Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 7th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Bolivia on the edge of 'explosion'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 April 2008
ENTERING the tiny sun-drenched two-storey Spanish colonial building in the capital of the energy-rich Bolivian province of Santa Cruz, it is difficult to imagine that this is the epicentre of preparations for armed struggle – and possible civil war – ahead of the region's forthcoming and hugely controversial autonomy referendum on Sunday.
"We are ready to respond to any provocation. The government wants to implement a copy of Cuban socialism and is encouraging violence through its social groups, but we'll not tolerate this," David Sejas, 34, the president of Santa Cruz's Juvenile Uni
on, told The Scotsman, claiming that his organisation, whose headquarters is located in this quaint building, has 85,000 well-trained, mostly former military, members.

War rhetoric is growing in the final countdown to Santa Cruz's unilateral autonomy referendum, which is expected to be approved by a huge margin, the first of four in the regions that make up the better off and ethnically European eastern half of the country.

An autonomy leader of this region rich in farmland and gas reserves went as far as saying that a "new republic" will be born on Sunday – further angering Evo Morales, the country's first-ever indigenous Indian president, who denounces the referendum as an illegal attempt by a rich minority of European descent to hold on to their privileges and undermine the rights of the majority poor Indians mostly living in La Paz and the central highlands.

Indians make up about 60 per cent of the population and Mr Morales has won support with his drive to nationalise Bolivia's natural resources and rewrite the constitution, giving greater power to indigenous groups.

"It is discrimination. If they call me animal, stupid, what would they be calling the population?" Mr Morales said recently in New York, adding that the Santa Cruz referendum is illegal and will change nothing.

"I feel there will be fraud as there will be no observers. They can manipulate it as they wish, but for us it is a survey, an opinion poll, so it's non-binding," he said.

A close ally of the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, who leads an anti-US bloc in Latin America, Mr Morales also repeated claims that Washington was actively trying to force him from power.

"The United States is leading the conspiracy against my government," he said. "They do not agree with Bolivia's direction and they plan to weaken, to topple Evo."

But he ruled out using the armed forces to keep the country united. "There will be no state of emergency, there will be no militarisation, I believe in the people's conscience."

But fear is already noticeable in the streets of the "rebel" province where it is commonplace to find provincial green and white flags hanging from cars and balconies, with some people beginning to lock up houses located in the countryside amid mounting reports of isolated incidents. Violent clashes now seem inevitable between Morales supporters, especially coca growers, and Santa Cruz's militant pro-autonomy Juvenile Union.

"Bolivia is about to explode," Mr Chavez warned last week in Caracas during an urgent summit with Bolivia.

The Cuban vice-president Carlos Lage, also present in the summit, accused the United States of trying to create a "Kosovo" in the hydrocarbon-rich eastern provinces of Bolivia. And Dante Caputo, the political affairs chief of the Organisation of American States, said that the possibility of violence taking place is real before engaging in last-ditch and, for now, failed attempts to bring both sides together.

"The key issue is not autonomy but land, the government made the fatal error of limiting the amount of land in the hands of one person to 10,000 hectares which, for Santa Cruz's powerful livestock and soya farmers, is nothing," Raul Prada, congressman of the ruling MAS party, told The Scotsman in an unusually open self-criticism despite emphasising that land reform is desperately needed.

"I don't think the government will fall, but we're in a very dangerous situation: Evo wants to avoid bloodshed, but social movements are pushing him over the edge."

Many observers, however, still believe that both sides will step back from the brink of civil war, as they have repeatedly done in the recent past, even though they admit that the situation may get out of hand, with the military too weak to intervene.

Their optimism is rooted in the belief that the government wants to avoid further incensing pro-autonomy protesters, while the opposition would be reluctant to topple the government since that could create chronic instability in the country.

After all, the reasoning goes, there are only two years left before the next elections and Mr Morales's popularity is dropping fast due to rising inflation which is especially affecting his own constituency near La Paz, allegations of corruption and a recent spate of internal squabbles within his government.

Also, sources close to the Brazilian and Argentine foreign ministries confirmed to The Scotsman on condition of anonymity that their countries would never accept a break-up of Bolivia, the poorest South American country but a major provider of gas to the region, defusing any temptation of autonomy supporters – who still lack a strong leader and the military's backing – from seeking outright independence.

When pressed, senior Santa Cruz autonomy officials admit that the ultimate aim of the referendum is to reopen negotiations with Mr Morales from a position of strength. These were broken late last year after government supporters approved a controversial draft constitution despite a boycott from the opposition forcing an abrupt transfer of the constitutional assembly to Oruro, a Morales bastion in the western highlands.

"Circumstances forced us to radicalise our proposals. Of course we'll have to sit down to negotiate after the referendum, we're open to changes, but the government is more interested in exacting vengeance than building a country," said Juan Carlos Urenda, the main drafter of the autonomy statute.

"Our campaign boss is actually Evo Morales, he's played to our hands by provoking us and trying to ignore our legitimate autonomy demands," he added.

"I hope Bolivia won't be shattered, but if the government doesn't change its stance a break-up will be inevitable."

KEY PLAYER IN STRUGGLE

EVO Morales cuts a remarkable figure as Bolivia's first Indian leader in the 470 years since the Spanish Conquest.

The 47-year-old former coca farmer is known for his love of football – he plays for a second division club.

Mr Morales is the leader of Bolivia's cocalero movement – a loose federation of coca leaf-growing campesinos who are resisting the efforts of the United States to eradicate coca in central Bolivia.

His Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement Towards Socialism) party describes itself as "an indigenous-based political party that calls for the nationalisation of industry, legalisation of the coca leaf and fairer distribution of national resources."

Mr Morales has said: "The worst enemy of humanity is US capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like ours. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge that nation states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then fundamental human rights are being violated."





The full article contains 1189 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 April 2008 10:49 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

catgut,

29/04/2008 00:45:02
should we realy be sorry for the 2% who own 80% of the country. The rich, (spanish origen are squeeling all over south america.
the scotsman will be no doubt supporting george bush when Paraguay's new government asks or takes back the land he owns their.
What next make the city of london a free state.
2

Singlepoint,

Fife 29/04/2008 01:33:15
What's in it for me?
3

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 02:03:53
#1 - Catgut

>"the scotsman will be no doubt supporting george bush when Paraguay's new government...

Geez, you BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) guys make this way too easy for me!

It's Bolivia, pal! Have another Japanese Scotch!

Hahaha! But keep on blaming Bush, he must have done something wrong somewhere - even if you have no CLUE!!

>"asks or takes back the land he owns their."

Ignoring the sheer idiocy of most of your post, and the fact that we'd all love to see you explain about land Bush owns in Paraguay, I guess that we can take it that as a Bush hater you advocate land-redistribution?

Why is it that after the clear failure of 'land redistribution' Zimbabwe you NeoComms still insist on it?

Could it be because you live in a fantasy world and dream of just 'taking' other people's stuff:

- which is the allure of Communism/Socialism, even if it files in the face of reality.

Why don't you put Bobby Mugabe in charge? Look what he did for Zimbabwe!
4

catgut,

santa cruz (arg) not de la sierra 29/04/2008 03:10:42
#3 Daithi
Sorry Daithi but maybe you guys dont get out of your B52's much.
Paraguay just elected another local to lead 'their' country similar to Evo in Bolivia.
Bush owns a rather large farm in Paraguay, maybe he grows stuff for his old pal Oliver North to sell back home, who knows.
Not quite sure what you mean about other peoples stuff do you not think the non spanish populations of Bolivia can run their own affairs? They are nearly white so your racism may allow them some chance

As for BDS in Bolivia i think MAS have the right ideas.
5

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 03:42:39
#4 cg

cg said:

"Bush owns a rather large farm in Paraguay, maybe he grows stuff for his old pal Oliver North to sell back home, who knows."

Look, cg, if you are going to tell lies at least go to the trouble of making them clever. And please, do a little homework. George Bush owns a ranch in Crawford Texas, he does not, despite what the Cuban News Service may say, own a ranch in South America. Sheesh!

You comment about Oliver North is also risible. You, my brain warped little friend, must surely know that it is very likely that the two have never met. You are referencing, if that is the right word, no, its not, let me change it to hallucinating, yeah, that's better, you are hallucinating the wrong George Bush.

Keep it up though, you have a chance of becoming "The South American Wally."
6

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 04:52:27
#5 - 57Nomad (speaking to cg)

>"Keep it up though, you have a chance of becoming "The South American Wally."

Too late, he's already made it, Nomad.

This is one of those 'Conspiracy theories' that appeal to the readers of "Paranoia Magazine", Wally's favorite toilet-side reading material!

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/

Apparently, A government office forbidden by law from disseminating information domestically (clandestine) has a 'leak' that has 'spilled his guts' about some property that has been bought in Paraguay!

This 'property' is called a 'ranch', and since Bush also has a 'ranch', the parallels are too similar to be dismissed!

This 'property' in Paraguay is reportedly associated with alleged U.S. designs on the Mariscal Estigarribia air base for the top-secret purpose of becoming the repository of the bodies of the aliens discovered in New Mexico and stored at 'Area 51'!

It's all very 'hush-hush', of course! ;)

7

catgut,

santa cruz 29/04/2008 06:31:48
#5,6
you guys protest too much, though that was the preserve of us commies.
sounds like you both spend time still looking under the bed, instead of looking for those WMD's.

only thing out of this world about this all is the rev moon connection.

funny for a nation that does not travel that we find that there has been more than one bush in south america
8

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 29/04/2008 06:37:33
Time for another invasion, George?
9

Itchy,

29/04/2008 06:59:50
#7 your statements are Marxist and, as for land redistribution, have you seen what that has done in Zimbabwe?

Lefties never learn. George W Bush will probably ignore Bolivia completely and all the useful idiots will somehow blame him when it all goes wrong, as socialism always does.
10

Royster,

29/04/2008 07:15:30
Santa Cruz con cojones!
11

catgut,

santa cruz 29/04/2008 09:03:03
#10
¿qué tiene que ver contigo?
12

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 09:05:07
#7

"funny for a nation that does not travel that we find that there has been more than one bush in south america"

Doesn't travel much? Really? Americans travel more miles every year than anyone. Where did you get such a ridiculous idea? The difference is that we travel thousands of miles and are still in the US. Get a grip.
13

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 09:16:16
#7

We are not protesting at all. Just responding to the delusional remarks of your pal.

You guys wanna check out each others cojones? What's up with that?
14

Newman!,

29/04/2008 13:19:25
#12 The expression "travel broadens the mind" is a very true one in my opinion.
However an American who travels across America is not really experiencing anything new apart from a Walmart in a strange town or some unheard of type of pancake.
I really would suggest the right-wingers from the US try going "over there" sometime - anywhere! Might just open yer eyes a little. (Bombing runs don't count)
15

Globetrotter_scot,

29/04/2008 13:44:36
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/

If you support national unity and stability in Bolivia please put your signature forward on this list..

http://todosconbolivia.org/index.php?lang=2

The disparity between the rich in Santa Cruz and areas such as La Paz are unbelievable. The indigenous population deserve to have a greater say in internal affairs. Unfortunately, the elite do not want to lose their grip on the natural resources and power and are therefore threatening to divide this fantastic nation.
16

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 14:14:19
#14 Newman

Take your own suggestion, try coming over here. Might open your eyes a little bit. I think that the bombing runs that the 8th Air Force made in WWII were well received by everyone but the Nazis.

We can't help it that Europe in composed of teeny weenie little countries. Why should we want to travel to the home continent of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, the Berlin Wall, and two world wars that took the lives of one hundred million people, the colonization and subjugation of India, Africa, Southeast Asia, and stuffing opium addiction down the throats of the population of China? And even to day are so uncivilized that they willingly hosted the televised genocide of the Kosovo Albanians. We do not respect you and we are aware of your pompous and bloated self-regard.

You are welcome to hold any opinion of us that you care to but you should accept the fact the we are free to do the same with regard to Europe. As a caveat to the above, we do not hold a diminished regard for Great Britain. They are our metropolis and the home of the passionate regard for the sanctity of individual rights that we cherish. We have our ups and downs, but they and only they among the countries of Europe, can't count on us to respond to any threat to them as we would a threat to, say, Topeka. The rest of Europe can take a flying leap as far as we care.

17

AJ Fife,

29/04/2008 14:34:15
I see the cyberbully, that is 57Nomad, is still spouting his arrogant and extremely pro-violence viewpoint.

Hopefully the next US administration will take steps to censor his type. The world would be a safer place!
18

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 14:45:05
#17 - AJ

>"I see the cyberbully..."

Hahaha! AJ, for some reason whenever I see you guys whine like this it reminds me of the scene in 'Blazing Saddles' where the effeminate dancer is beating on the chest of the cowboy crying 'You Brute, you you brute' - then bursts into tears!

>"Hopefully the next US administration will take steps to censor his type. "

Ah, the old NeoComm favorite - censorship against those who disagree with you.

I like it how you guys whine 'you're infringing on my free speech!', but then are the first to deny it to others.

Well, actually, I don't - but I expect it nonetheless.
19

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 14:47:44
Nomad,
who gave the U.S.A. the right to be the worlds' policeman ? Empires come and go and the U.S. greed driven empire won't last either so you better get used to the idea.
20

AJ Fife,

29/04/2008 15:00:40
#18,

Hey Bob, pour some more water on the reel....a've got masel a real whopper here......
21

should have gone to specsavers,

Thurso 29/04/2008 15:10:07
Clamper:
becuase they saved our asses in WW2?
Sounds trite but its true. They'd probably do it again too. God knows why, I'd have let us burn if I'd been in their shoes, and I bet you'd be one of the first to yell "waaah! Americans have pity and save us!" If it happened again.

Not that I'm a fan of some aspects of American society or foreign policy but I find American-bashing distasteful and petty.
22

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 15:39:01
Specsavers:
they helped eventually in WW2, but me had to pay them back over the next fifty years. The main help came from the Soviet Union who lost 20 million in the battle to defeat the Nazis. The U.S. took us into Iraq on the back of lies about WMD when the real reason was to get their hands on the oil. No amount of spin is going to change that fact.
23

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 15:39:08
#19 - Clamper

>"who gave the U.S.A. the right to be the worlds' policeman ?"

Is you objection that the US is the world's policeman, or is it really that we're not arresting the people that you want arrested?

Why do NeoComms whine about 'illegal war' and 'international law' then complain about 'the world's policeman'?

If it wasn't for hypocrisy, the Left would have no personality at all.
24

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 15:49:19
#23 No one country has the right to impose its will on the rest of the world. You may have heard of the United Nations, but your Government either chooses to manipulate it, or ignore it, if it suits its neo-colonial business interests. You are neither appointed nor needed as policemen.
25

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 16:02:46
#24 - Clamper

>"You may have heard of the United Nations..."

I may have - isn't that the base of operations for foreigners looking for a good time and inexpensive NYC 'female escorts' now that they are on a paid holiday from home?

>"You are neither appointed nor needed as policemen."

Really? So brutal dictators (Saddam) and far-right wing extremist religious fanatics (the Taliban, Al Qaida), are OK with you?

Apparently so, just as long as you can rationalize ignoring them.

I'd be happy to hear how you would deal with them, Clamper.



26

AJ Fife,

29/04/2008 16:27:02
#25,

Didn't the US govt fund and equip Saddam and Osama Bin Laden at one point? Not to mention the co-operation the US govt tried to secure over gas and oil pipelines with the Taleban in the mid 90's!!

Seems to me the US Govt likes making up foreign policy as it goes along.......it couldn't be put down to greed, could it???
27

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 16:28:41
#25
Your post says it all. The U.S. is only interested in removing brutal dictators when it suits your political and economic interests. Where was the invasion to get rid of the brutal dictator Pinochet in Chile?(oh i forgot,the CIA installed him). Where is the invasion to get rid of the corrupt government in Colombia that floods your country with Cocaine on a daily basis?
28

EMMAL,

Santa Cruz de la Sierra 29/04/2008 16:31:21
Question for all of you, Do you still blame on Judes for Jesus death?

I'm sure you don't. So why Evo is blaming on the european descendants the actual situation? Besides that you guys think that the US is over these situation and you are all wrong. I do not like americans worse republicans, but the thing is that communism or a pseudosocialism is not the solution for my country, we need to evolve, not to stay where we wanted to be 500 years ago. We all agree that Evo is the first indigeneous president, Aymara origin, do you know that the aymaras nor the quechuas, originaires from the High Lands were not socialists, they were Imperialists!!! So, what would you preferred a non evoluted Emperor or at least a pseudo democrat one? huh?
29

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 16:56:09
#27 - Clamper

>"The U.S. is only interested in removing brutal dictators when it suits your political and economic interests..."

Actually I'm interested in removing them all.

Which points out that this is only your 'Red Herring' anyway, in an effort to avoid answering my question in post (which, unsurprisingly, you omitted):

"I'd be happy to hear how you would deal with them, Clamper."

So, how?
30

Itchy,

29/04/2008 17:28:55
#22"Specsavers:
they helped eventually in WW2, but me had to pay them back over the next fifty years. The main help came from the Soviet Union who lost 20 million in the battle to defeat the Nazis. "

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian and genocidal hellhole that terrorized eastern Europe for another 45 years after the war ended.

#15 your post is Marxsit.
31

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 17:40:17
#29
OK you may claim to be interested in removing them all but you know your Government isn't. In fact your Governments actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made things worse by acting as recruiting sergeants for Al Quaida. There was no Al Quaida in Iraq before the invasion or WMD for that matter. Why are you unable to see that your Governments interference in certain countries around the world is the main cause of the problem. Stop propping up unjust regimes like Saudi Arabia and Israel and start helping the impoverished nations of the world. You really need to get over the wild west days and think that you can solve everything by going in with all guns blazing. It did you no good in Viet Nam and it will do you no good in Iraq or Afghanistan. Wise Up !
32

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 29/04/2008 17:47:20
#30 That post was a response to the claim that the "U.S. saved our asses in WW2" Like it or not the Soviet Union was largely responsible for defeating the Nazis.
33

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/04/2008 18:17:44
Daithi and Nomad,

Boys, you might as well give it up with Clamper and Fife: they've nary a clue as to Realpolitik, Geo-Politics, Vital National Interests, History, Rationality, Logic, or Empirical Evidence.

They are Rad Lefties, Marxian Socialists pure and simple and for such as they, FACTS are a mere bother, a distraction from their political dogmas and warped views of the world.

They've not a clue as to the whole concept of Changing Political Needs/Situations.

When Hitler was on the Rise in the early 1930's, the ONLY European Leader to actually stop der Fuhrer militarily, was Benito 'il Duce' Mussolini in '34. They later became best friends and Allies. Clamper and Fife do not have the intellectual understanding or honesty to conceive of such Real World Realities.

Their kind of hero is that spineless swine Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs as he kowtowed to Hitler.

This is why they don't understand that in Geo-Politics, you use one thug to control another: hence the US support for Saddam during the 80's, as he hammered our enemy, Khomeini's Iran. Since Saddam was willing to fight the Iranians, it made clear and perfect sense to back him.

But Fife and Clamper think that politics and political situations are static in nature: they never change. Mind you, that's probably because in their THC induced haze, everything probably does look static.

Oh well, just remember that the Neo-Comms just do not have a grasp on reality, and to argue with them in any but a cursory manner, is a pure waste of time and effort.

Cheers from the Rockies
34

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/04/2008 18:46:07
Hello Clamper,

I hate to break this to you, but if you made it through school, you really need to find a lawyer and sue the schools and the teachers, because your understanding of history is sorely lacking.

The USSR was able to stay afloat after Hitler attacked, because the USA kept shipping planes, trucks, munitions, food, etc., to the Soviets. The ports they used were in Murmansk and Archangel, and thousands of American Merchant Marine Sailors gave their lives to keep the Soviets fighting: the Wolf Pack Uboats sank hundreds of US Merchant ships, but we Americans kept sending the needed materials.

I must add, having been educated as an Historian (modern Russian/Soviet, modern African history), that the 20 million number you Neo-Comms and other Soviet Apologists keep touting, is more than undermined by Stavka documents.

Stalin used to clear mine fields for his T-34's by having his NKVD/MKVD thugs sporting machine guns, force thousands of Soviet military personnel suspected or convicted of 'treason' (being captured by German military forces, or having had to retreat from those forces to preclude capture) to walk through those mine fields; thus 'clearing' them for safe passage for the T-34's and subsequent artillery and troops to move through them.

While the numerous commanders on the Stalingrad Front kept calling for reinforcements (and getting virtually none) from Moscow, Stalin held 1.5 MILLION troops in reserve, never telling the various generals he put in charge of the SF and then sacked for not 'succeeding' in defeating the Germans.

During the several months of the fight for Stalingrad, the German 6th Army despite being far outnumbered, ended up with a 5 to 1 kill ratio; this mind you, with severely limited supplies, ammunition, and support (the German High Command calculated that a minimum of 47-49 tons of supplies were needed, while most of the time, the limited German Air Lift could only supply 10 tons or less).

Stalin was to blame for th
35

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/04/2008 18:46:50
Hello Clamper CONT,

Stalin was to blame for the 20 million deaths, as his tactics, orders, and severe paranoia, caused MILLIONS more to die than needed to have died. These facts are not debatable in that the orders given, tactics used, and access to Stavka and Stalin severely limited/denied, have been verified.

You really need to go back to school and actually learn what took place, why it took place, and what the outcome was.

So many people who hold viewpoints such as yours, are horrifically ignorant of history, real world events, and real world politics.

Cheers from the Rockies
36

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 18:49:02
#31, #32 - Clamper:

>"OK you may claim to be interested in removing them all, blah blah, blah..."

Clamper, I've lined out my position, it's clear that you are avoiding my question:

"I'd be happy to hear how you would deal with them, Clamper."

Did I miss your answer somewhere? Nope, so far...
37

,

29/04/2008 19:34:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 19:55:48
#37 - deleteduser

>"we would have been overwhelmed and helpless in the face of a better trained and equipped enemy."

Why was Germany allowed to have a better trained and equipped army?
39

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 20:09:28
Allow me to rephrase the question:

"Why was Germany allowed to become a better trained and equipped enemy?"

Don't want some wise guy whining about the Army.
40

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 20:22:53
#37

"You really don't understand history, do you? Without Chamberlain, the UK would have been overran by October 1938."

Big hero? Why don't you find somebody from the former Czechoslovakia and ask them. The Germans didn't have to overrun them, Chamberlain did the Germans dirty work for them.

41

57Nomad,

california 29/04/2008 20:25:17
#17 aj

aj, you come on this forum and start deciding, on you own, who should and should not be allowed to post. And then you call me arrogant. Beautiful.
42

,

29/04/2008 20:53:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 20:55:09
#14 - 57Nomad

>"aj, you come on this forum and start deciding, on you own, who should and should not be allowed to post."

Heck, I was going to point out that perhaps he meant 'censure' instead of 'sensor', but that would point out the hypocrisy of people that put down the American educational system - while advertising the obvious weaknesses of their own.
44

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 21:14:34
#42 - deleteduser

>"How long have you got?"

Heh. Reviewing your answer, I don't think that I'd be willing to waste a LOT of my time with you - but in the spirit of debate, I'll make this effort:

>"A combination of the draconian measures of the Treaty of Versailles..."

OK, didn't the TOV also give the victors the 'triggers', or limits not to be exceeded - but you allowed them to?

>"Nazi Germany in full on conscription mode..."

OK, didn't the TOV also give the victors the 'triggers', or limits not to be exceeded - but you again allowed them to?

>"they'd amassed the largest air arm in the world..."

OK, didn't the TOV also give the victors the 'triggers', or limits not to be exceeded - but you AGAIN allowed them to??

What, did they do all of this stuff while you guys were taking an 'after tea nap'?

Do you see your REAL problem here?

You didn't stand up to them before they presented a clear and present threat to you.

You listened to those that rationalized 'not standing up' to them.

- They played on your 'guilt' concerning the TOV

- They appealed to your desire to spend scarce funds on yourselves instead of a growing enemy

- They shamed you by claiming that you were merely pursuing 'Imperialist Ambitions' by denying Germany 'living space'

- They got you to believe that YOU would be the bad guy for standing up to the German military growth - after all, "weren't they just providing poor Germans decent jobs? They are only marching with shovels anyway!"

They paralyzed your nation into inaction, supported with a flawed confidence in the Maginot Line until it was nearly too late - and Chamberlain was forced to play for time once the Nazi's real ambitions became clear.

Now, not only are we re-living the scenario - but you have joined them.

This behavior on your part is all the more shocking because you present yourself as knowledgeable on History.
45

,

29/04/2008 21:35:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

SouthernGent,

29/04/2008 22:47:21
In regards to Bolivia - class warfare at its finest. Probably coming to a town or city near you soon if not already there.

As for the we vs they arguments above - All of you need to get over it. The ALLIES won. Take any member away from the TEAM and none of us know what the outcome would have been.

"the US saved Europe" is the stock answer of the uneducated on this side of the pond and is the equivalent of the common "Russia was the heavy lifter" comment coming from the equally uneducated from the other side of the pond.
47

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 22:56:27
#45 - deleted user (and we see why)

>"Given the dribbling mentalism you're exhibiting..."

Have another drink, deleted user.

>"I'll presume you are in San Jose, California rather than anywhere else a tad more enlightened."

Whatever.

>"Re your stock answer, didn't your blessed nation also sign up to the Treaty of Versailles?

So now you want to know why WE didn't ratify a treaty that YOU guys refused to enforce - which you guys claim sowed the seeds of WWII?

>" What did Harding Coolidge, Hoover and Roosevelt do about Germany's military expansion."

OK, first you started off defending Chamberlain. When I pointed out that the TOV contained mechanisms that would have given Chamberlain opportunities to confront the spread of Hitler early, you changed your defense to 'yaah, but you didn't do nuthin' neither!

Apparently, the only dribbling going on here is you, down your chin.

So let me get this straight - you think that the US Presidents that you Wiki'ed up should have made the American people load up our Navy, fill up our troop transports, fly our aircraft:

Across the Atlantic, home of the 'Brittania Rules the Waves' Navy, while they sat there and watched;

Thru the Straits of Dover, while the mighty French Armies sat there and watched us sail by;

Past The Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, safe and secure hiding behind their safety screen of 'neutrality';

All to enforce a treaty that WE didn't sign but YOU did

- because YOU weren't willing to enforce it's provisions?

And you now want to lay blame at the feet of the Americans?

After involving us in the greatest, single, bloodiest, needless, useless massacre of human beings in world history up to that point - a war whose 'crowned leaders' were COUSINS???

And you want us to do this WHILE YOU DID NOTHING?

Are you completely clueless? YES.

Could you see why this might be a bit of a hard-sell to Americans?

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE become involved in ANY more inbred, Eur
48

Dáithí,

San Jose 29/04/2008 22:58:05
Continued...

WHY SHOULD WE HAVE become involved in ANY more inbred, European catastrophes? Why should WE have done something when YOU had a signed treaty that YOU REFUSED TO ENFORCE?

Keep up your dribbling, pal - it makes you look smarter than you are.
49

Itchy,

30/04/2008 00:59:51
#32 like it or not, the USSR had a non-aggression pact with Germany.
50

Toborochi,

Falls Church, VA 30/04/2008 04:10:56
Wow
I’m so tired of reading one-sided stories about Bolivia, and the social and political problems happening there. I’m tired of hearing biased points of views about “Evo Morales”, and then about the people who don’t believe in his leftist ideals. I think this is unfair and unbalanced, or maybe there is no one to tell the parts that are left out of those articles.
The Majority of Crucenos are “Mestizo” and mix of Spanish and Indigenous decent: the Guaranies, Moxeños, Chiquitanos, Guarayos, and Chiriguanos. It is so funny to hear the Whites in Santa Cruz, because the people of Stat Cruz are far from white, like argentina, of the US, how do I know because I've been there.In fact "Camba" in guarani means Dark.
Oh and Rich to who's standards, not to any american.
I have heard people use the word “Renegade” to describe the departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, Tarija, and Cochabamba for stating their Department to be Autonomous May 4th 2008. Is it “Renegade” to stay democratic, to want to stop a socialist from driving up the price of basic food items? Is it “Renegade” to want to get back more than 11% percent of the revenue your state produces: for schools, roads, quality police, and food.
Most people don't seem to know that Bolivia has a Centralized government. To put it simply “La Paz” is the center, and nothing can be done in the hold country with out its say.
All the 5 departments want is the chance to govern like the USA, Spain, Argentina, and after this goes through the rest of bolivia with follow.
All they want is REAL DEMOCRACY.
Autonomia para Santa Cruz y TODO de BOLIVIA
Fuerza Camba, crucenos, pichiroses, Cunumi.
51

57Nomad,

california 30/04/2008 08:14:13
#17 aj

aj said:

"Hopefully the next US administration will take steps to censor his type. The world would be a safer place!"

I was wondering how one person could say so many odd things. But, after reading this post I now understand that poor AJ has been deprived of anything approaching an education. Every English speaking person is aware of the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is the 1st Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. It was written by the author of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers were exquisitely aware that human nature never changes. They knew that there would always be petty tyrants and little tin gods like a j fife famished for the power to silence those with whom they disagree.

What I find puzzling is why he didn't already know that. Better check to see whether or not he has a passport. He really needs to leave his little hamlet of yokels and get out in the world.
52

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 10:53:21
Lets face it,Americans are the ones who need to get out more(and i'm not talking about the countries they have invaded)and see the world. There are only around 20% of them that own passports. You really should try travelling with cameras instead of guns, you might learn something.
53

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 15:29:04
#52 - Clamper

>"Lets face it,Americans are the ones who need to get out more..."

Sigh, let's face it Clamper - you're clueless. Exactly what part of the world should we see more of?

- European Holocaust memorials?

- European World War I battlefields?

- European World War II cemeteries?

- Spanish Inquisition Museums?

- Ex-European colonies in Africa murdering each other?

- Russia trying to recover from its failed experiment in Communism?

- Arabs rioting in Paris?

- 'Peace Walls' dividing religions in Belfast?

- 'Potato Famine' memorials in western Ireland where the British allowed their own citizens (heh) to starve in the millions?

- The seeds of perhaps a second rise of totalitarianism in Italy?

Don't you guys realize that one of the great things about the US is to provide the world with a place to go to get AWAY from you guys?
54

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 15:42:22
"Don't you guys realize that one of the great things about the US is to provide the world with a place to go to get AWAY from you guys?"

Yeah right, try telling that to native americans. You don't seem to keen on Mexicans at the moment either.
55

57Nomad,

california 30/04/2008 16:01:31
#54 the clamster

here the clampster weighs in on yet another subject he knows nothing about:

"Yeah right, try telling that to native americans."

Got news for you clams, every single person born in America is a native American.
56

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 16:03:59
#54 - Clamper

>"Yeah right, try telling that to native americans.

The expected result from an influx of so many immigrants looking to escape, uh, the mess that constitutes 'the rest of the world'.

Besides, you guys killed off your own hunter class about the time of Stonehenge so get off your high horse.

>" You don't seem to keen on Mexicans at the moment either."

I'm an advocate of 100%, free and unrestricted immigration/emigration. Anyone can go anywhere (as long as they have no criminal record).

Mexicans, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Chinese, Hindu, Hmong - anyone, anywhere.

Perhaps you'll join me? I doubt it.

Now, perhaps you can explain why the Europeans are resisting allowing Turkey to join the EU?
57

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 16:18:10
I couldn't think of a country I'd less like to join you in than the U.S.A. Keep up the posts though , it confirms what most of the world thinks about your dumb country and its even dumber President.
58

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 16:49:43
#57 - Clamper

>"I couldn't think of a country I'd less like to join you in than the U.S.A. "

Thanks!

Besides, I was actually inviting you to join me in supporting unrestricted immigration/emigration, but I think you avoided that intentionally.

Since you've avoided every point and merely resorted to 'I hate you' posts, I see that you're about done. So allow me to recap:

You said - Americans need to get out more!

I replied - Why?

You replied - You're not keen on Mexicans!

I replied - Uh, ok, actually I am keen on them. Why don't you join me, and be keen on all immigrants, Turks included?

You replied - You're poopy. Your country is poopy. Your President is poopy.

Proving, once again, that moving beyond a few, simplistic slogans leaves you anti-Americans (and apparently, anti-immigrants) lost for responses, you
you resort to simple sloganeering - your safe, mindless home.
59

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 16:53:54
Nomad, even San Jose Dude knew what I meant by "native americans". Ever heard of Wounded Knee? His historical knowledge seems to have a few gaps though...

"The expected result from an influx of so many immigrants looking to escape, uh, the mess that constitutes 'the rest of the world'."

Try reading up on the slave trade.
60

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 17:19:48
#59 - Clamper

>"Nomad, even San Jose Dude knew what I meant by "native americans"

Yes - Casino owners.

>"Try reading up on the slave trade."

Uh, so now your 'defense' is that we implemented European practices?

And you STILL haven't responded to my immigration position.
61

SouthernGent,

30/04/2008 17:26:07
The "passport" argument is getting a little old. The reason many Americans don't have passports, is they haven't needed one until recently. They could travel to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean without one. Thats a lot of territory.

Europeans, on the other hand have always needed one to travel because of the short distance between countries. Now with the EU, that has changed, but still covers less territory.

In short, Europeans aren't necessarily world travelers, it was a necessity. And most tend to travel close to home. The Atlantic and Pacific tend to keep people from going too far due to time and money constraints. And we are generally talking about the "average" citizen.
62

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 17:53:06
#61 - SouthernGent

>"The "passport" argument is getting a little old."

Yes, many myths are quite old - but there are people that NEED to cling to them as it is central to their dogma. Clamper, as many others, have build this into their belief system to the point that they cannot defend them, but merely repeat them - as if repetition creates reality.
63

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 17:54:51
"Uh, so now your 'defense' is that we implemented European practices?"
No, I was merely referring to you statement that:-
"The expected result from an influx of so many immigrants looking to escape, uh, the mess that constitutes 'the rest of the world'." The point I was making was that not every emmigrant to the U.S.arrived by choice.
We do agree on one thing though. I have no problem with unrestricted immigration/emmigration either. Scotland has as many immigrants as emmigrants each year. I might draw the line though, if there was a sudden influx of southern red necks. (Joke, before you take me too seriously)
64

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 30/04/2008 18:00:50
~61 So you see no connection between your low level of passport holders and your insular outlook on the world.
You don't have to restrict you travel to one continent. Try the others and broaden your minds.
65

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 18:23:24
#63 - Clamper

>"I might draw the line though, if there was a sudden influx of southern red necks. (Joke, before you take me too seriously)"

Heck, and here I thought that we might be getting rid of 'em! ;)
66

SouthernGent,

30/04/2008 20:30:00
#64

No, I don't. If you haven't noticed lately, technology has reduced the size of the planet. I can go to more places on my computer than I could ever go in person.

Your perceived "insular outlook on the world", isn't from any scientific data, its an opinion. Parroted by many that are just as "insulated".

Traveling doesn't necessarily enlighten one to the world around them. Case in point - is Princes St a microcosim of Scotland? Hardly. Yet many visitors only see the "tourist" spots of any country. I doubt that will "open" any true windows of the world. Very few people actually visit the underbelly of any city/country, so your argument holds no merit. Plus, when you visit other countries, you run into a wide assortment of people, none of which believe the same in everything.

So, would your comment be more like "people in the US need to go to other countries and seek out those that hate the US, in order for them to really know the world around them"?

People will always meet others with opposing viewpoints no matter where they go. I don't have to leave the US to find them. In my travels (and I worked for an airline for over 20 years so there are many), I found that people are people. Most trying to live life to the fullest and go day to day. The hate I see on the internet is NOT indicative of what I see in the "real world".

People tend to be creatures of habit and are more comfortable with what they know. Although I enjoy traveling to other areas of the globe, getting "home" puts me at ease. I guess I'm lucky to be born in a country that I'm not looking to leave.
67

57Nomad,

california 30/04/2008 22:23:51
#59 clambed

the clamer said:

"Nomad, even San Jose Dude knew what I meant by "native americans"."

I have news for you. Just because the "San Jose dude," knows what you mean proves nothing. You think you are being cute by using the idiotic pc phrase, a real enlightened guy? Don't you have a passport? Don't you ever get out the little yokelville you were spawned in? I guess not, because if you did you would find out that American Indians refer to themselves as American Indians. They don't particularly care for the term "native American." They find the term "native" to have a kind of bone through the nose connotation that they would just as soon not be associated with. They are also quite aware that the term "native American" is a less than meaningless term concocted effete self-important liberals so as to appear oh, so enlightened. When Indians wish to distinguish themselves from others they do so by referencing the name of their tribe, e.g. The Hopi Nation.

I find your reference to Wounded Knee to be extremely puzzling and I'll tell you why. You use the phrase as if you were shining a light on a shameful act that we are trying to pretend never happened. Do you know when the incident at Wounded Knee happened? The reason that I ask is this, the US Cavalry was confronting the Ghost Dancers at Wounded Knee in 1890. There were about 350 Indians there. At the same time, Great Britain was oppressing about 350 MILLION Indians in India. So, what was that you were saying?
68

Dáithí,

San Jose 30/04/2008 23:16:57
"The San Jose Dude" knows what 'Native American' means, he also knows that 'Native American' seldom call themselves 'Native Americans' (although that is the box that they can check on job applications).

They generally call themselves by the name of their tribe. Hupa's call themselves Hupa, Yuroks call themselves Yurok, Pomo's call themselves Pomo's, Cherokees call themselves 'Cherokee'.

They also use the word 'Indian', many times just like everyone else does - except when TV cameras are rolling.

Unfortunately, these things become a bit silly after a while and establish stereotypes of their own - after all, how many people would classify Charleze Theron as an African-American?

But she is.
69

Not a Native,

Florida 01/05/2008 03:35:55
First of all, the Scotsman is taking a bit of a sensationalist viewpoint on the current situation in Bolivia. They've been at it for years, and every time it comes to a head, everyone screams "this is it, they're going to implode!"
Sorry, but probably not.
And to: A Clamper,Edinburgh 30/04/2008 10:53:21
Lets face it,Americans are the ones who need to get out more(and i'm not talking about the countries they have invaded)and see the world. There are only around 20% of them that own passports. You really should try travelling with cameras instead of guns, you might learn something.////
You are correct...it is pretty sad that so few of my countrymen own passports. I've travelled through most of South America and Europe (had a great time in Edinburgh, BTW) and am thankful that I've had that opportunity...but lets not paint all Americans with the war-monger brush. As I recall, your island had quite the empire for some time...
70

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 09:12:44
#18 Cramps

the cramper said:

"Nomad,
who gave the U.S.A. the right to be the worlds' policeman ? Empires come and go and the U.S. greed driven empire won't last either so you better get used to the idea."

Ahhh, Cramps, "the world's policeman?" Are you feeling ok? Did the Clamper get a hold of some bad clams? Let me break this to you gently. On this forum it is customary to refer to the article in question or to what someone else has posted. It is rare that an individual introduces a post that is both wildly off topic and not germane to a particular post. The article doesn't mention 'worlds policemen,' I didn't mention 'worlds policeman,' only one person, the old Clamperino mentions 'worlds policeman'.

I fear, my confused little goofball, that I am not the only one who has noticed this. All over the English speaking world right now puzzled readers are at their monitors, staring at your post and saying, "what the f%^$ is Clampy talking about, worlds policeman? Alphonso, the articles author didn't say anything about 'worlds policeman' this Nomad fellow hasn't said a word about 'world's policeman' but then, out of the blue, this Clampy chap starts in with 'worlds policeman'. Best if someone scampers over to his house and has a look. This fellow just isn't connecting at all. Maybe take one of those LSD sniffing dogs along."

It's just these sort of random non sequiturs, full of sound and fury, that bring to mind a demented old lady walking down the street hectoring one and all about being Bulgarians. It won't do, Clampy, it just won't do. Good God, man, pull yourself together.
71

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 01/05/2008 14:43:06
My,My, I seem to have hit a few raw nerves the other side of the pond. Nomad try reading the article and you will see the connection....
"Mr Morales also repeated claims that Washington was actively trying to force him from power."
You will be telling us next that the CIA has no interest in Bolivia!
72

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 20:03:10
#71 clams

clams said:

"seem to have hit a few raw nerves"

You couldn't hit water if you fell out of a boat.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In