.
> ...


That sounds really familiar......

----------


## acptulsa

> That sounds really familiar......


This thread is certainly full of it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm talking about a principle, not endorsing any particular intervention.
> 
> However, if you want an example of a fairly successful intervention in recent history:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll always be Burma to me.


Okay.  But even that is not an example of an intervention to overthrow a government but rather to defend one.  That said Vietnam is a relatively prosperous country despite the fact that we ended the intervention prematurely.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Okay.  But even that is not an example of an intervention to overthrow a government but rather to defend one.


Is that an important distinction?




> That said Vietnam is a relatively prosperous country despite the fact that we ended the intervention prematurely.


It is. The Vietnam War, as actually fought, was a total catastrophe for all concerned. 

But that doesn't mean that every possible intervention must be equally counterproductive.

I'm simply arguing for the position that interventions should be analyzed on a case by case basis.

There should be no rule inscribed on the stone handed down on Mount Rothbard reading "thou shalt not intervene."

The rule should be more like, "don't intervene unless you're really sure that the reward outweighs the risk."

----------


## jmdrake

> Is that an important distinction?


To me it is.  It's the difference between helping your neighbor ward fight off thugs and being a thug yourself and kicking in the door.




> It is. The Vietnam War, as actually fought, was a total catastrophe for all concerned. 
> 
> But that doesn't mean that every possible intervention must be equally counterproductive.
> 
> I'm simply arguing for the position that interventions should be analyzed on a case by case basis.


The only way to do what you are proposing from a policy perspective is to intervene in the hopes that it might work out and analyze it on the back end.  Recipe for endless regime change wars right then.  I take the position that it's better to either never intervene or in the worst case have some standard like going in when invited to defend an ally government rather than going in uninvited to overthrow an "enemy" government.

----------


## Origanalist

> To me it is.  It's the difference between helping your neighbor ward fight off thugs and being a thug yourself and kicking in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to do what you are proposing from a policy perspective is to intervene in the hopes that it might work out and analyze it on the back end.  Recipe for endless regime change wars right then.  I take the position that it's better to either never intervene or in the worst case have some standard like going in when invited to defend an ally government rather than going in uninvited to overthrow an "enemy" government.


Intervention, it's like communism, it just hasn't been done right yet.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> To me it is.  It's the difference between helping your neighbor ward fight off thugs and being a thug yourself and kicking in the door.


So the first party to actually initiate hostilities is necessarily in the wrong?

Why?




> The only way to do what you are proposing from a policy perspective is to intervene in the hopes that it might work out and analyze it on the back end.  Recipe for endless regime change wars right then.  I take the position that it's better to either never intervene or in the worst case have some standard like going in when invited to defend an ally government rather than going in uninvited to overthrow an "enemy" government.


Can you give me an example of anything a state (or PDA, if you're an ancap) might do which doesn't involve risk of error?

----------


## jmdrake

> So the first party to actually initiate hostilities is necessarily in the wrong?
> 
> Why?


Does the idea of non-intervention mean nothing to you?  Anyway, I don't think you've thought through your North Korea example as well as you think.  We intervened in Korea.  There is no telling what Korea would be like if we hadn't.  It's not just because North Korea is communist.  Vietnam and China are communists.  But neither nation is on a permanent war footing the way North Korea is which is the result of our stalemating them.  South Korea doesn't have to pay for its own defense.





> Can you give me an example of anything a state (or PDA, if you're an ancap) might do which doesn't involve risk of error?


Can you think of any war that you are on principal against?

----------


## jmdrake

> Intervention, it's like communism, it just hasn't been done right yet.


+rep!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Does the idea of non-intervention mean nothing to you?  Anyway, I don't think you've thought through your North Korea example as well as you think.  We intervened in Korea.  There is no telling what Korea would be like if we hadn't.  It's not just because North Korea is communist.  Vietnam and China are communists.  But neither nation is on a permanent war footing the way North Korea is which is the result of our stalemating them.  South Korea doesn't have to pay for its own defense.


War is just if and only if it results in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression (i.e. if it "works"). 

That's my principle, and it's a rather unquestionable one from a libertarian perspective. 




> Can you think of any war that you are on principal against?


I don't know what you mean by "in principle against."

Here is a short and non-exhaustive list of wars which, for not satisfying the above principle, I was or would have been against:

-Afghan War
-Iraq War II
-Libyan War
-Iraq War I
-Vietnam War
-Great War
-War of Northern Aggression

----------


## jmdrake

> War is just if and only if it results in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression (i.e. if it "works"). 
> 
> That's my principle, and it's a rather unquestionable one from a libertarian perspective. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "in principle against."
> 
> Here is a short and non-exhaustive list of wars which, for not satisfying the above principle, I was or would have been against:
> ...


You should add the Korean war because it hasn't "worked."  It didn't result in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression.  And using your argument the "War of Northern Aggression" actually "worked."  The South became industrialized as a result of that war, both from having to quit depending on slave labor for agriculture and from the "carpetbaggers" coming south and bringing knowledge of northern industry.  By contrast, the Korean war has kept North Korea and the United States in a state of permanent militarization which actually hurts both countries economically while benefiting South Korea.  It's not as obvious from the U.S. point of view because our nation and economy is so much bigger than North Korea.

----------


## Working Poor

The intervention that still has me pissed off is Libya. Qaddafi was fighting the central banks and working to help make Africa sovereign. Clinton and Obama went in and not only killed Qaddafi by torture and then stole the treasure he had gained for Africa. I am very ashamed that my tax dollars contributed to that.

----------


## Firestarter

It looks like gas and indium are more important motives for the Bolivian coup, than Lithium.


The two largest sources of indium in the world are in Canada (Mount Pleasant) and Bolivia (Malku Khota). Canada could potentially produce 38.5 tons of indium per year, while Bolivia’s mines could produce 80 tons per year (more than double the Canadian potential).
Canada’s South American Silver Corporation (now TriMetals Mining) had signed a concession to explore and eventually mine Malku Khota for which work began in 2003.
In 2011, a report for the Canadian mining company showed that the Malku Khota mine would produce substantial amounts of silver, indium, lead, zinc, copper, and gallium.

In 2005, after Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism (MAS) won their first presidential election in Bolivia, he first nationalised the gas and oil companies.
In July 2012, Morales’ government nationalised the Malku Khota property of South American Silver Company.
South American Silver took the Bolivian government to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. In November 2018, the Court awarded TriMetals $27.7 million from Bolivia (rather than the $385.7 million it had demanded).

Heads of mining firms made disparaging comments about the nationalisation program.
In July 2007, US Ambassador to Bolivia Philip Goldberg, in reply to a request to meet with Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera, said: 


> Sadly, without dynamite in the streets, it is uncertain whether the Embassy or the international mining companies will be able to attain even this minimal goal.


A Wall Street banker reportedly commented: “_If Bolivia keeps on this path, these companies will make sure that Bolivian natural gas remains underground_”, Bolivia might be embargoed; and Morales assassinated: https://www.salon.com/2019/11/22/the...-this_partner/
(http://archive.is/jJNsE)


Bolivia has the second-largest natural gas reserves in South America, after Venezuela.
After signing a decree to nationalise the natural gas industry, on 1 May 2005, President Evo Morales took over installations by using military force. It were really the natural gas profits that boosted Bolivia’s economy more than anything else.

The state-owned Brazilian Petrobrás was among the most affected by the nationalisation, as it controlled 14% of Bolivia's natural gas reserves.
The 2 most significant foreign companies involved with the exploration of natural gas in Bolivia are Petrobrás from Brazil and the Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF. Others involved are Total from France, British Gas and British Petroleum as well as the US Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Bolivia’s gas profits have dropped in time. In 2018, Bolivia’s gas exports fell by about 30%, while public debt soared to 51% of gross domestic product in 2017, from 36% in 2014.
Bolivia has looked at opportunities to sell more gas to Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay but there isn’t much (extra) demand from those countries.

Argentina has been increasing gas up sales to Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, while decreasing its gas imports. In October, Argentine former Energy Minister Javier Iguacel said that by 2020 the country won’t need Bolivian gas.
Contracts with Bolivia’s biggest customers - Brazil and Argentina - are being renegotiated. Brazil now spends about $1.3 billion a year on Bolivian gas: https://en.mercopress.com/2019/04/23...s-in-argentina
(http://archive.is/dMcUZ)


The following story, confirms that gas is important for the newly installed Bolivian puppet regime, although it’s different than I would expect from a right wing government, supporting “free trade”...

In 2015, Morales, passed legislation to open the country's national reserves to oil and gas exploration.
In 2017, Bolivian state oil company YPFB formed 2 joint ventures with the Brazilian state company Petrobras to explore and develop the Astilleros and San Telmo Norte blocks, on Bolivia's border with Argentina. Petrobras would invest $676 million in the projects, of which it owns 60%, while YPFB would own 40%.

After local protests, Bolivia's new puppet government ordered Petrobras to stop oil and gas exploration in this national reserve: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/m...tional-reserve
(http://archive.is/oqBeQ)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You should add the Korean war because it hasn't "worked."  It didn't result in a net reduction in the incidence of aggression.


You don't agree that S. Korea is vastly more free than N. Korea?




> And using your argument the "War of Northern Aggression" actually "worked."  The South became industrialized as a result of that war, both from having to quit depending on slave labor for agriculture and from the "carpetbaggers" coming south and bringing knowledge of northern industry.


The abolition of slavery would have happened soon enough; hastening it by a few years wasn't worth the cost of the war. 




> By contrast, the Korean war has kept North Korea and the United States in a state of permanent militarization which actually hurts both countries economically while benefiting South Korea.  It's not as obvious from the U.S. point of view because our nation and economy is so much bigger than North Korea.


Geopolitically, things would have played out much the same way without the war.

We'd just be talking about communist Korea, rather than communist _North_ Korea.

----------


## jmdrake

> You don't agree that S. Korea is vastly more free than N. Korea?


Straw man argument.  North Korea would be vastly more industrialized if not for a Korean war that has not ended.  You put up a picture of a lit up south Korea vs a darkened North Korea as if that proved anything.  It didn't.  China is arguably more industrialized than South Korea but much less free.  So your pictograph was basically useless.




> The abolition of slavery would have happened soon enough; hastening it by a few years wasn't worth the cost of the war.


The south thought slavery was worth preserving and that's why they seceded.  But that my point wasn't about slavery.  It was about industrialization.  And losing the civil war led to the industrialization of the South.  Since you used the industrialization of South Korea as "proof" you should be happy with the outcome of the U.S. Civil War.




> Geopolitically, things would have played out much the same way without the war.
> 
> We'd just be talking about communist Korea, rather than communist _North_ Korea.


And we might be trading and having tourism with communist Korea the same way as we are with communist China and communist Vietnam.   So what's your point?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Straw man argument.  North Korea would be vastly more industrialized if not for a Korean war that has not ended.  You put up a picture of a lit up south Korea vs a darkened North Korea as if that proved anything.  It didn't.  China is arguably more industrialized than South Korea but much less free.  So your pictograph was basically useless.


That would be the official Communist line; the reality is that the DPRK's poverty is caused by its domestic economic policies.

...which, needless to say, are a bit different than S. Korea's. 




> The south thought slavery was worth preserving and that's why they seceded.  But that my point wasn't about slavery.  It was about industrialization.  And losing the civil war led to the industrialization of the South.  Since you used the industrialization of South Korea as "proof" you should be happy with the outcome of the U.S. Civil War.


Again, the (early) abolition of slavery was obviously beneficial, but not worth the cost IMO.




> And we might be trading and having tourism with communist Korea the same way as we are with communist China and communist Vietnam.   So what's your point?


Why aren't we doing that with communist N. Korea?

----------


## jmdrake

> That would be the official Communist line; the reality is that the DPRK's poverty is caused by its domestic economic policies.
> 
> ...which, needless to say, are a bit different than S. Korea's.


Question: Why has North Korea's domestic economic policies not evolved like China and Vietnam's?

Answer: The ongoing Korean war.  It's easy to justify austerity when you can say there's a war going on.




> Again, the (early) abolition of slavery was obviously beneficial, but not worth the cost IMO.


That's your opinion.  But again, I'm not talking about slavery.  I'm talking about industrialization.  Straw man argument.




> Why aren't we doing that with communist N. Korea?


Because there is still a war going on against N. Korea.  (Duh!)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's your opinion.  But again, I'm not talking about slavery.  I'm talking about industrialization.  Straw man argument.


I assumed you were referring to the economic gains made possible by the abolition of slavery. 

If not, then I have no idea what industrialization you're talking about. 

Blowing up people and property doesn't generate economic growth. 

As for Korea, you're confusing the war itself and the post-war policies (e.g. sanctions).

It would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations following the war.

You won't find me defending the sanctions regime.

----------


## jmdrake

> I assumed you were referring to the economic gains made possible by the abolition of slavery.


I said early on that it wasn't just the end of slavery but also the "carpetbagging" from the North that caused the industrialization of the South.  The very "yanks" the southerners detested so much brought in industry.  I'm not sure how you missed that.




> If not, then I have no idea what industrialization you're talking about. 
> 
> Blowing up people and property doesn't generate economic growth.


You seem to think it does.  That's what sparked the entire conversation.  You claim that South Korea is a testament to "good" interventionism.  Now you're arguing against your own position.  Fascinating.




> As for Korea, you're confusing the war itself and the post-war policies (e.g. sanctions).


I'm not confusing anything.  You made an untenable argument based on a stupid photo that doesn't really prove anything.




> It would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations following the war.


The war never ended.  And it would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations without a war.  We were able to establish friendly relations with Vietnam because the war ended with our being defeated.  We could have also established friendly relations had we won.  But a war that ends in a stalemate almost always leads to "unfriendly" relations because each side still thinks it can "win" if it's just a little bit "tougher."




> You won't find me defending the sanctions regime.


Why are you defending interventionism?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I said early on that it wasn't just the end of slavery but also the "carpetbagging" from the North that caused the industrialization of the South.  The very "yanks" the southerners detested so much brought in industry.  I'm not sure how you missed that.


I ignored that because it didn't make any sense (people were already free to travel around and invest before the war).




> You seem to think it does.  That's what sparked the entire conversation.  You claim that South Korea is a testament to "good" interventionism.  Now you're arguing against your own position.  Fascinating.


No, you're either confused or deliberately misrepresenting my position. 

War itself is always destructive.

A just war is one in which there's some benefit on the other end which outweighs that destruction.




> I'm not confusing anything.  You made an untenable argument based on a stupid photo that doesn't really prove anything.


It wasn't intended to prove anything; it was intended to illustrate an obvious fact: namely, that N. Korea is much less free than S. Korea. 




> The war never ended.  And it would have been perfectly possible to establish friendly relations without a war.  We were able to establish friendly relations with Vietnam because the war ended with our being defeated.  We could have also established friendly relations had we won.  But a war that ends in a stalemate almost always leads to "unfriendly" relations because each side still thinks it can "win" if it's just a little bit "tougher."


That's right, but then the relations would have been with a communist Korea rather than a communist North Korea.

That's an inferior outcome (because it means more people living under communism).  




> Why are you defending interventionism?


Because I value liberty (contra, for instance, the alleged collective rights of the "nation" to oppress itself, paraphrasing SS)

----------


## jmdrake

> I ignored that because it didn't make any sense (people were already free to travel around and invest before the war).


They weren't necessarily welcome.  Adversity sometimes brings humility and a willingness to change.  FFS the South wasn't willing to diversify outside of cotton until the boll weevil! They even have a statue in honor of the boll weevil for that very reason!




> No, you're either confused or deliberately misrepresenting my position. 
> 
> War itself is always destructive.
> 
> A just war is one in which there's some benefit on the other end which outweighs that destruction.


That is a stupid definition for a "just war" in that you can't evaluate it until the war is over.  But even using that as a definition, you can't declare the Korean war a "just war" just because part of Korea turned out "better." 





> It wasn't intended to prove anything; it was intended to illustrate an obvious fact: namely, that N. Korea is much less free than S. Korea.


That's not obvious from the picture.  Using your "proof" China may be more free than South Korea.  (Of course it isn't.  Just making a point that your "picture proof" is rather shallow).




> That's right, but then the relations would have been with a communist Korea rather than a communist North Korea.
> 
> That's an inferior outcome (because it means more people living under communism).


More people would have likely been living under a Vietnam version of communism which is more free than the North Korean version.  




> Because I value liberty (contra, for instance, the alleged collective rights of the "nation" to oppress itself, paraphrasing SS)


So than any intervention that might "spread freedom and democracy" is justified in your book.  Got it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They weren't necessarily welcome.  Adversity sometimes brings humility and a willingness to change.  FFS the South wasn't willing to diversify outside of cotton until the boll weevil! They even have a statue in honor of the boll weevil for that very reason!


Color me skeptical about that fuzzy, psychological explanation for economic growth.




> That is a stupid definition for a "just war" in that you can't evaluate it until the war is over.


We never know with certainty whether _any_ action will turn out to have been worth its costs. 

We can only make reasonable predictions. 




> But even using that as a definition, you can't declare the Korean war a "just war" just because part of Korea turned out "better."


It was just because the costs (money, lives lost) were less than the benefits (tens of millions of fewer lives lived, or lost, under communism).




> So than any intervention that might "spread freedom and democracy" is justified in your book.  Got it.


Just freedom

----------


## jmdrake

> Color me skeptical about that fuzzy, psychological explanation for economic growth.


I'm just as skeptical of your belief that Korea as a whole wouldn't be more economically viable in the aggregate if we hadn't intervened.  Key word is "as a whole."  How many fewer North Koreans wouldn't have died if Korea as a whole had evolved more in line with what happened in Vietnam and China?  Also I am skeptical of the claim you and others make that slavery would have ended "in a few years" in the South.  Slavery is still practiced clandestinely in the U.S. *today* so people clearly still find it economically viable.  Basically your whole argument falls on nothing but speculation.  It's the worst just war theory ever.  China is arguably more economically viable today than it was prior to the communist Chinese revolution.  That doesn't mean the communist revolution was good for China.  And using your "just war theory" someone could have speculated that the Iraq war was justified based on the idea that it *might* make the lives of the people better to get rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein.  Libya *might* have been better by getting rid of the dictator Ghaddafi.  Syria *might* be better by getting rid of the dictator Assad.  Or we could just mind our own business unless we are attacked (which the North actually was attacked by the south).  The constitution actually gave the U.S. Federal government the right to "put down insurrections."  It did not give the U.S. Federal government the right to draft young men (a form of slavery) and send them halfway around the world in the name of making sure someone else's life would be "more free."  And speaking of the draft, the South was the first in the civil war to institute one.  And they ultimately allowed slave owners to be except from the draft based on how many slaves they owned.  That would be like the U.S. fighting another oil war and excepting oil executives and their sons from the draft. They also taxed poor whites to pay for the war effort that didn't benefit them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I'm just as skeptical of your belief that Korea as a whole wouldn't be more economically viable in the aggregate if we hadn't intervened.  Key word is "as a whole."  How many fewer North Koreans wouldn't have died if Korea as a whole had evolved more in line with what happened in Vietnam and China?  Also I am skeptical of the claim you and others make that slavery would have ended "in a few years" in the South.  Slavery is still practiced clandestinely in the U.S. *today* so people clearly still find it economically viable.  Basically your whole argument falls on nothing but speculation.  It's the worst just war theory ever.  China is arguably more economically viable today than it was prior to the communist Chinese revolution.  That doesn't mean the communist revolution was good for China.  And using your "just war theory" someone could have speculated that the Iraq war was justified based on the idea that it *might* make the lives of the people better to get rid of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein.  Libya *might* have been better by getting rid of the dictator Ghaddafi.  Syria *might* be better by getting rid of the dictator Assad.  Or we could just mind our own business unless we are attacked (which the North actually was attacked by the south).  The constitution actually gave the U.S. Federal government the right to "put down insurrections."  It did not give the U.S. Federal government the right to draft young men (a form of slavery) and send them halfway around the world in the name of making sure someone else's life would be "more free."  And speaking of the draft, the South was the first in the civil war to institute one.  And they ultimately allowed slave owners to be except from the draft based on how many slaves they owned.  That would be like the U.S. fighting another oil war and excepting oil executives and their sons from the draft. They also taxed poor whites to pay for the war effort that didn't benefit them.


It could be that no _conceivable_ intervention would_ ever_ be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention). 

Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.

Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you,  but didn't start it. 

The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.

Familiar with Cambodia?

I agreed with MacArthur; they should have pressed on, annihilated the Korean communists, invaded China, and ended it right there. 

In Berlin, the Prussian officer corps (many of whom tried to kill Hitler), wanted to join the US Army and go east and finish bolshevism.

...lost opportunities.

----------


## Origanalist

> It could be that no _conceivable_ intervention would_ ever_ be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention). 
> 
> Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.
> 
> Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you,  but didn't start it. 
> 
> The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.
> 
> Familiar with Cambodia?
> ...


You do realize this is the Ron Paul Forums don't you? Intervention is one of the things that brought (most of) us here, and not to support it.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> You do realize this is the Ron Paul Forums don't you? Intervention is one of the things that brought (most of) us here, and not to support it.


Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were. 

Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight. 

The average person is not terribly clever.

----------


## juleswin

> Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were. 
> 
> Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight. 
> 
> The average person is not terribly clever.


So which wars(of aggression) in your estimation do you think are not inherently evil. I am talking about wars of aggression because I don't think anyone is against defensive wars.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So which wars(of aggression) in your estimation do you think are not inherently evil. I am talking about wars of aggression because I don't think anyone is against defensive wars.


Some people are against wars, no matter what (I'm a terrible warpig, evidently).

The communists invaded from the north, in Korea; apparently any resistance is evil. 

They killed hundreds of thousands, but I guess they had the "right" to do so, because muh nationalism...

And America or anyone else who tried to intervene is just awful...

...ok

----------


## juleswin

> Some people are against wars, no matter what (I'm a terrible warpig, evidently).
> 
> The communists invaded from the north, in Korea; apparently any resistance is evil. 
> 
> They killed hundreds of thousands, but I guess they had the "right" to do so, because muh nationalism...
> 
> And America or anyone else who tried to intervene is just awful...
> 
> ...ok


I really don't know the detail about the Korean war but yea, I am against wars of aggression and support any group of people's desire to repel foreign invasion. Btw, just because someone called for help doesn't mean one should send troops in response. 

So is it just Korea?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I really don't know the detail about the Korean war but yea, I am against wars of aggression and support any group of people's desire to repel foreign invasion. Btw, just because someone called for help doesn't mean one should send troops in response. 
> 
> So is it just Korea?


Then you ought to have opposed the North Korean Communist invasion of the south.

They killed a huge number of Korean civilians.

----------


## Origanalist

> Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were. 
> 
> Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight. 
> 
> The average person is not terribly clever.


Simple people? Lol, ok Mr. Kissinger.

----------


## jmdrake

> It could be that no _conceivable_ intervention would_ ever_ be worthwhile (even though every existing state is the result of intervention). 
> 
> Another view would be that you have a weird and irrational opposition to it.
> 
> Anyway, as to Korea, keep in mind that there was going to be a war anyway; the US got involved in that war, mind you,  but didn't start it. 
> 
> The communists butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the southerners - nothing to do with the US.
> 
> Familiar with Cambodia?
> ...


I am familiar with Cambodia but it appears you are not.  The net result of the Nixon intervention in Cambodia was an *increase* in the power of the Khmer Rogue!  After the Khmer Rogue took power,  Diplomatic cables from back in 1978 show that the United States *actively supported the Khmer Rogue* in order to "stabilize" the country and weaken the Vietnamese.

See: https://bennorton.com/wikileaks-us-khmer-rouge-support/

It's ultimately the communist Vietnamese that drove the Khmer Rogue to power.  Really are you *trying* to prove my point for me?

Also I'm not against all interventions.  I support what you wrongly call the "Northern War Of Aggression."  The South actually fired fired.  It actually fell under the "suppress insurrection" clause of the U.S. constitution.  (Not sure what clause of the Constitution you put Nixon's bombing an invasion of Cambodia or the Korean War for that matter....but anyway).  And there is no real debating that the aftermath was overall positive.  I'm not just talking about the end of slavery.  The South, which had been economically disadvantaged and had little to know industry, grew to become an economic and industrial powerhouse.  I am from Birmingham Alabama.  The "magic" that gave it the name "Magic City" *only happened in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War!* 

Really, this isn't hard to decipher.  Is there an *actual* United States interest *as a nation* at stake?  Not "will some Americans somewhere be richer if we do this intervention" or even "Will some people somewhere possibly be 'more free' if we do this intervention?"  But is there an actual vital United States national interest at stake?  The War of 1812 involved the interests of the United States to not have our sailor subject to be impressed into the British Navy.  The intervention against the Barbary Pirates involved the freedom of commerce on the high seas.  You can make an argument on World War I from the fact that the Germans tried to get the Mexicans to invade the U.S. if war between the U.S. and Germany happened....but that's a stretch.  Had we stayed neutral that possible compact between Mexico and Germany never would have materialized and the Texas national guard and Rangers probably could have staved off Mexico by themselves.

If there is an actual United States national interest at stake it should be openly debated in the U.S. House and Senate and a proper declaration of war be passed.  Everything else is bollocks.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ron explained how recent US interventions were catastrophes, and they were. 
> 
> Simple people took this to mean that all war is inherently evil; grown ups understand that, sometimes, one has to fight. 
> 
> The average person is not terribly clever.





> Simple people? Lol, ok Mr. Kissinger.


Henry Kissinger was so "clever" that he went from supporting the bombing and invasion of Cambodia to working *with* the Khmer Rouge.

https://gsp.yale.edu/case-studies/ca...ge-regime-1975

_Kissinger: “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”_

----------


## juleswin

> Then you ought to have opposed the North Korean Communist invasion of the south.
> 
> They killed a huge number of Korean civilians.


Also, lets not forget the Bobo league massacres. The South is just as murderous and the North, only difference is that we backed the south and the communists supported the North

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I am familiar with Cambodia but it appears you are not.  The net result of the Nixon intervention in Cambodia was an *increase* in the power of the Khmer Rogue!  After the Khmer Rogue took power,  Diplomatic cables from back in 1978 show that the United States *actively supported the Khmer Rogue* in order to "stabilize" the country and weaken the Vietnamese.
> 
> See: https://bennorton.com/wikileaks-us-khmer-rouge-support/


I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia. 

My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions. 

...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement. 

All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing. 




> It's ultimately the communist Vietnamese that drove the Khmer Rogue to power.  Really are you *trying* to prove my point for me?


It's ultimately the "anti-colonialists" in both countries who were responsible...?

Any attempt to blame the US (or French) for the Khmer Rouge is disgusting.

Don't do that; you're better than that. 




> Also I'm not against all interventions.  I support what you wrongly call the "Northern War Of Aggression."  The South actually fired fired.  It actually fell under the "suppress insurrection" clause of the U.S. constitution.  (Not sure what clause of the Constitution you put Nixon's bombing an invasion of Cambodia or the Korean War for that matter....but anyway).  And there is no real debating that the aftermath was overall positive.  I'm not just talking about the end of slavery.  The South, which had been economically disadvantaged and had little to know industry, grew to become an economic and industrial powerhouse.  I am from Birmingham Alabama.  The "magic" that gave it the name "Magic City" *only happened in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War!*


Another war that didn't need to happen.

...you know, for a peacenik, you like war a lot.   




> Really, this isn't hard to decipher.  Is there an *actual* United States interest *as a nation* at stake?  Not "will some Americans somewhere be richer if we do this intervention" or even "Will some people somewhere possibly be 'more free' if we do this intervention?"  But is there an actual vital United States national interest at stake?  The War of 1812 involved the interests of the United States to not have our sailor subject to be impressed into the British Navy.  The intervention against the Barbary Pirates involved the freedom of commerce on the high seas.  You can make an argument on World War I from the fact that the Germans tried to get the Mexicans to invade the U.S. if war between the U.S. and Germany happened....but that's a stretch.  Had we stayed neutral that possible compact between Mexico and Germany never would have materialized and the Texas national guard and Rangers probably could have staved off Mexico by themselves.


There is no such thing as a nation; there are individual human beings. 




> If there is an actual United States national interest at stake it should be openly debated in the U.S. House and Senate and a proper declaration of war be passed.  Everything else is bollocks.


...national interest, lulz.

----------


## Origanalist

> I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia. 
> 
> My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions. 
> 
> ...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement. 
> 
> All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing. 
> 
> 
> ...


So, if there is no such thing as a nation, who intervened in Vietnam? Who do you propose to do these "good" interventions you advocate for? Are you personally going to pick up arms and go do some righteous "intervenin'" as a individual?

----------


## jmdrake

> I said nothing about US involvement in Cambodia. 
> 
> My point was that East Asians are perfectly capable of killing each other, by the millions.


 They weren't killing each other in Cambodia until the U.S. intervened.  The U.S. intervention in Cambodia *caused* the killing fields.  People of every ethnic group, religion, language, culture, region, etc are capable of "killing each other by the millions" given the right circumstances.  The United States gave the right circumstances.  Cambodia was a monarchy before the U.S. intervened.  The monarchy tried to stay neutral in the Vietnam conflict the way the U.S. tried to stay neutral at the beginning of World War I.  That neutrality involved not forcibly expelling the Viet Cong operating from their territory.  So we bombed the hell out of Cambodia, invaded, and orchestrated a coup.  Before the killing in Cambodia was over *we were supporting the murderous Khmer Rouge!*




> ...and, in Korea, they did just that, and would have with or without US involvement.


Most likely not as it was the U.S. involvement that *caused* the killing field in Cambodia.  




> All that US involvement did was end it sooner and isolate it geographically - which was worth doing.


According to you.  Not according to actual history.  Vietnam didn't become the Cambodian killing fields (the Vietnamese actually helped end the genocide in Cambodia).  Vietnam also did not become the wasteland that is North Korea.  The most likely outcome if the U.S. has not intervened is that Korea would be like Vietnam, a communist country with flourishing U.S. tourism and exports to the U.S.




> It's ultimately the "anti-colonialists" in both countries who were responsible...?
> 
> Any attempt to blame the US (or French) for the Khmer Rouge is disgusting.
> 
> Don't do that; you're better than that.


Go You are the being disgusting.  I gave you the facts.  The U.S. intervention in Cambodia is what caused the fall of the monarchy and led to the genocide.  Take you militaristic, false patriotic, politically correct garbage and shove it where the sun don't shine.




> Another war that didn't need to happen.
> 
> ...you know, for a peacenik, you like war a lot.


I am a non-interventionist.  Apparently you have no clue what that even means.  And you are the one advocating wars.  I listed *three* wars that fit the constitutional principals of non-interventionism and you listed about 8 wars you support.  So how can you sit here and claim I am the one liking war when you are the one advocating for every war conceivable?  The constitution gave the federal government the power to repel invasions (war of 1812), to suppress insurrections (U.S. Civil War) and the power to punish piracy and crimes committed on the high seas (Barbary Coast War).  Where in the U.S. constitution does it give the right to intervene in Korea?  Oh yeah *it DOES NOT!* 





> There is no such thing as a nation; there are individual human beings.


Then take your individual a$$ to North Korea and fight yourself since you care so much.  You love all wars except those actually authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

----------


## Firestarter

In November, December 2019, an Argentine delegation visited Bolivia, including Juan Grabois (CTEP), Roberto Carlés (a lawyer), Pablo Pimentel (APDH), Mauricio Rojas (APDH), Victoria Freire (Observatory of Gender and Public Policies of the City), Daniel Catalano (ATE), Marianela Navarro (FOL) and Sergio Smietniansky (CADEP).

At that time already 31 protesters were killed and hundreds wounded, since Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in the US-backed coup on 10 November 2019.
The Argentine delegation were told of disappearances, murders, arbitrary detentions, rapes, torture and hospitals that refuse to care for the wounded caused by the brutal repression.

The Argentine delegation were held and kicked at the airport by a mob.  According to Carlés they pushed and hit them, with Daniel Catalano being kicked.
Carlés said: 


> From the apparel they wore, we assume they were civilian police forces. Meanwhile, the uniformed police were there witnessing all the harassment and doing nothing.


Then Minister Arturo Murillo came to threaten them: “_Be careful, we are watching you_”.

Lawyer Luis Arias, who was also part of the Argentine delegation, says that they faced attacks and threats from the “interim” government of Jeanine Añez.
Arias said:



> This government has unleashed a huge racial hatred. They opened Pandora’s Box and a thousand demons came out who are expressing themselves in situations of profound violence.
> 
> Public hospitals do not want to treat the wounded and the public defenders do not want to defend the victims. There is a deep racial hatred that is directed especially against the most vulnerable sectors and women.
> 
> The stories are frightening. There are reports of disappearances, arbitrary detentions – among which are the case of three young people with Down’s syndrome - , torture of children, murders as a result of repressive actions by police forces, injuries by lead bullets, fires, among other things.


 https://orinocotribune.com/members-o...up-repression/
(http://archive.is/g3HvS)


Illegitimate usurper president Jeanine Anez (again) breached article 169 of the Bolivian Constitution:



> In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days.
> 
> In case of temporary absence, the Vice President shall assume the Presidency for a term not to exceed ninety days.


If I've calculated correctly, that should be 8 February 2020 at the latest, while the elections are planned for 3 May…

Since Jeanine Anez was installed as puppet president it has launched a crackdown on all “hostile” media , closing down TV stations like TeleSUR. Critical journalists have even died under suspicious circumstances.
The Anez administration has also set up new SWAT-like secret police battalions to suppress “subversive voices”.

Bolivia pulled out of several international organizations (Morales was allowed to run based on an international treaty signed by Bolivia), has expelled thousands of foreigners, has recognised Israel and invited the Israeli Defense Forces to train the Bolivian security services and has even recognised the much despised Juan Guaidó as the head of state of Venezuela.
Earlier this month, a USAID team arrived in Bolivia to advise the government on how to stage the upcoming election.

The “interim government” led by Añez administration has started a  privatisation program, aimed at selling Bolivia’s natural resources.

The Socialist MAS party (of Morales) announced for its candidates for the May elections Luis Arce Catacora for president and David Choquehuanca for vice-president. MAS leaders met in Argentina due to the repression in Bolivia.
Several MAS leaders couldn’t attend the meeting in Argentina. Walter Ferrufino was arrested when he tried to travel to Argentina for the meeting and Andrónico Rodríguez could not attend after he was accused of crimes by the new Anez administration: https://www.mintpressnews.com/bolivi...eaders/264240/
(http://archive.is/fMvIU)

----------


## Firestarter

> Illegitimate usurper president Jeanine Anez (again) breached article 169 of the Bolivian Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Firestarter
> 
> According to art. 169:
> ...


The general elections in Bolivia that were scheduled for 3 May 2020 were postponed to September 2020, for which the coronavirus “pandemic” was used an excuse (what else?).
Newly installed “interim” Bolivian president, Yankee puppet Jeanine Anez, has announced that she and another 7 “interim” ministers in her government tested “positive” for COVID-19. It looks like the election will be postponed again (and again and again) in a wonderful example of “democracy”: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news...ction-12935564


The “mainstream” New York Times reported that the Organization of American States (OAS) claims that Evo Morales won the elections by fraud was severely flawed, as the OAS used incorrect data and inappropriate statistical techniques to manipulate the numbers to artificially create the appearance of a break in the voting trend.

Morales Tweeted in response: 


> Another independent student, adding to the many that already exist, shows that there was no fraud in the elections of October 20, 2019 in Bolivia, MAS-IPSP won cleanly. The people know they were cheated, they are wise and will be able to recover democracy.


The Puebla Group requested the “_OAS validate the electoral results of the October 20, 2019 elections and declare the legitimacy of the election to the presidency of Evo Morales_” and demanded from the Jeanine Áñez government to “_immediately hand over state power, due to the systemic and inexplicable delays to hold elections in said country_”: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/06/...ectoral-fraud/
(http://archive.is/zs7w1)

----------


## Firestarter

On July 24, 2020, Tesla’s Elon Musk tweeted that: “_Another government stimulus package is not in the best interests of the people_”.
Someone quickly replied to Musk on Twitter, “_You know what wasn’t in the best interest of people? The U.S. government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there_”.

Musk then replied: 


> We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.




Elon Musk quickly deleted this (last) tweet, but not before it was archived:
http://web.archive.org/web/20200726182019/https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1286866843307737088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
(http://archive.is/TxgVK)

Evo Morales responded to Musk’s tweet (translated from Spanish): 


> Elon Musk, the owner of the largest electric car company, says about the coup in Bolivia: ‘We will coup whoever we want.’ Another proof that the coup was about Bolivian lithium; at the cost of two massacres. We will always defend our resources!


Tesla of course uses Lithium that is mined in Bolivia for its highly polluting electric cars.

The illegal Jeanine Áñez government bought 170 ventilators from a Spanish supplier for $27,000 a piece. These could have been produced in Bolivia for $1,000 per ventilator.
Health minister Marcelo Navajas was arrested for this scandal: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/07...cy-in-bolivia/

----------


## Firestarter

More than 10 months have passed since Evo Morales was ousted in an OAS-organised coup...
According to the Bolivian constitution, general elections should have been held within 90 days of Morales fleeing the country. The beginning of February at the latest, before the start of the coronavirus “pandemic” (it’s that long ago).


In July, the Bolivia general elections were postponed for a second time, this time to 18 October.
There is no guarantee that they won’t be postponed again.

Evo Morales responded on Twitter:



> The de facto government wants to win more time to continue persecuting social leaders and MAS candidates.
> It's another form of proscription. That's why they don't want elections on September 6.


And then (despite the coronavirus hysteria) protests broke out.


Morales's supporters claim the election is only delayed because Morales’s MAS party candidate Luis Arce is leading in the polls.

Suspicious?!? Former minister in the Morales government, Eugenio Rojas, died “of COVID-19” at the age of 57: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...il/ar-BB17okz1
(http://web.archive.org/web/20200802161340/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/deadly-pandemic-and-postponed-elections-bolivias-explosive-cocktail/ar-BB17okz1)


Protests continued and even intensified in August.

The illegal usurper government responded with threats, criminalisation of blockades, a dialogue without key actors and the mobilisation of the same armed “civilian” groups that were used during the coup.
These “civilian” groups during the coup attacked Morales supporters and attacked the homes of MAS leaders and kidnapped their relatives.

Edmundo Juan Nogales Arancibia explained: 


> These are groups that use violence, in many cases armed violence, with the complicity of state authorities, especially the police.
> They appear in public wearing bulletproof vests and carrying small caliber weapons, and act with impunity, attacking popular sectors protesting against the de facto government.


https://www.greenleft.org.au/content...oned-elections
(https://archive.is/q9zqY)


After illegal president Jeanine Anez promised that the general elections won’t be postponed again, on 14 August the protest leaders promised to suspend the protests until 18 October (the day the general elections are now planned).
They warned that they would again go to the streets, if the coup-installed government will delay elections again or refuses to accept its defeat in the elections (which according to them is inevitable): https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/08/...ift-blockades/


More coming...

----------


## Firestarter

On 17 September, Bolivia’s coup-president Jeanine Áñez, announced to withdraw from the general elections scheduled for October 18 (originally she promised not to enter at all).
Because she was a low fourth in the polls: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/09/...ber-elections/


In early August, the International Rights of Nature Tribunal released a troubling report, concluding that the recent fires that burned close to 16 million acres of forest in Bolivia in 2019 were "ecocide provoked by Bolivian authorities and agro-industry".

The bishops urged voters to take the environment into account and asked the de facto Jeanine Anez government to review laws that allow individual farmers to clear around 40 acres of land (for which they often use fires) and other laws that have opened the way for genetically modified crops (particularly soy beans): https://www.ncronline.org/news/earth...tions-approach


The following suggests that the Brazil of Zionist Trump-connected president Jair Bolsonaro also played a major role in the Bolivian coup.

The same day of the coup, 11 November, the presidential jet was on its way to Brasilia (Brazil’s capital).
Since then, the plane made 25 separate visits to Brazil.

Why did the Bolivian presidential jet make so many trips to Brasilia?
Who travelled on the plane (it couldn’t have been Jeanine Añez, who remained in the presidential palace in Bolivia): https://www.mintpressnews.com/flight...brazil/268464/

----------


## Firestarter

Guess what? The US-orchestrated coup has made the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS-IPSP), for which Evo Morales ran last year, more popular than ever.

The Bolivian elections held on October 18, ended with a victory for Luis Arce and running mate David Choquehuanca with 55% of the vote, making a second round unnecessary as the 50% barrier was crossed.
This confirms once again that the results of last year’s election, which ended in a coup d’état, was not a fraud but based on unfounded accusations by the Organization of American States (OAS).

Even Jeanine Áñez herself conceded: 


> We do not yet have an official count, but from the data we have, Mr. Arce and Mr. Choquehuanca have won the election. I congratulate the winners and ask them to govern with Bolivia and democracy in mind.


 https://theintercept.com/2020/10/19/...pplauded-coup/
(https://archive.is/0dtrM)

----------


## Firestarter

On 9 November, Evo Morales made a triumphant return from Argentina to Bolivia, one day after President Luis Arce’s inauguration. He was welcomed by tens of thousands of supporters.
Morales said to the adoring crowd:



> We have to keep working, our task now is to protect President Arce and our process of change, because the right doesn’t sleep and the empire is always looking at our natural resources, but we use our experience to go forward even stronger…
> 
> The coup was for lithium, imperialism doesn’t want us to develop value-added products within Bolivia, they want the transnational corporations to take it all.


.
No social distancing reported...

Just days after Morales MAS party won the 18 October election, his arrest warrant was lifted.
Morales continues to be president of the ruling MAS party: https://www.mintpressnews.com/heroes...olivia/273074/

----------

