MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Republicans promise head on battle with ‘dangerous’ Latam ‘autocrats’
The “dangerous behaviour” of the presidents of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador shows “an undeniable link between the decline of democratic freedoms and human rights and the increase of tangible risks to the security of our region,” said US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl), a Cuban-American lawmaker. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Republican Ros-Lehtinen should shut up. This cuban-american praised in the past every bloody dictator in latinoamerica.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chronicle Of Many Coups Foretold.......
Nov 19th, 2010 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a Warning !!!
Back to the Seventies.
But this time we will not make it so easy for them….
Developing and strengthening of Southamerican integration through Unasur and Mercosur.
Regulatory frameworks for our media, inspired on those used in France, Italy or Spain.
A sizeable reduction and cleansing of our armed forces from American trained officers and other anti democratic elements...............
Those should be the Latin American priorities for the next two years, before those “Nice democratic Republicans” return to power in Washington
Anyhow;...........Thanks for the Warning.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/main061110.html
Nov 19th, 2010 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0(3) Forgetit87
Nov 19th, 2010 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0When reading such articles, one, even a convinced antimilitarist as me, can not avoid the thought that Unasur must seriously consider to go ahead with the development of a ”Defensive Atomic Detente” weapon system.
Any other decision would be an act of irresponsibility against the interests of our People and Continent …..
Good idea. Both Brazil and Argentina have mastered the nuclear cycle for decades. In terms of technical knowledge, there's nothing that can preclude them from creating such kind of defense system.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Correct, the production technique of atomic weapons has been resolved by both our Countries many years ago…....
Nov 19th, 2010 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Questions are:
How best to deliver them…
Who will control the launching switches…
Which countries and under what conditions will be protectied by this “Umbrella”…
Ugly race they are forcing us to join..................
Marcos Alejandro - I am not agreeing with this woman, but who were the bloody dictators who have been in power since 1982? I ask only because until 1982 ,this woman was hardly known.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(7) Jerry
Nov 19th, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask so nicely that I will take the liberty of including a link to an article that describes some of the ”democratic” participants of the above mentioned meeting.
As you can read in the article, this gathering was supposed to be “quite private” if not secret….
A pitty that some “greasy commie Argentinean journalist pup” ruined it for them :-)
http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/terrorist-fest-set-for-wednesday-in-washington/
One of the blessings of modern days in comparison of the “lead 70's” is that, thanks the Internet, nobody can hide anymore back the “I didn't and couldn't know” excuse...
Seeing how the GOP-Tea Party's favorite cheerleader, Glenn Beck, tells his followers to “defend the republic against progressive democracy”, one wonders how Ros-Lehtinen defines “freedom and democracy” - Honduras, anyone?
Nov 19th, 2010 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/catholic-priest-details-ongoing-abuses-in-honduras
Thanks for the connection, but I believe very little of Telem´s “news”, and I do not read communist propaganda coming out of Cuba.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am an US citizen who is moving to South America to leave behind this kind of lunacy. I called the Congresswoman's Washington office just now and left a very clear message that her views are unwanted and are an outrage against real democracies everywhere. I suggest all US citizens call her office and protest her dangerous message. I also feel it's time for sympathetic Norte Americanos to consider forming Lincoln Brigades as well as to form Human Shield organizations to help to defend the targeted countries. The progress being made in South America must not be set back by the war mongering puppets in Washington.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(10) Lame excuse Jerry….
Nov 19th, 2010 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The article gives you Names, Dates and Places that would allow you to Google any information you may wish to have from any right, center, left, east, west, north or south based information source in the world………
As I said before: “ Nobody can hide anymore back the “I didn't and couldn't know” excuse...”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Rylang
Lincoln brigades….
Human shields…..
Maybe a tad romantic in 2010 but ….. who knows.
Anyhow, thanks for your actions and solidaric opinions….:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, to my special area of interest:
The Islas Malvinas and their Nato base in South America…
Your ”Special Relationship American Cousins” are doing an excellent job revealing their (and your) true colors and intentions once again.
Wonder how many of our threaten countries feel good about having an enemy base just offshore?
The Islas Malvinas and their Nato base in South America
Nov 19th, 2010 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It wasnt Nato that liberated the Falklands in 1982
Think And now, to my special area of interest:
Nov 19th, 2010 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islas Malvinas ......
You mean the british falklands islands, Remember the islands you cannot have. but hey, very soon you may have the Americans to worry about. So i suggest you cross your leggs fool.
For people like “Jerry” there are “good” and “bad” democracies, dictators, presidents, terrorists, media, grand-mothers, butchers, war criminals, etc. for him and the like, it all depends where they are with U.S or against U.S, Full stop
Nov 20th, 2010 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The title of this article should be:
Nov 20th, 2010 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The “dangerous behaviour” of Republican Ros-Lehtinen
•As the New York Times noted in July 1990, Ros-Lehtinen, together with Senator Connie Mack (Rep. Mack's father) and Jeb Bush “lobbied hard” in favor of the release of right-wing Cuban Orlando Bosch, a convicted terrorist that US officials believe to be responsible for dozens of bombings including the 1976 bombing of an airliner that killed 76 civilians. In a reversal of prior policy, the U.S. Justice Department released Bosch in Miami, where he remains free to this day.
Orlando Bosch bombed a passenger plane that killed 76 civilians, and this woman help to release him .
Who is that monster in the pic? Chávez was telling the truth, all the time. I didn't believe him then.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I don’t see how United States can continue saying we fight for freedom and democracy in the world and we don’t face Chavez head-on” Simply because you don't fight for freedom, Miss.
Funny…
Nov 20th, 2010 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where are suddenly all those ”intelligent” posters, always so preoccupied about democracy, self-determination and indigenous rights, when their “dear cousin and staunchest ally” loudly, officially and publicly shows what the Anglo-imperialistic mind is all about?
Face it guys……….... You are the baddies !
No “convincing excuses” for Iraq.
No “convincing excuses” for Afghanistan.
No “convincing excuses” for this Article.
Just pretend to ignore it…..
As you pretend to ignore the realities of Malvinas…..
Today I will leave Alfredo to talk about the “baddies”.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4TAOwNNmmI
Alfredo Zitarrosa....
Nov 20th, 2010 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Zitarrosa
Un YORUGA con puras mayúsculas....
(A ver editor, si me borrás por el “crimen” de hablar la verdad en castellano)
“No “convincing excuses” for Iraq.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No “convincing excuses” for Afghanistan.”
Iraq, no. But afghanistan? Absolutly. 9/11, Underground bombings. countless trys at other bombings which were foiled before 9/11.
“No “convincing excuses” for this Article.”
No excuse for something that isn't british has said? Oh yes, we are responcible for everything any person in the world we have diplomatic connections with.
From the UK, we apologise for what this American woman has said.
Better?
“As you pretend to ignore the realities of Malvinas”
Great post there Think, complaining about our lack of democracy while also promoting something utterly undemocratic.
Good on you!
“The Islas Malvinas and their Nato base in South America”
You aren't an idiot. So you know NATO has nothing to do with the south atlantic, which is why they were not involved in the last war.
If it were a NATO base you would have had all of nato sailing over along with us.
“Stick Up Your Junta”, “Briton” and “Zethee”…. The three young Muskeeturnips” defending the Queens honour :-)
Nov 20th, 2010 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The intelligent ones are surely enjoying their Essex summer cottages for the weekend :-)
“Think”.....The slightly older “turnip” avoiding any serious debate. :-)
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee.. you must remember that the War of the Islas Malvinas was fought before “coalitions of the willing” were overtly bought off. That war was conducted with the (almost) full support of the US. From Wikipedia - “According to a BBC documentary titled ”The Falklands War and the White House“[18], Caspar Weinberger's Department of Defense began a number of non-public actions to support and supply the British military while Haig's shuttle diplomacy was still ongoing. Haig's message to the Argentines was that the British would indeed fight, and that the U.S. would support Britain, but at the time he was not aware that the U.S. was providing support already.” Secret and direct support from the primary member of NATO to another member of NATO is in fact direct NATO support of that war action. US ships in Malvinas harbors are not necessary to prove it.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember, too, that NATO is in Afghanistan. It is a very small step to having NATO forces in the Malvinas. Please, do not be naive about this.
I can no other than fully concord with the words of Mr. Rylang23, an American comrade in thoughts…....
Nov 20th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Remember, too, that NATO is in Afghanistan. It is a very small step to having NATO forces in the Malvinas. Please, do not be naive about this.”
Nov 20th, 2010 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's lightyears away.
The US supported the UK because of the US/UK ties, it had NOTHING to do with NATO and there was NO nato support for the war.
By your own logic British being involved in the war would make it a NATO was as we are a part of NATO.
If the islands were in the north atlantic, it would have been a NATO operation, as it is not in the north, NATO has no juristriction there and has nothing to do with the situation at all.
Besides if that was a NATO operation would this not put France in direct conflict with Nato whilst aiding Argentina, no matter how small.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NATO is the north Atlantic treaty organisation, And has nothing to do with the Falklands conflict,, Argentina is also a member of an organisation, does this mean that all her allies were involved in the disputes, is not American a member of one of these groups with Argentina,
how then do you explain that one, no my friend, this was between the UK and Argentina, with help from our friends, as indeed you were helped with Russian technology and information, but never proved possibly, ????
The french also helped us Briton.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mmmmmm but why I may ask, did you know that the French updated the Etendard to super Etendard
Nov 20th, 2010 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 2009, the French are putting their friendship in two camps, but I suppose from there point of view who can blame them, after all 2 years ago we were not great friends, and now, the best of friends, how time changes , I found this today , its old but interesting mmmmm
http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/search/label/Argentine-Navy , do you think they will ever get there ???
Here they are, the peacemakers!
Nov 21st, 2010 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8610205.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8610205.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8610205.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8610205.stm
Yes they did briton, the world is not in absolutes. The war was a long time ago and the french(like us, especially us.) make money off upgrading/selling defence items to nations.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0However at the time of the war the french did help us.
And i disagree with you about two years ago we were not great friends, each nation has its up's and downs but we have had a very good relationship with france for a long time. The UK and Argentina actually have great diplomatic ties(apart from the islands), although you wouldn't notice it on this site.
Why can't we use the word “Warmonger”? Is there something wrong with Peace?
Nov 21st, 2010 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803931
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803931
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11803931
Right, well, the first one is about the people working on systems to stop nuclear attacks, how that is warmongering i don't get.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The last two are infact the same story, about a war that is currently in progress. Warmongering is the act of trying to cause a war.
War is the act of currently being involved in a war.
Learn the meaning of the word.
Warmonger=people who loves war. This is what I know about warmongers. Do you love peace or war? It's clear to me.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now you can eat your dictionary and swallow it :)
Zethee - you made my point for me in your comment “If the islands were in the north atlantic, it would have been a NATO operation, as it is not in the north, NATO has no juristriction there and has nothing to do with the situation at all.” I pointed out to you that NATO is in Afghanistan and that it would be an small step to be in the Malvinas. NATO has no reason to be in Afghanistan as its name implies - North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Afghanistan is light years away from the North Atlantic, but that hasn't stopped them from invading and occupying that country. What makes you think that NATO wouldn't just steam down the the South Atlantic to “do their business”? Please also consider that the US is basing 7000 troops and 46 warships in Costa Rica (http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/costa-rica/7000-us-marines-landing-the-beaches-costa-rica) and could be occupying 7 new bases in Columbia, and finding them in the South Atlantic is, like I said, a very small step.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“NATO has no reason to be in Afghanistan as its name implies - North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Afghanistan is light years away from the North Atlantic, but that hasn't stopped them from invading and occupying that country.”
Nov 21st, 2010 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should read more, it would save me answering questions to you when they are easily found out with a quick google search.
Afghanistan isn't, no. But the USA is. NATO's agreement is as such. In tthe north atlantic, any attack on one nation, is considered an attack on all nations.
9/11 was an attack on US soil, which is within NATO's paramiter. so NATO was called in.
Likewise, if Argentina would have attacked the UK mainland instead of the Falklands, it would have been a NATO responce. The falklands are out of NATO's jurisdiction and that's why there was no NATO responce.
”Now you can eat your dictionary and swallow it :)”
Not really, you didn't even come close to the definition.
Zethee (#)
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0. The UK and Argentina actually have great diplomatic ties(apart from the islands), Again correct, the people are ok but you get bad apples in every barrel, so a few argentine bloggers on here is the norm.
but as long as things remain as they are, the falklands will remain british.
“ any attack on one nation, is considered an attack on all nations.” said Zethee.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even if that imperialistic notion is at all valid and lawful, what the heck had Afghanistan or Iraq done against the Empire to be attacked anyway?
Would the self righteous Empire attack Mexico in the case some of its “bandidos”
destroy a bloody circus somewhere in the North? By the way most of the commentaries here are well out of topic.
so back on topic then.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The United States must cooperate with its partners in the region to fight “the decline of democratic freedoms and human rights
[the empire strikes back ? ]=
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11806957
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hellooo! The USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Remember?
The USA are the only ones that have done that.
How about just ending interference in other countries' businesses? Hypocrisy has no limits I guess.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11806957
“Even if that imperialistic notion is at all valid and lawful, what the heck had Afghanistan or Iraq done against the Empire to be attacked anyway?”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, there is no empire, secondly it's not only lawful, it's called NATO, it's a military alliance. They did not do anything to us(at first) they attacked america(9/11) which caused NATO to go to war against Afghanistan.
Iraq was just wrong.
@think
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”And now, to my special area of interest:
The Islas Malvinas and their Nato base in South America…
Your ”Special Relationship American Cousins” are doing an excellent job revealing their (and your) true colors and intentions once again.
Wonder how many of our threaten countries feel good about having an enemy base just offshore?”
Well they don't need to look too far to see who's to blame for the British military presence here do they think? that's right....Argentina, if you dropped your claim to the Falklands there would be no need for there to be a garrison here would there, the ball's in your court...
...and if you do believe that it's all a dastardly NATO plot then you won't get them off the Falklands by any means will you?
:-)
”Firstly, there is no empire, secondly it's not only lawful, it's called NATO, it's a military alliance. They did not do anything to us(at first) they attacked america(9/11) which caused NATO to go to war against Afghanistan.“ said zethee.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That ”there is no Empire“ is a subjective claim, the same I could say about the Roman Empire if needed, since the Romans had their own NATOs, aka their military alliances with other vasal ”countries“. And then: ” they attacked america“ , WHO exactly, Afghanistan? Permit me a laugh!! They and now you are telling me that Afghanistan attacked ”America“? Seriously? I've been told that Osama bin Laden did it, perhaps it's time to talk ”personally” with him, you only need to ask the CIA for his telephone number.
xbarilox (#)
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How about just ending interference in other countries' businesses? Hypocrisy has no limits I guess.
by your own words, why don’t Argentina leave the Falklands alone.
as for empires, their is no empires to day, we are well aware that some people consider that America has an empire in all but name,
but as we are talking about the Falklands and not the USA, if Argentina renounced their claim on the Falklands people before dec 25th, this could be the best Christmas present of peace [ever] what about it ??
“Afghanistan attacked ”America“? Seriously? I've been told that Osama bin Laden did it, perhaps it's time to talk ”personally” with him, you only need to ask the CIA for his telephone number.”
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Afghanistan did not attack America, a group of people within Afghanistan attacked america.
We are at war with them, we are not at war with the country of Afghanistan, we are working with and training the national Afghan army, not fighting them.
You already know the answers so why ask the stupid questions?
“That ”there is no Empire“ is a subjective claim”
No, it's a factual claim, the subjective claim is that America has an empire.
Talking about stupid, and you still want to believe yourself !!
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking about stupid, that didn't make sence.
Nov 24th, 2010 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He has to believe, that's what English and US history is all about. These are Zethee beliefs, this is how Zethee understands reality: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Double_Standard.gif
Nov 24th, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Afghan allies
Nov 25th, 2010 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!