Saturday, May 23, 2009
Newly declassified documents reveal More than $97 million from USAID to separatist projects in Bolivia
Recently declassified documents obtained by investigators Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger reveal that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has invested more than $97 million in “decentralization” and “regional autonomy” projects and opposition political parties in Bolivia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
<span style=""><span style=""> "The multi-million dollar funding from USAID to the separatist projects in Bolivia has encouraged and supported destabilization activities during the past few years, including extreme violence and racism against Indigenous communities, terrorist acts and even assassination attempts against President Morales."</span></span>
ReplyDeleteThe other obvious question, which is really simple - why are the documents from organizations which are supposed to "help" other countries "CLASSIFIED (needing to be FOIA released)." After all, if it is merely harmless assistance that why the secrecy? This are the simplest of questions that need to be asked by the brain dead American public.
ReplyDeleteThe other obvious question, which is really simple - why are the documents from organizations which are supposed to "help" other countries "CLASSIFIED (needing to be FOIA released)." After all, if it is merely harmless assistance than why the secrecy? This are the simplest of questions that need to be asked by the brain dead American public.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think this is just horrible! We need to stop this interference. I am totally against interference of any kind.
ReplyDeleteI am confident that soon,...very soon, you will also post an article about the Cuban and Venzuelan military and intelligence "advisors" in Bolivia?
Was Che's interferring when he and his comrades were in Bolivia? Or is Leftist interfering okay?
Well, I think this is just horrible! We need to stop this interference. I am totally against interference of any kind.
ReplyDeleteI am confident that soon,...very soon, you will also post an article about the Cuban and Venzuelan military and intelligence "advisors" in Bolivia?
Was Che undermining when he and his comrades were in Bolivia? Or is Leftist undermining okay?
The above is a first simple question in an ongoing dialogue, lets see if the supporters of the system can even approach the first opening salvo.
ReplyDeleteGo back and get a history lesson before you address the issue vza. It was Che and the people of Bolivia that were resisting the encroachemnts of Imperialism. Or, do you need a lesson of US involvemnt in the region at that time? Think before you post.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. Interference is okay if it is the "right" kind of interference. All clear now!
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. Interference is okay if it is the "right" kind of interference. Which means that Cuban and Venezulan advisors are all the right kind (Read LEFTIST) of advisors. And that anyone who disagrees with Morales' path MUST be lackeys of the imperialist entitly known as AMERICA? Got it. All clear now!
ReplyDeleteWhile we are at it answer the simple question - I might re-phrase it: why has the US ALWAYS shrouded its "aid" in National Security? Try to do this before you toss off the question with a flip off an insufficient answer, and build a bunker in fear of the "commies" rushing over the southern border.
ReplyDeleteWhile we are at it answer the simple question - I might re-phrase it: why has the US ALWAYS shrouded its "aid" in National Security? Try to do this before you toss off the question with an insufficient answer, and build a bunker in fear of the "commies" rushing over the southern border (which you were probably doing during the Reagan bullshit era).
ReplyDeleteWell, lets hope that you understand the democratic process (which I doubt), and that you are not trying to support the murderous encroachments of Imperialism. The "Morales Path" IS the will of the people democratically expressed, not coups instigated by a foreign entity which trys to prop up the status quo of enslaving the majority of the people for the enrichment of the few both domestically and for foreign interest (which was nothing but the foreign encroachment afor mentioned). Really vza, if you haven't got anything better than the old commie horse shit, which was a mere cloak for killing defenseless people to rob countries of the natural and human resouces, it is better that you just shut up.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VxnCBD9W4
Apparntly the "supporters" of this system, cannot get over the first salvo.
ReplyDeleteApparently the "supporters" of this system, cannot get over the first salvo, case closed.
ReplyDeleteI do support the democratic process. Let's just see if Chavez and Morales also continue to do so. I admire many of their efforts but there are some troubling things, too. It does not have to be ALL or nothing. They are not saints, just as all opposition to what they are doing cannot be dismissed as a just the usual,greedy capitalists.
ReplyDelete"Both Chávez and Morales have taken worthy first steps towards a less discriminatory distribution of land, but both leaders still have much work yet to be done with those who they have since agitated. Nevertheless, a wave of optimism has swept across the affected region, where steps have been taken to grant more equitable land rights to a rural population which historically has been discriminated against. While Chávez and Morales are gaining political capital by distributing land to the masses, they also risk alienating some of the most productive sectors of society. In the end, and with the best of intentions, they may be doing harm to both of the countries’ long-term political and economic stability. But the concern of an equitable reform of the land remains an issue calling out for redress."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.coha.org/2009/04/chavez-and-morales-take-on-sweeping-measures-at-land-reform/
This was a really interesting article and it made a lot of sense about looking to their own history and people for a model. But Oh dear, it seems Che' was not considered a liberator here!
ReplyDelete"Is the left afraid of being left behind as some ancient ideological relic in South America's poorest country? I met one of Che's former trainees.
"Che couldn't convert a single peasant into a fighter in 1967 because he didn't speak Quechua and didn't understand indigenous culture," Ramiro Reinaga, Facunda Reinaga's son and a former guerilla fighter, told me.
"It took as two decades to realise that liberation wouldn't be imposed by a vanguard but would instead grow from the bottom up.
"No wonder Che was perceived by my people as one among thousands of foreign invaders and mercenaries."
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/witness/2009/05/20095107397245640.html
Liberation and revolution has never been delivered by a "vanguard," but has ALWAYS come from a bottom up process. It is always funny to try to denounce something that does not exist, as if it is more of a grosss anamoly than a natural process. Such is the "apologetic" of misunderstanding turned into some sort of insufficient rhetoric used by an opposition.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for Che has never been a defense of the success or the failure of a project, but the motivation for the attempt and the reason why the action was took (rancid Imperialism).
ReplyDeleteThe argument for Che has never been a defense of the success or the failure of a project, but the motivation for the attempt and the reason why the action was taken (rancid Imperialism).
ReplyDeleteThe argument for Che has never been a defense of the success or the failure of a project, but the motivation for the attempt and the reason why the action was taken (rancid Imperialism). People mistake the love for the revolutionary if they interpret in terms of effectiveness alone, rather than an act of love for the people.
ReplyDeleteYou have still not answered the original question I posed, and you have not extinguished our love and esteem for Che -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jppkff5mk34
You have still not answered the original question I posed, and have not reduced our love and esteem for Che -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwTBCvb_4zo&feature=related
Oh, sorry. I mised your question.
ReplyDelete"While we are at it answer the simple question - I might re-phrase it: why has the US ALWAYS shrouded its "aid" in National Security?"
I have no idea, v. Stupidity? Misguided belief that it was in our national interests? Short term outlook instead of looking at the long term and possible blowback? A combination of many factors?
What is hard for you to fully understand VZA, is that for us Latin America is what we call la "Patria Grande". We have been trying to unite as just one larger nation since our independence from Spain. Our countries are in large measure artificial political entities whose borders were drawn for the most part by the Spanish colonial empire. We have much more in common than the few silly things that separate us. This is what El Che had in mind when he went to Bolivia. It's true that it was an erroneous move which had short-term negatice consequences. But honestly, very few in Latin America would consider this as an "interference" in another country's internal affairs by a foreigner, let alone one comparable to US's official policies of interventionism in our region.
ReplyDeleteWhich confirms what I concluded above. You do not mind intervention in other countries IF it follows your ideological view. So why not dispense with the fake horror at intervention?
ReplyDeleteAnd the fake horror at methods, too. You do not mind executions if Che' is doing the executing. Extra-judicial killings if Che is doing them can be excused as a necessary evil because of the chaos of war but you would not extend that same understanding to...an Ameican soldier. Let us be clear here. It is the U.S,. and its allies doing any of those things that you abhor. NOT the actual actions.
"We have been trying to unite as just one larger nation since our independence from Spain."
ReplyDeleteDo you really know this is a widely held desire in Latin America and not just the dream of a particular group or ideology?
"Our countries are in large measure artificial political entities whose borders were drawn for the most part by the Spanish colonial empire."
But isn't that true of many countries today? After all, one must think of all the different empires in history and the wars and then the treaties dividing up the spoils and all.
It's an enduring dream of many, believe me VZA. Otherwise we wouldn't be even witnessing today what's going on in Latin America. Please don't forget from whom did Bolivia get its name as an independent nation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it is true that many countries are today the living legacy of past empires. However, it so seems that in Latin America we have never fully accepted such imposed reality. If in the past our independence from Spain was won by armies integrated by people from all Latin American nations, fighting side by side as just one large patriotic force, why can't this be possible again?
So that settles than, vza has spoken, the people have no right to their own will...lol Really, we have no right to expect a reasonable conversation.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly, v. I said no such thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd you have no right to expect that I shall agree with everything you say.
Chavez is following in the footsteps of the United States(?):
ReplyDeleteCARACAS, Venezuela (AFP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the government would nationalize several iron and steel companies to pave way for a large "socialist" state-run enterprise.
Or maybe its the other way around?
ReplyDeleteNo answers and a denial is not a conversation, its the same old bullshit soft shoe dance of mental and moral bankrupcy, when this regins no reasonable conversation is possible
ReplyDeleteNo answers and a denial is not a conversation, its the same old bullshit soft shoe dance of mental and moral bankrupcy, when this reigns no reasonable conversation is possible - deny it at all costs now
ReplyDeleteYes, the great Simon Bolivar worked for a unified South America. And you say this is still the dream of many? Extraordinary!
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the hauntingly, sad Marquez novel, The General in his Labyrinth.
Of course, v. You are right. You are always right. Happy?
ReplyDeleteAnd you say this is still the dream of many?
ReplyDelete-------------------------------
Why not? It's a big dream, one that endures and which sometimes wanes and then waxes again. Now it's becoming more than just a dream, and for the first time in almost 200 years, its assuming some real contours.
Very interesting. Is this goal primarily encouraged by Leftist groups in Latin America or does it cross ideological lines?
ReplyDeleteGood question. Let's say that its political spectrum goes from center-left to radical left. From Lula to Chavez. Therefore, when the left becomes more influential in the region, the dream reemerges again from its ashes. However, even politicians such as Michelle Bachelet, very reluctant to follow any of Chavez's projects, has recently embraced -wholeheartedly I must add- the UNASUR: which is an armed treaty of most South American nations. So if not always by the force of ideals or convictions, the dream advances through sheer necessity. Regional integration is becoming not just a possibility, but increasingly so, an imperative.
ReplyDeleteSo it is possible in the future there could be another United States of America in Latin America! Very intersting indeed. It does make sense. I'll have to look out for articles about this issue. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou have answered nor said anything again, are you happy?
ReplyDeleteSo it is possible in the future there could be another United States of America in Latin America!
ReplyDelete----------------------------
No, I really wouldn't go that far. I won't happen soon, at least not in my lifetime. But something like the EU, maybe!
You have not answered nor said anything again, are you happy? Now feign interest in one which speaks to the same issue to act like you are reasonable (be a good little splinter), so that you are not crushed to powder between two stones. lol
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth are you rambling on about? I answered you at yesterday 5:34:25. Get a life!
ReplyDeleteI would give you the same advice vza (get a life), except you don't know what life is.
ReplyDelete