NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: WTF did Bolivia need with Chinese anti-aircraft missles? And WHO made them disappear??? :D


Removal of missiles roils U.S.-Bolivia ties (http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html)


By Martin Arostegui
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia -- Charges that the United States secretly removed Chinese-made anti-aircraft missiles from Bolivia are complicating already tense relations between Washington and Bolivia's left-wing president-elect.
Evo Morales, an Indian and former coca farmer who has pledged to end U.S. drug eradication programs in the country, was formally declared yesterday as the winner of Sunday's presidential election with 54 percent of the vote.
Mr. Morales, leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS), was quoted in press reports this week as saying he would evict U.S. military advisers from Bolivia and punish those responsible for the removal from the country this year of 28 HN-SA hand-held surface-to-air missiles (SAM).
The missiles are similar to the U.S. "Stinger" missiles used by Afghan insurgents with devastating effectiveness against low-flying Russian aircraft in the 1980s.
"I will press for a full investigation to establish responsibilities. We cannot tolerate international intervention," Mr. Morales was quoted as saying of the missile incident.
Charges that Bolivia's military permitted the United States to spirit the missiles out of the country roiled the closing weeks of the election campaign, beginning when MAS officials presented a leaked Bolivian intelligence report to the legislature.
The subsequently published report said U.S. military officers operating out of the U.S. Embassy in La Paz had removed the missiles between May and June of this year, working directly with Bolivian army commanders.
MAS cited military sources saying the missiles, packed in several metallic cases, were boarded onto an unmarked C-130 operated by the State Department's Narcotics Affairs Section and flown to the United States.
At the time, MAS-led street protests had toppled the government of former President Carlos Mesa and mobs were threatening to invade government installations in La Paz.
"They were afraid the missiles could be used against the U.S. aircraft in the event that they had to evacuate their personnel or intervene," said one source close to the deal.
In a letter to the legislature released last week, army chief Gen. Marcelo Antezana acknowledged the missiles had been flown out of the country in June but denied prior knowledge.
"Up to the present date, it cannot be determined who ... authorized the transfer of those missiles out of the country for their deactivation," his letter said.
"I was not consulted and did not authorize the movement out of the country of such material since our initial agreement only establishes their custody and possible deactivation at the depots of the American Embassy located in the city of El Alto," a suburb of the capital.
The letter also said five inoperable missiles had been returned and suggested procedures be initiated "to request the immediate return of the remaining missiles without being deactivated."
A U.S. Embassy official referred all inquires on the matter to the Bolivian government.
Further confirmation was provided two days before the election by former Defense Minister Gonzalo Arredondo, who issued a press statement on Friday saying the U.S. Embassy in La Paz had urged the government to give up the missiles last year.
"Officers attached to the military section of the embassy came to my office around August 2004, expressing preoccupation over intelligence that there were terrorist groups interested in anti-aircraft missiles with the characteristics of those we had," the former minister said.
Mr. Arredondo said the envoys offered no specific details about the terrorist organizations or their plans. "It appeared more like a precautionary measure. They talked about the missiles being sold on the black market and suggested that they should be deactivated," he said.
He said the government refused to go along at that time for fear of "weakening our national security." [ Riiiight! :rolleyes: ]
When Mr. Morales first made his accusations last month, Gen. Antezana said that the missiles had been deactivated as part of a routine "annual disposal of obsolete equipment." He denied that they been taken out of the country.
But defense records made public last week show that the $2 million SAM systems acquired from China in 1995 were well maintained and had 10 years of service remaining.

Well sounds like a good way for Morales to catch up to Chavez. :D

Mr. Arredondo said the envoys offered no specific details about the terrorist organizations or their plans. "It appeared more like a precautionary measure. They talked about the missiles being sold on the black market and suggested that they should be deactivated," he said.
He said the government refused to go along at that time for fear of "weakening our national security." [ Riiiight! ]
What's so hard to believe about this? Aren't we keeping a whole bunch of crap that can blow up whole cities for that reason?

What's so hard to believe about this? Aren't we keeping a whole bunch of crap that can blow up whole cities for that reason?
Yup! Better US than anyone else, I always say. :D

Yup! Better US than anyone else, I always say. :D
That doesn't answer the question (not that I'm suprised that you didn't). Why is it hard to believe that they would want to keep those weapons for national defense? You put the editorial statement in there, explain it.

It seems like crazy communists are taking control of Latin America...

If this was the cold-war, we'd get medieval on their asses. Unfortunatly, we're in the 21st century, and everyone is like "OH NOES! AMERIKA IS T3H EVILZZZZzZZZZZZ~!!!!11!!11111!1", and we're ALREADY stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's no way we can now kill the true enemy; the communists.

MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

What if Morales is rigth?
what if they find US Spies with the Missiles... in Bolivia...

and... a Bolivian Judge sentences the US spies to 10... or 50 years in prisson..

Do you feel a Bolivian Judge should be allowed to sentence US citizens?

It seems like crazy communists are taking control of Latin America...

If this was the cold-war, we'd get medieval on their asses. Unfortunatly, we're in the 21st century, and everyone is like "OH NOES! AMERIKA IS T3H EVILZZZZzZZZZZZ~!!!!11!!11111!1", and we're ALREADY stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there's no way we can now kill the true enemy; the communists.

MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
Not to mention that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan paying for those cold war policies...

The mere assertion by Bolivia that the weapons were "stolen by the US" is just that - an assertion. As far as I'm concerned, those weapons are highly desireable items for terrorist, criminal, or paramilitary use - and they are highly portable.

If we had sent someone to remove the weapons from Bolivia, we would have just laid a small explosive charge on the containers and let them blow up.

Doesn't have the ring of truth to me.

The mere assertion by Bolivia that the weapons were "stolen by the US" is just that - an assertion. As far as I'm concerned, those weapons are highly desireable items for terrorist, criminal, or paramilitary use - and they are highly portable.

If we had sent someone to remove the weapons from Bolivia, we would have just laid a small explosive charge on the containers and let them blow up.Fine...

then let me rewrite my question...

What if Morales is rigth?
what if they find US Spies that stole or destroyed the Missiles... in Bolivia...

and... a Bolivian Judge sentences the US spies to 10... or 50 years in prisson..

Do you feel a Bolivian Judge should be allowed to sentence US citizens?

The mere assertion by Bolivia that the weapons were "stolen by the US" is just that - an assertion. As far as I'm concerned, those weapons are highly desireable items for terrorist, criminal, or paramilitary use - and they are highly portable.

If we had sent someone to remove the weapons from Bolivia, we would have just laid a small explosive charge on the containers and let them blow up.

Doesn't have the ring of truth to me.
Why is blowing them up a more plausable scenario? Doesn't that seem far more complicated, as it would be a less than subtle way to go about things thus forcing the whole deal to happen nearly simultaniously? This seems like a more plausable solution for The A-Team, but to do it through a co-operation with a military that they already have a relationship with seems more likely. You'll have to explain your logic, I don't get it.

Fine...

then let me rewrite my question...

What if Morales is rigth?
what if they find US Spies that stole or destroyed the Missiles... in Bolivia...

and... a Bolivian Judge sentences the US spies to 10... or 50 years in prisson..

Do you feel a Bolivian Judge should be allowed to sentence US citizens?


They have as much right to do that as an American judge has to sentancing a Bolivian citizen caught breaking the law in the US don't they?

They have as much right to do that as an American judge has to sentancing a Bolivian citizen caught breaking the law in the US don't they?I wonder.. what should be the sentece.. against someone stealing/destroying US weapons(on US soil) for a foreign gov...

I wonder.. what should be the sentece.. against someone stealing/destroying US weapons(on US soil) for a foreign gov...


Several decades over at ADX Florence probably.

That doesn't answer the question (not that I'm suprised that you didn't). Why is it hard to believe that they would want to keep those weapons for national defense? You put the editorial statement in there, explain it.
Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.

I wonder.. what should be the sentece.. against someone stealing/destroying US weapons(on US soil) for a foreign gov...
Um ... an Army Commendaton medal? :D

What if Morales is rigth?
what if they find US Spies with the Missiles... in Bolivia...

and... a Bolivian Judge sentences the US spies to 10... or 50 years in prisson..

Do you feel a Bolivian Judge should be allowed to sentence US citizens?
I'd volunteer for that rescue mission. :D

Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.
Just because there is no immediate threat does not mean that there wont be future threat

You are so quick to look down on their wish to maintain air security, for some reason I have a feeling you would not be singing the same tune if it was the the USA that was having their anti air capability disabled just because others think that their "security needs" are only hypothetical

Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.

Well, is there not the idea that a sovreign state can arm itself with conventional weapons as it pleases? It's inconvenient for bigger countries when little ones start arming themselves, but unless you're advocating a fairly imperial international policy, I'm not sure what your justification for not-letting-Bolivia-waste-its-money-as-it-pleases is? :p

Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.
I'm sorry that What's so hard to believe about this? wasn't clear enough to you somehow. I'll use semiphor next time.

Are you seriously suggesting that Bolivia, a South American nation, has no threats. A nation that has coca growers, as well. Seriously? You'll have to explain why you think that a country in that region wouldn't need defense with something more than a tired NS signature joke.

Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.
Look around bolivia. Do you see any other country there? If so, they could invade.

The risk to US military aircraft does not trumps any "security needs" of Bolivia on it's own soil or are you not aware of this little concept that is sovereignty.

Bolivia can do as it pleases and can buy Chinese missile as long as it likes. And they can even use them to shoot military or non-muilitary aircraft in they aerial territory and there is nothing you can do about it.

Besides, who are you to tell the government of Bolivia what it can and cannot do?

Not to mention that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan paying for those cold war policies...
Different times, different climes. :p

Just because there is no immediate threat does not mean that there wont be future threat

You are so quick to look down on their wish to maintain air security, for some reason I have a feeling you would not be singing the same tune if it was the the USA that was having their anti air capability disabled just because others think that their "security needs" are only hypothetical
Precisely! :)

Elgesh']Well, is there not the idea that a sovreign state can arm itself with conventional weapons as it pleases? It's inconvenient for bigger countries when little ones start arming themselves, but unless you're advocating a fairly imperial international policy, I'm not sure what your justification for not-letting-Bolivia-waste-its-money-as-it-pleases is? :p
Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper! :p

Precisely! :)
Then what exactly is your support for them as a sovrign nation, to not be able to purchase conventianal wepon systems for defense purposes?

Different times, different climes. :p
As long as our children have to pay for our mistakes and not us, eh?

Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper! :p
And the US does not have porous borders or opium traffic?

By that logic we should have a "keeper" too

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? .What kind of guns a sovereign country buys? Do you want the straight.. right-on.. military style answer?


Answer: It is none of your business..

Unless you think Bolivia wants to invade you :D

...or unless you are an Arms Dealer...

The US government Shouldn't Interfere in Foreign Countries Business.

1. Look around bolivia. Do you see any other country there? If so, they could invade.

2. The risk to US military aircraft does not trump any "security needs" of Bolivia on it's own soil or are you not aware of this little concept that is sovereignty.

3. Bolivia can do as it pleases and can buy Chinese missile as long as it likes. And they can even use them to shoot military or non-muilitary aircraft in they aerial territory and there is nothing you can do about it.

4. Besides, who are you to tell the government of Bolivia what it can and cannot do?
1. No one in their right mind is going to invade Bolivia. It's like invading Chechnya.

2. Of course it does. You want to run the risk of some demented poppy-grower bringing down a commercial airliner because it overflew his poppy-fields?

3. Uh ... no, it can't, as this incident amply demonstates.

4. Me? I can't tell hardly anyone to do anything. :p

Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper! :p
So it's 'Daddy knows best' then? For future reference, this is why people hate the US, not jealousy. Embarrassing.

The US government Shouldn't Interfere in Foreign Countries Business.
Oh? Who says?

Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper! :p

Honesty is good, thanks! It's a bit 'white man's burden', but it's honest! :p

1. No one in their right mind is going to invade Bolivia. It's like invading Chechnya.

2. Of course it does. You want to run the risk of some demented poppy-grower bringing down a commercial airliner because it overflew his poppy-fields?

3. Uh ... no, it can't, as this incident amply demonstates.

4. Me? I can't tell hardly anyone to do anything. :p
Again with the tired NS signature joke. Just to the south of them they have a nation where the people set fire to a train station because the train was late. And they have coca growers in thier country and near them. Seems like they've picked the right kind of weapon for thier situation.

So it's 'Daddy knows best' then? For future reference, this is why people hate the US, not jealousy. Embarrassing.
You know something? After having been subjected to the utter lunacy of many on here for lo these many months, I'm almost beyond giving a shit who "hates" the US.

So it's 'Daddy knows best' then? For future reference, this is why people hate the US, not jealousy. Embarrassing.
Agreed ... this sort of attitude would deffinatly piss me off if other countries adapted it

Of course many on "Our" (the US) side in the end subscribe to the "might makes right" theory
"We have the power to project our wishes therefor it is right to do so"

I have a feeling Jellousy has little really to do with it, wish the right wing pundits that keep spouting "they are just jellous" would get their heads out of their asses and see the real problem

You know something? After having been subjected to the utter lunacy of many on here for lo these many months, I'm almost beyond giving a shit who "hates" the US.
You may not but the US had better start paying attention ... our projected attitude can deffinatly effect our ability to interact with the rest of the world

We can and do not operate in a vacume

You know something? After having been subjected to the utter lunacy of many on here for lo these many months, I'm almost beyond giving a shit who "hates" the US.
Accusations of the lunacy of others are on shaky grounds when defending that the US gets to decide what small arms a country should and shouldn't have because 'the US knows best.'

You know something? After having been subjected to the utter lunacy of many on here for lo these many months, I'm almost beyond giving a shit who "hates" the US.
Let them hate us as long as they fear us? :) It's a legitimate strategy for big countries. Eutrusca's right here - I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, I know it (!), but I think that he's saying it's not about morality, it's about practical projection of power, something every country does. I'd argue that the US isn't doing a very good PR job on this at the moment, but it's just playing the game...

As long as our children have to pay for our mistakes and not us, eh?
And this is something new? You do the best with what you have under the current circumstances. Virtually anything you do is going to have consequences, some of them negative. It falls to each new generation to set its own agenda.

And the US does not have porous borders or opium traffic?

By that logic we should have a "keeper" too
Two wrongs do not a "right" make.

What kind of guns a sovereign country buys? Do you want the straight.. right-on.. military style answer?


Answer: It is none of your business..

Unless you think Bolivia wants to invade you :D

...or unless you are an Arms Dealer...
Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.

And this is something new? You do the best with what you have under the current circumstances. Virtually anything you do is going to have consequences, some of them negative. It falls to each new generation to set its own agenda.
Heaven forbid we learn any lessons or take consequences into account before we act.

Elgesh']Let them hate us as long as they fear us? :) It's a legitimate strategy for big countries. Eutrusca's right here - I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, I know it (!), but I think that he's saying it's not about morality, it's about practical projection of power, something every country does. I'd argue that the US isn't doing a very good PR job on this at the moment, but it's just playing the game...
But like I said we do not operate in a vacume ... if we continue to thumb our nose at the world things can get a lot harder for us

The US has to learn to pick its battles better (not talking nessisarily about the millitary kind) and has to learn to play the "in" game rather then sticking with just brute force

If we can just stop acting like the teenage bully (or at least projecting that attitude) we will be able to REALLY do some good when it counts

I am not talking about backing down or cowing to popular opinion ... I am talking using our brains and working not just in a phisical projection of power

Two wrongs do not a "right" make.
Ok? not sure where you were going with that maybe I just have been awake too long

... the real problem
Oh? And this would be???

Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.
Yet so many fail to see that other countries feel the same way

All the sudden when they are critical of something we do ... it is "none of their busniess"

You know something? After having been subjected to the utter lunacy of many on here for lo these many months, I'm almost beyond giving a shit who "hates" the US.


I be far more concerned if everyone loved the US. It would indicate they were giving us the high hard one, real savage like.

Nope-they can hate us all they like. As long as we're doing whats in our best interests. I dont give a shit who hates the US.

Yet so many fail to see that other countries feel the same way

All the sudden when they are critical of something we do ... it is "none of their busniess"
I never said it was "none of their business." If I lived in some stability-challenged, third-world country, I wouldn't appreciate some things the US does either. That's not the point.

Yet so many fail to see that other countries feel the same way

All the sudden when they are critical of something we do ... it is "none of their busniess"
No fucking kidding. It's obvious why other countries have such a vocal interest in who is our president. With a policy like what Eutrusca advocates they have enough of a stake in it to merit getting a vote.

Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.
Which makes what goes on in the US everbody's business.

I never said it was "none of their business." If I lived in some stability-challenged, third-world country, I wouldn't appreciate some things the US does either. That's not the point.
Wait wait wait. By your own admission they have stability issues but the military shouldn't have small arms to defend itself? Do you even read what you write?

Which makes what goes on in the US everbody's business.But it should not be that way...
We should stop messing with other countrie's Sovereignty.

As long as we're doing whats in our best interests. I dont give a shit who hates the US.
Being "loved" when you're a powerful country isn't all it's cracked up to be. Being respected, even feared, is. Thank you, Mr. Machiavelli.

1. No one in their right mind is going to invade Bolivia. It's like invading Chechnya.
Bolivia's had problems with Chile and Paraguay in the past. It has very rich mineral deposits also.

2. Of course it does. You want to run the risk of some demented poppy-grower bringing down a commercial airliner because it overflew his poppy-fields?
They don't grow poppies in Bolivia, they grow coca. It's a shrub. The missile launchers (if they existed) were in the hands of the military, not "demented poppy-growers"

3. Uh ... no, it can't, as this incident amply demonstates.
That's what Morales' vowed to do, to make it so that they can, as is every country's right.

4. Me? I can't tell hardly anyone to do anything. :p
And in the end you're just being facetious and a bit trolly, so ñe.

Wait wait wait. By your own admission they have stability issues but the military shouldn't have small arms to defend itself? Do you even read what you write?
Who the hell said anything about "small arms?" There's no problem with them having "small arms." The problem is them having the equivalent of Stinger missles, which can bring down most aircraft via "fire and forget" technology. Add to that the instability of the country and you have a situation where those missles could fall into hands that nobody wants holding the missles.

The mere assertion by Bolivia that the weapons were "stolen by the US" is just that - an assertion. As far as I'm concerned, those weapons are highly desireable items for terrorist, criminal, or paramilitary use - and they are highly portable.

If we had sent someone to remove the weapons from Bolivia, we would have just laid a small explosive charge on the containers and let them blow up.

Doesn't have the ring of truth to me.
It seems to be more than an assertation (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2005/11/21/114058/69). It seems as though the Bolivian military asked the US to remove these missles when things became unstable. This was pre Morales, and doesn't sound all that hokey...for one, because it's not just Morales saying it. It would not surprise me at all to find out that some general made some good coin SELLING these weapons, and there absolutely should be an investigation.

Well, perhaps it would have helped had you, like, you know ... said that the first time! :p

Why in God's name would a country such as Bolivia need the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles? I mean, who's going to invade them, Chechnya? The risk to over-flying commercial airliners and US military aircraft trumps any hypothetical "security needs" of Bolivia's paranoid new leadership, IMHO.The why of it is none of your business. Bolivia is a soveriegn state. Period. Fly your planes elsewhere if YOU are paranoid.

1. No one in their right mind is going to invade Bolivia. It's like invading Chechnya. No one in their right mind would invade Canada. There's no point. And yet we have weapons. Deal with it. Butt out.

Who the hell said anything about "small arms?" There's no problem with them having "small arms." The problem is them having the equivalent of Stinger missles, which can bring down most aircraft via "fire and forget" technology. Add to that the instability of the country and you have a situation where those missles could fall into hands that nobody wants holding the missles.
Low flying aircraft. Like a coca grower in a small plane. Or the issues brought up by Iztatepopotla in the post right above the one I quoted. It still seems to me that you've actually made the case for them having these weapons and have only offered 'Daddy knows best' for them not having them.

No one in their right mind would invade Canada. There's no point. And yet we have weapons. Deal with it. Butt out.
Circle gets the square.

Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.
Holy shit Eut. That is beyond simply arrogant.

1. Bolivia's had problems with Chile and Paraguay in the past. It has very rich mineral deposits also.

2. They don't grow poppies in Bolivia, they grow coca. It's a shrub. The missile launchers (if they existed) were in the hands of the military, not "demented poppy-growers"

3. That's what Morales' vowed to do, to make it so that they can, as is every country's right.

4. And in the end you're just being facetious and a bit trolly, so ñe.
1. And having the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles is somehow going to help them defend against Chilian and Paraguayian aggression? Get real.

2. A quibble at best. How's this: the country is going to have a president who is a paranoid coca grower who will have control over the military and who will most likely be unable to prevent the missles from falling into the wrong hands ... and who may even be "the wrong hands" himself! Happy now?

3. Believing something is "a right" and actually being able to exercise that "right" are two different things.

3. I've been known to be facetious from time to time, yes. But a troll? Never! :p

Holy shit Eut. That is beyond simply arrogant.
Perhaps so, but prove that I'm somehow incorrect.

1. And having the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles is somehow going to help them defend against Chilian and Paraguayian aggression? Get real.


Wait, now because it won't be enough they shouldn't have them?

I never said it was "none of their business." If I lived in some stability-challenged, third-world country, I wouldn't appreciate some things the US does either. That's not the point.
I did not mean to imply you directly but it is so often out of the right in general

Perhaps so, but prove that I'm somehow incorrect.
Osama bin Laden. Created because we thought everything was our business.

Which makes what goes on in the US everbody's business.
Perhaps. Unfortunately, most citizens of other countries don't yet have the right to vote in US elections ... yet.

2. A quibble at best. How's this: the country is going to have a president who is a paranoid coca grower who will have control over the military and who will most likely be unable to prevent the missles from falling into the wrong hands ... and who may even be "the wrong hands" himself! Happy now? Paranoid? When this very likely DID happen? When there seems to be more evidence than just Morales' say so? That isn't paranoia, that is being RIGHTLY PISSED OFF that another nation would covertly violate the sovereignty of another...a move you have throughout this thread claimed is justified. Now, you should note, that the bulk of Morales' ire is being focused on the former president who would've had to give his okay for these missles to be removed. But this little argument of yours, "everything is the US's business" and "they don't need missles" and "we should remove anything that possibly threatens us, sovereignty be damned" simply highlights why you can not call this idle paranoia.

The why of it is none of your business. Bolivia is a soveriegn state. Period. Fly your planes elsewhere if YOU are paranoid.
No.

No one in their right mind would invade Canada. There's no point. And yet we have weapons. Deal with it. Butt out.
The last I heard, Canada isn't an unstable, third-world nation with a paranoid coca-grower as newly-elected president.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, most citizens of other countries don't yet have the right to vote in US elections ... yet.


I'm sure the ACLU is working on that though

No.
Keep this answer in mind next time you try to tell someone that the US is not trying to build an Empire.

Low flying aircraft. Like a coca grower in a small plane. Or the issues brought up by Iztatepopotla in the post right above the one I quoted. It still seems to me that you've actually made the case for them having these weapons and have only offered 'Daddy knows best' for them not having them.
I disagree, but meh. Sue me.

I'm sure the ACLU is working on that though
Somehow doubt that

Perhaps so, but prove that I'm somehow incorrect.
Prove that your arrogance is incorrect? That this:

Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.
is incorrect? How do you prove a belief wrong? Oddly enough, this is the same belief held by your government back when they were doing things like removing Arbenz from power, and helping other assorted madmen ascend and kill and torture with impunity...all in the interest of economic stability.

There is a difference between you KNOWING what is going on in the world, and you INTERFERING in the affairs of a sovereign state. If you can't understand the difference, there is really no point in discussing this further with you.

The last I heard, Canada isn't an unstable, third-world nation with a paranoid coca-grower as newly-elected president.
:rolleyes:

Keep this answer in mind next time you try to tell someone that the US is not trying to build an Empire.
That's like trying to convince atheists to go to church.

Eut...whatever you're playing at here...intentionally being an imperialistic USian...trolling...whatever...it makes me sick. It highlights an attitude that DOES exist (even if you don't actually hold it), and is one of the main reasons so many people hate your country and its government. This idea that 'right' is what the US says it is...even when that same action is 'wrong' for everyone else. Well, you reap what you sow. If you aren't actively fighting against the belief that the world is the US's playground, you are complicit in it.

Osama bin Laden. Created because we thought everything was our business.
I never said I thought we were always right. You do what you think is feasible at the time.

Didn't we already have this conversation before?? :confused:

I disagree, but meh. Sue me.
The only answer you've provided is that "We should because we could," unless I've missed something.

Oh, there is the ramble about them being third world coca growers-but that didn't stop us from giving third world heroin growers actual Stingers.

But he is a former coca grower who was democraticly elected. Democracy only matters if it's pre-approved? Really, this 'third world' blah blah blah' is still nothing more than 'father knows best.' With, I might add, more conjecture than anything else to build it on.

Make your case, champ. You started this. You don't think it's emprical and father knows best then lay it out.

Somehow doubt that

I was being half sarcastic.

I'm sure the ACLU is working on that though
Actually, what I would love to see is the US eventually replacing the UN as an international organization and allowing all citizens of democratic countries to vote in elections. But that isn't going to happen in my lifetime, probably not in several lifetimes.

That's like trying to convince atheists to go to church.
Pointless analogy, doesn't address the post.

Exorting our soviergnty to do what ever we want in another nation is the act of an empire. You advocated it. Trying to convince yourself it's not is the equivilant of thinking the extra large diet Coke cancels out the super-sized fries and double cheeseburger.

The only answer you've provided is that "We should because we could," unless I've missed something.

Oh, there is the ramble about them being third world coca growers-but that didn't stop us from giving third world heroin growers actual Stingers.

But he is a former coca grower who was democraticly elected. Democracy only matters if it's pre-approved? Really, this 'third world' blah blah blah' is still nothing more than 'father knows best.' With, I might add, more conjecture than anything else to build it on.

Make your case, champ. You started this. You don't think it's emprical and father knows best then lay it out.
Bolivia can elect an insane asylum inmate as president for all I care. That's their right. But it's the right of the US to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our own interests.

Pointless analogy, doesn't address the post.

Exorting our soviergnty to do what ever we want in another nation is the act of an empire. You advocated it. Trying to convince yourself it's not is the equivilant of thinking the extra large diet Coke cancels out the super-sized fries and double cheeseburger.
Damn it now I am hungry!

How is it stealing, when the Bolivian military knew what was going on and arranged for the transport of missiles out of the country? The article provided by the initial posters shows that everyone in Bolivia is telling different things to different people. Sounds like an inside job!

Bolivia can elect an insane asylum inmate as president for all I care. That's their right. But it's the right of the US to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our own interests.
If it is alright for us to defend our intrests by any means nessisary, that puts insurgents in the right as well
They are only defending their intrests after all

Bolivia can elect an insane asylum inmate as president for all I care. That's their right. But it's the right of the US to take whatever steps are necessary to defend our own interests.
Including violating sovereignty. Suddenly Chavez doesn't seem so paranoid. Just right.

Being "loved" when you're a powerful country isn't all it's cracked up to be. Being respected, even feared, is. Thank you, Mr. Machiavelli.once upon a time... My Country was a Loved empire(loved by most)..
that is why.. I used to see no end to that sweet situation...

enter the scene: Bush and the Neocons..

now we are a hated Empire... Hated empires do not last...

all I can say is: "it was good while it lasted" :cool:

The US was great in many fields... one of the is PR.. *was*

If it is alright for us to defend our intrests by any means nessisary, that puts insurgents in the right as well
They are only defending their intrests after all
I'm sure they believe in their own minds that what they are doing is the correct thing for them. That's a given.

I'm sure they believe in their own minds that what they are doing is the correct thing for them. That's a given.and in their own way..they are heroes.. right?

I never said I thought we were always right. You do what you think is feasible at the time.

Didn't we already have this conversation before?? :confused:
First of all, you have a demonstrably piss poor ability to remember what conversations we have and have not had. And that's giving you the rather a generous benifit of doubt.

The question wasn't weither you agreed with anything, but to question the notion that everything that goes on is our business. I gave you a product of that thinking.

I'll hit you with one that should be closer to home. A certain civil war that we involved ourselves in.

1. And having the Chinese equivalent of Stinger missles is somehow going to help them defend against Chilian and Paraguayian aggression? Get real.
Chile and Paraguay have helicopters and planes, you know. Sure, it's not like they have 100 F-16's, but 28 Stinger-like missiles is not a lot either.

2. A quibble at best. How's this: the country is going to have a president who is a paranoid coca grower who will have control over the military and who will most likely be unable to prevent the missles from falling into the wrong hands ... and who may even be "the wrong hands" himself! Happy now?[/qupte]
Better. Still a strawman, but a better looking one.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]3. Believing something is "a right" and actually being able to exercise that "right" are two different things.
That's why Morales has vowed to do his best to exercise this right. I doubt the US will seriously try to alienate the Latinamerican countries even more. Their only real ally in the region are Colombia and Chile, and these may go either way next year.

3. I've been known to be facetious from time to time, yes. But a troll? Never! :p
Oh, c'mon, we all need to feed our inner troll from time to time.

and in their own way..they are heroes.. right?
Well, you have to admire the intensity of their belief. To some, I imagine they are "heros."

I'm sure they believe in their own minds that what they are doing is the correct thing for them. That's a given.
But of course fauther knows best what is really correct for them

and in their own way..they are heroes.. right?
Well, you have to admire the intensity of their belief. To some, I imagine they are "heros."

I admired the tenacity of the North Vietnamese soldiers I fought. That didn't mean that I was going to "kiss and make up" with them.

But of course fauther knows best what is really correct for them
Not at all. That's for them to decide, as they apparently already have.

That's why Morales has vowed to do his best to exercise this right. I doubt the US will seriously try to alienate the Latinamerican countries even more. Their only real ally in the region are Colombia and Chile, and these may go either way next year.


Chileans in particular are not about to forget the OTHER (http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1033575,00.html) September 11...

Well, you have to admire the intensity of their belief. To some, I imagine they are "heros."personally.. I do not admire their intensity.. or the ways they kill the "enemy"...

My point is:
the fallen insurgent have as much rigths to be called Heroes ..as the US fallen.. Even if the Iraqi NFL does not makes multiple infomertials about it.








Yes I am aware they dont have a super-duper-hyped-NFL.. but they are not any less Heroes because of that.

Once we send the message that negotiation and diplomacy are useless with the US, that 'might makes right' and that we won't even respect the sorviergnty of established nations we leave some people with the conclusion that the only recourse they have is to ram a airliner into a building. Frankly I don't think that the people that die as a result of this policy deserve to die for the jollies of military fetishists, lobbyists and Empire endoursing 'think tanks.'

We don't live in a vacuum, our actions have reprecussions that we damn well know because we're dealing with them right fucking now. It's time to pull heads out of asses and think shit through past playground logic.

personally.. I do not admire their intensity.. or the ways they kill the "enemy"...

My point is:
the fallen insurgent have as much rigths to be called Heroes ..as the US fallen.. Even if the Iraqi NFL does not makes multiple infomertials about it.

Yes I am aware they dont have a super-duper-hyped-NFL.. but they are not any less Heroes for that.
Any who like can call them "heros." I have no problem with that.

Any who like can call them "heros." I have no problem with that.is good to see a veteran warrior like you.. show that kind of decency.. for the other side.

for sure many Sunni Families call them heroes... or Freedom Fighters...
..heck many non-Arabs say they are " freedom Fighters"

is good to see a veteran warrior like you.. show that kind of decency.. for the other side.

for sure many Sunni Families call them heroes... or Freedom Fighters...
..heck many non-Arabs say they are " freedom Fighters"
Thank you. I appreciate that, perhaps more than you know.

IMHO, it's not necessary to deamonize your enemy in order to feel better about opposing him.

But of course fauther knows best what is really correct for them
Not at all.

That's why Morales has vowed to do his best to exercise this right. I doubt the US will seriously try to alienate the Latinamerican countries even more. Their only real ally in the region are Colombia and Chile, and these may go either way next year.Just before the Morales election the US has started to pour "military advisers" in Paraguay (Bolivia's historic enemy).. there is even talk about negotiation for a US base in Paraguay/Bolivia disputed land (currently occupied by Paraguay)...

if this is true... Paraguay might be in his way to become one of the Biggest recipients of US welfare ever... just like Colombia became a huge black hole for US welfare money...after Chavez was elected...

So the US will end up with 3 big recipienst of incentives$ .. wich brings the number of "real" allies to a grand total of.. 3.

the new Bush definition of "real ally"... is "an allie you can buy".

Not at all.
You are aware that we can still see all the other things you've posted, right?

Just before the Morales election the US has started to pour military adviser in Paraguay (Bolivia's historic enemy).. there is even talk about negotiation for a US base in Paraguay/Bolivia disputed land (currently occupied by Paraguay)...

if this is true... Paraguay might be in his way to become one of the Biggest recipients of US welfare ever... just like Colombias after Chavez was elected...
Wait wait wait...there is a disputed border???? (I'll admit my ignorance here)

Suddenly Eutrusca's 'they don't need them' arguement is now total and utter bullshit, as opposed to run-of-the-mill bullshit.

Yup! Better US than anyone else, I always say. :D

What makes you better than anybody else?

You are aware that we can still see all the other things you've posted, right?

Again, I say this in te sure and certain knowledge I'll be corrected if I'm wrong!

The argument isn't 'father knows best for his children' so much as 'Big Jim's not going to let Little Tam do that...'; Big Jim's looking out for his own, he's not trying to _raise_ Little Tam, not being mean-in-the-short-term-to-be-nice-in-the-long-run, just make sure he doesn't do anything inconvenient.

The real question is how sustainable a policy that is, and whether direct power politics is the right way to go about it.

Everything that goes on in the world is "our" business.

No it isn't, when you get to the bottom of all arguments all you are left with is that you, just like everybody else, are human, with no more or less of a right to existance or to dictate affairs that aren't your own than anybody else of any nationality.

Elgesh']Again, I say this in te sure and certain knowledge I'll be corrected if I'm wrong!

The argument isn't 'father knows best for his children' so much as 'Big Jim's not going to let Little Tam do that...'; Big Jim's looking out for his own, he's not trying to _raise_ Little Tam, not being mean-in-the-short-term-to-be-nice-in-the-long-run, just make sure he doesn't do anything inconvenient.

The real question is how sustainable a policy that is, and whether direct power politics is the right way to go about it.
Mostly I was thinking of this, specificly-
Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper! :p
Despite father doesn't at this point seem to know which drug is being dealt with.

While I see the differences as slightly tom-ay-to tom-ah-to, I can grant that he has drifted to your distinction while still trying to duck just under (unsuccessfully) 'empire.'

EDIT: I have a theory, though. Because this is such a ridiculous position that he's championed. I think that he came across this story and thought, "Ah hell, someone is going to post this and ask about America's audacity. I'll just jump the gun and start the thread myself as if it was a good thing, at least then I'll set the discourse and choose the title." Knowing it was an asinine position.

Wait wait wait...there is a disputed border???? (I'll admit my ignorance here)Bolivia has won a couple of wars and lost a few more... The bloodiest war was against Paraguay... It was an Oil war pushed by an Oil company (I think it was not US... I think it was a British company)

I was a lot like the Iran-Iraq War... Paraguay started winning big.. and when Bolivia started to Win back.. Foreign Powers intervened to stop the War..

Bolivia lost the land but kept the Oil... the Paraguay land grab did not make it all the way to the precious Oil/Gas reserves.

lots of people (big % of countries) died for useless desert land... Died for nothing and both economies were ruined.. --Did I mention it was like Iran-Iraq--

still today they are the 2 poorest countries of the continent.
_________
and it is not the only Big disputed Land.. There is the Bolivian Eastern Border... disputed by 3 countries.

Bolivia has won a couple of wars and lost a few more... The blodiast war was against Paraguay... It was an Oil war pushed by an Oil company (no it was not only US... I think it was a British company)

I was a lot like the Iran Iraq War... Paraguay started winning big.. and when Bolivia started to Win back.. Foreign Powers intervened to stop the War..

Bolivia lost the land but won the Oil... the Paragay land grab did not make it all the way to the precious Oil/Gas reserves.

lots of people (grat %) died for useless desert land... Died for nothing and both economies were ruined.. --Did I mention it was like Iran-Iraq--

still today they are the 2 poorest contries of the erea.
_________
and is not the omly Bolivian disputed border.. There is the Eastern Border... diputed by 3 countries.
Oil. Imagine.

Oil. Imagine.Bolivia untapped Gas Reserves are second only to Venezuela.

I really don't think you should be happy about this, Eut, it basically assures not only Morales election, but also a larger portion of the people willing to go along with what he says. Foreign intervention in your country is something nobody takes well.

Not only that, it makes it easier for him to get rid of US agents in the country, as support for them will go down, at a time when the US really needs to have them in there. Weapons can be rebought by Morales fairly quickly. Replacing the personnel that Morales manages to oust using this as the pretext will take the US much longer.

Like most things America's government seems to be doing now, the long-view doesn't seem to be present.

You are aware that we can still see all the other things you've posted, right?
:rolleyes:

WTF are you on about now? How does that statement conflict with anything I've posted in this thread, or any other thread for that matter?

What makes you better than anybody else?
Nothing that I know of, why? This is where my family and I live. Simple, yes?

1. No one in their right mind is going to invade Bolivia. It's like invading Chechnya.

2. Of course it does. You want to run the risk of some demented poppy-grower bringing down a commercial airliner because it overflew his poppy-fields?

3. Uh ... no, it can't, as this incident amply demonstates.

4. Me? I can't tell hardly anyone to do anything. :p

That's ridiculous.

1. Bolivia has a history of fighting wars with its neighbors and has America to fear if it legalizes cocoa leaf growing.

2. THE BOLIVIAN MILITARY OWNS THESE!!! There are plenty of demented Americans who would probably launch a nuclear missile at someone, but the US military controls the missiles, not just random insane citizens. Aside from demented poppy growers not being able to get the weapons, they don't know how to use them. This isn't terrorists with stingers, it's a military with stingers, a military that isn't going to fuck itself over by starting a war with the world's largest superpower.

3.

That's ridiculous.

1. Bolivia has a history of fighting wars with its neighbors and has America to fear if it legalizes cocoa leaf growing.

2. THE BOLIVIAN MILITARY OWNS THESE!!! There are plenty of demented Americans who would probably launch a nuclear missile at someone, but the US military controls the missiles, not just random insane citizens. Aside from demented poppy growers not being able to get the weapons, they don't know how to use them. This isn't terrorists with stingers, it's a military with stingers, a military that isn't going to fuck itself over by starting a war with the world's largest superpower.

3.

Not sure how this applies to this, but Venezuela Purchase several thousand AK-100 series 7.62x39 Kalashbnikov rifles for it's military and police from Russia.

Not sure how this applies to this, but Venezuela Purchase several thousand AK-100 series 7.62x39 Kalashbnikov rifles for it's military and police from Russia.
Venezuela is also a customer if US F-16 jets. Your point being?

Why is blowing them up a more plausable scenario? Doesn't that seem far more complicated, as it would be a less than subtle way to go about things thus forcing the whole deal to happen nearly simultaniously? This seems like a more plausable solution for The A-Team, but to do it through a co-operation with a military that they already have a relationship with seems more likely. You'll have to explain your logic, I don't get it.


Blowing up military hardware is not new. We did it in Iraq in the first gulf war. Can tell you that we used Iraqi tanks/armored vehicles and artillery as target practice. We were ordered to blow everything up and we did. This would make sense in the Bolivian scenerio too.

:rolleyes:

WTF are you on about now? How does that statement conflict with anything I've posted in this thread, or any other thread for that matter?

But of course fauther knows best what is really correct for them
Not at all.

Well, let's see ... unstable country, porous borders, opium traffic ... yep, they need a keeper!
Just to start.

Blowing up military hardware is not new. We did it in Iraq in the first gulf war. Can tell you that we used Iraqi tanks/armored vehicles and artillery as target practice. We were ordered to blow everything up and we did. This would make sense in the Bolivian scenerio too.
Okay, this scenario seems even more ridiculous than DKs. Now you're saying it would have been more workable to actually go in with our military to target handheld weapons rather than shuttle them out. We've moved from Te A-Team for Megaforce. Why would it be more feasible to actually jump into a soviergn nation and start blowing up handheld weapons, this seems like it would have been more problematic than even DKs scenario?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this thread is just yet more proof of how Forrest Horn, Senior is a hardcore Bushevik.

This post among others shows his ultranationalistic and jingoistic contempt for other nations of the world, especially ones who try to stand on their own rather than suck on Uncle Sam's dick and take it up their other orifices.

Every time a country, person or faction noted for their vocal criticism of Dear Leader George W. Bush suffers an inconvenience and/or setback, you can be sure it won't be long before Forrest posts a thread gloating about it. His snide and often disingenuous remarks and replies are thinly masked with :D after :D as if that would hide it from the Moderators.

He claims to be "centrist" but practically all his barbs always aim at the Left.

He calls Cindy Sheehan a dishonorable traitor, yet elevates an incompetent fratboy draft dodger and a jackass who weaseled out with 5 deferrals on a pillar as if they were the greatest military strategists since Sun Tzu in regards to a war started on a lie, and which is costing the country money, men and the goodwill of the rest of the world.

He also thinks the United States military should be the new Samurai class, unaccountable to the "lower classes."

And the most frightening part is, he's not the minority in this country. He's just the most blatant of the bunch.

This has been a public service announcement.

YES!! YES!!! KEEP AT IT, MAN!!! FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH!!! RESIST THE POWER!!! AGHHHHHAGHAGHAAAAAHAHHHHHHH!!!!!! THEY'LL NEVER TAKE US ALIVE!!!!!!111!!!!

Just to start.
You goofball. I didn't say I wanted the US to be their "keeper," although I can almost see how you got that out of the accumulation of several posts. My bad, I suppose. Yes, they need a keeper. No, I don't want it to be the US.

Better? :)

You goofball. I didn't say I wanted the US to be their "keeper," although I can almost see how you got that out of the accumulation of several posts. My bad, I suppose. Yes, they need a keeper. No, I don't want it to be the US.

Better? :)
Not really, because it seems to intimate that the Bolivians are too stupid to run their own country. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I don't know how else to interpret "yes, they need a keeper."

You goofball. I didn't say I wanted the US to be their "keeper," although I can almost see how you got that out of the accumulation of several posts. My bad, I suppose. Yes, they need a keeper. No, I don't want it to be the US.

Better? :)
You're going to have to unpack 8 pages of posting to convince me of that. And all that support of going in and invading another country, on and on.

You've painted a very solid picture of "Father (US) knows best" since your first post on NS. Just judging on what you post, not what you claim.

EDIT: Damn, I shorted out. I have to echo what Nazz said. Insisting they need a keeper, regardless of whether or not you think at the moment that you should be the keeper is still a 'parental' decision. Thus it is still a Father Knows Best attitude. Thanks Nazz, wasn't on the ball there....

You're going to have to unpack 8 pages of posting to convince me of that. And all that support of going in and invading another country, on and on.

You've painted a very solid picture of "Father (US) knows best" since your first post on NS. Just judging on what you post, not what you claim.

EDIT: Damn, I shorted out. I have to echo what Nazz said. Insisting they need a keeper, regardless of whether or not you think at the moment that you should be the keeper is still a 'parental' decision. Thus it is still a Father Knows Best attitude.
( shrug ) Ok. :)

You're going to have to unpack 8 pages of posting to convince me of that. And all that support of going in and invading another country, on and on.

You've painted a very solid picture of "Father (US) knows best" since your first post on NS. Just judging on what you post, not what you claim.

EDIT: Damn, I shorted out. I have to echo what Nazz said. Insisting they need a keeper, regardless of whether or not you think at the moment that you should be the keeper is still a 'parental' decision. Thus it is still a Father Knows Best attitude. Thanks Nazz, wasn't on the ball there....
Sometimes it helps to come to the party a little late. :D

It's none of the US's business if Bolivia has some anti-aircraft missiles. They're a nation with potentially hostile neighbors, who they have fought wars with in the past (Paraguay most notably). I'd say that they have a good reason for having anti-air missiles. It's not like Paraguay and Chile don't have any airplanes or helicopters.

Besides, it's their county. If the US is going to make a big fuss about our own sovereignty, we should respect that of other nations.

Their military OWNed these missiles. It's not like they're WMD, either, they're conventional anti-aircraft missiles.

Eut, if the situation were reversed (if the US was some poor third world country with unfriendly neighbors) I bet you'd be pretty pissed off. I certainly would be.

It's none of the US's business if Bolivia has some anti-aircraft missiles. They're a nation with potentially hostile neighbors, who they have fought wars with in the past (Paraguay most notably). I'd say that they have a good reason for having anti-air missiles. It's not like Paraguay and Chile don't have any airplanes or helicopters.

Besides, it's their county. If the US is going to make a big fuss about our own sovereignty, we should respect that of other nations.

Their military OWNed these missiles. It's not like they're WMD, either, they're conventional anti-aircraft missiles.

Eut, if the situation were reversed (if the US was some poor third world country with unfriendly neighbors) I bet you'd be pretty pissed off. I certainly would be.

I think Eut's saying that might makes right where the national interest's concerned - do whatever you can if it's going to help you, there are no rules. To an extent, I think you have to allow that; the trick is not doing it obviously, and not letting yourself be dragged through the mud. The boy Bush is not talented at this aspect of foreign policy.

Ridiculous move. The SA-7 Grail Russian Stinger look alike is widely available, and cheap, so Bolivia can snap all kinds of hand held missles of all descriptions on any open market, they can deal with top end arms dealers, as a soveriegn nation can supply it's own End User certificate. The whole thing is rather goofy. Bolivia isn't exactly what I would call a major threat to our borders, so let them do whatever they wish. If they threaten the United States with a credible threat, then we take action, but for now, another bannana repubic wishes to put together a comic opera army with some cheap play toys from across the pond, so let 'em.

Eut, if the situation were reversed (if the US was some poor third world country with unfriendly neighbors) I bet you'd be pretty pissed off. I certainly would be.
Yup. Different foot. Different shoe. :)

Yup. Different foot. Different shoe. :)

So you really, really, REALLY are ready to openly state that double-standard is ok, every man(country) for himself, and strong has the right to do what the weak cannot prevent? This is what you believe, this is what you support?

In that case, those guys who flew those planes September 11th were doing to right thing, as they thought they were doing what was best for their people? Soviets who slaughtered the Caucasians and other minorities as it they were strong enough to do it and thought it was good for their country? Ottomans who slaughtered Armenians that formed an internal threat?

You support this? It's ok?

Or would be if done by the US...?

So you really, really, REALLY are ready to openly state that double-standard is ok, every man(country) for himself, and strong has the right to do what the weak cannot prevent? This is what you believe, this is what you support?

In that case, those guys who flew those planes September 11th were doing to right thing, as they thought they were doing what was best for their people? Soviets who slaughtered the Caucasians and other minorities as it they were strong enough to do it and thought it was good for their country? Ottomans who slaughtered Armenians that formed an internal threat?

You support this? It's ok?

Or would be if done by the US...?Eutrusca a Dual-Face >> Double-standard kind of Guy? :(

Pleeeease.... say it is not True... :D

Blowing up military hardware is not new. We did it in Iraq in the first gulf war. Can tell you that we used Iraqi tanks/armored vehicles and artillery as target practice. We were ordered to blow everything up and we did. This would make sense in the Bolivian scenerio too.Okay, this scenario seems even more ridiculous than DKs. Now you're saying it would have been more workable to actually go in with our military to target handheld weapons...

We've moved from The A-Team >to> Megaforce. From Dumb-and-dumber >>to>> Dude-Where-is-my-Car? :D :D :cool: :D

I wonder.. what should be the sentece.. against someone stealing/destroying US weapons(on US soil) for a foreign gov...Um ... an Army Commendaton medal? :DAnd what about for the CIA operatives wanted by Italy.. on Criminal charges..

If they are criminaly charged by a foreign country.. Would you give them a medal too?

So let me get this:

1. The new Bolivian pres is a coca farmer.
2. Drug enforcement agencies usually use helicopters or small aircraft to spot coca fields or processing plants.
3. He wants shoulder fired ground to air missles.
4. He wants to end Bolivian collaboration with US advisors and drug enforcement official.

I dunno...sounds like he has less in common with Caracas than he does with Medellin! (In other words, methinks he is trying to set up another narco-state.)

So let me get this:

1. The new Bolivian pres is a coca farmer.
2. Drug enforcement agencies usually use helicopters or small aircraft to spot coca fields or processing plants.
3. He wants shoulder fired ground to air missles.
4. He wants to end Bolivian collaboration with US advisors and drug enforcement official.

I dunno...sounds like he has less in common with Caracas than he does with Medellin! (In other words, methinks he is trying to set up another narco-state.)

And if that's the case then we shouldn't have to worry about him. The cartels will take care of him for us.

So let me get this:

1. The new Bolivian pres is a coca farmer. Actually, the new Bolivian president is the first indigenous person to represent a country that has roughly an 80% indigenous population. Many of these rural aymara grow coca. Coca has cultural and spiritual significance for the aymara, and is not used exclusively to produce cocaine. Don't read too much into the English translation of 'cocolero'.
2. Drug enforcement agencies usually use helicopters or small aircraft to spot coca fields or processing plants.Since Morales is not planning on participating on a War on Drugs, any drug enforcement agencies flying over would likely be foreigners illegally using Bolivian airspace anyway.



3. He wants shoulder fired ground to air missles.No, he wants to know what happened to the ones they had, and why it appears that they were taken out of the country with the collaboration of the former president, and the US.


4. He wants to end Bolivian collaboration with US advisors and drug enforcement official. Yes.

I dunno...sounds like he has less in common with Caracas than he does with Medellin! (In other words, methinks he is trying to set up another narco-state.) Well, it is possible...but unlikely. It would make much more sense for him to focus on Bolivia's vast petroleum deposits.

2. Drug enforcement agencies usually use helicopters or small aircraft to spot coca fields or processing plants.
US military "advisors" are going to have their visas revoked by January 25...
first on the list are the agente-naranja-like herbicide operators...

I can almost hear the Bolivian poor Peasants singing
... NAH, NAH, NAH...hey-hey-hey.. Good bye. :D :D :p :D

They must love their new found Sovereignty.

US military "advisors" are going to have their visas revoked by January 25...
first on the list are the agente-naranja-like herbicide operators...

I can almost hear the Bolivian poor Peasants singing
... NAH, NAH, NAH...hey-hey-hey.. Good bye. :D :D :p :D

They must love their new found Sovereignty.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes before this one gets Allende-ed.

A very short period of time. [just tagging this as my thread tools don't work]

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes before this one gets Allende-ed.Never say never but...

This one does not like Chile...this one looks more like Vietnam ...

This is what Chavez correctly foresaw about Bolivia ... (yes Chavez is very-very clever)

yes.. Morales can be taken down... But the Price would be more than what most Americans can swallow...


If you think taking down Saddam was too expensive... then Morales is out of the menu.