Latin America: the attack on democracy, by John Pilger

CatGirl says on May 20, 2008, 19:47:

Hmmmm...yes, blood is big business.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on May 20, 2008, 19:50:

BTW - good post Webman ..Purrr

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 20, 2008, 22:37:

sorry - i only got thru a few graphs before i cracked up. i'll try again tomorrow.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

huskie says on May 21, 2008, 00:24:

Interesting article, but full of crap, he, Pilger, is now a powerful journalist, and can get away with more sweeping statements it is a double edged sword. I think he would do radical causes more credit if he was more careful in his research. He also needs to reflect that using his power to make sweeping statements is also a way of showing that he has that power, so is not entirely modest of him. But hey, we all indulge ourselves to some extent, and power is notoriously hard to handle.
The danger is to be an enemy of America, which is Chavez' big crowd-pleaser. Chavez makes a point of visiting countries like Iran, Belarus, Syria, Iraq before the war, and practically everyone on America's hitlist. Now, where I agree that a lot of America's enemies are in many ways nicer than America's friends, why visit them? He called Bush "satan" at the UN, which although it probably is true, this satan also buys virtually all of his products. So why say it? There is no benefit from visiting Chavez is far too much of an extremist. Nationalising the steel industry is the latest, that isn't going to reduce poverty. Nor will politicising it. This government has a history of nationalising things and then running them into the ground. Everything he touches becomes less efficient, and gives beaurocrats more power, creating corruption. This is the typical far left mistake.
The problems are so blatant and the corruption is so endemic that the only ones who could approve are the boneheads above that get excited when they see fist-waving and anti-american chants.
Cheers

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds-"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on May 21, 2008, 07:05:

Looks like an interesting piece.

John Pilger is indeed a powerful journalist, by means of his reputation, which he got by being thorough, intelligent and insightful. Hopefully, he still is.

Now, let's be clear here: I generally think Chavez is an idiot. However, nationalisation of national resources can often make business become more bureacratic and less efficient, but it stops profits being syphoned abroad by multinational companies. The concept of Foreign Direct Investment is that MN uses its expertise to exploit (in all senses of the word) a country's natural resource, in Venezuela's case oil. The MN also exports the lion's share of profits.

After a while, the technical know-how can be transferred (learnt) by the host country, the equipment bought. In short, the country can take over its own production, without the profits of its own natural resource being exported abroad to a third, now largely irrelevant and unneccesary, nation.

While bad news for the MN, it obviously makes sense for the host nation; whether it is Venezuela, the US, whatever.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on May 21, 2008, 07:25:

"After a while, the technical know-how can be transferred (learnt) by the host country, the equipment bought"

this assumes that the revenues are at least partially reinvested properly. in the case of PDVSA, it has become el payaso's int'l atm card, with very close to 0 reinvestment in the infrastructure. those chickens will eventually come home to roost...likely after chavez is only an embarrassing memory for the venezuelan people.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on May 21, 2008, 09:44:

SiV "Now, let's be clear here: I generally think Chavez is an idiot. However, nationalisation of national resources can often make business become more bureacratic and less efficient, but it stops profits being syphoned abroad by multinational companies. The concept of Foreign Direct Investment is that MN uses its expertise to exploit (in all senses of the word) a country's natural resource, in Venezuela's case oil. The MN also exports the lion's share of profits."

Had an interesting conversation about this last night ...funny. Someone that had just returned from Venz. Then the discussion turned to the friggin Laptop found and the hard drive "proof" story. jaja. I am too distracted to read the article now, maybe when I am in a better state of mind...or possibly a better State. ja!

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 21, 2008, 13:36:

I know nothing about his reputation, so that's my problem, but his arguments should be able to stand on their own two legs.

Unfortunately, I think he skips too many things, makes too many assumptions, and in general narrows everything to fit his own tunnel vision of the events.

That's not to say that he doesn't make some valid statements, to an extent he does....but I don't feel this article, taken as a whole, is good. Not even as an editorial.

Don't have the time to chop it around and address each point.

But honestly...even calling Uribe "Pinochet" and Colombia "Israel" just feels...I don't know...maybe I must be a Martian, but that's clearly NOT the case. The whole point that Colombia is being armed not just against FARC but Venezuela is rather sloppy, and depends more on preexisting opinions and assumptions than on actual proof. I'm not convinced.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 21, 2008, 13:44:

People who claim they are "telling the truth", and then jump right in to make questionable statements without proving them, or their statements end up being clearly disjointed and axiomatic while leaving tons of details out...don't exactly give me much confidence.

I don't care if it's the "mass media", a "free journalist" or a Biblical Prophet. If their work if sloppy, the rest is just personal preference and...hot air.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on May 21, 2008, 15:10:

juance: I totally agree that the article is extremely sloppy. The only rational that I can find in calling Colombia the Israel of South America is that it is in fact receiving a TON of military aid (similar to Israel) from the US. In addition, Colombia is seen as a friendly political ally in a region that is filled with governments that are less receptive to US interests. That is about as far as the comparison goes, in my opinion. There might be a few comparisions that one could draw between Uribe and Pinochet, but there are obviously HUGE differences between the two leaders as well.

I won't say anymore since I am in complete agreement that the article's argument is tenuous at best given that Pilger provides no real support to back up his claims.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gator says on May 21, 2008, 18:53:

Jance, Doc, Lcacique, my sentiments exactly.

When I see statements like: "Colombia, the US has made Venezuela's neighbour the Israel of Latin America-...some of the most murderous people on earth-their various gestapos(???) trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia_"We not only taught them how to torture," a former American trainer told me, "we taught them how to kill, murder, eliminate."-where government-inspired mass terror has been documented by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch (great, unbiased sources) and many others-To that goal has now been added a war of attrition on the new popular democracies, especially Venezuela."

No supporting backup whatsoever. In Journalism 101 it would be a D-

"Credidi pretio parvo emere et magno vendere tibi in animo fuisse!" .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on May 22, 2008, 00:09:

While I think the article is pretty crappy, some of the points that are being raised here are at the very least partially true.

Colombia and violence: "In 2001 there were more terrorist attacks in Colombia alone than in all other nations of the world combined - averaging four per day. Colombia has the highest homicide rate in the world - 77.5 per 100,000 - nearly 14 times the U.S. rate, making homicide the most likely cause of death."

http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/colombia03hill.html

According to Adolfo Franco, assistant administrator for USAID's Bureau for Latin America:
"Colombia suffers from an extraordinarily high homicide rate of 63 murders per 100,000 inhabitants each year. Surprisingly, most of these deaths are not related to the armed conflict with guerrillas. Rather, they are a result of drug-related violence, weak governmental institutions, and a pervasive sense of impunity before the law."

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2003/October/20031030162506...

Sadly, Colombia, for several decades, was at or near the top of the list in terms of its homicide rate. What I take issue with is Pilger's wording because it makes it sound like Colombians are just a bunch of savage people.

As for government-inspired mass terror (again, these words are extremely loaded):

"The Government's human rights record remained poor; there were some improvements in the legal framework and in institutional mechanisms, but implementation lagged, and serious problems remain in many areas. Government security forces continued to commit serious abuses, including extrajudicial killings. Despite some prosecutions and convictions, the authorities rarely brought higher-ranking officers of the security forces and the police charged with human rights offenses to justice, and impunity remains a problem. Members of the security forces collaborated with paramilitary groups that committed abuses, in some instances allowing such groups to pass through roadblocks, sharing information, or providing them with supplies or ammunition. Despite increased government efforts to combat and capture members of paramilitary groups, often security forces failed to take action to prevent paramilitary attacks. Paramilitary forces find a ready support base within the military and police, as well as among local civilian elites in many areas."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/wha/index.cfm?docid=741

And while the State Department notes that there has been improvement with respect to human rights violations in Colombia, they still acknowledge that:

"Some members of government security forces, including enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, and senior officials, in violation of orders from [the] president and the military high command, collaborated with or tolerated the activities of new illegal groups or paramilitary members who refused to demobilize. Such collaboration often facilitated unlawful killings and may have involved direct participation in paramilitary atrocities."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100633.htm

These two quotes do not necessarily prove anything. For me, they simply demonstrate that those who are concerned about such links may actually have some valid arguments. How much collaboration occured/occurs between the legitimate forces and the illegal armed groups? Admittedly, I have NO IDEA. Maybe, and I hope this is the case, very little.

Again, let me stress that I'm not trying to defend the argument made by Pilger. His article, as most everyone has noted, is full of flaws.

Gator: just out of curiosity, what sources do you consider unbiased? I think the distrust of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is pretty interesting.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on May 22, 2008, 04:18:

"However, nationalisation of national resources can often make business become more bureacratic and less efficient, but it stops profits being syphoned abroad by multinational companies."

The reason companies invest is to make profits. No profit, no investment. No investment, no profit center to be nationalized. Chavez won't have to worry about any filthy foreign investments and the jobs that they create ever again.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 22, 2008, 04:27:

"Colombia's Pinochet is President Alvaro Uribe"

YAWN... yes yes, another fucker who has not even visited Colombia and knows anything about it...
Web, I don't see the reason of posting such a sloppy, insulting and possibly racist piece of journalism... any idea?

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on May 22, 2008, 06:23:

It is interesting and a learning experiece to read different opinions, whether they are exagerated or no at all true, it is up to us the readers to discern and comment on them. There is not reason not to read it but just as threads in PBH you are free to read and free not to comment.


A few reporters get more first hand information than us regular citizens (at least than me).

Besides how things are seen from foreign journalists migth give a sense of the news not beein permeated by local politicians interest.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/colphon.htm

until the War on
Drugs replaced the Soviet Threat, and a new enemy was conjured: the
'narco-guerrilla".

The hypocrisy of American anti-drug campaigns in Colombia dates back to
the 1970s when congress cut back US aid to repressive Latin American
police forces while increasing so called anti-narcotics aid by about the
same amount: a sleight of hand barely acknowledged at the time. 'To keep
the aid coming," wrote Peter Dale-Scott in his book, Cocaine Politics,
'corrupt Latin American politicians helped to invent the spectre of the
drug- financed narco -guerrilla, a myth." He quotes a senior US military
officer who says the way to counter 'those church and academic groups
that have slavishly supported the insurgency in Latin America" is to put
them 'on the wrong side of the moral issue".


The Other Colombia, the One of Hope
Militarism and Social Movements
By RAÚL ZIBECHI
http://www.counterpunch.org/zibechi03052005.html

country is at war and, as my hosts claim, controlled by the military. But upon leaving the bar, we see uniformed patrols entering the nightspots, asking for documentation or simply observing the clientele. Back at the hotel, we turn on the television to a program about the Colombian armed forces, with beautiful young women extolling the virtues of the military's social work.

As the days pass, my initial doubts about militarization disappear. Bogotá is a city bristling with olive-green uniforms. The military presence is an unavoidable part of daily life. At the main entrance of the National University, for example, several armored vehicles serve to remind the students that at any moment the soldiers may enter to restore "order." This kind of supervision constitutes systematic control of the very pores of social life. And with it, according to all reports, fear is converted into a way of life, with no end in sight.

My first night in the tent I was awoken in the middle of the night. Someone had escaped the embassy and fled the building on foot - he appeared to be wounded. Later in the day we learned the identity of the escapee - it was the Uruguayan ambassador. He had jumped from a second-floor window, had broken his leg in the jump, and had run away, broken leg and all.

The escaped ambassador was much heralded in the U.S. media, but the Latin American press got the real story. In a move that seems unbelievable in today's climate, the M-19 allowed journalists to call into the embassy and talk with hostages. So far as I know, no one in the U.S. media ever bothered to do this. But Latin American reporters did, and they got the real story on the heroics of the Uruguayan ambassador.

http://www.counterpunch.org/reichard04022005.html
"New York Didn't Think It Was Newsworthy"
The M-19 and the Siege of Bogota
By LAWRENCE REICHARD

My first night in the tent I was awoken in the middle of the night. Someone had escaped the embassy and fled the building on foot - he appeared to be wounded. Later in the day we learned the identity of the escapee - it was the Uruguayan ambassador. He had jumped from a second-floor window, had broken his leg in the jump, and had run away, broken leg and all.

The escaped ambassador was much heralded in the U.S. media, but the Latin American press got the real story. In a move that seems unbelievable in today's climate, the M-19 allowed journalists to call into the embassy and talk with hostages. So far as I know, no one in the U.S. media ever bothered to do this. But Latin American reporters did, and they got the real story on the heroics of the Uruguayan ambassador.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on May 22, 2008, 15:31:

Geez...looks like would need to do much research on this for me to come to an educated and objective opinon that I feel comfortable with. hold on let me check my schedule......

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

borat says on May 22, 2008, 15:47:

there is no doubt that the population here is controlled through force, all paid for by the US taxpayer

what you believe is not important, it's what you do that counts

0 funny, 0 helpful.