NationStates Jolt Archive

some of us US mainlanders don't believe there is a Puerto Rican
independence movement.
US corporate media usually only covers it from a "become a state"
or "remain as is" points of view.
Wow. real journalistic professionalism american media.
Hyper-patranizing to its viewers. -'everyone loves you'.
It's not that they hate you.
It's a matter of the fundamental inaliable human right of self-determination



article______
Filiberto Ojeda Rios, a veteran fighter against U.S. colonial rule over Puerto Rico, was killed Sept. 23 in a massive raid by the FBI near the Puerto Rican town of Hormigueros.

For the past four decades Ojeda Rios had been a leading figure in the fight for Puerto Rican independence and against U.S. colonial rule. He was wanted by the FBI for his role in a 1983 bank heist.

The FBI carried out its raid on the date of the Grito de Lares, the annual pro-independence celebration of the 1868 anticolonial revolt in Puerto Rico. An Associated Press article two days after the murder revealed that an autopsy performed on Ojeda Rios' body indicated that he did not die immediately. The Justice Department statement fueled criticism of the FBI for waiting almost 24 hours to enter the farmhouse where the 72-year-old lay wounded.


http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=1190
http://www.counterpunch.org/cruz09262005.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/26/1434229
http://www.counterpunch.org/hylton09272005.html

w/pics of funeral for a beloved resister to colonialism of Puerto Rico
http://pr.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/10193.php

What kind of collonial ruler allows it's subjects to vote on whether to join the dominant nation, remain as it is, or proclaim it's independance?

The report describes the December 1998 plebiscite as "a referendum proposing Puerto Rico's formal incorporation into the USA." This is factually wrong. The referendum proposed four options plus "none of the above." The options included statehood, territorial commonwealth, free association, and independence.
From http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol4n01/PRRevCitizens-en.shtml

Sorry pal, Puerto Rico's relationship with the US is completely voluntary on their part.

I would also like to point out that in the past few years the military presence in Puerto Rico (particularly Vieques) has decreased greatly. I really can't understand what this guy is so angry about.

It's about the equivalent of some guy from... Wyoming, for example, getting a bunch of people together and fighting for 'independence'. It just dosen't work

I think he was only a bank robber that used Puerto Rico's independence as an excuse.

There are independentist movements in Puerto Rico, but they don't resort to bank robberies and such for funding.

I think he was only a bank robber that used Puerto Rico's independence as an excuse.

There are independentist movements in Puerto Rico, but they don't resort to bank robberies and such for funding.


Exactly. Shingogogol needs to stop portraying a wanted bank robber as a freedom fighter and victim of the so called "American Empirism".

As for P.R.....I say, pay taxes and become a state, or go away. You shouldn't get free American citizenship without having to pay taxes.

I think he was only a bank robber that used Puerto Rico's independence as an excuse.

There are independentist movements in Puerto Rico, but they don't resort to bank robberies and such for funding.

You obviously know nothing about the issue. Filiberto Ojeda Rios was the founder of two groups. The first was the FALN (Armed Forces for National Liberation), and the second was the EPB-Macheteros (Popular Boricuan Army-Machete Wielders). His groups took part in various acts of politically motivated violence including the destruction of 11 Air National Guard planes as well as attacks on US troops. The famous Wells Fargo heist of which you speak was done in order to fund the movement. Most of that money was used to fund the independence movement, and the remainder of it was given out to disadvantaged Puerto Ricans in two Robin Hoodesque acts (the purchase of Christmas gifts for poor Puerto Rican children, and the less significant dropping of money from the roof of tall buildings).

Filiberto went into hiding, but that did not end his involvement with the independence movement. He continued to run his organization behind the scenes, while publically his involvement was limited to interviews, press releases, and the annual (taped) keynote address at the Lares Outcry celebrations (the date of which now has deeper meaning for it is the day he was killed).

As for the legitimacy of the armed struggle for Puerto Rican independence, the movement has been widely recognized by human rights organizations including Amnesty International. The United Nations recognizes the struggle every year when it requests that the US government release the Puerto Rican political prisoners and prisoners of war pursuant to international law. This request had largely gone unanswered until in 1999, president Clinton offered clemency to 13 of the 16 Puerto Rican political prisoners or prisoners of war on grounds other than their political status.

In 1979 the legitimacy of the movement was even recognized by the president himself when Carter chose to grant clemency to the Puerto Rican prisoners of war of the time (Irving Flores Rodriguez, Lolita Lebron, and Rafael Cancel Miranda imprisoned for shooting and wounding US congressmen while congress was in session and Oscar Collazo imprisoned during a failed assassination attempt against US president Harry Truman).

Therefore, your allegations that Filiberto had motives other than the liberation of Puerto Rico is obviously uninformed. The allegations that the Puerto Rican independence movement is not legitimate are not only uninformed but defy the findings of the UN, Amnesty International, President Jimmy Carter, and a host of other international human rights organizations.

So? The FBI assasinate a lot of people. :)

Therefore, your allegations that Filiberto had motives other than the liberation of Puerto Rico is obviously uninformed. The allegations that the Puerto Rican independence movement is not legitimate are not only uninformed but defy the findings of the UN, Amnesty International, President Jimmy Carter, and a host of other international human rights organizations.
I never said the independentist movement was illegitimate, but Filiberto robbed a bank using the movement as an excuse. What he did with the money later is irrelevant to the fact that he robbed a bank.

There is no need in Puerto Rico to fund a political movement through robberies. You start a grassroots movement and build from there, and if it catches on it will fund itself into bigger things.

Therefore, your allegations that Filiberto had motives other than the liberation of Puerto Rico is obviously uninformed. The allegations that the Puerto Rican independence movement is not legitimate are not only uninformed but defy the findings of the UN, Amnesty International, President Jimmy Carter, and a host of other international human rights organizations.
Then he ought to work through the goddam system, not rob, kill and wound. They do live in a civil society with elections and various means of recourse against the government.

Then he ought to work through the goddam system, not rob, kill and wound. They do live in a civil society with elections and various means of recourse against the government.

Seconded.

I never said the independentist movement was illegitimate, but Filiberto robbed a bank using the movement as an excuse. What he did with the money later is irrelevant to the fact that he robbed a bank.

There is no need in Puerto Rico to fund a political movement through robberies. You start a grassroots movement and build from there, and if it catches on it will fund itself into bigger things.

In the second part of my statement, I was addressing other posters who have said the movement was illegitimate, not you. The first part was addressing you, if bank was robbed (even though in this case no bank was robbed) with the purpose of funding a movement, the act is successful, and the money is put to use for the purpose it was intended (funding a movement), then how do you figure that it was an excuse? That makes absolutely no sense. If you set out to do something with a certain motive, you do it, then you fulfill that motive, there are no excuses involved, you actually did what you said you would do and made no excuses.

In the second part of my statement, I was addressing other posters who have said the movement was illegitimate, not you. The first part was addressing you, if bank was robbed (even though in this case no bank was robbed) with the purpose of funding a movement, the act is successful, and the money is put to use for the purpose it was intended (funding a movement), then how do you figure that it was an excuse? That makes absolutely no sense. If you set out to do something with a certain motive, you do it, then you fulfill that motive, there are no excuses involved, you actually did what you said you would do and made no excuses.
And by robbing a bank you then risk retribution from the civil authorities for the crime you've committed, irregardless of your intentions, be they funding a movement or buying toy unicorns for little kids.

[snip]

Okay, first of all, swallow a knife - sorry, I had to use that somewhere, Dane Cook was hilarious in the Insomniac Tour.

Second of all, he was killed in a raid, not "assassinated," by the FBI.

Finally, how is robbing banks fighting for independence?

In the second part of my statement, I was addressing other posters who have said the movement was illegitimate, not you. The first part was addressing you, if bank was robbed (even though in this case no bank was robbed) with the purpose of funding a movement, the act is successful, and the money is put to use for the purpose it was intended (funding a movement), then how do you figure that it was an excuse? That makes absolutely no sense. If you set out to do something with a certain motive, you do it, then you fulfill that motive, there are no excuses involved, you actually did what you said you would do and made no excuses.
Excuse, reason, rationalization, whatever you want to call it. It was a way to get easy money, nevertheless. And still illegal, regardless of the purpose or destination.

Then he ought to work through the goddam system, not rob, kill and wound. They do live in a civil society with elections and various means of recourse against the government.

That is true now and it is the reason that the era of armed revolution is over. At the time these groups were formed however, things were different. Puerto Rico was just coming out of the Cointelpro era, an era during which it was illegal to hold certain political views and at one point even illegal to display a Puerto Rican flag. The FBI was actively repressing what it viewed as dissidents, and there was no legal way to express independentist views. It was an entirely different world back then. In today's landscape you are correct, there are better ways and thus the era of armed revolution is over. But back when these things happened this was the only logical recourse.

Please do not feed the troll. :rolleyes:

Whoever the guy was, the FBI (just like the US Army sometimes) seems overly triggerhappy. Surely they could have wounded and captured him, and given him a fair trial.
Surely the Founding Fathers wouldn't have imagined their country to keep colonies and shoot people who essentially do the same thing the early revolutionaries did.

Being from Puerto Rico, the area of Ceiba, its in the eastern area..I for one can say fuck off to the independence movement. They arent that big. Quebec has a larger independence movement in terms of % than Puerto Rico does. Why? Because Puerto Ricans like Commonwealth status. We enjoy being American citizens, and guess what provide this country with an additional 18 billion in GDP a year. We also for the most part happen to realize what would happen if PR were to become independent..we'd lose a LOT of support from the US and would transition to a third world island. Puerto Ricans arent that dumb in terms of the majority.

And yes, there IS a growing movement to finally getting statehood, it comes and goes, but statehood is always narrowly beaten out by Commonweath status with Independence not even being considered. Ever. In the three votes in determining statehood of Puerto Rico the independence movement has only gotten as high as 4%. While statehood is around 46%. As for my fellow Puerto Ricans who supported the closing of Roosevelt Fields it was a wrong choice, it was a bad choice. Infact you robbed many people of jobs. Many civilians lost employment and a stable source of income for the island was shut down because people who didnt even live there wanted the base closed.

Now..on to the topic at hand..this "assassination". 1)He robbed a bank. Thats a federal crime which the FBI deals with. They had every right to go after him. 2)When they went to arrest him, he shot at them and wounded an agent in the process. 3)After the shoot out the moron wanted to see a reporter..not a doctor..not a paramedic..he didnt even a surrender. He wanted to see a reporter..who else enjoys getting their message out to the world through acts of violence? 4)He bled to death and for good reason, he didnt surrender. Its not the FBIs fault. And its not an assassination because they had been watching his movements for months to make sure he was actually who their informants said he was, and to see if he was planning anything currently. They had plenty of chances to kill him months ago.

And yes, there IS a growing movement to finally getting statehood, it comes and goes, but statehood is always narrowly beaten out by Commonweath status with Independence not even being considered. Ever. In the three votes in determining statehood of Puerto Rico the independence movement has only gotten as high as 4%. While statehood is around 46%.

Sure, but you fail to mention that all major independence movements save one have consistently boycotted every such referrendum.

Sure, but you fail to mention that all major independence movements save one have consistently boycotted every such referrendum.
Cause we all know in a democratic society that's a REALLY smart way to get things done

Cause we all know in a democratic society that's a REALLY smart way to get things done

That isnt the point. The point is to put some perspective on why there is that discrepancy, not to discuss the merits and drawbacks of boycotting elections.

I know, I'm just pointing out the obvious because I'm bored

Sure, but you fail to mention that all major independence movements save one have consistently boycotted every such referrendum.

Look to see why they boycott the referendums, its not because if they could they'd have anything remotely resembling a majority. And seeing as how 70-74% of all registered voters generally vote in those referendums they really wouldnt have much more swaying power anyway.

Look to see why they boycott the referendums, its not because if they could they'd have anything remotely resembling a majority. And seeing as how 70-74% of all registered voters generally vote in those referendums they really wouldnt have much more swaying power anyway.

They boycott all elections not just the referendums. Thus, they arent registered to begin with. They do not recognize the colonial government as a legitimate government and denounced any elections held under colonial rule. They havent voted in anything as a group since 1948 and most arent registered.

We could keep the $20B in GDP we send that way and let them slide into 3rd World status real quick. Suits me.

I have to second the "Become a state or begone."

While I agree with Druidville, we musn't all argue. Thats just what they want. You know who. If Puerto Ricans want to sponge off the USA, let them. Its not like the rest of us have to care. The USA lets loads of little nations sponge off of them. When Americans get tired of supporting half the earth(and let us Europeans show 'em how its done), everything will be fixed. Quite frankly, I think the US should become an Imperialist power. Then all the people who call them one will be telling the truth. Plus, the US can get used to the power and woes of an empire. Honestly, foreign aid doesn't count as having an empire of any kind. Now, we Brits, French, and Germans had huge empires, and all we had to do was brutally slaughter the natives. Like the natives armed with sharpened mangoes in Africa.

REALIZATION: I just wrote a paragraph and yet said nothing! Rule Britannia! :D

If Puerto Ricans want to sponge off the USA, let them. Its not like the rest of us have to care.

Since MY tax money goes to support that little island, I think Druidville and myself want a refund of our 20 Billion. Either that, or a naked J Lo better be in my bed, right now.

US corporate media usually only covers it from a "become a state"
or "remain as is" points of view.
Wow. real journalistic professionalism american media.
Hyper-patranizing to its viewers. -'everyone loves you'.
It's not that they hate you.
It's a matter of the fundamental inaliable human right of self-determination


Wait, there are reports on Puerto Rico? Hmm, I could have sworn I had forgotten about its existance entirely. Damn. Well, I do forget about real states sometimes too, so I don't think it's that bad. No one in the mainland cares or thinks about Puerto Rico. (Yay for assumptions based on only my opinion. :P) At least not way up in Michigan. I could care less if it were independent or a new state. Whatever those people wanna do, as long as they don't hurt anyone, is fine by me.

Now Cuba! THEY should be a state! It would be awesome! Just wait for Castro to die.... then you'll see. ;p

I wish I were in Britain... Ive never been there before and it seems to be a better place than the U.S from what I've heard. Hey new Helghast send me a postcard or somethin wouldya?

OK, so the dude is charged with stealing $7 million in a Wells Fargo heist in 1985, he skips bail while awaiting trial in New York and is put on the FBI"s most wanted list. He is finally located and in a gun battle raid to arrest him, he is killed. He's a f***** criminal who tried to evade arrest! Ever consider that idea? Obvsiously not, you just assume "assassination" based on his political agenda.

I want MANY more facts before I'll even consider the idea is was some sort of FBI orchestrated political assasination. The title of this thread is inflamatory and typical of those who fail to check facts. Based on what is in the news stories linked to, the assumption it was an assassination or that the FBI just "let him die" when they "could have saved him" is nothing more than sheer speculation open to manipulation by those that want the U.S. out of Puerto Rico and those that hate the current administration. It may be true, but then again, it may be what happens to those who rob Well's Fargo, skip bail, hide out, and then attempt to fend off arresting officers with firearms.

We could keep the $20B in GDP we send that way and let them slide into 3rd World status real quick. Suits me.

I have to second the "Become a state or begone."
The US mishandled this situation from the start when they got Puerto Rico along with Cuba, the Philippines, and Guam from Spain. They were never sure what to do with them, only that they didn't want colonies, but at the same time didn't really want to grant them independence, although they did so with Cuba, only after making sure there would be a very friendly government in charge.

So, they just made Puerto Rico something like a territory but without the right to become a state, then they gave them some more rights, and now they're stuck in that situation.

Should have made it a state straight away, if you ask me, along with Cuba. Would have saved a lot of trouble in the long run.

OK, so the dude is charged with stealing $7 million in a Wells Fargo heist in 1985, he skips bail while awaiting trial in New York and is put on the FBI"s most wanted list. He is finally located and in a gun battle raid to arrest him, he is killed. He's a f***** criminal who tried to evade arrest! Ever consider that idea? Obvsiously not, you just assume "assassination" based on his political agenda.

I want MANY more facts before I'll even consider the idea is was some sort of FBI orchestrated political assasination. The title of this thread is inflamatory and typical of those who fail to check facts. Based on what is in the news stories linked to, the assumption it was an assassination or that the FBI just "let him die" when they "could have saved him" is nothing more than sheer speculation open to manipulation by those that want the U.S. out of Puerto Rico and those that hate the current administration. It may be true, but then again, it may be what happens to those who rob Well's Fargo, skip bail, hide out, and then attempt to fend off arresting officers with firearms.

Amen, brother.

Martin Luther King was assassinated. JFK was assassinated. Malcolm X was assassinated. This guy just got shot.

Yo mama so poor your family ate cereal with a fork to save milk.

So, they just made Puerto Rico something like a territory but without the right to become a state, then they gave them some more rights, and now they're stuck in that situation. Except that they can ask to become a state, like the other 37 former territories did.

Should have made it a state straight away, if you ask me, along with Cuba. Would have saved a lot of trouble in the long run.
That has always been up to the residents of a particular territory, and not the U.S. Government. You know, the whole democracy thing? :rolleyes:

<snipped>
Therefore, your allegations that Filiberto had motives other than the liberation of Puerto Rico is obviously uninformed. The allegations that the Puerto Rican independence movement is not legitimate are not only uninformed but defy the findings of the UN, Amnesty International, President Jimmy Carter, and a host of other international human rights organizations.
The only thing that, in my eyes, gives legitimacy to an independance movement is the support of the people it intends to liberate. Since Puerto Ricans are allowed to vote to become independant, and they choose not to, I find any Puerto Riacan independance organization to be illegitimate. If such an illegitimate organization uses violence to get their way then they're criminals or terrorists.

Hmm. Raiding the house of an armed robbery suspect.

Usually, if you don't give up, or appear armed, you get shot.

And usually, when you get shot, even by local police, in a building, they wait to see if there's anyone else in there with you. That can take a LONG time.

They might not even know if they hit you or not.

Doesn't sound like assassination to me.

Except that they can ask to become a state, like the other 37 former territories did.
But now they're too cozy in the situation they are. They have many privileges and not too many disadvantages. They even get to send someone to congress, although with no vote.

That has always been up to the residents of a particular territory, and not the U.S. Government. You know, the whole democracy thing? :rolleyes:
Not in 1898, the citizens of Puerto Rico could not ask to become a state even though they had the population. Neither were they allowed to be independent. Instead a special status was created for them, one that wouldn't be too much like a colony but without conceding too many privileges. That was part of the mishandling of the situation.

And by robbing a bank you then risk retribution from the civil authorities ...revolutionaries risk retributions anyways...no matter how do you fund the revolution...If you get caught...you will probably "be-gone"...

revolutionaries risk retributions anyways...no matter how do you fund the revolution...If you get caught...you will probably "be-gone"...

It works the other way around, too. If revolutionaries win, the first people against the wall are the former leaders and members of the police and military.

At least in violent revolutions.

You'll notice that there have been several relatively peaceful revolutions (Ukraine sticks out, as does the fall of the former Soviet Union).

They got their results much more quickly, too.

Maybe there's just something stupid about violent revolution.

Maybe there's just something stupid about violent revolution.tell that to our "Founding Fathers"...Please Sierra.. dont tell me you did not see that coming.

It works the other way around, too. of course it does...

take not that I "agreed" with you today. ;)

tell that to our "Founding Fathers"

The Founding Fathers had several critical differences between their actions, and the actions of most of today's violent revolutionaries.

They didn't go around killing unarmed civilians without warning as their primary means of direct action.

They wore uniforms, moved as an Army, and were under the leadership of officers and a chain of command. That is, they fought using traditional military methods of the time - not skulking about trying to hide within the civilian population.

They didn't capture innocent civilians and then torture them to death in barbaric ways in order to please their constituency. As is done routinely on al-Jazeera.

Wait, there are reports on Puerto Rico? Hmm, I could have sworn I had forgotten about its existance entirely. Damn. Well, I do forget about real states sometimes too,



We often forget the rest of the world exists too.
But its still there.
International news in the US is all but non-existant.
Unless you watch the Weather channel of SpikeTV's Real TV.

Funny, since we are supposedly connected with the "global economy".

Maybe the corporations that own the media are the same ones that
run sweat shops and dump sludge in people's backyards around the globe
and don't want us to know about it? Then those same corruptions
run the gov't. No, we're not a empire, not by anyone's standard.

you & me 've got more in common with
the sweatshop worker in Indonesia than
we do with the corporate chumps that
run things in the US and try to keep
things such as colonies secret (by not calling them such).
"common wealth" or "free trade zone".

The only thing that, in my eyes, gives legitimacy to an independance movement is the support of the people it intends to liberate. Since Puerto Ricans are allowed to vote to become independant, and they choose not to,



How about this,
the Puerto Ricans hold a vote constructed by themselves,
a) be independent, or
b) remain current standing.


b) does not rule out any future becoming a state,
nor does it rule out any future votes for independence.


**oh, BUT,
such would have to be done without the presence
of any occupying foreign power, i.e. US military,
no matter how nice and/or friendly they are.
intimidation still exists
and they were/are the last foreign power to conquer /
attempt to passify them.
SEE, "passify",
the reason the military presence must not be there
for any vote to make sense.

How about this,
the Puerto Ricans hold a vote constructed by themselves,
a) be independent, or
b) remain current standing.


b) does not rule out any future becoming a state,
nor does it rule out any future votes for independence.


**oh, BUT,
such would have to be done without the presence
of any occupying foreign power, i.e. US military,
no matter how nice and/or friendly they are.
intimidation still exists
and they were/are the last foreign power to conquer /
attempt to passify them.
SEE, "passify",
the reason the military presence must not be there
for any vote to make sense.


No one had to "pacify" Puerto Rico.

And in fact, there hasn't been any military presence there for a while. Don't you remember the locals wanting the Navy to close its base? They protested, and we closed the base - even though we have a big military and they don't have any.

Oooh! The Puerto Rican people were SO scared that we were going to invade them.

Unfortunately, your tinfoil hat view of the world doesn't match up with reality:

the US closed the base, and LEFT.

Now the Puerto Rican government there is begging to have the base back - seems that thousands of locals lost their jobs when the place closed.

Yo mama so poor your family ate cereal with a fork to save milk.Oh Yeah? :D :D :mad: :D

Yo mama so poor her face is on the front of a food stamp. :D

The US mishandled this situation from the start when they got Puerto Rico along with Cuba, the Philippines, and Guam from Spain. They were never sure what to do with them, only that they didn't want colonies,

So, they just made Puerto Rico something like a territory but without the right to become a state, then they gave them some more rights, and now they're stuck in that situation.




The US at the time made them EXACTLY colonies.
It was at that time in history when even those with power,
private or public, including presidents at the time took pride that the US
was an empire and openly called it that. Even the most conservative of
high school history text books admit this.
And Mark Twain was a famous member of an Anti-imperialis league.

And the US president (McKinnley i believe) sent more troops to
the Phillipines to "christianize" the catholics there and massacred
tens of thousands.

A truly disgusting segment of US history,
but then empire building on the continent, eeerrr, I mean "manifest destiny"
and such figures as general Custer weren't that pretty either.
genocide on the mainland, america's "original sin".

How about this,
the Puerto Ricans hold a vote constructed by themselves,
a) be independent, or
b) remain current standing.


b) does not rule out any future becoming a state,
nor does it rule out any future votes for independence.


**oh, BUT,
such would have to be done without the presence
of any occupying foreign power, i.e. US military,
no matter how nice and/or friendly they are.
intimidation still exists
and they were/are the last foreign power to conquer /
attempt to passify them.
SEE, "passify",
the reason the military presence must not be there
for any vote to make sense.
You're paranoid. Do you really think that the US would stop Puerto Rico from becomming independant if they voted to do so? Also do you really beleive that Puerto Ricans would willingly give up their status as American citizens and allow their Island to become another third world Carribean nation? Puerto Ricans like the status quo. They can travel to the US freely, work there, and send money back home. They can sell their Bacardi Rum and other products to the world's biggest economy without the expense and red tape of international trade. They benefit from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without paying in as much as citizens of the 50 states do in taxes. Puerto Rico would never vote for independence.

Yo mama so poor your family ate cereal with a fork to save milk.

HEY, that's a good idea



Oh Yeah? :D :D :mad: :D

Yo mama so poor her face is on the front of a food stamp. :D


and that one's funny.

You're paranoid. Do you really think that the US would stop Puerto Rico from becomming independant if they voted to do so? Also do you really beleive that Puerto Ricans would willingly give up their status as American citizens and allow their Island to become another third world Carribean nation? Puerto Ricans like the status quo. They can travel to the US freely, work there, and send money back home. They can sell their Bacardi Rum and other products to the world's biggest economy without the expense and red tape of international trade. They benefit from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without paying in as much as citizens of the 50 states do in taxes. Puerto Rico would never vote for independence.

Yes, Shin believes that the Puerto Ricans are intimidated by the US military.

They are so intimidated in fact, that they protested against our Naval base there, and the US military closed the base and left. See? Those Puerto Ricans are so intimidated! :rolleyes:

You're paranoid. Do you really think that the US would stop Puerto Rico from becomming independant if they voted to do so? Also do you really beleive that Puerto Ricans would willingly give up their status as American citizens and allow their Island to become another third world Carribean nation? Puerto Ricans like the status quo. They can travel to the US freely, work there, and send money back home. They can sell their Bacardi Rum and other products to the world's biggest economy without the expense and red tape of international trade. They benefit from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid without paying in as much as citizens of the 50 states do in taxes. Puerto Rico would never vote for independence.



I don't know what paranoid has to do with what Puerto Ricans may
or may not want.

If the US would just let some countries be,
instead of interfering in their affairs, just like we don't like
it if China or Indonesian countries give monies to political
campaigns of Gore or Bush.
So Washington overthrows gov'ts like Haiti's recently because they
don't happen to like their politics.
There's a reason so many countries remain poor.
Phil Agee might be able to explain a little of it.

I don't know what paranoid has to do with what Puerto Ricans may
or may not want.

If the US would just let some countries be,
instead of interfering in their affairs, just like we don't like
it if China or Indonesian countries give monies to political
campaigns of Gore or Bush.
So Washington overthrows gov'ts like Haiti's recently because they
don't happen to like their politics.
There's a reason so many countries remain poor.
Phil Agee might be able to explain a little of it.

Hmm.. Wasn't Haiti invaded under Clinton? Gosh, it wasn't the evil Bush OMFG.

And didn't unarmed protesters make the US military leave Puerto Rico? Yes!

OMFG! How did they do that, Shin?

I don't know what paranoid has to do with what Puerto Ricans may
or may not want.

If the US would just let some countries be,
instead of interfering in their affairs, just like we don't like
it if China or Indonesian countries give monies to political
campaigns of Gore or Bush.
So Washington overthrows gov'ts like Haiti's recently because they
don't happen to like their politics.
There's a reason so many countries remain poor.
Phil Agee might be able to explain a little of it.
Paranoid is when you think that the US would prevent Puerto Rico from becomming independent if the people voted to do so.

Yes, Shin believes that the Puerto Ricans are intimidated by the US military.

They are so intimidated in fact, that they protested against our Naval base there, and the US military closed the base and left. See? Those Puerto Ricans are so intimidated! :rolleyes:



I don't know.

I'm just repeating what some PR independence supporters say.
Such that we never ever hear about on US corporate news.

Ever see a PR independence supporter on the tele?
They must not exist, right?

google to a PR independence site, email them
a couple questions for interview and see what you get.

hey, that's a good idea. I might just do that.
And maybe report back here on results.

Yes, Shin believes that the Puerto Ricans are intimidated by the US military.

They are so intimidated in fact, that they protested against our Naval base there, and the US military closed the base and left. See? Those Puerto Ricans are so intimidated! :rolleyes:

So intimidated we even go so far as to join the military out of fear..pfft..Puerto Ricans have fought and died for this country in multiple wars drafted or not. My uncle VOLUNTEERED for the Marine Corps in '67. Ugh..Shin, Puerto Ricans arent intimidated by the US. At least not when it comes to being invaded. Infact, we rather enjoy being protected by the US. We also enjoy all the perks we have.

So the whole idea for voting for a and b is ridiculious...because now you have the folks who want statehood voting for b, and those who vote for the status quo..what happens? A vote of 90+% for Commonwealth status. Or do you think that those who favor commonwealth and statehood are going to just roll over and vote independence?

As for those who dont vote because they're part of the independence movement, to bad for them. Plenty of nations have voted for their independence in the past 40 years if they really believed they had the supprot they wouldnt boycott elections. They'd actively go do something about it. Also this whole they boycott elections thing is bullshit, there is such a thing as the PIP,and they do regularly run in elections, and they do regularly fail. To which they blame the PDP and PSP for being more appealing to the population. Ugh the PIP disgusts me really. I've seen their plans for independence..they want to keep the US dollar, keep unrestricted travel between the US and PR, keep dual citizenship, keep social security as well as starting their own..you know..it makes me scratch my head..they want independence..but they still want to be in the shadow of the US? They dont want independence for independence sake, they want it because a lot of them ARE marxists, and a lot of them ARE fervent socialists who dislike the US.