[skinster]

Sorry I didn't quote the part about your boring life and feelings. I was just laughing at you pretending imperialism doesn't exist.

In a thread on Bolivia.

[JohnRawls]

Sorry I didn't quote the part about your boring life and feelings. I was just laughing at you pretending imperialism doesn't exist.

In a thread on Bolivia.

Of course you didn't. When confronted with things that you don't like seeing or hearing you just close your eyes and ears to ignore it. It is your standard behaviour. Does not compute with your world view so to speak.

[skinster]

The weaksauce is killing me.

[wat0n]

Where is a socialist government Bloated with MONEY from billionaires? Where? The money and the power plays are from the Capitalist neoliberals Wat0n. Yet you are obsessed with the defects of Nicaragua or Cuba or Venezuela? Those governments are fragile and without MONEY. Sanctioned and embargoed or pressured all damn day to collapse. WHY? Because they don't go for capitalism that is done in every capitalist nation in Latin America. The USA banks and etc spent a lot of money making sure Pinochet's Chilean economy was stable. Why? You figure it out. They wanted zero socialism. For Latin America. You hate it Wat0n. Yes, I am a Puerto Rican socialist. I am. I don't deny it. I think getting rid of some colonial powerless bullshit status is imperative for progress in Puerto Rico.

You think it is about poof a democratic vote and all is solved. It goes to show how naive and uninformed you are about not only PR but the entire history of American aggression all over the world. Not just in the Western hemisphere Waton.

Pinochet's economy, like Allende's, was anything but stable

But tell me, where are the billions in oil windfall profits Venezuela (most egregious example) was able to collect during the oil boom? What happened to those windfall profits? Why is it that a new elite around the PSUV "coincidentally" arose during that time and why does it enjoy higher standards of living than the unconnected Venezuelan?

Who are you? Do you define yourself politically @wat0n ? Or do you avoid a label because you are un blandito? Whatever Wat0n. I don't like your positions. I have read enough of them to know you have the ones backing some form of American dominance of the world. Why? Because most people from Chile and from the Right love imperial shit and love identifying with powerful pro right pigs most of the time. They want to be powerful and fear the Left.

I don't understand. Why is it bad to be a blandito (softie, for English speakers)? Anyway, I'm a liberal. Which in the current context, means clearly being at least centrist, or (more often) to the right of that.

You think the Left is corrupt. That is true in many cases. The Right is corrupt. The difference? You either become an anarchist criticizing both sides.

Or you pick the lesser evil.

If you are a liberal democrat you should be trying to get rid of Pinochet type shit and it rarely works.

Pinochet has been dead for almost 15 years now, and the system he set up has been dead for much longer than that. The thing is, change was gradual and based on pragmatism, not dogma.

But I am not naive. The reality is you have to have some values in politics about dealing with problems with large masses of people. Who are the majority? Rich or poor? Poor. So deal with them with JUSTICE. That is my philosophy about politics. Punto y se acabo. No te gustan los pobres? Deja la mierda y declarate un comemierda burguesito. Because that is what it is about with class conscious anti Leftism in Chile. Gente con ideas malas y falta de teoria para la gente con pocos recursos.

Very interesting, actually I agree with you that poor people are clearly the priority. But then, why would you support governments with an awful track record in that regard? Where are the permanent social gains from Chavismo? There are none, actually, and the Venezuelans largely live worse than before. The rich from that time? Many did lose their businesses and a good chunk their money, they did indeed - but they still kept enough to be able to emigrate to the US or Spain (mostly). The rest? Either they joined the new elite due to being connected to the PSUV in some capacity or they simply got fucked. Why do you think there have been millions of them desperate to emigrate by foot to other countries, including Chile?

In reality, even Pinochet did better in that regard. And can give you hard evidence of that, if you want.

You don't see the hypocrisy? You don't? I do.

If socialism doesn't work? Leave the socialist voters and socialist societies ALONE. Don't pressure them with sanctions and embargos. Oh, it is because of human rights. No, it is not. It is about GREED. Greed from capitalist powerful people. Who control everything.

It is either our way of making money and hegemony or the highway.

Actually, I agree with that. As long as they don't become an international problem, as long as they don't engage in adventurism, I don't care. At most do slap sanctions on them, so they don't become an international problem, and by that I don't mean the kind of international problem that bleeds emigrants but the kind of international problem that takes military action against its neighbors. But I don't think the US should step in and save Venezuelans, Nicaraguans or Cubans by the bomb if that's where you believe I stand. No, the former two got into it on their own, while the latter... Well, the latter will also have to overthrow their regime if they have the guts to. Just like many peoples in Central and Eastern Europe did 30+ years ago. If they don't have the guts to do that, then why would anyone else do it for them save some silly Cuban adventurism of the sort the Cuban government engaged in back in the 1970s and 1980s and for which it paid a heavy price and learned the lesson?

BTW. where do I praise some killers and violence and injustice? I have been on this forum for 12 years? Where is the praise for killing and me being Machiavellian? NO WHERE will you find a single post of mine praising injustice, violence and death. Or aggressive greed. Not once.

Go and lie on me some more you are the one who is a Machiavellian selfish type. Go and get the quotes. They don't exist!

Well, haven't all the aforementioned regimes (Chavistas in Venezuela, Sandinistas in Nicaragua and of course the Communists in Cuba) done just that, @Tainari88? If you don't praise their repression, well, that's fine. But I don't see @JohnRawls or @Rugoz praising repression in Bolivia either. At most, they seem to believe the lesser evil won in 2019, and that's about it.

And if they don't, well, personally I just think it's sad Evo Morales had to be stopped that way. I don't like him, he's populist, he's also authoritarian (but less than other leftist regimes) and it seems he's corrupt (but also less than other of the leftist populists we get to see in Latin America too, despite all the power he managed to accumulate), but he did actually accomplish a feat rarely seen in Bolivia: Stability. It may seem like a small thing, after all didn't Chavez, Ortega and of course Castro do the same? They did, but the difference is that Bolivia has a much richer history of instability and internal strife than Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. So that was actually a major feat in this case.

If, instead of trying to perpetuate himself in power, Evo Morales had just let one of his close associates be President while he'd just be Vice President (like Medvedev and Putin do in Russia), it'd have been fine and most Bolivians would have accepted it. But no, they had to come up with bullshit so he'd run again

[JohnRawls]

Pinochet's economy, like Allende's, was anything but stable

But tell me, where are the billions in oil windfall profits Venezuela (most egregious example) was able to collect during the oil boom? What happened to those windfall profits? Why is it that a new elite around the PSUV "coincidentally" arose during that time and why does it enjoy higher standards of living than the unconnected Venezuelan?



I don't understand. Why is it bad to be a blandito (softie, for English speakers)? Anyway, I'm a liberal. Which in the current context, means clearly being at least centrist, or (more often) to the right of that.



Or you pick the lesser evil.



Pinochet has been dead for almost 15 years now, and the system he set up has been dead for much longer than that. The thing is, change was gradual and based on pragmatism, not dogma.



Very interesting, actually I agree with you that poor people are clearly the priority. But then, why would you support governments with an awful track record in that regard? Where are the permanent social gains from Chavismo? There are none, actually, and the Venezuelans largely live worse than before. The rich from that time? Many did lose their businesses and a good chunk their money, they did indeed - but they still kept enough to be able to emigrate to the US or Spain (mostly). The rest? Either they joined the new elite due to being connected to the PSUV in some capacity or they simply got fucked. Why do you think there have been millions of them desperate to emigrate by foot to other countries, including Chile?

In reality, even Pinochet did better in that regard. And can give you hard evidence of that, if you want.



Actually, I agree with that. As long as they don't become an international problem, as long as they don't engage in adventurism, I don't care. At most do slap sanctions on them, so they don't become an international problem, and by that I don't mean the kind of international problem that bleeds emigrants but the kind of international problem that takes military action against its neighbors. But I don't think the US should step in and save Venezuelans, Nicaraguans or Cubans by the bomb if that's where you believe I stand. No, the former two got into it on their own, while the latter... Well, the latter will also have to overthrow their regime if they have the guts to. Just like many peoples in Central and Eastern Europe did 30+ years ago. If they don't have the guts to do that, then why would anyone else do it for them save some silly Cuban adventurism of the sort the Cuban government engaged in back in the 1970s and 1980s and for which it paid a heavy price and learned the lesson?



Well, haven't all the aforementioned regimes (Chavistas in Venezuela, Sandinistas in Nicaragua and of course the Communists in Cuba) done just that, @Tainari88? If you don't praise their repression, well, that's fine. But I don't see @JohnRawls or @Rugoz praising repression in Bolivia either. At most, they seem to believe the lesser evil won in 2019, and that's about it.

And if they don't, well, personally I just think it's sad Evo Morales had to be stopped that way. I don't like him, he's populist, he's also authoritarian (but less than other leftist regimes) and it seems he's corrupt (but also less than other of the leftist populists we get to see in Latin America too, despite all the power he managed to accumulate), but he did actually accomplish a feat rarely seen in Bolivia: Stability. It may seem like a small thing, after all didn't Chavez, Ortega and of course Castro do the same? They did, but the difference is that Bolivia has a much richer history of instability and internal strife than Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. So that was actually a major feat in this case.

If, instead of trying to perpetuate himself in power, Evo Morales had just let one of his close associates be President while he'd just be Vice President (like Medvedev and Putin do in Russia), it'd have been fine and most Bolivians would have accepted it. But no, they had to come up with bullshit so he'd run again

Pinochet was a monster who didn't bring stability nor prosperity. Economic prosperity under Pinochet is a myth. On average democratic Chile grows faster than during Pinochet times not to mention that they don't need to oppress and kill people for it.

[skinster]

You guys are off-topic.

[wat0n]

Pinochet was a monster who didn't bring stability nor prosperity. Economic prosperity under Pinochet is a myth. On average democratic Chile grows faster than during Pinochet times not to mention that they don't need to oppress and kill people for it.

Indeed, and more stable growth (less volatility), less inflation, lower poverty rates, lower structural unemployment, the further progress in some of the things that benefited the poor that Pinochet's regime had actually made progress on (basically, extending the coverage in drinking water supply, water sanitation and electricity among Chilean households until reaching almost 100% nowadays - I think these stand at 99.2% for the lowest one -, along with further extending school overage until reaching levels well above those during the dictatorship, decreasing malnutrition to the point of virtually eradicating it, etc). Only inequality has remain high, but even that went down from extremely high levels in the 1980s to levels more in line with Chile's "normal" level of inequality.

The changes have been deep enough that what people regard as "good" or "adequate" in terms of quality of public services (particularly education and healthcare) has become a lot more stringent, and people want that quality to be more like that of an European than a Latin American country, something that has yet to be accomplished (for instance, the quality of most of these services is still clearly inferior to that of the US although part of it is due to the fact that living standards, including consumption and housing, are also clearly a lot lower than in the US). That, along with pensions - which are low, for a whole lot of reasons including the economic instability during Pinochet's dictatorship, and inequality, remain some of the greatest challenges the country is facing. Others are basically the same as in developed countries, e.g. runaway housing prices and the like, none of which are easy to solve.

Dealing with hyperinflation or malnutrition is not a thing anymore.

[Tainari88]

Pinochet's economy, like Allende's, was anything but stable

But tell me, where are the billions in oil windfall profits Venezuela (most egregious example) was able to collect during the oil boom? What happened to those windfall profits? Why is it that a new elite around the PSUV "coincidentally" arose during that time and why does it enjoy higher standards of living than the unconnected Venezuelan?


Look Waton your Pinochet man is obviously some paid for dictator that is never questioned by the USA authorities. Why? https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/busi ... trail.html

Pinochet's economy, like Allende's, was anything but stable

No Waton Allende was undermined and he unlike what is rumored in history washed by Washingtonian bullshit was about mixed economy models. The kind that he liked. But the Nixon/Kissinger folks were into kill all the Marxists and Soviet Union....it is paranoid right wing creeps mostly. Venezuela had Chavez offering gains from oil to create liasions with other nations. He was not growing rich off of Venezuelan oil. In fact, the people who loved his speeches were the OPEC nations who were filled with poor people. Like this:

What happened to the Venezuelans before Chavez? The rich elite did not deal with masses of poor people in Venezuela. Like usual. They lose control because the RIGHT flees dealing with poor people and high unemployment. Is it because of genes and Nazi theories of race Waton? No. The reason is that AGAIN....the upper class doesn't care. They SUCK.

But tell me, where are the billions in oil windfall profits Venezuela (most egregious example) was able to collect during the oil boom? What happened to those windfall profits? Why is it that a new elite around the PSUV "coincidentally" arose during that time and why does it enjoy higher standards of living than the unconnected Venezuelan?

Who is obsessed with Venezuelan oil? The same people who lied about WMDs in Iraq. That is who. Also, the oil was about getting the lower class out of deep poverty. You get cartoonish portraits about Chavez. Who was he? According to the above video Chavez squandered the money on education and health care. because that is a waste of oil money. That is supposed to go to Exxon Mobile and BP and others. The ones who use oil the right way. To make tons of money and not do jack shit for poverty relief in Venezuela, Mexico, etc . Oliver Stone's take on Venezuela and others.

I don't understand. Why is it bad to be a blandito (softie, for English speakers)? Anyway, I'm a liberal. Which in the current context, means clearly being at least centrist, or (more often) to the right of that.

I don't like your politics. Why? It is about the same bullshit and it doesn't do much for changing poverty. Period. Since it doesn't work for poor people in Latn America? I am against your politics and your views. It sucks for poor people. See Stone...he is the son of a capitalist wall street man. He is not a socialist. But he is not living in denial about who the USA bullshit greed is about. You? Lavado de coco con eso. For sure. Blandito con justicia. You should never be un blandito por la justicia. It is the only reason to get involved in politics. Not about being a greedy conformist who thinks you can tweak a bad system. You can't. You discard it. No hope for a new compassionate capitalism that doesn't exist.



Or you pick the lesser evil.

No you don't Wat0n...you get rid of evil shitty things in politics and fight for justice. Not conformity with pragmatic capitalism. There is no pragmatism. Lesser of two evils. NO. You set a set of values and standards and you respect humanity and their rights to CHOOSE models that are not about Exxon Mobile and bullshit from DC.

Pinochet has been dead for almost 15 years now, and the system he set up has been dead for much longer than that. The thing is, change was gradual and based on pragmatism, not dogma.

No, the dogma is CAPITALISM and IMPERIALISM. See Stone's "South of the Border" documentary. They believe lies all day every day.



Very interesting, actually I agree with you that poor people are clearly the priority. But then, why would you support governments with an awful track record in that regard? Where are the permanent social gains from Chavismo? There are none, actually, and the Venezuelans largely live worse than before. The rich from that time? Many did lose their businesses and a good chunk their money, they did indeed - but they still kept enough to be able to emigrate to the US or Spain (mostly). The rest? Either they joined the new elite due to being connected to the PSUV in some capacity or they simply got fucked. Why do you think there have been millions of them desperate to emigrate by foot to other countries, including Chile?

Stop with the Disneyland shit Wat0n? You think these greedy naked aggression from the USA that John Perkins talks about in that TED talk video? Is gonna not pressure a fragile overthrow of a corrupt government? They don't want a successful socialist healthy economy. They want a collapse and a return to the same shit as before. Right wing elites in charge and poverty for the masses. They suck. That is all they want in Latin America.

In reality, even Pinochet did better in that regard. And can give you hard evidence of that, if you want.

Pinochet was dealing with implementing the neoliberal shit that sucked in Argentina and in Chile. It is not a panacea. Even with the influx of DC dirty shitty prop up money.



Actually, I agree with that. As long as they don't become an international problem, as long as they don't engage in adventurism, I don't care. At most do slap sanctions on them, so they don't become an international problem, and by that I don't mean the kind of international problem that bleeds emigrants but the kind of international problem that takes military action against its neighbors. But I don't think the US should step in and save Venezuelans, Nicaraguans or Cubans by the bomb if that's where you believe I stand. No, the former two got into it on their own, while the latter... Well, the latter will also have to overthrow their regime if they have the guts to. Just like many peoples in Central and Eastern Europe did 30+ years ago. If they don't have the guts to do that, then why would anyone else do it for them save some silly Cuban adventurism of the sort the Cuban government engaged in back in the 1970s and 1980s and for which it paid a heavy price and learned the lesson?

You are foolish with the lack of understanding on what Perkins discusses. Are you going to deal with what that dude talks about? He was sent by the NSA and CIA to bribe governments and then threaten them if they don't cave to the Americans and their greed and aggression. It is the reality. It is immoral and horrid. The USA was and still has aggressive policies. They will wind up with nothing because the wars and the propping up is costly and they are sacrificing domestic tranquility for imperial waste. That is their damn KARMA. I say let them get the boomerang. Interfering in shit that is about other nations processes and thinking they have the right to do it. They don't.


Well, haven't all the aforementioned regimes (Chavistas in Venezuela, Sandinistas in Nicaragua and of course the Communists in Cuba) done just that, @Tainari88? If you don't praise their repression, well, that's fine. But I don't see @JohnRawls or @Rugoz praising repression in Bolivia either. At most, they seem to believe the lesser evil won in 2019, and that's about it.

And if they don't, well, personally I just think it's sad Evo Morales had to be stopped that way. I don't like him, he's populist, he's also authoritarian (but less than other leftist regimes) and it seems he's corrupt (but also less than other of the leftist populists we get to see in Latin America too, despite all the power he managed to accumulate), but he did actually accomplish a feat rarely seen in Bolivia: Stability. It may seem like a small thing, after all didn't Chavez, Ortega and of course Castro do the same? They did, but the difference is that Bolivia has a much richer history of instability and internal strife than Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. So that was actually a major feat in this case.

Your position is not leftist. It is right leaning and nasty in general. You try to sound 'neutral'. There is no real interest in eradicating poverty in your writing. it is about conveniences and armchair lack of conviction. Blandito y no convincente. It is about selfish stuff for you Wat0n. No tengo mucho que pensar contigo. Burguesito con nada de pasion o interes en cambiar la situation. Pa mi eso es politica sin dientes y sin caso. No va pa ningun lao.

Venezuelan attempted coup:

If, instead of trying to perpetuate himself in power, Evo Morales had just let one of his close associates be President while he'd just be Vice President (like Medvedev and Putin do in Russia), it'd have been fine and most Bolivians would have accepted it. But no, they had to come up with bullshit so he'd run again

Yeah, you love Janine. Do you know who these killer bible thumping racist elitist Bolivians are? Here is a hint.

[Tainari88]

You guys are off-topic.

She is a good woman. Killing people for Jesus and bringing the bible back to the political scene. Evo can't be in charge. He needs to be threatened out of power. So the rich people who hate Indians and imitate American lifestyles they don't get because if they did? They would realize that the Americans don't know what goes on in Bolivia. They just want the minerals. Anez is just ordering murders of workers in her country. She can kill and keep her position. That is the kind of asshole the USA government loves. But they can't cover the worse of the worse.

[wat0n]

Yeah, instead we should aim to "solve" the issues of Latin America by simply ignoring history and making your own history up (like that so-called NSA liason whose identity as such has never been actually proven - looks like a typical propaganda scam to get money from gullible leftists). In reality, Allende - like all the other leftist populists of his time (e.g. Carlos Andrés Pérez in Venezuela, who was aligned with the US) and the chavistas now - dug his own grave, and for what it's worth the US actually sent more yearly aid during Allende's administration than during the dictatorship, because Allende at least did not get American citizens tortured and executed, let alone place car bombs in downtown DC like Pinochet's regime did. Of course he got less aid than the previous government since Allende repudiated all bilateral aid agreements with the US, but it never really got fully cut, because that would have reduced American leverage and influence in Chile. This includes military aid (especially, military aid in fact). The Americans did realize Allende was bound to face severe economic issues but were also surprised to see things go to hell as soon as it did and believed that he'd face those issues after managing to consolidate his own regime. At last, the US did study ways to seriously undermine him but it turns out it lacked the tools to do so. The US, for example, did not have enough copper reserves to manipulate copper prices (essential for Allende since copper was 75% of exports at the time) and doing so would have also harmed American allies elsewhere, so this was shelved. What actually happened is that the US became more selective when lending to Chile, precisely because of Allende's hostility to the US.

In reality, your game is actually similar to Allende's. On one hand, you hate the US because it oppresses Puerto Rico and yadda, yadda, yadda. On the other, you'd hate to lose American money and economic support. Hence, you want to hate America to your heart's content yet you also feel entitled to American cash. Because that's how the Latin American far leftists are, their chutzpah is infinite. I'll give them that.

And I can note you had nothing to say about my comment about Morales. I wonder why? Could it be because his behavior in 2016-2019 is indefensible? Let's not even talk about the behavior of Ortega, Chavez/Maduro and the Cubans.

Oh and as for Pinochet, why don't you begin by reading how his government, for all its economic failures, could at least boast to have reached the urban poor or began the process to do so to provide them with running water, water sanitation and electricity? Not out of conmen like this Perkins guy but stuff published in urbanism journals? How has Venezuela fared in this regard?

[QatzelOk]

In reality, Allende - like all the other leftist populists of his time (e.g. Carlos Andrés Pérez in Venezuela, who was aligned with the US) and the chavistas now - dug his own grave...

Humanity is currently "digging its own grave" by concentrating on increasing material consumption and competition between classes and nations.

The leftists who you say "dig their own graves" do so by *not kissing ass and going along with the rich and their schemes.*

Their non-whoredom is what you are describing as "deadly."

Think about what that means about you.

[wat0n]

Humanity is currently "digging its own grave" by concentrating on increasing material consumption and competition between classes and nations.

The leftists who you say "dig their own graves" do so by *not kissing ass and going along with the rich and their schemes.*

Their non-whoredom is what you are describing as "deadly."

Think about what that means about you.

Is it? Humanity seems to have been advancing for quite a while now, the pandemic is just a hiccup and will pass sooner or later.

But the kind of populists like Chavez seem to be going backwards in any relevant way you can think of. The rich and their schemes, you say? You mean using your position to replace the existing rich and become rich yourself while impoverishing everyone else? How is that any good?

[QatzelOk]

Humanity seems to have been advancing for quite a while now...

You seem to have missed The Limits to Growth, Future Shock, Climate change, ocean acidification, species extinction, the ravages of conspicuous consumption, and a whole lot of other information of great importance to any concerned human animal.

Their non-whoredom is what you are describing as "deadly."

So I suppose the "safest" thing to do (in your worldview) is to whore out your brain to commercial interests and strong tribes. I get it.

But Evo Morales and the left in Latin America, is generally concerned and knowledgeable about all the risks that International Capital is willing to take with other people's lives. This is because Latin Americans see words like "backyard" to describe their homes (and puppets like Juan Guaido are offered as political leadership) and it signals to them that they are "other people's lives" in the minds of Capital.

[wat0n]

You seem to have missed The Limits to Growth, Future Shock, Climate change, ocean acidification, species extinction, the ravages of conspicuous consumption, and a whole lot of other information of great importance to any concerned human animal.

And you seem to have missed the continuous increase in living standards throughout the world, the decrease in infant mortality, the possibility to communicate with anyone in the world, the increase in life expectancy, the fact that the world is generally safer, that we actually have greater and better means to deal with climate change than in any previous time in human history, that technological change seems to be moving to a direction of less emissions and pollution and a whole lot of other facts that are also of great importance to any concerned human animal. Instead, you whine and wish we could go back to those times where a naturally occurring weather event would cause massive crop failures and famine

So I suppose the "safest" thing to do (in your worldview) is to whore out your brain to commercial interests and strong tribes. I get it.

But Evo Morales and the left in Latin America, is generally concerned and knowledgeable about all the risks that International Capital is willing to take with other people's lives. This is because Latin Americans see words like "backyard" to describe their homes (and puppets like Juan Guaido are offered as political leadership) and it signals to them that they are "other people's lives" in the minds of Capital.

Yeah, instead it's better to just let them become the elite and impose their corrupt regimes while actually impoverishing everyone else. The alternative has social accomplishments of note here, where are the permanent gains to the Venezuelan population from Chavismo? In reality, they have been so incompetent that in most cases they can't even collect the data to measure many of these things, so others have to do it for them - and things have gotten worse than before they got to power.

[Tainari88]

No the sellout behavior to American cash and being whores as @QatzelOk implies is about your positions in the world.

You did not prove Perkins was lying at all. That link did not refute what he said he did. He was doing that.

No, you paint me as a sellout. You got the wrong woman. The one who is ignoring the rot in American foreign policy is you. Why do you ignore it @wat0n ?

The issue is about Bolivia. You lost the argument. Anez is a convicted killer. Now you move on to arguments @QatzelOk destroys fast. He burned them all.

I am having dinner with my son. Will be back to deal with your false arguments.

[wat0n]

No the sellout behavior to American cash and being whores as @QatzelOk implies is about your positions in the world.

You did not prove Perkins was lying at all. That link did not refute what he said he did. He was doing that.

Even some of the people he claims were part of this scheme denied it. The burden on proof now falls on him (or you) on this matter.

Perhaps producing some material evidence of his communication with the NSA or the CIA could help.

No, you paint me as a sellout. You got the wrong woman. The one who is ignoring the rot in American foreign policy is you. Why do you ignore it @wat0n ?

Oh but you are for sale, aren't you?

American foreign policy is as rotten as that of any world power (i.e. very). But this doesn't negate the fact that it is the Latin American far left that has systemically failed to deliver on its promises, every damn time. And every time, too, it ends with corruption and collapse at best, this plus dictatorship at worst (if they manage to consolidate their position before the inevitable collapse)

The issue is about Bolivia. You lost the argument. Anez is a convicted killer. Now you move on to arguments @QatzelOk destroys fast. He burned them all.

I thought she was just arrested to face trial. Are you even following the events?

Qatz is a primitivist, and we all know how silly that ideology is. He has destroyed nothing.

I am having dinner with my son. Will be back to deal with your false arguments.

Go on, I'm waiting for your sources here.

[Tainari88]

Even some of the people he claims were part of this scheme denied it. The burden on proof now falls on him (or you) on this matter.

Perhaps producing some material evidence of his communication with the NSA or the CIA could help.





Oh but you are for sale, aren't you?

American foreign policy is as rotten as that of any world power (i.e. very). But this doesn't negate the fact that it is the Latin American far left that has systemically failed to deliver on its promises, every damn time. And every time, too, it ends with corruption and collapse at best, this plus dictatorship at worst (if they manage to consolidate their position before the inevitable collapse)



I thought she was just arrested to face trial. Are you even following the events?

Qatz is a primitivist, and we all know how silly that ideology is. He has destroyed nothing.



Go on, I'm waiting for your sources here.

Yes, I am following the events.

I have a real dislike for your inability to admit that the USA has a really bad and nasty and violent and greedy foreign policy for many nations all over the world. Besides being a nation that throws bombs on other nations more than any other nation in human history.

Let us start our story here....a quick three-minute rundown of Bolivian history. Note that the guy who made the video doesn't see Evo as the failed leftist who never got anything done? Lol. Not like you. For you the leftists fail to deliver.

I am going to focus on Bolivia here. What happened? Bolivia was stripped bare of silver and gold. And now the electric car lithium battery needs might be the next thing on there. Having control and remaining in control of lands that were part of Indian groups such as the Aymara and the Quechua and integrating them into political decision-making and power in La Paz, and in Bolivia was key. What was detrimental to most nations in the world? Losing sovereignty and losing internal control to foreign actors and nations who have no interest in the well-being of the people who live and die in that land. Predatory capitalism doesn't care about much besides short-term profit and gaining access to resources to make the next most important technological tool.

You might not like Q's arguments about environmental devastation and a total disregard for the preservation of human life that capitalism and its rapacious appetites for monopolizing everything bring about. The Cochabamba water wars and privatizing rainwater and making essentials like water and plants and air, that used to be part of the commons and not ownable at all, is being fought over. It is obscene. This obsession with privatizing what belongs to nature and human rights. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with the value system promoted by the current capitalist way of doing business.

It should be challenged and resisted because if it is not? A pandemic and the freedoms it takes away will be like child's play when you got unbreathable poisonous air, water and earth.

Trying to live in such a world? Ruled by greed and aggressive thoughtless stupidity is not something to be tepid about.

O te importa el mundo o no te importa? Neutrality is for the apathetic and the defeated and the dead in heart, mind and spirit. The time for that is past.



The corporations were never fond of having to cope with restrictions. Restriction to profit. What a horrible concept for some capitalist to contemplate.

What people need to understand that change is here already. The trillions of dollars having to be released to other people who are not billionaires are going to be the NORM. There is nothing to be done about it. It is either acknowledges that masses of people are the core of economic activity and human modern civilization or accept that capitalist consumption is forcing the reality that unrestrained waste and plunder is going to lead everyone to have to pool all economic resources and cope with getting rid of exclusivity and plutocrats.

It is basically about doing or dying.

Back to Bolivia....who benefited from all these exploited resources? The Aymara of whence Evo Morales sprung from? Or the Spanish and then the elite in Bolivian society whence Anez with her bible sprung from?

Chile's history in three minutes. I trust more this history than your thinking the Lefties were the problem. They aren't. Lol.

Perkins. Benefits for rich families who are owners of the infrastructure. La explication. Parte del plan. Imperio financiero.

that is reality.

What does Perkins mention in his book? I read it by the way Wat0n.

He mentions specific companies. Bechtel. Who are they in Bolivian history?

They are these people....
https://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/09/ ... 83160.html

Perkins is talking about the threatening and then the bribing or the violence and interventions. You think that these corporations are what? Not that interested in this?

No, there has always been interest in resources Wat0n.

Riots, people dead, crisis. Classic battle.

Coercive monopoly power.

[wat0n]

Yes, I am following the events.

I have a real dislike for your inability to admit that the USA has a really bad and nasty and violent and greedy foreign policy for many nations all over the world. Besides being a nation that throws bombs on other nations more than any other nation in human history.

US foreign policy is not radically different to that from other Great Powers in history. So why would you make America such an unique case in this regard? And most importantly, how does it justify the incompetence and corruption of our lovely far-left populists?

Let us start our story here....a quick three-minute rundown of Bolivian history. Note that the guy who made the video doesn't see Evo as the failed leftist who never got anything done? Lol. Not like you. For you the leftists fail to deliver.

I am going to focus on Bolivia here. What happened? Bolivia was stripped bare of silver and gold. And now the electric car lithium battery needs might be the next thing on there. Having control and remaining in control of lands that were part of Indian groups such as the Aymara and the Quechua and integrating them into political decision-making and power in La Paz, and in Bolivia was key. What was detrimental to most nations in the world? Losing sovereignty and losing internal control to foreign actors and nations who have no interest in the well-being of the people who live and die in that land. Predatory capitalism doesn't care about much besides short-term profit and gaining access to resources to make the next most important technological tool.

As I said, I do acknowledge Morales had at least one big accomplishment: Achieving internal stability. Bolivia has traditionally been an ungovernable mess so that's no small feat. And yet his disregard for his own Constitution jeopardized just that.

The other accomplishments, if any, will only be proven once Bolivia stops enjoying windfall natural gas profits, which is what happened to the Chavistas with oil. If the apparent gains remain after that happens, I'll be more than happy to add those to the list.

Also, the indigenista aspect of Evo Morales you mention is just cheap ethno-nationalism, one that most Bolivians seem to be able to look past since a clear majority rejects him.

You might not like Q's arguments about environmental devastation and a total disregard for the preservation of human life that capitalism and its rapacious appetites for monopolizing everything bring about. The Cochabamba water wars and privatizing rainwater and making essentials like water and plants and air, that used to be part of the commons and not ownable at all, is being fought over. It is obscene. This obsession with privatizing what belongs to nature and human rights. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with the value system promoted by the current capitalist way of doing business.

It should be challenged and resisted because if it is not? A pandemic and the freedoms it takes away will be like child's play when you got unbreathable poisonous air, water and earth.

And yet it's what helps expand the enjoyment of those goods widely across all social strata. What is communal ownership of water good for if the community doesn't invest in ensuring proper drinking water and water sanitation for the community? If the governments prefer to use their companies, including the water and sanitation ones, to provide employment for the party members and other political clients instead of concerning themselves with expanding service coverage and delivering them as efficiently as possible?

As for pollution, it's interesting you mention it: Evo Morales and Jair Bolsonaro were actually declared personas non-grata by the Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (Coica) back in 2019 for allowing the chaqueo they blamed for the 2019 fires in eastern Bolivia. This took place months before the election and coup.

Trying to live in such a world? Ruled by greed and aggressive thoughtless stupidity is not something to be tepid about.

O te importa el mundo o no te importa? Neutrality is for the apathetic and the defeated and the dead in heart, mind and spirit. The time for that is past.

Pragmatism goes above all, especially emotion. What you are actually advocating for has never worked anywhere, so why would we try it again?

The corporations were never fond of having to cope with restrictions. Restriction to profit. What a horrible concept for some capitalist to contemplate.

What people need to understand that change is here already. The trillions of dollars having to be released to other people who are not billionaires are going to be the NORM. There is nothing to be done about it. It is either acknowledges that masses of people are the core of economic activity and human modern civilization or accept that capitalist consumption is forcing the reality that unrestrained waste and plunder is going to lead everyone to have to pool all economic resources and cope with getting rid of exclusivity and plutocrats.

It is basically about doing or dying.

Back to Bolivia....who benefited from all these exploited resources? The Aymara of whence Evo Morales sprung from? Or the Spanish and then the elite in Bolivian society whence Anez with her bible sprung from?

Chile's history in three minutes. I trust more this history than your thinking the Lefties were the problem. They aren't. Lol.

Perkins. Benefits for rich families who are owners of the infrastructure. La explication. Parte del plan. Imperio financiero.

that is reality.

What does Perkins mention in his book? I read it by the way Wat0n.

He mentions specific companies. Bechtel. Who are they in Bolivian history?

They are these people....
https://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/09/ ... 83160.html

Perkins is talking about the threatening and then the bribing or the violence and interventions. You think that these corporations are what? Not that interested in this?

No, there has always been interest in resources Wat0n.

Riots, people dead, crisis. Classic battle.

Coercive monopoly power.

This sounds more like an incoherent conspiracy theory. Either Perkins backs his claims of ties to the NSA/CIA back (or you do it for him) or just admit it is what it is.

I also don't need you to teach me about Chilean history, and that video is horseshit. For starters, it doesn't even mention the Radical Party governments from the 1940s which nowadays would be regarded as socialist by the typical American but which were centrist at the time. It also doesn't mention the incompetence of Allende's administration when it came to economic policy, and its resulting inability to deliver on its promises which got to the point that even leftist mining unions began to strike against him in El Teniente and were of course repressed by Allende's government (when far-left populists are about to fail, they often repress the same workers they claim to defend):

El 14 de junio, la policía atacó a una manifestación de 4.000 mineros, que habían marchado sobre Santiago desde los distritos mineros, utilizó tanques de agua, carros blindados y gas lacrimógeno. En la mina misma más de 500 Carabineros han plantado sitio, disparando ametralladoras al aire para ganar entrada a los instaladores. Los huelguistas erigieron barricadas en las entradas de las minas y lanzaron dinamita contra la policía. Más de 30 mineros han sido heridos ya en el conflicto.

And let's not even get into whether workers, particularly the poorest ones, were better off in 1973 vs 1970. They weren't, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. And they weren't because of the hyperinflation caused by Allende's money printing, which started early on (before it even had any actual financial troubles), not for other reasons.

[Tainari88]

US foreign policy is not radically different to that from other Great Powers in history. So why would you make America such an unique case in this regard? And most importantly, how does it justify the incompetence and corruption of our lovely far-left populists?

Wat0n, what the hell are you talking about? Unique? You really distort what I say don't you? How many times have I written on this forum about the Imperial POWERS in history? Over my twelve years here I have written about the concept of EMPIRE. How that motivates the worst problems in human history. I don't say it is the USA only. Of course not. The USA is really really bad in one way only. They purported to be a democratic republic who respects human rights and democratic representative forms of self governance for all nations and do the exact opposite because it is about aggression and greed. The UK, France, etc never claimed to be about some form of democratic representative republican forms of government. They were not ex colonies turned oppressors Wat0n. They were clear. They followed an Imperial past that was about class conscious societies. The same ones that pushed a bunch of immigrants out of their nations from the lower classes to go and set up shop in the United States of colonial times. The 13 original colonies Jamestown, etc. The USA was founded by people from the lower classes sent to the colonies by not having favorable conditions in Europe to who they were...yet they betrayed all that history for GREED. Who is worse? Some King George and other colonial powers like Spain and Portugal who never renounced monarchy and imperial ambitions? Or the USA promising freedoms from tyrannies and a representative form of democracy but acting the same or in Latin America worse than the original monarchies and elite upper classes from the Old World Imperial powers of the past? I posit it the USA is worse. Don't betray what you say you promote and imitate the same model that produced the republic and the reason for a change in political philosophy and society. It is worse. People expect something and get something that is not at all what it promised. With monarchy and class consciousness you expect that imperialism fully. With rhetoric that is about republican forms of democracy you don't. You get taken by surprise. It is called two faced behavior. No one in human politics likes total liars. That is what they are Wat0n. What motivates such bullshit? Greed. They want the land, the minerals and the profits. The dollar is first and then the military from the USA secures it for them in places they had no right to dictate policy IF they believed in respecting the right to self-determination. They don't believe in either democracy or self-determination for governments that they have an interest in destroying because the rich corporations or banks, etc are the ones dictating foreign policy and so are the plutocrats in that nation. Now, you see the consequences in the USA in plain sight. The congress, senate and the legal system will be favoring people who are the ones fronting the money for their campaigns in Washington DC. They have not gotten rid of Citizens United, they have not gotten rid of black budgets and slush funds. They have not reformed the filibuster or gotten rid of it. It is legal to accept a lot of money for speeches and for campaigns and to allow people who don't capture the most popular votes to run the nation. It is anti-democratic. This is a natural consequence of allowing greed and capitalism to run as the PRIORITY over democracy. It is a terrible problem. But that is the USA's issue.




As I said, I do acknowledge Morales had at least one big accomplishment: Achieving internal stability. Bolivia has traditionally been an ungovernable mess so that's no small feat. And yet his disregard for his own Constitution jeopardized just that.

Morales knew that he was the only one in the history of Bolivia who had Aymara interests. The native Bolivians finally had a leader. After centuries of rule by colonial mentality people with little regard for Indian rights in Bolivia. They had a voice. He also got a taste of power and thought it would be practical to keep going on his reforms. That actually did improve conditions for many Indian communities and the base for his popularity Wat0n. He was not popular with the Anez very wealthy class. Nor the ones who view Indian religions as satanic. But they are not the majority in Bolivia. If the rules say democracy is about majority rule? Indian values, religion, land and power should be dominant in Bolivia. It never was. That is why it was unstable. Fights between the interests of the Aymara, Quecha ethnic groups interests, and the colonial wealthy elite with paradigms of McDonald's and bullshit that never worked. BTW, McDonald's went bankrupt in Bolivia. They could not make money. The Indians did not like the corporate culture. It is an indication of the conflict in a microcosm. En fin, si crees en la democracia? Tienes que aceptar que lo que quieren la mayoria indigena del pais debe ser la que RIGE el pais. No las Janine Anez.

The other accomplishments, if any, will only be proven once Bolivia stops enjoying windfall natural gas profits, which is what happened to the Chavistas with oil. If the apparent gains remain after that happens, I'll be more than happy to add those to the list.

Why do say this stupidity Wat0n? Why should Bolivia not enjoy its own resources? This is very telling here. You mean to say that the only ones who have the right to make money or have some money to spend and grow from are the outside capitalists and the minority rich elite in the nation? You are wrong. The resources are part of a land. The people residing, working and having historical, cultural and invested labor in that land have the RIGHT to profit from any resource and also the right to refuse the use of to outsiders. Would you like someone to come into your home that you sweat to pay the rent or mortgage to---and that you paid the furniture and the costs of building that house? To come in and declare it theirs because you are foolish Chilean pendejo who is inferior and only they are the ones who know it all? What kind of shit mentality do you support I wonder?

Also, the indigenista aspect of Evo Morales you mention is just cheap ethno-nationalism, one that most Bolivians seem to be able to look past since a clear majority rejects him.

No, there is nothing cheap about ethnicity. Do you feel your Jewishness is expendable like some banana peel that you peel off and throw away? Or is your ethnic roots truly important and the indians identities just shit identities? Because if that is what you feel? You could be easily accused of racism. For sure.



And yet it's what helps expand the enjoyment of those goods widely across all social strata. What is communal ownership of water good for if the community doesn't invest in ensuring proper drinking water and water sanitation for the community? If the governments prefer to use their companies, including the water and sanitation ones, to provide employment for the party members and other political clients instead of concerning themselves with expanding service coverage and delivering them as efficiently as possible?

Also there is a difference between life and death essential needed resources and some expendable luxury goods. Water, air and food and medicine and education and housing that is adequate are basically life or death needs. Not something to think that is flexible in the human spectrum of goods and services. Do I have to point out the obvious? Ave Maria Wat0n...que te pasa?

No, that wasn't the issue. Did you see the video? They wanted to charge the residents of Cochabamba nearly 25% of their entire salaries. These people are making $2 bucks a day in salary. If your water bill is the same as your rent? How do you get ahead? Feed your family? Pay medical expenses?Educate your kids? You have a really bad understanding of reasonable conditions. You are quick to argue the merits of rapacious profitmongering versus reasonable utility and sanitation costs. Your argument sucks really. You reveal yourself as biased and immoral with this. I will be back. Because your arguments are weak. Someone has to teach you ethics Senor. Te falta etica.


As for pollution, it's interesting you mention it: Evo Morales and Jair Bolsonaro were actually declared personas non-grata by the Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (Coica) back in 2019 for allowing the chaqueo they blamed for the 2019 fires in eastern Bolivia. This took place months before the election and coup.

Who has to do some damage control? The governments. Both of them. Will Evo be the one who would have responded with the damage control? I think he would have done it because he had to respond to Indian interests. The problem though Wat0n is that Evo will never be what Janine was. He won't go to the rich elite neighborhoods who have these environmentally unsound practices due to the investors and pro-capitalism at any cost people and kill them off to get rid of the problem. You got to negotiate with people who hate your guts in politics. Not kill them off. Something not followed by the Right wing in Latin American political history. Quote from your own article:


Llaman a que se active la cooperación internacional y demás aliados con fines solidarios y humanitarios para que se pueda suplir las necesidades básicas de los pueblos afectados por este flageo y se inicien de manera las medidas de restauración de la biodiversidad afectada.

The capitalists won't do that. It goes against the profit above all else foundation of that economic system. Admit that. If you don't? The rest is just you covering your real mentality. What Q has accused you of.



Pragmatism goes above all, especially emotion. What you are actually advocating for has never worked anywhere, so why would we try it again?

Socialism is not about emotion. It is a common political philosophy and parties advocating for it all over the world win real world elections and implement real world policies that are based on it. It is not some impractical thing. It never was. That is just lies Wat0n that are repeated over and over again hoping people believe it. It doesn't work. I am a person. One with logic and emotion. Both. I don't argue my politics like a British person because I wasn't raised that way. If you believe all cultures have a right to express their own ways of argumentation in an international political forum? Then you do that. You don't try to say that emotion is not pragmatic. Lol. Socialism is not about EMOTION. It is about not allowing tiny groups of elitist plutocrats accumulate governmental and economic power and not allow the ones working all day to get their needs met in an attempt to dominate all the resources for their own benefit. Anyone with half a brain will know that eventually the ones being squeezed dry and not seeing any benefits? Are going to rebel and lead to instability. Because human society should be about balance and logic not emotion and greed and pursuits of short term thinking and planning to please some people who in a corrupt system are allowed a lot more power than their numbers would justify. That is logical. Where is your argument that the rich and plutocratic are entitled to more and have to have more power because the working classes are inferior? Where? Because the arguments of the rich=superiority of intelligence are belied by this series called [b]The Housewives of Beverly Hills. Hablas pura basofia.
[/b]

This sounds more like an incoherent conspiracy theory. Either Perkins backs his claims of ties to the NSA/CIA back (or you do it for him) or just admit it is what it is.

I also don't need you to teach me about Chilean history, and that video is horseshit. For starters, it doesn't even mention the Radical Party governments from the 1940s which nowadays would be regarded as socialist by the typical American but which were centrist at the time. It also doesn't mention the incompetence of Allende's administration when it came to economic policy, and its resulting inability to deliver on its promises which got to the point that even leftist mining unions began to strike against him in El Teniente and were of course repressed by Allende's government (when far-left populists are about to fail, they often repress the same workers they claim to defend):

No Wat0n most of the readers out there don't have time for long history videos and most don't even know the basics. Why don't they? Latin America is an afterthought to them. Why? Our nations are not EMPIRES. The important people whom you want to imitate to be powerful and elite and superior. But you come from a land of Indians and poverty stricken Europeans and knocked off people by the USA. Instead of viewing them as the Imperialist snob assholes who don't study the histories of the inferior Latin American bumbling foolish low life people who don't have a right to like their own nations....you complain about the shortness of the video. That video has more information than the vast majority of American folks know about Chile. Again. EMPIRE. They have the luxury of not being informed about nations who are not powerful superpowers. No one cares about us Wat0n. About little nations like Chile or Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, etc. Why? Not empires. Because instead of treating all as equals they only care about the wealthy and the powerful. If you agree with them? Then you will be their whore. Identify with the strong tribe. Q won that argument with you. And you are what he accused you of. Start fighting for the ones who are not Empires. Because the land is diverse in many nations and are all part of supporting life. And as a human species we all depend on it to live. And being into class consicous Empire is DEATH to us all. That is my big point.



And let's not even get into whether workers, particularly the poorest ones, were better off in 1973 vs 1970. They weren't, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. And they weren't because of the hyperinflation caused by Allende's money printing, which started early on (before it even had any actual financial troubles), not for other reasons.

Look no one knows what would have become of Allende's government. He died on September 11th, 1973 en el Palacio de la Moneda. His relative became a famous writer called Isabel Allende. Married to a Gringo and living in San Francisco.

The neoliberal economics of Pinochet did not solve poverty issues in Chile. And today Chile doesn't like disappeared people and tortured people found in walls and in unexpected places. They don't like thinking about what happened to Victor Jara or anyone involved in that blood filled history.

I would not be into thinking superpowers are the answer. Not the ones like the USA who betrayed their own foundational principles for Greed. There are a lot of human empires who lost all power due to incessant wars and overspending and greed and elite with shit for brains. The USA is going down that way.

But if human beings decide to share and be fair with each other and not resort to killing and torture to stay in power? We might have a chance at survival.

Don't be a whore for capitalism Wat0n. History is not kind to the whores.

[QatzelOk]

US foreign policy is not radically different to that from other Great Powers in history.

As soon as a group of hapless and community-less people starts calling itself "great," atrocities commence against "the less great" and "the scapegoats." It's a formula for ruined cultures to follow so that they can be wealthy even after they've lost their ability to cooperate with others.

Self-coronating names like "Great Britain" and the "Exceptional Nation" are Terrorism licences like a 007 label.

And your "like others in history" is like saying that you can't improve at all - all you are able to do is to just repeat the same errors of the past.