Source for emprworm

[Egeides]

This is from another thread, but I wanted to make this thread about exclusively for sources. If anyone want to comment on sources (whatever the pro or anti interventionist), they can put it here, and discuss them here. Like I'm explaining at the end, it's not complete (documentary researches of numbers and all takes some time). So here it goes:

Is this ironic??!! Hey!! The US put many more dictatorship to power than any support UN may have given by trying to negociate!!!

Name them. Name every dictatorship that the US formed. And then cite the proof. Because I say you are speaking out of ignorance.

US is PRESENTLY supporting people lot worst than Iraq: Israel, Turkey.

neither of those countries is worse than Iraq. Turkey and Israel are free nations whos people do not suffer under brutal tyrrany. How many Turkish refugees are in the world? How many Israeil refugees are in the world? Zero maybe?

Yet 100,000 Iraqi refugees since 1991 and increasing daily.

You speak but don't have a clue. Back up your claims or cease your speaking.

Afghanistan? Look at which government they instaured...

a democracy. It is not a failure. It is not finished yet, but it is most certainly not a failure. How has it failed?

Again, cite evidence for your preposterous claims because all you have done is spewn anti-american propoganda.

TRUTH: You just hate america, and have nothing to substantiate your propoganda

Afghanistan is not a failure??? It warlords are taking all the place! The actual government is a joke even only in the capital! Why does oil pipeline projects now in execution? Why is it that it,s NEVER against lobbies interests?

Hey, before you demand sources, look at how many sources you gave.

Exemple: "TRUTH: You just hate america, and have nothing to substantiate your propoganda" I dunno since when you read in my mind. Nor do I know what is your sources about propaganda. Can you explain me how propaganda works and how we can know if there is some? I could.

Sources (I don't always remember exact ones and have no intention to make documentary researches at university but here's a patern):

- Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle (you can take all Chomsky's political works if you wish)

- for Columbia, you may look at columbian historians (sorry, never kept the names). Weapons and support was sent to military, but everyone there knew that military = paramilitary (which are the criminals)

- For Pinochet, you may simply look at Chomsky (his CDs with speeches are ok) but you also can give a look at who trained the men

- Saddam Hussein, Bin Ladden (you really want sources? You may try www.gregpalast.com Greg Palast won I dunno how many prices and so on so he's a good reference of the other side. He left Canada and USA saying that his artices were always refused because of their position. Now he's in UK)

- You may also look at Cambodge (Kampuchea): Henry Kissinger and friends decided to disrupt the order that existed in the government by crashing the central government and bringing chaos. The result was Pol Pot secceeding to get to power since he was preparing just behind.

- You may also look at armament movements. A huge part to Israel. To who Israel sells weapons? "Rogue states".

- You should also get a look at exports of agricultural stuff (which is bio and chemical). When it largely exceeds a country's needs, something's wrong.

- You can look at what Israel does

- You can look at Turkey which is actually an ally. Go see http://www.amnesty.ca/ and you'll see about Turkey and Israel (and other countries, Iraq included)

- You may also look at Haiti. Look at who sent weapons to who. Sorry I can't find the numbers, it takes quite some time. But it's in the following book I'm talking about (Year 501). Presently, Haiti's resources were taken and its agricultural capacities are property of Dole and other food companies (and gives a pretty little royalty... to the rich people).

The best source I know specifically about USA instauring bad regimes is "Year 501", from Noam Chomsky again. Chomsky was said by New York times or another of the most important American Newspapers as "most important living intellectual" and stuff like that. I don't believe he is THAT important but anyway... To anyone reading French, there's also http://www.globalresearch.ca/ even if I do not necessarily share certain views. Anyway, dissidence covers alot of different people and Chodovsky still has some interesting dossiers about Palestine, latino america and so on.

If you want sources about how it doesn,t get to the news, you may look at www.prwatch.org or even http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/business/media/13ADCO.html?ex=1048612396&ei=1&en=0585bcba611e4f53

Of course you may give a look at the system: who has the more money can talk more (TV ads, newspaper ads, support to politicians).

Now may I ask you why you're trying to insult others about not giving sources while you

1- didnt gave more?

2- even make unbased asumptions like "I'm sure u believe this, you're that"...? Is it a priori knowledge?

And give me your sources at the same time.

So anti-war people certainly have no sources. This isn't something complete. I have 2 essays to do so no time for documentary research. I MAY get in it more seriously when I'll be finished with my work (I will if I'm not loaded with other work just after...). About America, sorry to say you that someone that believes America and thinking it's doing wrong may love America by saying "it's not good". Like anti-Vietnam, like people saying lobbying is not correct, etc. (See Ralph Nader's campaign for this) "You do not love America" is an argument as much as "You don't love Europe".

"neither of those countries is worse than Iraq."

Sorry?... Turkey simply gased its people, and just take a look at who used US helicopters to bring terror to Kurds.

Israel? Lot worst presently, even if Iraq could have rivalized before 1991, when Iraq had US support for bio/chemical massacres of Iran and Kurds. Why do you think Kurds are so angry and yet do not love USA (even if they want Saddam out)?

[emprworm]

"Afghanistan is not a failure??? It warlords are taking all the place! The actual government is a joke even only in the capital! Why does oil pipeline projects now in execution? Why is it that it,s NEVER against lobbies interests?"

warlords only have power in areas where law has not yet reached them. If your criteria for success is the non-existence of crime, then all governments, including Canada fail. There will always be crime. Crime does not dictate success or failure of Afghanistan. The removal of this does:

That kind of thing no longer exists in Afghanistan to the extent that it did, and soon, it wont exist at all.

now, I find it sad that you are here telling us that Afghanistan prior to its liberation is better for the Afghans than it is now. Your kind of attitude is the reason why corruption exists in this world. Given a choice: Hate the US and let untold amounts of innocent women and children die by the taliban, or bring hope to the Afghan people....you choose hate the US at the expense of 25 million people. You seem like a sad person to me.

May the Afghan woman standing in the picture (if she is still alive) pray for your soul.

- for Columbia, you may look at columbian historians (sorry, never kept the names). Weapons and support was sent to military, but everyone there knew that military = paramilitary (which are the criminals)

currently giving millions per year to Columbia to help fight the FARC. If you think that is a bad cause, then you might actually be a terrorist? How much is your government doing to help Columbia fight the vile FARC? You are nothing but an armchair warrior. You sit around in your chair and do NOTHING, yet point your dirty finger around wherever you can judging everything. This is your weakness. A man of inaction. The FARC are as despicable as Al-Quaeda and the US is doing the RIGHT thing helping Columbia fight them.

- For Pinochet, you may simply look at Chomsky (his CDs with speeches are ok) but you also can give a look at who trained the men

what the US did in Chile, was a mistake.

- Saddam Hussein, Bin Ladden

these 2 people are being hunted down by the US for their crimes. You cannot blame the US for their crimes. They were not yet criminals when the US helped them. If someone gives someone help and then 10 years later they turn into a criminal, whos fault is that? You have some things to learn. This is more of your armchair warrioring. You critizise the US for not helping....so when the US helps someone and they turn around years later and be a criminal, now its the US fault? You make a horrible judge. A good dictator, though. Your people would be unbearably oppressed. Hitler would be proud.

You may also look at Cambodge (Kampuchea .

"On 25 December the Vietnamese launch a full-scale military invasion of Cambodia, rapidly pushing aside the Khmer Rouge. Phnom Penh is captured on 7 January 1979.

Between 1 and 3 million Cambodians, or about one quarter of the country's entire population of about 7 million, have died in the years 1975-79. On a per capita basis the Khmer Rouge "revolution" is easily the deadliest in modern Asian history"

Uhhh...just HOW did the US create this?

You may also look at armament movements. A huge part to Israel. To who Israel sells weapons? "Rogue states".

Who? Cite your evidence, this is just meaningless speculation. So far, "rogue states" to you seem to be democracies, while the dictatorships you seem to defend. Go move to Lybia since you seem to enjoy oppression so much.

ou can look at Turkey which is actually an ally. Go see http://www.amnesty.ca/ and you'll see about Turkey and Israel (and other countries, Iraq included)

been there, done that. Turkey is way above its middle eastern neighbors. Have you ever bothered to ask what Turkish people think of their government? Who are you to sit around in your computer chair up in north america eating PIzza's, fruit pies, twinkies, cheeseburgers, drinking mountain dew trying to tell Turkish people that their government is a failure because of the US? There is a word for that: arrogance.

- You should also get a look at exports of agricultural stuff (which is bio and chemical). When it largely exceeds a country's needs, something's wrong.

a very good reason to take down Saddam Hussein. thanks.

Now may I ask you why you're trying to insult others about not giving sources while you

1- didnt gave more?

2- even make unbased asumptions like "I'm sure u believe this, you're that"...? Is it a priori knowledge?

And give me your sources at the same time.

1. I did give sources. THe Iraqi people do not support Hussein and want Bush to remove him. Their voice matters more then yours...simply because they are actually IRAQIS.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/IraqiAmericans030212.html

Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions. That is another reason to take him down.

2. What "a priori" knowledge regarding Iraq? huh? You are not making any sense. The IRAQI people want freedom. We want to give it to them. You want them to not have it. You want them to continue to live under tyrranny. Must be nice to sit around in your nice easy comfortable computer chair up in north america eating PIzza's, fruit pies, twinkies, cheeseburgers, drinking mountain, enjoying the free life while millions suffer in agony and in servitude.

[Egeides]

For Afghanistan, I'm saying that US is not doing what it said it would do, simply. Laden was placed there by the US, as Saddam. So taking him back wouldn't be heroic, it'd be just stopping his stuff. About crime, it depends what level of crime! Here, we're talking about clan wars. And don't say that Afghanistan are happy about what did the US...

Columbia: The money didn't went against FARC. It went to paramilitaries since the counters were so close to paramilitaries that, well... it was the same. Presently, a Mexican congressman is going against US government for their "support against drug", saying they are doing just the opposite (nice to unstabilize other governments to do what you want). See also http://www.narconews.com/.

Saddam/Laden: Did you went to Greg Palast website? US gvt is the one who put them there. And it is before 1991 that Saddam did the worst (so it means on US support). "They were not yet criminals when the US helped them." It's at that time they did the worst. For this, you could go see at Kurds' and Iran demography but also use ww.zmag.org search engine..

Chile: Ok, we agree on Pinochet... yipi.

Besides, why is USA pushing for continental agreement while other country's population are overwhelmingly against them?

"You make a horrible judge.

[emprworm]

For Afghanistan, I'm saying that US is not doing what it said it would do, simply. Laden was placed there by the US, as Saddam.

Laden was placed by the US, Saddam was not. Laden was not a criminal at the time he was helped. Your argument is poor and irrational. YOu cannot hold someone responsible for helping a non-criminal. Now that Bin Laden has turned criminal, we are bringin him to justice. Its what nations do AFTER the person becomes a barbarian (like what France is doing regarding Hussein) that makes them honorable or not.

So taking him back wouldn't be heroic, it'd be just stopping his stuff. About crime, it depends what level of crime! Here, we're talking about clan wars. And don't say that Afghanistan are happy about what did the US...

I am saying afghanistan is happy about what we did. WHy was their such celebration? Women can now go to school. DO you think they are not happy about that? Do you think women want more of this?

yea, we have a pizza-eating, dorito munching, armchair computer warrior up in Canada telling those women how much "happier" they were under taliban slavery. ::) Oh I'm sure they were just overjoyed living under the Taliban! ::)

Columbia: The money didn't went against FARC. It went to paramilitaries since the counters were so close to paramilitaries that, well... it was the same.

yes it did. It went and GOES (present tense) directly to Columbian government to train and help them fight the FARC. WHO ARE YOU...JUST WHO ARE YOU to say that this is bad? Answer me!! IS THIS BAD WHAT THE US IS DOING TO HELP COLUMBIA? I want an answer YES OR NO. SHould the US stop all of its Aid to columbia? Yes or NO. And don't quote a mexican, quote a Colombian. Your sources are irrelevant unless they are from Colombian officials.

Saddam/Laden: Did you went to Greg Palast? US gvt is the one who put them there. And it is before 1991 that Saddam did the worst (so it means on US support).

saddam has done far worse since 1991, where have you been living? Again, have you asked or read any Iraqi opinions on Saddam? If you cared about Iraqi's you'd be on Bush's side. Because they are on his side and they want Saddam gone.

"They were not yet criminals when the US helped them." It's at that time they did the worst. For this, you could go see at Kurds' and Iran demography but also use ww.zmag.org search engine..

worst as in how? what exactly is "the worst?"

Besides, why is USA pushing for continental agreement while other country's population are overwhelmingly against them?

Iraqi's are with with Bush. Their opinion means more than yours. More than europeans.

"You make a horrible judge. A good dictator, though. Your people would be unbearably oppressed. Hitler would be proud." This is not an argument for US intervention, please put that sorta things out.

I already gave the arguments for intervention, you seem to be ignoring. That was my commentary on your position.

Cambodge: "Uhhh...just HOW did the US create this?" US didn't do all on this, they only heavily unstabilized the government while Khmers were behind. And since Pol Pot was advantageous strategically speaking, it was kept like this for a long time.

not the fault of the US. You try to blame the US for everything, exposing your ignorance. You skip all the good things the US has done, and point out only the bad. Meanwhile you sit around and do nothing. Those3 that take action in this world make mistakes. You sit on the sidelines, like a screaming hockey fan eating big fatty hot dogs with mustard on his face yelling at the referees because they make a few bad calls, yelling at everything...yet doing nothing except eating more hot dogs and spilling more ketchup on his shirt. US succeeds in Korea, Japan, succeeded in Afghanistan, and in Kuwait. THe US succeeded in Germany and France in WWII. Failed in Cuba, failed in Chile, failed in Vietnam.

Israel selling weapons:

"Who? Cite your evidence, this is just meaningless speculation. So far, "rogue states" to you seem to be democracies, while the dictatorships you seem to defend."

Simply get a copy of import/export of Israel and US. Like I said, I'll get further if I have time.

no. You made the claim. You back it up. And are you saying that any country that sells weapons is a bad country? Be careful before you answer.

"Go move to Lybia since you seem to enjoy oppression so much."

This is not an argument.

yes it is. It is an argument that you do not have a clue what a dictatorship is and you have no idea what it is like to live under one. If you did, you would be supporting the Iraqi's.

"Have you ever bothered to ask what Turkish people think of their government?" Yes, that's why I gave you a source which is www.amnesty.ca with all the entire researches there about how Turks do not like their government for their oppressive behaviour. The Kurds like it even less for the killings.

then let them change their government. It is not the US responsibility to babysit everyone. Maybe you should get out of your chair and go over there and make some reform. Turkey has the ability to change their government. That is not for the US to do.

"1. I did give sources. THe Iraqi people do not support Hussein and want Bush to remove him. Their voice matters more then yours...simply because they are actually IRAQIS.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/IraqiAmericans030212.html

Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions. That is another reason to take him down. "

UN violation? Besides, US allies (Israel and Turkey) broke lot more UN resolutions...

lol! so now we just overlook all who break UN resolutions? Basically then, just because one guy breaks them, now everyone can? I dont care if 1 billion countries violate UN resolutions for 1 million years, they are STILL VIOLATING THEM. That is not an argument to not intervene.

Furthermore, what UN resolutions has Israel and Turkish governments broken? Name them because I dont know of any.

Why aren't you against them? For your sources, it says Iraqi are for freedom in Iraq (I guess they are...) and also saying " "I agree with the action to change the regime only ? I don't want American soldiers to stay there. We need to enjoy the freedom in our country," explained Shamil. "We are afraid they will occupy my country and they will take the oil." " which is exactly what I thaught... But which regime will come after? I SAY IT AGAIN: the ones proposed to rule for post-Saddam are three damn killers (one was responsible of directing anti-Kurd stuff)!

That quote does NOT support anti-war. It SUPPORTS war but has a concern that the US might stay. The IRAQI'S SUPPORT the US removal of Hussein. They do not support the US staying for too long. You are against the Iraqi's. Your voice means less than theirs because it is not your country.

Where did I said that? I said that tyranny could be put out otherwise and that intervention is not equal to democracy.

do you want HUssein removed as soon as possible? YES OR NO. If "NO" then you support Iraqi's living under tyrranny. Plain and simple. The IRAQI people answer YES. What do you answer?

I'm still waiting from source that COUNTERS MY SOURCES. This means you'll have to read, not just letting me read opposite sources (which I did again and again

your sources don't say anything. THere is not much to counter. What you did post, I already countered.

[Egeides]

I have work now, so I'll come back on this probably later. Meanwhile, I gave sources and you did rarely. About import/export, I can't put them in your hands, and it's not to me to make all the job if you do not even wish to go as far with your own sources. Each time you gave an argument in the last reply, NO SOURCE. In the post you made to say I had no source, you had even less.

To answer rapidly to few things finally (which I may discuss in few days...):

- Woman are more happy in Afghanistan but are now dying more. US did the minimum to assure strategical and oil assets, the rest is chaos. The effort is not made. To have the right to talk, should I go as a slave? Bush isn't in a better position, as anyone in modern industrialized countries.

- France did as worst with Hussein. But the one that is the worst now is USA, which did same. Still, this kind of colonialism must be stopped, who cares who does it. Mass media rarely inform of its own country's stuff.

- Columbia: there is no help. It was asked to be stopped also. Sources? When I'll have time. If it's still as it was in the 80s, yes I'd wish the weapon exports and suh to stop.

- For Kurds, when I said worst I meant more kills (by bio/chemical, etc.)

So long... and please stop saying that others are "this and that" and that "they think this, they think that". I'm able to talk for myself, no need for someone's assumptions.

PS: Did you even went to websites I showed? Do you read often dissident's sources? (no offense, it's a question) Like salon.com gregpalast.com and so on?

PPS: Please keep your insults. Wether they touch me or not, they are not appropriate. It would be like me saying "Americans are fat people turned on themselves that think their lifestyles with low-price oil is more important than other's lives".

PPPS: I'd like you opinion on something too... US is pushing further the ideas promoted by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It was said about Zambia by official autorities "It is a model for the rest of Africa. there are no more waiting line in hospitals." and by the Zambian Post: "There are no more waiting lines at hospitals because now people die at home." Your leaders are promoting enterprise to go where it wants, even in your own country. Is it correct?

[emprworm]

- Woman are more happy in Afghanistan but are now dying more. US did the minimum to assure strategical and oil assets, the rest is chaos. The effort is not made. To have the right to talk, should I go as a slave? Bush isn't in a better position, as anyone in modern industrialized countries.

So I don't put word in your mouth: Are you saying that people in Afghanistan were BETTER OFF under the Taliban?

Secondly, Afghanistan is a work in progress. how can you call it a failure? Do you not realize what it was like before?

- France did as worst with Hussein. But the one that is the worst now is USA, which did same. Still, this kind of colonialism must be stopped, who cares who does it. Mass media rarely inform of its own country's stuff.

what needs to be stopped is slavery and dictatorial barbarism. and it will. the voices that matter most regarding Iraq are not canadian voices...or american voices...or European voices....the voices that matters the most are Iraqi voices.

and they support Bush.

- Columbia: there is no help.

no help? lol you have a lot to learn. you need to start reading whats going on in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1966916.stm US increases its partnership with Colombia

It was asked to be stopped also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58374-2002Feb23?language=printer - COlombia seeks more aid from the US.

lol.

Sources? When I'll have time. If it's still as it was in the 80s, yes I'd wish the weapon exports and suh to stop.

i just cannot WAIT to see your sources showing the COlombia government is asking the US to stop Aid to help fight the FARC.

I look forward to these "sources."

[emprworm]

already 2 billion given to colombia. they are asking for more.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/foreign%20policy/latimes%20op-ed.html

how about your government? What has it done to help Colombia?

[Egeides]

I don't know what it has done and what my idiot politicians are doing I am not responsible of (they are not all idiot, but they're not righteous enough). I vote for the ones I believe in, but they don't get to power anyway. Others are all the same: rightish. I am not my government (it doesn't do what I'd want), I'm me and responsible of ME.

If you continue puting an insult every two lines instead of answering calmly and with respect, you'll go find sources yourself. Or you respect people you talk with, or it's useless. Besides, I know that the GVT of Columbia asks for help, but I wasn't talking of its corrupted government. Of course it has good elements, nothing is only bad, but it's stuck with narco-guys that want all these weapons and so on.

For Afghanistan, here's the thing: US gvt made only what it needed to get access to building pipelines. The rest, they didn't do. So basically, make what you do so that the pipelines are there, send little money that gets to who knows who for a great part and claim your success.

You know what some Africans leaders said to USA last year? "Stop giving us money and let us alone, let the ressources to the people and take your World Bank back!" More comes OUT of Africa than the aid that comes IN (help, etc.) and by ALOT. Most African countries do not own their ressources that were bought to dictators.

And about Iraqi, remember what your article said: Iraqi want the intervention but not US on their territory. The thing is that it WILL be on the territory and WILL take the oil. And one of the three non-democrat wil be put to power.

If you sincerly are interested into the opposition, I say go read Year 501. Chomsky is American and is reknown more than needed. Anyway, up to you to see.

And I repeat, I DO want Saddam out of there, but I believe US intervention wont work. Some pupet regime will be instaured (God knows how these bloody puppet will react), lots of people will die, US lobbies will get their oil and politicians their strategical assets.

[emprworm]

If you continue puting an insult every two lines instead of answering calmly and with respect, you'll go find sources yourself.

ok, lets analyze this. Here is a full quote text of my last 2 posts. Please identify the insults against you:

---

"already 2 billion given to colombia. they are asking for more.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/foreign%20policy/latimes%20op-ed.html

how about your government? What has it done to help Colombia?

So I don't put word in your mouth: Are you saying that people in Afghanistan were BETTER OFF under the Taliban?

Secondly, Afghanistan is a work in progress. how can you call it a failure? Do you not realize what it was like before?

what needs to be stopped is slavery and dictatorial barbarism. and it will. the voices that matter most regarding Iraq are not canadian voices...or american voices...or European voices....the voices that matters the most are Iraqi voices.

and they support Bush.

"Columbia: there is no help. "

no help? lol you have a lot to learn. you need to start reading whats going on in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1966916.stm US increases its partnership with Colombia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58374-2002Feb23?language=printer - COlombia seeks more aid from the US.

lol.

i just cannot WAIT to see your sources showing the COlombia government is asking the US to stop Aid to help fight the FARC.

I look forward to these "sources.""

perhaps you felt insulted when I said you have a lot to learn. Well we all have a lot to learn. But you said "Colombia: there is no help" and this is just plain wrong. there is 5 billion dollars worth of help and more coming. how can you say no help for colombia? It makes me wonder if you even know anything about Colombia civil war taking place.

You know what some Africans leaders said to USA last year? "Stop giving us money and let us alone, let the ressources to the people and take your World Bank back!" More comes OUT of Africa than the aid that comes IN (help, etc.) and by ALOT. Most African countries do not own their ressources that were bought to dictators.

who? Please be more specific. who says this? And keep in mind, majority of third world debt is in the hands of the IMF which is France based.

Money given by the world bank is usually not AID. It is loans. US AID is always free and is not required to be paid back. So how many African countries want US AID to stop? Also, can you name one country in the world that gives more AID (which is not a loan) to Africa then the US?

[Egeides]

It's not about feeling insulted, it?s just totally irrelevant to treat other of this and that. Like:

"how about your government? What has it done to help Colombia?"

Saying to me I do nothing (pizza eater and TV warrior or anything)

Starting to say I prefer woman under Talibans

"where have you been living"

All kind of stuff presuming of the idiocy of the guy arguing with ya.

Instead of saying "I make a good dictator, horrible judge", give arguments. This is not constructive.

All this is not based on the subject itself but on showing the other is incompetent.

If you don't bother, when I'll be able to put my head only on this, we'll get on one issue only and go through it completely with pretty complete sources and everything and I'll try to show you there's something not going as you think. I cannot remember exactly from where comes everything! And you don?t either.

And look at what you put... I didn't said the government of Columbia didn't want the money. I was talking about people like university teachers and researchers around there that were saying that sending weapons and all to Columbia's gvt was the equivalent of sending it to criminals because the government was so corrupted.

About the stuff about IMF and all that, I know USA is the one that pushes further more and more what is "free exchanges" which is basically the freedom to invest wherever you want and sell it where you want. Champion of liberalism economy. IMF was created at Bretton Woods by USA and Great Britain (others? maybe but US is the major one). And what does the IMF? Well many believe it's not really good for the poor countries... If all is liberalized, then there is no help for poor ones and there is something to buy only to the ones who have money. Who has money? Poor countries??? Liberalism is not good for them but for people buying all their ressources at bargain prices...

For an article explaining IMF consequences: http://www.zmag.org/Instructionals/GlobalEcon/id17_m.htm

EDIT: Just discovered how useful the search component was on zmag... For Columbia, go see http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/stokes_col-primer.cfm It may not be from the Columbian teachers I was talking about, but it's probably the same arguments.

[emprworm]

fine, fine, i was too harsh. sorry about that. ad-hominem remarks are inappropriate in a debate.

all right, lets press forward then and ill lose the ad-hominem

lets talk about colombia.

When I say "what has your country done for colombia" I mean that. It is my opinion that the US is practically the only 1st world nation that even cares about colombia. Who else is helping them? We genuinely want to help them because the FARC is horrible. Do you accuse the US of being evil in its dealings with Colombia? Please answer that yes or no.

[Egeides]

fine, fine, i was too harsh. sorry about that. ad-hominem remarks are inappropriate in a debate.

all right, lets press forward then and ill lose the ad-hominem

lets talk about colombia.

When I say "what has your country done for colombia" I mean that. It is my opinion that the US is practically the only 1st world nation that even cares about colombia. Who else is helping them? We genuinely want to help them because the FARC is horrible. Do you accuse the US of being evil in its dealings with Colombia? Please answer that yes or no.

It depends what you call "US". The US citizens? Certainly not. The government? Yes. And the ones that are lurking around these guys. Realy, I guess the source I found explains it well (http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/stokes_col-primer.cfm). And there's nothing surprising to see a gvt beeing bad and people not knowing it: was same for British Empire, French Empire, Roman Empire and I guess all the damn *** empires. Independent medias would be more harsh, but corporate medias ("mass medias") are often going more on a certain side (you may look at South Africa: such an EVIDENT case wasn't even known by English people! (They thaught the black people were menacing whites maybe?) Only when Ghandi made a mediatic coup it was too much to not be known and people started reacting). And it wouldn't be the first time a gvt turns bad. From the moment too many bad elements are powerful, I guess they tend to dislike good ones that would criticize them... In my opinion, lobbies do not give money except if it pays back, and they give alot (they shouldn't be permitted I think).

[emprworm]

fine, fine, i was too harsh. sorry about that. ad-hominem remarks are inappropriate in a debate.

all right, lets press forward then and ill lose the ad-hominem

lets talk about colombia.

When I say "what has your country done for colombia" I mean that. It is my opinion that the US is practically the only 1st world nation that even cares about colombia. Who else is helping them? We genuinely want to help them because the FARC is horrible. Do you accuse the US of being evil in its dealings with Colombia? Please answer that yes or no.

It depends what you call "US". The US citizens? Certainly not. The government? Yes.

Ok, so now you answered the question: you say that the US 5 billion dollars worth of help to Colombia is evil. You quote me an article written by Doug Stokes who isn't even a colombian. What does he know? He is just a left-winger anti-Bush puppet. Again, this is the same thing: people that sit on the sidelines complaining about everything and doing nothing. billions of dollars of assistance to colombia is assistance that is welcomed by the colombian government. The problem is that bigoted people like DOug Stokes demand perfection. And when perfection does not occur, suddenly the US is evil.

Your arguments are disgusting. They disgust me because you accuse my government of being evil towards Colombia based upon what some white guy says who hates america anyway. WHAT IS YOUR GOVERNMENT DOING? I propose that YOUR GOVERNMENT is doing far more evil to colombia than the US. If 5 billion in help is evil, then what your government is doing is from the pit of hell. Can you not see your backwards logic?

That article, by the way, didn't even explain WHAT was so evil about the US assistance. All it did is talk about how things aren't perfect in Colombia. Well this is why I don't like talking to people like you: you demand perfection from America, and when things aren't perfect, you are the first to whine and critizise.

I gave you multiple references from COLOMBIANS that state US help is wanted. You have not refuted them. All you did was give me an article written by some white guy from the UK who is a member of a political activist group. Maybe the US should give NOTHING to Colombia like your government? Huh? Would that be better? Just leave them stranded and begging?

Your "sources" are garbage. If you are going to accuse the US 2 billion worth of help to colombia as evil, you need to start quoting some colombian government sources. I have already cited sources that prove Colombian wants & needs the US help. You quoted a white guy from the UK that hates the US anyway. Second, you didn't even explain in your post exactly WHAT IS SO EVIL about the US help to colombia.

I do not dig through articles to do your work for you. Unless you actually type out what it is that is so evil about the US help to colombia, we have no conversation. All you do is say "go read this article" and you don't even explain it. I am not going to go around reading article after article...YOUR JOB is to explain it first, then back it up with articles.

So I want you to E X P L A I N how the US aid to colombia is evil.

And Here's another problem i have with you: When we do nothing, you critizise. When do something, you critizise. You just are nothing more than a critiziser who does nothing yourself. 2 billion to Colombia IS - SOMETHING - and it is more than what your government is doing. And no matter how much you hate the US, no matter how many quotes you cite from white guys in the UK...you will STILL not be able to refute the fact that COLOMBIA wants that AID and needs that AID. Again, I want you to explain how those billions of dollars of assistance to colombia is evil. Tell me about how the colombians feel about it. What does the colombian government think of US assistance to them? Explain it...don't just post a link to a white guy from the UK.

Until you start quoting some Colombian government sources, every left-wing activist article you post is just meaningless rubbish.

[Egeides]

Erm... then I wont just give the source, I'll explain the argumentation point by point.

"FARC's export of drugs to the US but did point to the extensive nature of drug smuggling to the US by "right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats" "

- Who is implicated in the drug traffic:

the armed force

right-wing paramilitary

senior government bureaucrats

FARC

To who is sent US aid? Armed force and government. Armed force are themselves directly implicated, the actual government isn't better, and paramilitary gets some by them and armed force.

"right wing paramilitary groups are "far deeper into drugs" than the FARC and the US DEA "knows it" "

"paramilitary death squads are far more heavily involved than the FARC in drug cultivation"

- So this paramilitary is even more implicated... this is the one that is so close to the bureaucrats, military, etc.

"cuts off significant tax revenue for the FARC thereby making the insurgency harder to fund and thus sustain. In short, Washington has chosen to ally itself with the ultra right narco-paramilitaries that share Washington's common objective"

- Ok, so in short the FARC could do stuff against US interest and paramilitaries wont since they're right-wing and profit of it.

What are US interests?

"By 2010 overall US trade with Latin America is set to surpass trade with Europe and Japan."

" Colombia is the U.S.'s seventh largest oil supplier and has discovered vast oil reserves within its territory."

So Columbia people do not have an advantage to let liberalism and US investment.

Conclusion: the billions are funding drug-trafic instead of the opposite.

Ok, what do you find unclear into this??

About who is the guy, this is ad hominem too. There is not such a thing in rationality saying "you can be true only if you're talking about something on your next door". These guys are working hard to write all this. He is true, or he is not. If he is so out of reality, then SHOW IT. It'll just be easier if he really is a couch potato activist... Giving aid to government does not go where it is supposed to. Or maybe... maybe you think we cannot write about the 18th century colonialism because we are not living at that time? Well in history they teach students that being in the place itself has its effects as much. A human has influence wherever he is. Rationality, wether you lived it or were afar, tries to go through this.

And again, about my country? SO WHAT?! Is "my country makes more than yours, nananana" a prerequisite for rationality?

[emprworm]

"FARC's export of drugs to the US but did point to the extensive nature of drug smuggling to the US by "right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats" "

- Who is implicated in the drug traffic:

the armed force

right-wing paramilitary

senior government bureaucrats

FARC

To who goes US aid? Armed force and government. Armed force are themselves directly implicated, and paramilitary gets some too by corrupted bureaucrats.

then the money is going to the right place. When anti-Bush liberalists from the UK like Doug critizise the US for its AID to colombia, he thinks it should go to other places. People who critizise the US do so because they want US money to go to the places THEY THINK are best. (funny how they give no money themselves). The US is allocating its money to the colombian police and military. HOW IS THIS **EVIL?***. Maybe you can think of better places for US money? Sure, perhaps the US could allocate its billions of dollars to include more than just colombian defense. But that doesn't make it EVIL!! ::)

Here is an idea. The US can give its money to the colombian defense, and your country can give money for human rights and hospitals. Hows that plan? And what money was your government giving to Colombia again?

"right wing paramilitary groups are "far deeper into drugs" than the FARC and the US DEA "knows it" "

"paramilitary death squads are far more heavily involved than the FARC in drug cultivation"

- So this paramilitary is even more implicated... this is the one that is so close to the bureaucrats, military, etc.

so what? Does that mean that the FARC should be left alone just because there are other groups? You know I get sick of this kind of poor reasoning I keep hearing. People use that kind of poor reasoning with Iraq when they say "Well there are OTHER dictators, therefore we should do nothing."

FARC is evil. It needs to be fought. Just because you identify another evil group does not logically invalidate fighting the FARC. Your logic is horrible. What you are saying seems to me to be: "Well fighting the FARC is EVIL because there are other groups that are as bad as the FARC."

What kind of logic is that?

"and paramilitary gets some too by corrupted bureaucrats."

SO WHAT!

lol! Welcome to the human race. Duh! When you give AID, there will ALWAYS...ALWAYS be corrupt people taking from it. Does that mean we should be like your government and give nothing? Does that make the AID EVIL? SO, according to this argument, because a corrupt hospital nurse is stealing hostpital drugs, therefore we should give nothing to a hostpital. Good grief. GIve me some logic....PLEASE.

People always steal from AID. SO now we give no AID?

What are US interests?

"By 2010 overall US trade with Latin America is set to surpass trade with Europe and Japan."

" Colombia is the U.S.'s seventh largest oil supplier and has discovered vast oil reserves within its territory."

So Columbia people do not have an advantage to let liberalism and uncontrolled economy.

good. trade is a great thing for all countries. nothing evil about that.

About who is the guy, this is ad hominem too. There is not such a thing in rationality saying "you can be true only if you're talking about something on your next door". These guys are working hard to write all this. He is true, or he is not.

he is not true. he is a white UK guy that thinks the US sole purpose for being in Colombia is post cold-war continuity. His theory is rediculous. I asked you to quote colombian sources. They are more credible than a white guy from the UK who hates america already.

If he is so out of reality, then SHOW IT. It'll just be easier if he really is a couch potato activist.

i did. He's a white guy from the UK. I asked you to cite colombian sources, of which you haven't done. You are making a claim here not me. You claim the US AID is evil, and that the US hasn't helped colombia.

You need to back that claim up.

And again, about my country? SO WHAT?! Is "my country makes more than yours, nananana" a prerequisite for rationality?

it is a pre-requisite to avoid hypocrisy. When you critisize the US for giving 2 billion dollars to help another nation while your nation gives nothing, your critisisms are in the wrong place.

[Egeides]

And to answer like you do "you're a US gay" and also a "whattever what". Stop taking everyone for idiots, these guys are working hard for WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. At least it should also get a normal human respect to admit they sincerly follow their moral.

HEY!! You're government is willingly funding the drug trafickers it likes so that the other drug trafickers do not cause problems!!! They are puting the one they want in control of Columbia! They know that funding the police = funding criminals and they do it because it is for their greedy interests!

[emprworm]

as i already stated: whenever a country gives AID to another country, there will always be people who steal from it. Corrupt colombian officials stealing US aid is not the fault of the US.

Does Canada stop giving AID to a country because people are corrupt and some people steal from it?

Of course not.

If people steal from Canada's AID, does that make Canada evil for giving AID?

Of course not.

There will ALWAYS be corrupt humans stealing AID. NO matter who gives the AID- whether it is the US or the UN or anyone- there will be theives.

So what do we do? Do we just sit around and not give AID then?

No. That would be the worst evil of all.

The US is giving AID to colombia, and that is better than giving no aid at all.

[Egeides]

Ok, so I wasn't THAT misunderstood. The reason of the article is that aid goes about completely to the bad guys since it is SENT TO THEM DIRECTLY. They don't need to steal it, they just receive it. They will simply arrest a guy from the other side to take his drug market. It wont stop the drug traficking, it will only change the owner to the military/paramilitary/etc.

Besides, stop answering my posts each 5 minutes, I cannot work ;D

[emprworm]

Ok, so I wasn't THAT misunderstood. The reason of the article is that aid goes about completely to the bad guys since it is SENT TO THEM DIRECTLY. They don't need to steal it, they just receive it. They will simply arrest a guy from the other side to take his drug market. It wont stop the drug traficking, it will only change the owner to the military/paramilitary/etc.

Besides, stop answering my posts each 5 minutes, I cannot work ;D

that is a false accusation. I do not believe this. I reject it. you require to back up that claim. the AID is not purely money. Do you even know what form the AID is in? Please show me evidence that the US help is all going directly to drug traffickers.

[Egeides]

Look at the article: the reason why it is written is not to say " there is some corruption" but simply "money is sent to the right wing". Otherwise, why would the article have been written on a website that I know is saying that US is directly sending funds to Columbia drug trafic (Chomsky is affiliated with the website)?

It exactly says:

"extensive nature of drug smuggling to the US by "right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats" "

It does not say "a few guys of the armed forces" but "the armed forces" It says that the governmen is so corrupted that key financial figures and senior gvt bureaucrats (up to the top!) are in this! And it doesn't say "a little smuggling" but "extensive nature of drug smuggling". Why do you think the article is talking simply about corruption?? When a government is corrupted up to there, it's corrupted to the bone, to the highest degree (the degree where decisions are made). When corrupted that high, it puts out opposition as much as it can or it would be opposition that would put it out (whistleblowers, etc.). In Columbia, dissidents, journalists and everything going against the regime are killed!! Why are they killed if not because the government in its essence is now totally rotted? Why would they all be killed? I personally knew a Columbian girl and when we asked her what she liked the most of Canada, she answered: we are not afraid of talking about government or other matters. She said that even within the family it is hardly discussed.

PS: Don't count it as a perfect source, but for your information it seems not to be only Columbia that has similar problems. I've talked with a Brasilian (Brasil is in a much better situation) and he said that it was mainstream belief that most politicians were corrupted. So if even Brasil, the best South America element, is really like this guy said in such a situation, probably that it's really not great everywhere else either.

PPS: I know oral sources are not the best, but anyway since I have them they are better than nothing. Besides, you really want me to find a source about government dissidents being killed or you already knew that?...

[Egeides]

"rapid assassination of about 3,000 activists, including presidential candidates, mayors, and legislators" from something from Chomsky (http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/chomskyjune2000.htm)

Why are people trying to enter politics beeing killed like this if it isn't that the ones in politics that want to keep power are totally corrupted?

[emprworm]

Look at the article:

"extensive nature of drug smuggling to the US by "right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats" "

It does not say "a few guys of the armed forces" but "the armed forces" It says that the governmen is so corrupted that key financial figures and senior gvt bureaucrats (up to the top!) are in this!

colombian corruption is not the US's fault. our efforts are genuine.

"In 2002, the U.S. government provided Colombia with $415 million in military aid and, in a new development, lifted restrictions preventing the Colombian security forces from using the funding to combat illegal armed groups. As of September 13, 2002, there were 138 temporary and permanent U.S. military personnel and 250 U.S. civilians retained as individual contractors in Colombia, according to U.S. government reports."

as you can see in that quote, we are trying to avoid corrupt miliatry leaders from getting control over the AID.

In fact, AID was temporarily restricted because of the corruption:

"Colombia: Aid Suspension Decision Welcomed

(New York, November 21, 2002) The decision by the United States to suspend military assistance to a Colombian Air Force unit implicated in a serious violation of the laws of war is a positive step, Human Rights Watch said today. "

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/colombia112102.htm

this article is from the HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH website. Are you going to argue with them? They are commending the US for what it is doing in Colombia.

For you to call us "evil" in our dealings with colombia when HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH www.hrw.org expressed that the US is making positive progress in its desire to help colombia is a disgrace to me.

you judge too harshly when you should be asking what your own government can do to help instead of accusing/criticizing the US for everything.

[Egeides]

"you judge too harshly when you should be asking what your own government can do to help instead of accusing/criticizing the US for everything."

Can you please stop talking constantly about me and my ***** gvt? Plz?... I'm not responsible for what my gvt do and have nothing to do with it, not more than a French under Louis XIV had to do with the king decided to do. I did not decided the policies.

And yes I may argue with your source. But first of all, you said "We" are evil. You talking about the Americans? I said the American GOVERNMENT is bad. Not America as a whole, it's GVT.

Now about the aid. What I'm saying is that they know it's so corrupted and they send the aid anyway. I'm not saying you personnally wouldn't aid Columbia, I'm talking about your government! Not talking about Canada, talking about US. Anyway, there's not only good to say about Canada, but it's presently US that is placed in such a position. Money (call it aid or else) is sent to a gvt that they know is corrupted. They were sending the money while it was known that it was corrupted to the core. It was known so much that we had data about people that were doing everything they could against the government, trying to criticize and all. But US gvt was still sending money to the Colombia gvt at the same time.

1- The population does all it can to go against the gvt, protest, say they,re against and they get killed

2- At the same time US gvt is sending money

Would you agree that they certainly knew about the 3000 dissident assassnation while they were sending money? Yes or no? And if they knew, why did they thaught there were 3000 political assassinations and still were sending money?

[SurlyPIG]

The government is elected by the people. To destructively badger their politicians is to do so to the majority of their citizens.

[Egeides]

When there are such revolts against a government, maybe the elections had something wrong... 3000 dissidents dead. How many did not died but where molested? Columbia is the country with the most exiles after 2 African countries. What you say does make some sense, but only at the condition the elections really were elections. Do you believe that a country with that much anti-gvt movement from dissidents had real elections?