HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bolivia president expels ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:59 PM

Bolivia president expels US aid agency

Source: Al-Jazeera

Bolivian president Evo Morales has expelled the US development agency from his country for allegedly seeking to undermine his leftist government.

Morales claimed on Wednesday that the USAID is involved with "alleged political interference in peasant unions and other social organisations."

He made the announcement before a crowd outside the presidential palace during a May Day rally.

"Never again, never again USAID, who manipulate and use our leaders, our colleagues with hand-outs," Morales said in announcing the expulsion.

He then ordered David Choquehuanca, Bolivia's foreign minister, to inform the US embassy of his decision

Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201351224153629879.html

73 replies, 5215 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 73 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bolivia president expels US aid agency (Original post)
discocrisco01 May 2013 OP
Archae May 2013 #1
zeemike May 2013 #2
Archae May 2013 #3
Alamuti Lotus May 2013 #9
Archae May 2013 #10
Alamuti Lotus May 2013 #11
RainDog May 2013 #71
Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #13
Fuddnik May 2013 #47
leveymg May 2013 #52
Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #12
arikara May 2013 #17
Archae May 2013 #19
dlwickham May 2013 #23
zeemike May 2013 #40
truth2power May 2013 #36
treestar May 2013 #44
truth2power May 2013 #56
treestar May 2013 #66
truth2power May 2013 #72
JDPriestly May 2013 #5
Peace Patriot May 2013 #6
Archae May 2013 #8
Peace Patriot May 2013 #26
truth2power May 2013 #37
treestar May 2013 #45
Jazzgirl May 2013 #58
harmonicon May 2013 #63
treestar May 2013 #65
reorg May 2013 #59
OnyxCollie May 2013 #16
dipsydoodle May 2013 #34
polly7 May 2013 #18
RainDog May 2013 #24
Cal Carpenter May 2013 #41
Enrique May 2013 #53
harmonicon May 2013 #62
starroute May 2013 #4
Archae May 2013 #7
Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #14
Archae May 2013 #15
Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #20
Archae May 2013 #21
Spitfire of ATJ May 2013 #22
Peace Patriot May 2013 #28
reorg May 2013 #38
RainDog May 2013 #25
Peace Patriot May 2013 #27
RainDog May 2013 #29
Judi Lynn May 2013 #30
RainDog May 2013 #31
Judi Lynn May 2013 #32
RainDog May 2013 #33
Judi Lynn May 2013 #35
RainDog May 2013 #69
G_j May 2013 #42
ReRe May 2013 #39
geek tragedy May 2013 #43
reorg May 2013 #48
geek tragedy May 2013 #51
reorg May 2013 #54
treestar May 2013 #46
Fuddnik May 2013 #49
roody May 2013 #73
tarheelsunc May 2013 #50
Zorro May 2013 #55
Harmony Blue May 2013 #61
Zorro May 2013 #57
Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #60
Ash_F May 2013 #64
ForgoTheConsequence May 2013 #67
RainDog May 2013 #70
bvar22 May 2013 #68

Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:20 AM

1. Doesn't matter, left-wing, right-wing...

These banana republic dictators are so paranoid they'll shoot holes under their bed to get anyone they think is going to "overthrow" them.

Wacks like this Bolivian, "Our Great Leader wuz poisoned!" Maduro, and so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:45 AM

2. Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.

And the US has a long history of tampering in South America...General Smedley Butler comes to mind...
But don't pay attention to that...the official story is he is a madman...stick to that and everything will be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #2)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:47 AM

3. So Alex Jones is 100% correct too?

By your logic, he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:35 AM

9. Cheap smear;--but, nothing less can be expected from the usual sources *nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #9)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:38 AM

10. Alex Jones sees conspiracies when he stubs his toe.

Either you guys have actual EVIDENCE, or this is just like Jones' bullshit.
Wild accusations with little or no evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:45 AM

11. you don't need to explain, I got the reference

 

but it's still a cheap smear: your opponent disagrees with you, so you pick up the most convenient handful of mud to hurl towards him. I understand the tactic, it's just a distasteful approach by people who usually have nothing better to back up their arguments with. Ironically, you are engaging in the same approach as the conspiracists that put the wind so briskly up your dear spine: you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that your adversary gives one wrinkled rat fuck about Alex Jones, but his recent celebrity status makes it convenient for you to make such nasty insinuations anyway. It's not the first time I have noticed such a lazy and slimy approach from you or others, but it annoyed me enough now to say something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #11)

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:47 PM

71. +1

This goes on on this site too often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:52 AM

13. Oh sure, and the Contras were "Freedom Fighters".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:49 AM

47. We've got a pretty lengthy track record for that kind of thing.

I'd say based on past conduct Morales is spot on.

The US won't tolerate anyone upsetting Bechtel's, and Exxon's applecart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:01 AM

52. Alex Jones has become the new Hitler - 1st person to raise his name has lost the argument.

The belief that all criticism of Obama's foreign policy is Conspiracy Theory is just another form of narrow, reactive conspiratorial thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:51 AM

12. That's not logic. That's a classic false choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:05 AM

17. What the hell are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #17)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:09 AM

19. Alex Jones sounds like a paranoid.

Does that mean "they" are out to get him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #19)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:51 AM

23. only to get him the mental health help he needs so desperately


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #19)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:59 AM

40. No and it don't mean they are not.

Fact is it don't mean shit...paranoia is a tool and it can be used both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #2)

Thu May 2, 2013, 06:56 AM

36. You're on the right track, zeemike. As a matter of fact, I heard Sibel Edmonds say recently

that USAID has been for some time a CIA front.

Wait for it...Sibel Edmonds, who used to have a lot of credibility around DU, will now be attacked and become persona non grata .

Actually, Sibel is saying a lot of very interesting things these days, if people care to look. But they won't, because that would open a huge can of worms. Nothing to see here. Just move along.

Ridicule is a disinformation tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #36)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:44 AM

44. So everything she says is to be believed automatically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #44)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:42 AM

56. Did I say everything she says should be believed? Reread my post...

First of all, there are several posters on this thread who have detailed how USAID is an arm of the CIA. And said it better than I could.

As far as Sibel Edmonds, I said she's saying interesting things and that people should look (read). They can make their own determinations. Edmonds used to have credibility around here. But that can change in the blink of an eye.

I've noticed that progressive bloggers, journalists, (Greenwald, Hedges, come to mind) can be praised for their views, here, and then called morons or worse when they say something that doesn't fit the party line. Thus, I'll wait for Edmonds to be thrown under the bus, not because she's necessarily wrong, but because she's not walking in lock-step.

A good strategy would be to read what she's saying, use one's analytical skills to vet it, compare it to what's being said on other progressive sites and then make up one's own mind.

Here: http://boilingfrogspost.com

I hope I clarified.

Note: Before everyone starts frothing at the mouth - Edmonds was interviewed by David knight. He's with the Alex Jones site. <gasp> I am NOT a fan of Alex Jones and don't patronize his site. But let's dismiss everything Sibel is saying just because Jones is nuts. That'll work. Or maybe consider that Sibel's message is too hot for the MSM presstitutes to handle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #56)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:03 PM

66. It seemed implied

Because you were saying she was right once before, and since she is saying something now, that makes that right and there was a bit of pre-emptive staving off there of those who might not believe her this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #66)

Thu May 2, 2013, 06:22 PM

72. There was no attempt to imply that, but you seem to have inferred such....

There was a time when Ms. Edmonds was praised here for her courage as a whistleblower.

That should count for something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:08 AM

5. Have you read the book, "The Economic Hit Man."

Tha author actually was an economic hit man who went into poor countries and took advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:20 AM

6. My rule of thumb for Bushwhacks is that...

...whatever they say, the opposite is true; and, whatever they accuse others of doing, they are doing, or planning to do.

This is a very reliable "rule of thumb" for Bushwhacks in particular--very helpful in figuring out quickly what's really going on--but it is also applicable to other rightwingers, for instance, those who are so ignorant and/or prejudiced that they would call Evo Morales a "banana republic dictator," or Nicolas Maduro, or other legitimate, elected, leftist presidents in Latin America whom you may be referring to, by "these" ("these banana republic dictators") or "wacks" ("wacks like this Bolivian").

The opposite of what you said is true. Evo Morales is the first Indigenous president of Bolivia, a largely Indigenous country. The country was run by the rich white minority for centuries. They are so bigoted that, as late as the 1960s, they wouldn't let Indigenous people even walk on the sidewalks! It was very like apartheid South Africa and the segregated U.S. south.

After many years of hard and dangerous work on Bolivia's democratic institutions, Morales was duly elected, by a big majority, in 2006, survived a recall election and was re-elected in 2009, also by big majorities. He is very popular. In 2008, the Bushwhacks mounted a coup attempt against him, right out of the U.S. embassy, funding and colluding with the rich white separatists in eastern Bolivia who wanted to split Bolivia in two and take the provinces with the natural gas--Bolivia's main resource--with them. They rioted and murdered people, and sacked government buildings, and beat up any Indigenous people they came across. Their coup attempt failed, due to Morales' popularity and the unity of South America in opposition to the coupsters. Another reason the coup failed is that Morales threw the U.S. ambassador (Philip Goldberg) out of Bolivia.

Morales knows what he's talking about. Also, unity, cooperation and intelligence sharing among LatAm countries have vastly improved. They have each other's backs. They know what's going on. They are well aware of these kinds of "Big Lies" coming from the U.S. and the corporate media--the kind you just promulgated. They are well aware of the U.S. role in the recent rightwing coups in Honduras and Paraguay, the attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002, the attempted coup in Bolivia in 2008--all U.S. supported--and of the many on-going coup plots, dirty tricks, disinformation, destabilization efforts, use of the "war on drugs" to infiltrate police forces and militaries, thousands of murders of leftists, peasants, labor leaders, journalists, human rights workers and others in U.S. client states such as Colombia and Honduras, and so on and so forth, that the U.S. has been guilty of, recently, and for over half a century.

"Know-nothing" comments like yours don't matter to these new leaders of Latin America and their many supporters. They know what they are about--working together on social justice, inclusionary democracy and regional economic prosperity and independence.

The rich and the rightwing also called FDR a "dictator." It's a hazard of actually representing the interests of the poor majority. The rich will always call you a "dictator" if you dare to regulate them, to tax them, to oppose their exploitation of workers, to curtail their insatiable greed and to act for the common good.

It is strange that you call these new democratic leaders "banana republic dictators." Do you even know where the phrase came from? Is it ignorance or cruelty that prompts you to say such a thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #6)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:32 AM

8. Yes I do know where the term is from.

A dictator doesn't have to be far-right like most banana republic thugs.

Castro and his brother are dictators.

Morales is throwing a US aid agency out based on his accusation that they will "overthrow" him.
Naturally he has *NO* evidence.

Maduro is a wack job, he still insists Saint Hugo was "poisoned."
Even though there isn't any evidence. AGAIN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #8)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:15 AM

26. "Banana Republic dictators"?

Morales, as head of government, has the RIGHT to throw any foreign ambassador or agency out of Bolivia, on evidence or no evidence. Foreign ambassadors and agencies operate within countries AT THE LEAVE of those countries' legitimate governments!

So, you're saying that, because Morales exercised Bolivia's RIGHT to do this, that makes him a "banana republic dictator"? Cuz he's, um, "dictating" to the United States about its meddling in Bolivia?



i say: THANK GOD Latin America is waking up, uniting, and throwing these malefactors out of their countries! It's about time!

And there couldn't be any better evidence of the strength of Latin American democracy than they are doing just that--defending their people against the bullies, and liars, and rapacious transglobal corporate/war profiteers that run Washington DC!

And you're saying that, because Maduro suspects that Chavez was poisoned and voiced this opinion publicly, he, too, is a "banana republic dictator"? Unwise, maybe. Not appropriate, maybe. But then, he was close friends with Chavez and was in mourning. Forgivable slip-up, it seems to me. Doesn't make him a "wack job." Doesn't make him a "dictator"--let alone a "banana republic dictator."

You have NO credibility on this, so why don't you just say, 'oops, sorry, dumb statements,' and move on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #26)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:35 AM

37. Thanks, PP, for an excellent smackdown. There is more going on behind the scenes these days

than one can imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #26)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:46 AM

45. A quick look at wikipedia

says Bolivia has three branches of government. Are you speaking from an informed place? I am wondering if the many DUers who don't like the separation of powers should try to get into Bolivia, but that looks hopeless, too. The President of Bolivia apparently has limited powers, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #45)

Thu May 2, 2013, 11:34 AM

58. Wiki is not your friend nor is is a reliable source.

Even college professors won't accept any information from Wikipedia. It is easily manipulated and is done so regularly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jazzgirl (Reply #58)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:24 PM

63. And we all know that an internet message board generally has much higher standards than...

most universities. When I post a comment here, I spend a few weeks on it and footnote everything.*







*No I don't. Your attempt to use criticism of wikipedia as a straw man argument to discredit a democratically elected leftist president is pitiful and disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jazzgirl (Reply #58)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:00 PM

65. Then by all means direct us to good information on the

government there. Does it not have a separation of powers? Does the President do whatever he wants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #45)


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #6)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:02 AM

16. Thank you for your post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #6)

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:16 AM

34. Banana Republics

Origins of the term
In political science, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile dictatorship that abets or supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation. In economics, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by a collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, in which the profit derived from the private exploitation of public lands is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are a public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country, and tends to cause the national currency to become devalued paper-money, rendering the country ineligible for international development-credit. Such government by thieves is a kleptocracy; such a kleptocratic government is manipulated by foreign (corporate) interests, and functions mostly as ceremonial government that is unaccountable to its nation. The national legislature is, in effect, for sale, influential government employees illegitimately exploit their posts for personal gain (by embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), and the resulting government budget deficit is repaid by the country's working people who earn wages rather than making profits.

The original banana republic
The history of the first banana republic begins with the introduction of the banana fruit to the USA in 1870, by Lorenzo Dow Baker, captain of the schooner Telegraph. He initially bought bananas in Jamaica and sold them in Boston at a 1,000 percent profit. The banana proved popular with Americans, as a nutritious tropical fruit that was more inexpensive to buy than fruit grown locally in the U.S., such as apples. In 1913, for example, twenty-five cents bought a dozen bananas, but only two apples. Its popularity among Americans was also spurred by the American railroad tycoons Henry Meiggs and his nephew, Minor C. Keith, who in 1873 began establishing banana plantations along the railroads to produce food for their railroad workers. This experience led them to recognize the potential profitability of exporting bananas for sale, and they began exporting the fruit to the Southeastern United States.

In the mid-1870s, to manage the new industrial-agriculture business enterprise in the countries of Central America, Keith founded the Tropical Trading and Transport Company: one-half of what would later become the United Fruit Company (Chiquita Brands International, created in 1899 by corporate merger with the Boston Fruit Company and owned by Andrew Preston.) By the 1930s, the international political and economic tensions of the United Fruit Company had enabled it to gain control of 80 to 90 per cent of the U.S. banana trade. Nonetheless, despite the UFC monopoly, in 1924, the Vaccaro Brothers established the Standard Fruit Company (Dole Food Company) to export Honduran bananas to the port of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico coast of the U.S. The fruit exporters were able to keep U.S. prices so low because the banana companies, through their manipulation of the producing countries' national land use laws, were able to cheaply buy large tracts of prime agricultural land for banana plantations in the countries of the Caribbean Basin, the Central American isthmus, and the tropical South American countries--and, having rendered the native peoples landless through a policy of legalistic dispossession, were therefore able to employ them as low-wage workers..

Moreover, by the late 19th century, three American multinational corporations — the United Fruit Company, the Standard Fruit Company, and the Cuyamel Fruit Company — dominated the cultivation, harvesting, and exportation of bananas, and controlled the road, rail, and port infrastructure of Honduras. In the northern coastal areas near the Caribbean Sea, the Honduran government ceded to the banana companies 500 hectares (1,235.52 acres) for each kilometre of railroad laid, even though there was still no passenger or freight railroad to Tegucigalpa, the national capital city. Among the Honduran people, the United Fruit Company was known as El Pulpo, the Octopus, because its influence had come to pervade their society, controlled their country's transport infrastructure, and sometimes violently manipulated the national politics of the Republic of Honduras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

Banana Republic and "backyard" are equally offensive terms with regard to Latin America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:07 AM

18. Wow. Try doing a little reading of actual, documented history. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:08 AM

24. Robert Parry, a Pulitzer-nominated journalist, disagrees

About your dismissal of claims of U.S. interference in the process of self-governing in South and Central America.

He was one of the most important reporters covering the treasonous actions by Reagan, Oliver North and the rest of the fascists in America that sought to undermine other nations' governments.

He noted the influence of Klaus Barbie, the butcher of Lyon, who was aligned with the Reagan/Bush fascists in the U.S. who operated freely because too many Americans didn't give a shit about what was done in our name as long as they got a hard on from Reagan's act tough routine.

The National Archives has been an excellent organization that has tracked U.S. crimes against humanity in South and Central America, like those guys Reagan claimed were akin to the founding fathers, who were also raping and murdering nuns. What a guy, that Ronnie Raygun. Made America proud! And, really, those Latin Americans are just as bad, right?

Hitler's Shadow Reaches toward Today
By Robert Parry (A Special Report) December 17, 2010


The U.S. government protected Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie in the years after World War II and later unleashed the infamous Butcher of Lyon on South America by aiding his escape from French war-crimes prosecutors, according to a new report issued by the National Archives. The report, entitled “Hitler’s Shadow,” concentrates on the decisions by the U.S.Army’s Counterintelligence Corps to use Barbie and other ex-Nazis for early Cold War operations, but other work by investigative journalists and government investigators has shown how Barbie’s continued allegiance to Nazi ideology contributed to the spread of right-wing extremism in Latin America.

With his skills as an intelligence operative and his expertise in state terror, Barbie helped shape the particularly vicious style of anti-communism that dominated SouthAmerica for most of the Cold War. He also played a role in building a conduit for drug proceeds to fund right-wing paramilitary operations, including Ronald Reagan’s beloved NicaraguanContra rebels.

In 1980, Barbie used his perch in Bolivian intelligence to organize an alliance of military leaders and cocaine barons to overthrow Bolivia’s democratically elected leftist government in a bloodycoup. Though fitting with Washington’s distrust of left-wing populist governments in South America, the so-called Cocaine Coup had other long-term consequences for the United States.

Bolivia's coup regime ensured a reliable flow of coca to Colombia’s Medellin cartel, which quickly grew into a sophisticated conglomerate for smuggling cocaine into the United States. Some of those drug profits then went to finance right-wing paramilitary operations, including the CIA-backed Contras, according to other U.S. government investigations. Barbie reportedly collaborated, too, with representatives of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church as they worked with Bolivia’s Cocaine Coup regime to organize anti-communist operations in South America. By then, the region had become a center for Moon’s global money-laundering operations.


Robert Parry worked for Newsweek when he was reporting on the crimes the U.S. was perpetrating on Latin America. He and Gary Webb are two reporters who told the truth and it cost them dearly. They were honest. They were real patriots.

Maybe you should stop with the right-wing talking points about Latin America if you've never read up on why Morales would say this.

Lost History, by Parry, is a good place to start. He details the realities that Americans were too fucking self-centered to care about in that region, cause, really, what could've been more important driving around with a fuck-you Mickey Mouse on the back window of your truck back in day, amiright? Ronald Reagan made Americans proud!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:23 AM

41. LOL, right, because history never happened



Do you even know why they are called banana republics? Do you know what was done for the last..what..almost 200 years in Latin America in order for the US/Europe to take advantage of resources and labor down there? What has been done since then, in more recent years, in order to try to keep economic control and political influence in the region?

It would be *less* rational for a Latin American leader to assume there is *no* meddling by the US or other western econ powers than it is to assume the worst. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is a reasonable conclusion based on history, including recent history.

Dismissing or ridiculing the leaders down there who have made at least some progress and speak out loud about the realities here does NOT make history go away. "AID" almost always comes with strings attached, sometimes obvious, sometimes not. This is a simple fact and has been part of western hegemony around the world since the days of old school colonialism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:07 AM

53. your opinions are very strong

but they are grounded in prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:17 PM

62. Umm... don't you think maybe you're the one who's paranoid?

Morales is further from being a dictator than most US presidents have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:52 AM

4. USAID has frequently been accused of being a CIA front

At the very least, it has a well-documented history of meddling in other countries' affairs in order to promote US interests. What Morales claims is perfectly in line with other charges that go back decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #4)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:27 AM

7. Accused with little or no evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #7)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:56 AM

14. I wouldn't be too cocky if I were you....

Ya never know what can come up, especially since South America is learning they don't NEED the United States anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #14)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:59 AM

15. I'm not "cocky." I'm a realist.

If Bolivia is doing so great, fine.

But if they need or ask for US help, like after a disaster, I say screw them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #15)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:25 AM

20. LOL!!! Why? Because they're "ungrateful"?

They aren't a DOG that's biting the hand that feeds them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #20)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:33 AM

21. No, because legitimate US help groups were booted out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #21)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:39 AM

22. Maybe it's for the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #21)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:27 AM

28. "Legitimate" U.S. "help" groups? The USAID?



You're contending for Jon Stewart's job, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #21)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:56 AM

38. help "groups"

You seem to harbour a delusional concept of what USAID represents. They are not a "help group" they are a government agency that operates under bilateral agreement between the US and Bolivia. Whenever either party sees fit they can cancel this agreement, e.g. when they are under the impression that projects are not being run the way they had envisioned.

Perhaps you'll find the time some day to find out how USAID actually spends the 28 million per year and tell us in what way this qualifies as "help" for Bolivia. Hint: the money goes to USAID infrastructure, employees and contractors, projects usually consist of making plans and coordinating training measures, they are supposed to "build capacities" in a variety of sectors. "Impact-orientation" is a rather recent topic in international cooperation, the agencies themselves have a hard time to measure what impact their work may actually have, if any.

You may also want to keep in mind what the professor said to Aljazeera:

Philip Brenner, an international relations professor at the American University in Washington DC ... "there is little evidence" that USAID has helped a large number of Bolivians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #15)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:13 AM

25. I don't think you're a realist

I think you're unaware of what happened in Latin America under Reagan and Bush.

Not to mention Kissinger aligning with the fascist, Pinochet, who murdered Americans who happened to be living in Chile when the U.S. backed the fascist coup to overthrow Allende.

And then there was that fascist coup in Argentina, with Generals waiting until women gave birth and then throwing their bodies into the Atlantic to drown while they were still alive. But the bodies started washing up on shore, so the U.S.- supported fascists started gutting people before throwing them out of airplanes.

The General in charge of this coup has admitted to these actions, in so many words. Oh, and what happened to those children born to women on the left? They were given to military families to raise. Now some of those children don't want to know about their history - how their parents are their parents because they cozied up to the fascists who killed their mothers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #7)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:23 AM

27. "Accused with little or no evidence." So?

It's not a court of law. On matters of national security, Morales has to use his JUDGEMENT. That's what he was elected to do. And that is his RIGHT as the president of an independent, sovereign nation.

It's hilarious that you regard the United States of Corporate/War Profiteer America as some kind of innocent "defendant" that has "rights" in Bolivia.

It doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #27)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:38 AM

29. There's also the assassination of Letelier

The Letelier case (September 21, 1976) refers to the killing in Washington, D.C. of Orlando Letelier, a Chilean political figure and later United States-based activist, along with his American assistant, Ronni Moffitt. The assassination by agents of the Chilean secret police DINA of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet was one among many in Operation Condor.

Operation Condor is a recognized right wing terrorist group that worked to undermine democracy in Bolivia, as well as Chile and other Latin American nations. This is documented.

In 2007, U.S. professor Patrice McSherry of Long Island University, through secret CIA documents dated June 1976, confirmed the abduction and torture of Chilean and Uruguayan refugees in Buenos Aires. She said those plans emerged in the sixties in the School of the Americas and the Conference of American Armies. A declassified CIA document dated 23 June 1976, explains that "in early 1974, security officials from Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia met in Buenos Aires to prepare coordinated actions against subversive targets."

The program was facilitated through a series of government takeovers in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s:

General Alfredo Stroessner took control of Paraguay in 1954.

The Brazilian military overthrew the democratic and popular government of João Goulart in 1964.

General Hugo Banzer took power in Bolivia in 1971 through a series of coups.

Forces loyal to General Augusto Pinochet bombed the presidential palace in Chile (La Moneda) on 11 September 1973, overthrowing democratically elected president Salvador Allende.

A military junta headed by General Jorge Rafael Videla seized power in Argentina on 24 March 1976.

I guess the CIA is as bad as Alex Jones since they had to release documents indicating these fascist actions in Latin America - and these govts were not only supported by the U.S. Israel made nice with the fascists in Latin America too.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Israel earned more than $1 billion a year selling weapons, many of them American in origin, to the military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

"Thus while Argentine Jewish newspaper publisher and human rights advocate Jacobo Timerman was being tortured by the Argentine military in cells painted with swastikas, three Israeli generals, including the former armed chief of staff, were visiting Buenos Aires on a 'friendly mission' to sell arms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 03:57 AM

30. Why would anyone try to attack leftists at a Democratic discussion area?

Democrats are NOT supporters of the mind-boggling brutality which has been unleashed upon the Americas all these long, LONG painful years.

Why on earth would ignorant right-wingers not wonder why the expression "Yankee, go home" was used so long ago, and continuously since then? What the hell do you imagine they meant?

It's time to put your idle time to a productive use and start catching up on the history you have clearly avoided learning.

You don't start bitching about things you don't understand to people who KNOW what you haven't bothered to learn. No one can learn this for you. Everyone had to learn it through individual effort, or through real people who have lived through REAL events which seared the lives of people, destroyed people, drove people made, butchered, tortured, terrorized Latin Americans and people in the Caribbean from the first when people in the US started expanding their exploitation into the Americas.

Just because you think there isn't any "proof" for something in the present, why not sit down and THINK about things for a moment. You are NOT going to know when things done covertly have been done until years later, when someone finds out through investigation of declassified papers, or the news finally makes it back after it has been discovered the hard way. Why on earth do you think US Presidents have told operatives to "make sure this doesn't have our figerprints on it?"
They do their bloody business BEHIND people's backs, or things would get a hell of a lot harder for them. What keeps you from THINKING, right-wingers? Is it all that hard for you?

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick.


The answers come later, after evil acts. They are discovered, sometimes by later generations, unfortunately. Take the story of a U.S. journalist who was living in Chile with his wife, who learned of US involvement in the bloody coup, which resulted in the installation of a fascist monster, and sociopathic torturer, Augusto Pinochet. This journalist, Charles Horman, was tortured, then murdered, as well as another U.S. newsman, a photographer, Frank Terrugi.

People in the U. S. didn't know about it, outside his family and a small number of the population, even when it was determined he had been taken and slaughtered by the U.S. puppet for knowing too much, and the general population didn't know anything at all until finally Hollywood made a movie about it years later, with big acting names in it. Even now, a lot of idiot clowns STILL don't know a thing about it, or any of what has happened to Latin Americans due to U.S. interventions over and over again.

You have no one to blame but yourself. You could do the right thing, not the right-wing thing, and start your education now, just as the rest of us have had to do, to get any idea whatsoever about these things.

That information is most certainly there. All you have to do is to get off your ass and get to work learning it. Don't argue from your seat in the Twilight Zone. There's no way to communicate with you until you at least know some of the basic elements of this horrific history.

What on earth do you imagine people have been talking about all this time, anyway? The ignorant ones will continue to gibber about idiotic "crapaganda" tailor-made for fools who won't put out the effort to know anything, and there are so many who live with Fox News, and tv wrestling. If you do, join those people at a right-wing message board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #30)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:09 AM

31. Jimmy Carter started the Church Committee

To investigate abuses done "in our name."

This is, no doubt, one reason Reagan committed treason by making a back room deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages - to get Carter out of office.

Americans are so fucking stupid they cheered and thought the Iranians were releasing the hostages b/c Reagan was such a "bad ass" and the Iranians were scared.

The reality, however, was that Bush Sr. met with the Iranians in Paris before the election to undermine Carter's attempts to release the hostages.

This information came about because a Lebanese newspaper wrote about it, after leaks from someone in the Iranian govt. At first, no U.S. news entity would touch it.

But then, there was that little problem of Eugene Hasenfus and his little black book of phone numbers that tied him to the fascists in Latin America - and led to the Iran-Contra hearings.

Oliver North should've been taken out and shot like a dog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #31)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:25 AM

32. What a blast of god-awful memories! Wow. They insult the very people paying their salaries,

they lie to our faces, lie to the corporate news stenographers, lie to the whole world, and the right-wing and those who are merely foolish eat it up as if they were starving. They're starving, of course, for the TRUTH from these clowns.

That's just not going to happen.

You summed it up so well, in pointing out these things out. We would STILL not know any better if it hadn't been for small incidents which broke the stories. They still worship their Grade B actor Ronald Reagan, and feel anything he did as President was simply his bidness. When you're a right-winger you do no wrong, you get to do anything!

Oliver North is seen as a hero by these perverts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #32)

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:01 AM

33. The "family jewels" files released in 2007

Seymour Hersh, another internationally-recognized reporter, first wrote about these covert ops after the Church Committee began its investigation. He's also the one who broke the story about the Abu Ghraib torture by American soldiers.

The Family Jewels is the informal name used to refer to a set of reports that detail activities conducted by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Considered illegal or inappropriate, these actions were conducted over the span of decades, from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. William Colby, who was the CIA director in the mid-1970s and helped in the compilation of the reports, dubbed them the "skeletons" in the CIA's closet. Most of the documents were publicly released on June 25, 2007, after more than three decades of secrecy. The non-governmental National Security Archive had filed a FOIA request fifteen years earlier.

I don't know if you're aware of their work, but the National Security Archive, in St. Louis, iirc, has done an excellent job of publishing books about the covert ops and support for fascists like Pinochet in Chile, among many other works. They're a non-profit org.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed some of the contents of the "Family Jewels" in a front-page New York Times article in December 1974, in which he reported that:

The Central Intelligence Agency, directly violating its charter, conducted a massive, illegal domestic intelligence operation during the Nixon Administration against the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States according to well-placed Government sources.


Additional details of the contents trickled out over the years, but requests by journalists and historians for access to the documents under the Freedom of Information Act were long denied. Finally, in June 2007, CIA Director Michael Hayden announced that the documents would be released to the public at an announcement made to the annual meeting of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. A six-page summary of the reports was made available at the National Security Archive (based at George Washington University), with the following introduction:

The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #33)

Thu May 2, 2013, 06:00 AM

35. Had no idea Seymour Hersh had done this work on Frank Church's investigation!

Have admired him so much for what I had known, and after reading your post went directly to look for information, found this great National Security link which is stupendous, something to occupy anyone interested for a long time:

The CIA's Family Jewels

Agency Violated Charter for 25 Years,
Wiretapped Journalists and Dissidents

Update - Full Report Now Available and Full Text Searchable

CIA Announces Declassification of 1970s "Skeletons" File,
Archive Posts Justice Department Summary from 1975,
With White House Memcons on Damage Control

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 222
Edited by Thomas Blanton

Posted - June 21, 2007
Updated - June 26, 2007, 1 p.m.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/

This is an amazing place to spend time. Thank you, so much for taking the time to lead us in this direction. There's so much to learn. It was so thoughtful to mention this valuable resource.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #35)

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:20 PM

69. Thanks for those kind words

It IS an amazing resource.

I'm trained as an archivist but not doing that sort of work now. Love it, tho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #30)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:28 AM

42. thanks

for taking the time. Wow..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:56 AM

39. Go Evo!

K&R

... and I want to thank you. discocrsco01, for starting one of the most educational and passionate threads I've read lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:35 AM

43. Could be legit, could be gratuitous Yankee-bashing to pander.

But, the fewer tax dollars we spend in a place like Bolivia, the better I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #43)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:50 AM

48. thanks to Manning and Wikileaks we know

that the concern is not "gratuitous":

A March 6, 2006, cable titled “Dissent in Evo’s ranks” reports on a meeting only months after Morales' inauguration as president in December 2005 with “a social sectors leader” from the altiplano (highlands) region in the west. ...

Despite viewing these sectors as “traditionally confrontational organisations”, then-ambassador David Greenlee believed that: “Regardless of policy direction in Bolivia, working more closely with these social sector representatives” who were expressing dissent towards Morales “seems to be most beneficial to interests”. ...

Since “a right-wing government would likely lead to greater conflict”, the ability to reach out to indigenous leaders inclined to support US interests was necessary.

For this reason, Goldberg concluded his February 25, 2008, cable by stating that meetings with “indigenous leaders outside of the dominant Aymara and Quechua communities will provide useful information and demonstrate that the United States is interested in views of all indigenous peoples”. ...

A January 28, 2008 cable said USAID social programs aimed at the “poorest and marginalized groups” would prove hard for the government to attack. The cable ends by saying USAID programs should “also seek to counteract anti-USG rhetoric…”

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48865

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #48)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:58 AM

51. That USAID's mission includes trying to make countries/people

view the US more positively is old, old news. Why now? My guess is the slap the US took at Morales's new best friend in the world, Maduro.

And, let's not pretend Morales is some pristine character who does nothing out of politics.

This is the most interesting bit from the embassy leak, for me:
The US embassy’s heightened interest in all things “indigenous” following decades of supporting governments that repressed and excluded them is explained in a February 6, 2007, cable.

In it, Goldberg said that “only a leftist government that includes indigenous interests … would have a chance to govern divisive Bolivia”.

Since “a right-wing government would likely lead to greater conflict”, the ability to reach out to indigenous leaders inclined to support US interests was necessary.


Sounds like somebody learned a lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #51)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:24 AM

54. Yes, anything that goes against those

who act in the interest of the people of Bolivia instead of US investors is good enough, even if it means to temporarily support some or other faction of "leftists" to undermine the government. In Venezuela, the US are pushing Capriles who has also redecorated his right-wing outfit as "Bolivarian" and left-of-center. Some learning effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:46 AM

46. Fine. That aid can go to other countries then

Maybe even the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #46)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:57 AM

49. At their peril.

It never comes without strings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #46)

Thu May 2, 2013, 07:21 PM

73. That would be "aid".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 08:57 AM

50. Why would a President kick an aid agency out unless something like this REALLY is going on? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 09:34 AM

55. Who will Morales blame for his country's problems once USAID is gone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #55)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:44 PM

61. South American countries are doing better with out U.S. intervention

Ever since the Monroe Doctrine took a dark turn for the worse, the countries in the Americas have had a blood, darky history of oppression by the United States to maintain a sphere of influence in this region.

Now, in the present time the U.S. is losing its sphere of influence in the region which is why they have stepped up their desperate attempts to hold onto power in the region lately.


I think the U.S. attempt to paint South America as unstable has failed I would like to think as most of the democratic nations of the world recognize that S. America now has a lot of growing, strong economies with diverse populations.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 10:13 AM

57. Evo has a lot in common with Republicans

They hate US foreign aid, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorro (Reply #57)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:07 PM

60. Wow. That's pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 02:57 PM

64. Doesn't sound like some people in this thread have a clue

USAID caused problems by holding up funding for farmers if they did not switch to crops that were un-viable to the region. The reason for this was so they would stop producing Coca, which they feared would end up on the black market cocaine trade. The people in the US government that were making those decisions new nothing of the economy and ecology of the region. Naturally, the farmers did not react positively to a deal that would have resulted in them starving.

But that's what happens when congress tries to run foreign countries when half of them don't even know how to run their own districts. That was a few years ago. I am sure the Bolivian farmer's insubordination has raised some hackles from the conservative drug war lovers and some shenanigans have occurred since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #64)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:12 PM

67. A+

Thanks for your insight. The neo-con right wing blowhard faction of the Democratic party is out in full force in this thread, without having the slightest clue what they're talking about. All they hear is "us aid" "latin america" "unappreciated". If I was a political leader in Latin America I would have no reason to trust the US government. Chile, Argentina, School of the Americas, Infecting innocent people with gonorrhea and syphilis, contras, the list goes on. They have NO reason to trust us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #64)

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:31 PM

70. Two realities can exist at the same time

regarding what has gone on in a region.

Morales also supported the right of indigenous people to grow and chew coca leaves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/bolivia-drugs-row-chew-coca

Since right wing terrorists have used the war on drugs to finance so many of their operations, they don't want to let other nations create their own drug laws. Drug eradication programs in Latin American nations provide the bulk of funding for the war on drugs and this money goes to military contractors. They don't want their cash cows to free range.

A major international row with wide-ranging implications for global drugs policy has erupted over the right of Bolivia's indigenous Indian tribes to chew coca leaves, the principal ingredient in cocaine.

On Friday, Bolivia obtained a special exemption from the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs, the framework that governs international drugs policy, allowing its indigenous people to chew the leaves.

Bolivia had argued that the convention was in opposition to its new constitution, adopted in 2009, which obliges it to "protect native and ancestral coca as cultural patrimony" and maintains that coca "in its natural state … is not a narcotic".

South American Indians have chewed coca leaves for centuries. The leaves reputedly provide energy and are said to have medicinal qualities. Supporters of Bolivia's position praised it for standing up for the rights of indigenous people. "The Bolivian move is inspirational and ground-breaking," said Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which promotes drug liberalisation. "It shows that any country that has had enough of the war on drugs can change the terms of its engagement with the UN conventions."


http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1277

Democrat Claire McCaskill noted, in a recent (last couple of years) Senate investigation that declared the war on drugs is a failure, that more than 3 billion dollars goes unaccounted for in the WoD, but -

From 2005 to 2009, the majority of counternarcotics contracts in Latin America went to only five contractors: DynCorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT, and ARINC, who collectively received contracts worth over $1.8 billion.


Spraying crops, poisoning groundwater... it's the gift from the U.S. War on Drugs that keeps on giving.

and the war on drugs has been the major revenue source for black ops - that and the sale of military hardware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discocrisco01 (Original post)

Thu May 2, 2013, 04:53 PM

68. US-AID has been a front for the CIA since Vietnam.

They have more skeletons in their closet than Saddam,
and more destruction in their wake than Katrina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread