South America: NATO's Sixth Continent

Narco wars are the means the Pentagon has used to fund wars and its "black operations" since Vietnam. In fact, America learned this game from the French.

So PNAC continues even with a USA regime change....

For those interested there is some interesting coverage on this topic as it relates to the presence of US military bases in Peru:

http://peruanista.blogspot.com/2009/04/united-states-has-secret-military...

conrad yablonski wrote:

Aruba and Curacao especially are Hot Spots of anti-revolutionary zeal.

We met a dive guide on one of those three islands who told us one night at the bar he was paid $2000 USD a month to be a mercenary in Central America in the 1980's. His side-kick confirmed it. He looked the type, too - body builder type and liked carrying a pistol and big knife. I had a bad feeling about the asshole when I first met him, and I was right. 

Colombia is the Israel of Latin America. It's the intermediary through which the United States attacks ____, ______, and _______. Hence the "free trade" agreements with the Colombian narco-state by the poodle regime in .... Canada.

That's insane. What a dull and grey socialist heck hole it is. Phat Robertson should put out another Patwa on Chavez.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Britain May Provoke New Conflict with Argentina by Rick Rozoff

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/72091

"If the UK succeeds in provoking a new war, it in turn will appeal to its NATO allies. Britain is playing with fire and if it ignites a new conflict it could spread rapidly far beyond the waters of the southern tip of South America.."

There's some problems with that theory:

1. The reason why the British pulled out of Iraq is that the U.K. could not afford economically, militarily and politically to fight two wars at once.

2. Both the U.K. and the other EU NATO countries are war weary and don't have the stomach for another war, even if NATO wants it to justify its continued existence if the Afghan war fails.

The reason why U.S. and U.K. chicken hawks want Falklands/Malvines War II is because of the offshore oil there. It's all about the crude dude.

My apologies to Linda McQuaig for the ripoff.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

As for 'war-weary', not quite yet I don't think...

Look at the Netherlands. The funny thing is in all countries like Canada, the U.K., France, Germany  and even the U.S.A., etc., the majority of people polled expressed that they wanted the troops out now. Yet they have center right governments (except the U.K., which has a pro war Labor government - go figure) and even though they are democracies, the governments don't listen to the people and often either escalate the number of troops or escalate the length of military engagement.

Something is going to give sooner or later.

conrad yablonski wrote:

As to Venezuela they have so many problems with the drought reducing their hydro-electric power generating capacity they're not a threat to anyone but themselves.

You wouldn't get that idea listening to the Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Defense.

It seems there's no such thing as too many wars.

Great Recession, what Great Recession? Hell our budget for 2010 is $907 billion.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Narco wars are the means the Pentagon has used to fund wars and its "black operations" since Vietnam. In fact, America learned this game from the French.

YA!!!  You know it FM. The French resistance was funded with heroin money. Vietnam intelligence operations by the CIA was funded with heroin money. South America, Afghanistan, etc etc etc - the CIA has "allowed" illegal drug trafficing to the USA for decades now. It is how they fund their illegal operations that Congress cannot fund.

Hmm. That article is accompanied by a general effort to smear pretty well every left of centre government in South America. Special attention is paid to the Chavez government in Venezuela; is military action in the offing by Uncle Sam?

Perhaps a source other than a stock market website might be more appropriate for a left wing site like this one?

You should have read that AP link before posting it. They do the same shit as the NASDAQ link does. 

Ok, so you're not interested in addressing the drive-by smear unrelated to the charges against Palacio?

I thought so.

Incidently, while the $10,000 fine is by no means excessive in defamatory libel cases - like this one - the three year prison term handed down by the judge does seem excessive.

Here is the data for some other countries that also "purport to be a democracy"

Azerbaijan - max sentence up to 3 years in jail

Belgium - up to 1 year and can be doubled if it is considered a hate crime

Finland - up to 2 years in prison

But how about we just cut to the chase, shall we:

Quote:

In Canada, the so-called « blasphemous libel» is a crime punished with a maximum term of two years in prison, according to Article 296-1 of the Canadian Criminal Code, as well as the crime of « defamatory libel » (Article 298), which receives the same penalty (see Article 301). In the specific case of a "libel known to be false" (Article 300), the prison term increases to a maximum of five years. According to Article 298, a defamatory libel "is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published"[74].

The criminal portion of the law has been rarely applied. In the most recent case, in 1994 Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.[75]

According to a OSCE official report on defamation laws[when?], 57 persons in Canada were accused of defamation, libel and insult, among which 23 were convicted - 9 to prison sentences, 19 to probation and one to a fine. The average period in prison was 270 days, and the maximum sentence was 1460 days of imprisonment.

Canada, last time I checked, also "purported" to be a democracy.

ha ha ha ha. HA ha ha ha. Thanks for showing up.

Surprising to see someone here  sneering @ press freedom-is that what progressive means?