Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
You would need to supply just 1 piece of evidence that the US dictated anything to any country flamingdem Jul 2013 #1
Psst--Evo Morales signed a trade deal with Iran this week. And the Egyptian military.... msanthrope Jul 2013 #2
Thanks, good info nt flamingdem Jul 2013 #4
Following the money leads to more answers than not--but it is amusing to watch the poutrage msanthrope Jul 2013 #7
I didn't want to see it at first but the statements by the Bolivian ministers were ridiculous flamingdem Jul 2013 #13
What utter rubbish! Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #20
Given the rise it got out of you, I suspect that the 'follow the money' approach is where Occam's msanthrope Jul 2013 #24
Speculate much? go west young man Jul 2013 #180
And? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #34
Thank you! I've been accused of fabricating the Iranian trade deal. Now, correct me if I am wrong, msanthrope Jul 2013 #44
"in good standing" reusrename Jul 2013 #216
Can you tell me why there is a problem letting Iran help develop Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #86
I'm glad to see the attempts at free trade!! Aren't you glad to see another OPEC like msanthrope Jul 2013 #114
I have no problem with Bolivia developing their resources. nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #168
I am. dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #172
Yes--because Putin's organization is going to do that? He just wants a piece of the pie. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #174
Pie does''nt come into it. dipsydoodle Jul 2013 #182
See, your post is one of those valuable nuggests nestled into the rest of DU. I think we argue KittyWampus Jul 2013 #151
You are quite welcome. I tend to take a fairly cynical view when politicians bang the table. I msanthrope Jul 2013 #154
I had the same thought Life Long Dem Jul 2013 #223
Why shouldn't he sign deals with Iran, or any other country he wants to?? What is sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #222
Two things. The state dept is absolutely refusing to answer whether they were involved in it. morningfog Jul 2013 #11
This guy is incompetent. Soliz has no proof but he made that statement. flamingdem Jul 2013 #14
And bullshit from the Austrian foreign minister too, I guess? magellan Jul 2013 #54
This sounds routine, sad that "reporters" want to turn it into an incident nt flamingdem Jul 2013 #65
Not reporters, direct quotes. magellan Jul 2013 #70
You're reading the wrong sources flamingdem Jul 2013 #71
Really? lol magellan Jul 2013 #85
People with their backs to the wall Aerows Jul 2013 #191
#1. "reportedly said" is NOT a direct quote. #2. you seem to imagine that as the Bolivian president KittyWampus Jul 2013 #156
Yes, linked to a tweet by Austrian broadcast journalist Tanja Malle who was right there magellan Jul 2013 #167
The U.S had EVERYTHING to do with it! rusty fender Jul 2013 #153
But, it's his fucking opinion and he doesn't need any further proof. lol nm Cha Jul 2013 #221
I'm really not sure what the controversy is here. stevenleser Jul 2013 #3
Absolute diplomatic immunity for head of state is why. morningfog Jul 2013 #6
See my post #2--It's Evo's money trail. I'd saber rattle before I answered questions about Iran, msanthrope Jul 2013 #8
Just because we in the US see Iran as Enemy #1... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #19
Indeed--but UN members are obliged to follow sanction regimes. Follow the money. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #30
Yes, that is a fair point... n/t ljm2002 Jul 2013 #37
You clearly don't even know what the sanctions entail Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #43
Dude--they can transfer the technology, but if the Iranians can't get paid due to the double whammy msanthrope Jul 2013 #52
You're diverting this thread faster than Evo's jet wtmusic Jul 2013 #73
When you can point me to the American air-traffic controller, or the diplomat, or the msanthrope Jul 2013 #76
You believe all of these governments acted alone, do you? wtmusic Jul 2013 #78
Nope, that is not what that person is saying. stevenleser Jul 2013 #87
Please don't cut and paste your same comment from elsewhere in the thread. wtmusic Jul 2013 #100
Don't tell me what I should put in my posts. stevenleser Jul 2013 #102
Do Heads of State have absolute diplomatic immunity? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #106
Just wait for it Aerows Jul 2013 #109
Too late, I already responded. And your assumptions are wrong! ROFLMAO! stevenleser Jul 2013 #116
International Law Aerows Jul 2013 #117
LOL, if you are so familiar with it, post links to the laws and to the court decisions that stevenleser Jul 2013 #120
LOL nailed it. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #188
I would generally say yes. I have to look up the specifics on that. But that assumes several things stevenleser Jul 2013 #110
So you just admit you have know knowledge of international law Aerows Jul 2013 #119
Nope, my contentions have to do with something else entirely. Nice try though! LMAO!!!! stevenleser Jul 2013 #123
You stated you'd have to look it up Aerows Jul 2013 #125
Which is generally what I say when someone makes an unrelated point. stevenleser Jul 2013 #131
We're back to "I don't know" Aerows Jul 2013 #133
Nope, you are still not addressing my initial points after multiple tries! stevenleser Jul 2013 #135
Because you can't address the fundamental one Aerows Jul 2013 #139
The song and dance Aerows Jul 2013 #132
What do US banking sanctions have to do with transfer of funds by Bolivia? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #81
ahem--then you haven't been paying attention. OFAC has effectively shut down the Iranian msanthrope Jul 2013 #98
Which affects a direct transfer of funds from BOLIVIA to IRAN, how, exactly? Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #105
We just halted gold and currency trade in Iran-- msanthrope Jul 2013 #128
That's correct. It's up to those other countries to decide what they want to do, which is my point. stevenleser Jul 2013 #33
And five EU countries simultainiously decided to deny Morales airspace... HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #111
Nope, for the umpteenth time, that is not my contention. stevenleser Jul 2013 #112
Yes, there are many differences. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #138
Precious few are so privileged as to be able to commit an act/acts of war with impunity and have no indepat Jul 2013 #218
You are making assumptions without evidence treestar Jul 2013 #126
Morales probably flew over those countries on the way TO Moscow. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #140
Probably? How did he go? treestar Jul 2013 #175
The route is determined by the plane's range and fuel stops. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #179
I agree this is the background of the incident flamingdem Jul 2013 #9
Yes, something is very much different about this Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #10
These denials that are being offered Aerows Jul 2013 #31
Which is an issue for those countries denying transit, yes? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #68
Not if they denied transit subsequent to a direct request from the USA, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #94
Which is a massive assumption to make without proof, isn't it? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #96
Not really, no Spider Jerusalem Jul 2013 #101
It's a pretty big leap. Particularly considering that these countries are happy to tell us to jump stevenleser Jul 2013 #103
If Snowden is "an international criminal"... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #15
By "international criminal" I meant one not currently in the place where the warrant was issued. stevenleser Jul 2013 #35
And my point is... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #40
How do you know he is not on Interpol? nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #59
Try this: ljm2002 Jul 2013 #77
Funny--I just searched for Assange, and he wasn't there, either. msanthrope Jul 2013 #152
How about a statement from Interpol? ljm2002 Jul 2013 #157
We wouldn't use a red notice on Snowden--we don't recognize the red notice as giving msanthrope Jul 2013 #164
So now you're an authority on our use of Interpol? ljm2002 Jul 2013 #170
No--but I can read the DOJ regs on use of Interpol. I had a question, looked it up. It was news msanthrope Jul 2013 #173
I see. Now you seem to think Interpol might be relevant... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #178
Did I say it was irrelevant? I am sure if it has a role to play, it will. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #181
True, you never said it was irrelevant... ljm2002 Jul 2013 #185
What controversy? wtmusic Jul 2013 #16
"The United States has a public relations problem". This. nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #41
Actually, the US has several public relations problems. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #149
The United States has a public relations problem.... whistler162 Jul 2013 #163
uh, are you kidding? It was the plane of the President of a sovereign nation. cali Jul 2013 #18
Nope, I am not kidding. If Air Force One travels through another country's airspace it has to obey stevenleser Jul 2013 #25
so you would have no problem with China cali Jul 2013 #45
Are you saying that China does not have the sovereignty over its airspace and waters to do so? stevenleser Jul 2013 #55
Unsurprising Aerows Jul 2013 #21
What 'thing' are you accusing me of 'vociferously denying' ? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #26
That this was an international incident Aerows Jul 2013 #39
its more than mere damage control. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #49
True Aerows Jul 2013 #51
you cant blame em though. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #56
None involving the US, that is correct, that is my contention. I can perhaps understand stevenleser Jul 2013 #57
LMFAO! Aerows Jul 2013 #107
LMAO If I'm so wrong, provide me the facts that say so. You are hilarious. stevenleser Jul 2013 #115
Uh huh Aerows Jul 2013 #122
Because I am arguing a different point entirely. Once again, nice try!!! stevenleser Jul 2013 #124
If you can't make your point Aerows Jul 2013 #127
I havent made an inconsistent point yet. I'll repost my initial contention again for you. stevenleser Jul 2013 #130
You haven't exactly made a point yet, either Aerows Jul 2013 #143
I haven't leaped to an unsupported conclusion, that much is true. stevenleser Jul 2013 #159
I'm confused? Aerows Jul 2013 #161
Oh there ya go ...that's just going to piss off the worshipers. L0oniX Jul 2013 #89
its interesting how comfortable people get when they build callouses to the chains they wear galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #23
That's a cute post that happens to say nothing factual or specific. Like I said, cute. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #28
at issue is that you cant even see the issue. you are owned, outright. i dont blame you. nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #38
That's what it looks like to me Aerows Jul 2013 #42
At issue is that you can't come up with a single fact to support you, after multiple posts. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #53
My mistake was engaging you in complex abstractions. my apologies. nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #60
No, your mistake was attempting to engage when you had no facts to support you. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #66
+1 L0oniX Jul 2013 #91
Sir, no offense Aerows Jul 2013 #48
I stand on my points. The US made a perfectly normal request. Can you prove otherwise? stevenleser Jul 2013 #64
Your points are irrelevant to the issue stated in OP. wtmusic Jul 2013 #72
The US request was normal and not in error. Can you prove otherwise? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #79
Yes. By all accounts, Snowden wasn't on the plane. wtmusic Jul 2013 #82
And? I will once again restate my contention stevenleser Jul 2013 #84
Not sure how much simpler I can make this. wtmusic Jul 2013 #88
LOL, your assertion involves multiple layers for which you have no proof or even semblence of facts. stevenleser Jul 2013 #92
And you believe all of these governments acted alone. wtmusic Jul 2013 #99
I'm one of those strange people that likes facts to back up accusations. I know, weird, right? stevenleser Jul 2013 #104
No, you're in denial wtmusic Jul 2013 #108
If you're so convinced of that, provide me the facts that inform your opinion. stevenleser Jul 2013 #113
Here you go, you can open your eyes and unplug your ears now. wtmusic Jul 2013 #136
All that does is prove my initial contention. See bolded part stevenleser Jul 2013 #141
No one gives a crap about your initial contention. It's irrelevant. wtmusic Jul 2013 #147
The advantage my contentions have over yours is that they are true. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #158
the best part of this discussion is that you VEHEMENTLY denied any US involvement yesterday.. frylock Jul 2013 #213
LOL! Wow. You really have gotten your DU stride. Buzz Clik Jul 2013 #75
im a giver! nt galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #83
+1 L0oniX Jul 2013 #95
1. U.S. has egg on it's face is the big one - so much for their Total Information Awareness. 2. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jul 2013 #58
Would it be okay for China to hold Pres. Obama because of a rumor? Marrah_G Jul 2013 #194
How about International Law for $2,000 malaise Jul 2013 #207
I keep wondering when our "leaders" will tire of these shenanigans. bemildred Jul 2013 #5
They haven't gotten past the whole "It ain't real until we say so." thing. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #184
Yep. It's like they just cannot believe it's not going to work. nt bemildred Jul 2013 #186
What's funny is when they all agree on something that's total fiction,... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #187
Cognitive disconnect, and it's recursive too. bemildred Jul 2013 #189
What's REALLY funny is when polls are manipulated... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #193
declining to say whether American Authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace cali Jul 2013 #12
If they had asked it's very possible any one of five countries could have ratted them out flamingdem Jul 2013 #17
the WH statement is as classic an example of a non-admission admission as you could cali Jul 2013 #61
The US rep can't speak for what other countries do and their policies nt flamingdem Jul 2013 #63
that is not an answer. at least not an answer to the question asked. cali Jul 2013 #90
She explained that they've been in contact with the countries involved in possible asylum nt flamingdem Jul 2013 #93
Thanks for the advice. wtmusic Jul 2013 #27
That is certainly a fair interpretation of what's going on. n/t DirkGently Jul 2013 #22
"Psaki, declined to say whether American authorities had asked other countries to deny airspace" n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #29
Someone who doesn't understand TOS alerted on you for a TOS violation. Melinda Jul 2013 #32
Juror 2 should be off juries forever cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #36
An example of why the clown jury system is fucked up. L0oniX Jul 2013 #97
Agreed. nt HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #118
Juror 2 owes wtmusic a big apology, imho - nt HardTimes99 Jul 2013 #144
thanks wtmusic Jul 2013 #47
The White House has nothing whatsoever to lose from outright denial if they are not responsible. sibelian Jul 2013 #46
Of course they can simply confirm it. wtmusic Jul 2013 #50
Hm. sibelian Jul 2013 #142
There's always that risk wtmusic Jul 2013 #169
! sibelian Jul 2013 #200
Couple that with the nations involved saying they "will neither confirm nor deny" US pressure. morningfog Jul 2013 #62
But in the meantime why not have a super duper POUTRAGE attack! flamingdem Jul 2013 #69
The Austrian WovenGems Jul 2013 #67
Hah! The silence of the administration is the equivalent as the admission of guilt! Buzz Clik Jul 2013 #74
Guilty of what? wtmusic Jul 2013 #80
It's so medieval treestar Jul 2013 #121
No one in the world is blind to what's going on wtmusic Jul 2013 #134
Well, the world doesn't have a 5th Amendment. sibelian Jul 2013 #145
......... ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #129
Thanks for info. wtmusic Jul 2013 #137
Somehow I think I was just insulted. n/t ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #146
My bad. wtmusic Jul 2013 #148
LOL - no problem. ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #150
LOL Kurovski Jul 2013 #220
I think this is peculiar. sibelian Jul 2013 #160
Thank you! I have been looking for that quote since yesterday! nt Mojorabbit Jul 2013 #165
You're welcome. n/t ohheckyeah Jul 2013 #166
The US AMBASSADOR to Austria called Austria's Foreign Department to report Snowden was on board Catherina Jul 2013 #155
Would you mind reposting as an OP, Catherina? sibelian Jul 2013 #162
Seconded. wtmusic Jul 2013 #171
Done Catherina Jul 2013 #203
Done Catherina Jul 2013 #202
Thank you! :) sibelian Jul 2013 #212
This message was self-deleted by its author KoKo Jul 2013 #183
Ambassadors don't have the pull to ask their hostOp country to detain and inspect ano HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #199
Totally correct. These guys follow instructions Catherina Jul 2013 #204
Agreed. Portugal, et al don't want a war with Bolivia. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #208
"I would point you to (European govts) to describe why they made descisions, if they made decisions" Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #176
Am I the only one to look at that picture and consider the media there WANTS this story? Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2013 #177
I don't think President Obama instructed our allies to deny Morales's airplane flyover and Cleita Jul 2013 #190
Of course he did. That is not a decision an Ambassador can independantly make. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #201
What ambassador are you talking about, the one from Spain who wanted to board Cleita Jul 2013 #205
US Ambassador to Austria. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #206
Yes, but he was allowed to land in Austria and refuel. No one refused the plane to fly Cleita Jul 2013 #209
Well, at some point the plane had to land and refuel. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #211
I would think that commandeering a plane with a head of state on board is an act of war Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #214
There's more than one diplomatic blunder here. Cleita Jul 2013 #215
The only diplomatic blunder I refer to is delaying Prsident Morales' flight in this manner Jack Rabbit Jul 2013 #217
Anyone that believes the U.S. is saintly and above all other countries Rex Jul 2013 #192
I doubt anyone believes that. randome Jul 2013 #195
I don't. Rex Jul 2013 #197
No one with a grain of sense does Aerows Jul 2013 #198
I'd be surprised if some folks in this thread Aerows Jul 2013 #196
Look for more Spanish businesses to run into trouble mitchtv Jul 2013 #210
Wow. So many officials suddenly go mum all at once 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #219
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»White House Dares EU Lead...»Reply #36