Bolivia Rebukes US Interference

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]lixy wrote:
In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that “there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.”[/i]
[/quote]

According to Lixy, everything the Iranian president says is gospel and when he says something that is not politically correct, it is said he is translated wrong.

Meanwhile Tom Casey, the State Department spokesman is an out and out liar. He’s from the US, he must be lying.

22

A 51st state full of welfare recipients and illegal aliens already here.

23

[quote]lixy wrote:
[i]LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) – The Bolivian government stepped up its criticism of U.S. aid this week as a top Cabinet official alleged that Washington is supporting opposition to President Evo Morales’ sweeping leftist reforms.

Presidential Minister Juan Ramon Quintana comments came Wednesday, just days after Vice President Alvaro Garcia accused the United States of funding publications, trips and seminars to help Morales’ opponents

“The Bolivian people have decided to undertake a process of profound change,” Quintana said. “But these changes are being harassed and interfered with by the effects of U.S. assistance.”

Quintana added that “if U.S. cooperation does not conform to the policies of the Bolivian state, the door is open” for it to leave the country.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that “there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.”[/i]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/08/30/bolivia.us.ap/

Give it a rest, will you?[/quote]

YOU give it a rest…and stop being a hypocrite…“I have no problem with the people of U.S. just its government” crap. You seem to be pointing the finger to us all with the last comment of yours above. You continue to do so in other posts…therefore it seems to become a personal attack. Don’t know why you’re not called out on that more often.

24

Bolivia is a rich country. Let’s invade it and steal all their wealth…

Wait…what do they have that’s of value?

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Bolivia is a rich country. Let’s invade it and steal all their wealth…

Wait…what do they have that’s of value?[/quote]

Some donkey carts pushed by people with a 3rd grade education and some fresh Tamales. That’s about all that’s down there. Remember: Bolivia & South America < the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

26

We should tell Bolivia to piss off.

Then, when they need our money or our aid, tell them to piss off as well.

28

I don’t know… the fact that Lixy raised the topic doesn’t mean the topic can’t be considered rationally.

What role is appropriate for government expenditure in unofficial/clandestine actions to mold world governments as you see fit?

This is a significant question and has a potentially massive impact on world affairs.

29

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Did a little math. He’s managed to make time in his busy study and training schedule for an average of about 7.6 posts PER EACH AND EVERY DAY since he’s “joined.” [/quote]

I should mention something here. I created an account last year to start a thread in the Beginners section. From then on, I stuck to the front page articles and never really bothered posting anywhere (just browsing the discussion was OK for me. Up until somewhere around March, I didn’t even know that there was a Politics forum.

In short, if you take the average of the last 4-5 months, you’ll end up with much scarier figures. Just thought I’d let you know…

30

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know… the fact that Lixy raised the topic doesn’t mean the topic can’t be considered rationally.

What role is appropriate for government expenditure in unofficial/clandestine actions to mold world governments as you see fit?

This is a significant question and has a potentially massive impact on world affairs.[/quote]

Who says it is clandestine? I’m pretty sure it is not if everyone knows about it.

No one seems to have a problem attempting to influence the US, and its policy.

What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

31

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who says it is clandestine? I’m pretty sure it is not if everyone knows about it.

No one seems to have a problem attempting to influence the US, and its policy.

What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. [/quote]

Rainjack,

If it’s open and above board, then sure, it’s simply a matter of participating in the marketplace of ideas.

However, if the US funds right wing political parties (for example), without public disclosure, so that these groups have more resources in external countries (as was suggested concerning Harper here in Canada), then the ability to use additional media will give that “side” an advantage without the public being aware of it.

I see people bitching about Chinese funding for the Clintons, for example, and that is taken to be a serious problem. Why should the reverse not, if it is happening, be a serious problem in other countries?

Well, other than “because we can do whatever the fuck we want and screw your shitty country anyhow”… because I’ve heard that one before.

32

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Who says it is clandestine? I’m pretty sure it is not if everyone knows about it.

No one seems to have a problem attempting to influence the US, and its policy.

What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Rainjack,

If it’s open and above board, then sure, it’s simply a matter of participating in the marketplace of ideas.

However, if the US funds right wing political parties (for example), without public disclosure, so that these groups have more resources in external countries (as was suggested concerning Harper here in Canada), then the ability to use additional media will give that “side” an advantage without the public being aware of it.

I see people bitching about Chinese funding for the Clintons, for example, and that is taken to be a serious problem. Why should the reverse not, if it is happening, be a serious problem in other countries?

Well, other than “because we can do whatever the fuck we want and screw your shitty country anyhow”… because I’ve heard that one before.
[/quote]

If people want to bitch about it - they are more than welcome to. I think that’s the same thing that is happening in Bolivia, and here in the US wrt Hillary’s affinity for the oriental donation.

She gave it back because it would be very bad publicity to keep it. No one is forcing her to give it back. I would assume the same in Bolivia. If the US makes donations to foreign political organizations, who cares?

But to call it clandestine? Well, I’ll leave it to you to figure out just how over the top you are sounding.

33

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If the US makes donations to foreign political organizations, who cares? [/quote]

The International Court of Justice does.

34

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If the US makes donations to foreign political organizations, who cares?

The International Court of Justice does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States[/quote]

I am referring to political organizations and E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S

You are crying about the fucking contras. Not the same thing. Not the same conversation. I asked what was wrong with contributing to political organizations wrt winning elections, not funding a fucking militia.

Get on point you ignorant fuck. Perhaps post something relevant to the topic at fucking hand - not a 20-year old case tried in a kangaroo court that hasn’t the authority to collect a fucking traffic ticket.

35

[quote]rainjack wrote:
…
[/quote]

Did you read the article? The State Department denies the allegations.

Here, I’ll paste the relevant section for you.

“In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that “there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.””

You think there’s nothing wrong with financing foreign organizations; the US State Department doesn’t seem to share your opinion.

As for the Contras, let me briefly remind you how Ronald Reagan described them in a speech: “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”

So you can attack the legitimacy of the ICJ all you want, it won’t change the fact that your government supported a bunch of murderous criminals (a “fucking militia” by your own words).

P.S: A little effort to keep the posts civil from your part would be very much appreciated.

36

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If people want to bitch about it - they are more than welcome to. I think that’s the same thing that is happening in Bolivia, and here in the US wrt Hillary’s affinity for the oriental donation.

She gave it back because it would be very bad publicity to keep it. No one is forcing her to give it back. I would assume the same in Bolivia. If the US makes donations to foreign political organizations, who cares?

But to call it clandestine? Well, I’ll leave it to you to figure out just how over the top you are sounding. [/quote]

I’m sure there are certainly US citizens with a legitimate interest in Bolivian politics, but that isn’t really what I’m talking about.

It’s an issue when a government, which has huge pockets, casts its own vote, especially if the spending is not meant to be publicly visible in the destination country.

Whether or not it is happening, who’s to know. We are discussing the issue itself and whether or not it is right or wrong… so, what’s your opinion?

37

[quote]lixy wrote:
“In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that “there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.””
[/quote]

When I hear “spokespeople” talking I look for ways they can twist the message and still be telling the truth. The key term in the above is aid funds.

This leaves the door open for any other type of funding to be used. And don’t try to tell me this administration is not a damned bunch of sea lawyers either.

38

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…

Did you read the article? The State Department denies the allegations.

Here, I’ll paste the relevant section for you.

“In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters that “there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.””

You think there’s nothing wrong with financing foreign organizations; the US State Department doesn’t seem to share your opinion.

As for the Contras, let me briefly remind you how Ronald Reagan described them in a speech: “They are our brothers, these freedom fighters and we owe them our help. They are the moral equal of our founding fathers.”

So you can attack the legitimacy of the ICJ all you want, it won’t change the fact that your government supported a bunch of murderous criminals (a “fucking militia” by your own words).

P.S: A little effort to keep the posts civil from your part would be very much appreciated.[/quote]

It would be much more civil of you would pay the fuck attention to the actual conversation and leave tertiary bullshit like the contras in the fucking toilet.

P.S.: I have no desire to be civil to a piece of shit such as you. If you don’t like the way I respond to you - either leave, or stop participating where I might be reading. You are a murderous piece of shit, and there is no reason to be civil to the likes of you.

39

[quote]vroom wrote:
The key term in the above is aid funds.

This leaves the door open for any other type of funding to be used. And don’t try to tell me this administration is not a damned bunch of sea lawyers either.[/quote]

Interesting point.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If people want to bitch about it - they are more than welcome to. I think that’s the same thing that is happening in Bolivia, and here in the US wrt Hillary’s affinity for the oriental donation.

She gave it back because it would be very bad publicity to keep it. No one is forcing her to give it back. I would assume the same in Bolivia. If the US makes donations to foreign political organizations, who cares?

But to call it clandestine? Well, I’ll leave it to you to figure out just how over the top you are sounding.

I’m sure there are certainly US citizens with a legitimate interest in Bolivian politics, but that isn’t really what I’m talking about.

It’s an issue when a government, which has huge pockets, casts its own vote, especially if the spending is not meant to be publicly visible in the destination country.

Whether or not it is happening, who’s to know. We are discussing the issue itself and whether or not it is right or wrong… so, what’s your opinion?[/quote]

I already stated my opinion. But I will clarify if it was not clear:

As long as we are talking about public donations to political parties running in free and open elections, I have no problem with it.

Clandestine funding is another story. I support any and all donations that will secure our hemishpere. Is that a popular stance? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t really care.