Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,656 posts)
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 06:15 PM Nov 2013

Is Bolivia the New Afghanistan, or Is O'Grady From The WSJ Delusional?

Is Bolivia the New Afghanistan, or Is O'Grady From The WSJ Delusional?
Posted: 11/04/2013 3:00 pm
Violeta Ayala.
Bolivian filmmaker

There are plenty of things to write about my country Bolivia, but I've never read something with more of an agenda that verges on delusional than this OpEd by Wall Street Journal Senior Journalist, Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

In her piece, Ms. O'Grady describes Bolivia as a rogue state and safe haven for terrorists.
She opens with Afghanistan, the brutal USSR occupation and Osama Bin Laden. Cue the thunder and oppressive music as Evo Morales enters stage left ... It seems the US propaganda machine is on the case again, this time with Bolivia in their sights because "something similar may be happening in Bolivia."

Now, my first question is how she can compare Evo Morales and Bolivia to Osama Bin Laden and Afganistan? Evo is the president of a sovereign nation, OBL was a leader of Al Qaeda who at one stage was hiding in Afghanistan and hunted by the CIA. It's like comparing the famous North American Indian leader Red Cloud to Obama, only Obama won and Osama lost.

Her eye-catching title reads, "Bolivia's decent into rogue state status," but what does that mean? A rouge state is a country that has broken international law and poses a threat to the security of other nations.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/violeta-ayala/is-bolivia-the-new-afghan_b_4214292.html

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is Bolivia the New Afghanistan, or Is O'Grady From The WSJ Delusional? (Original Post) Judi Lynn Nov 2013 OP
Beautiful concluding words in the O.P.: Judi Lynn Nov 2013 #1
She is entirely correct in a way Paolo123 Nov 2013 #2
more speculation from you. The Afganistan comparison is dumb but Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #3
Or Maybe Bechtel hopes to wrench the water rights from the people of Bolivia truedelphi Nov 2013 #4
That is history and a decision of another Bolivian leader Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #6
Are you serious? a la izquierda Nov 2013 #5
yes, I am serious. Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #7
Colombia and its "free expression." That's a hot one. Judi Lynn Nov 2013 #12
Oh, I am pretty well aware of problems in Colombia Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #13
You're aware of Colombia's problems? That's news to this forum. Judi Lynn Nov 2013 #14
thats because you don't keep up Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #17
Wow! You support a system in which the President would publicly rage Judi Lynn Nov 2013 #31
If you don't think Paolo123 Nov 2013 #8
No, I don't think the US under the Obama administration is looking for another war Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #9
The President backed down in part because only 17% of ALL truedelphi Nov 2013 #10
thats pretty much what I just said, he couldn't get out of that mess quick enough Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #11
He could have just not gotten into it in the first place. Paolo123 Nov 2013 #19
Nothing happened, he didn't get the US involved at all Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #20
I think we are remembering things differently Paolo123 Nov 2013 #21
We are since it was a near total lack of domestic support while some countries such as France Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #22
Well yes, lack of domestic support, too Paolo123 Nov 2013 #23
but he didn't and Syria is left to its fate n/t Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #24
That's like Paolo123 Nov 2013 #25
yep, using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is just like cheating on your wife. Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #26
What are you talking about? Paolo123 Nov 2013 #27
But Obama never attacked Syria Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #28
Good god. Paolo123 Nov 2013 #29
I agree too but I disagree with you that the US wants another war Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #30
I disagree Paolo123 Nov 2013 #15
ok, believe whatever you want n/t Bacchus4.0 Nov 2013 #18
There has to be some country weak enough for us to occupy permanently and exploit. bemildred Nov 2013 #16

Judi Lynn

(160,656 posts)
1. Beautiful concluding words in the O.P.:
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 06:19 PM
Nov 2013
So while people like O'Grady with an agenda continue to write publicly, I'll leave you with an old African proverb that says, "Until the lions have their own historians, the hunter will always be the hero."

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
2. She is entirely correct in a way
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 07:46 PM
Nov 2013

The war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. The US needs another war and needs to invent a rogue state. So, to a certain extent it certainly is the next Afghanistan.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
3. more speculation from you. The Afganistan comparison is dumb but
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:37 PM
Nov 2013

its Bolivia, and other leaders in the region, who need the US to be an enemy to cover up their internal government failings.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
4. Or Maybe Bechtel hopes to wrench the water rights from the people of Bolivia
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:54 PM
Nov 2013

Once again.

I'm sure there are other resources there for the taking as well.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
6. That is history and a decision of another Bolivian leader
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:16 PM
Nov 2013

a really bad decision. I believe Bolivia has quite a bit of mineral resources ands its their decision on how to exploit them. Morales talks the game of "Mother Earth" but doesn't walk the walk. He favored the new highway through a huge national park and indigenous lands. Its certainly up to Bolivia to decide on how to use their resources.

a la izquierda

(11,802 posts)
5. Are you serious?
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 08:54 PM
Nov 2013

The US has done everything to make itself an enemy for 100 years. Every leader NOT a fascist military dictator would likely agree with me on that, though probably not in public.

Try again.

You are in desperate, desperate need of a history class or a new path on over to a board on a more right-leaning path than this one. It seems as though all of South America has some sort of shortcoming in your book.

I'd love to know who makes your grade.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
7. yes, I am serious.
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:23 PM
Nov 2013

Why not look at a country like Peru? A leftist leader who has maintained amicable relations with the US while having a robust economy that addresses some of their social issues. Do you think that is a good thing? or do you prefer leaders just because they bash the US and wear red while their policies aren't any different from fascist military dictators?

Even Colombia has some more progressive policies with regards to drug decriminalization, free expression, and gay rights than some of those other "leftist" nations. If their policies are repressive rather than progressive then they don't make the grade.

Judi Lynn

(160,656 posts)
12. Colombia and its "free expression." That's a hot one.
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 11:21 PM
Nov 2013

You apparently don't see all the Colombian journalists who were murdered, or fled the country in fear for their lives after receiving more death threats than they could feel comfortable about, as any reflection on Colombia's "free expression."

You also don't seem to recall, even though it has been discussed here other times that Colombian journalists have told journalists from other countries they "self-censor" for self-defense, to keep from being murdered.

Also, remaining unacknowledged, is the fact Colombia's wildly popular, wildly beloved political comedian, Jaime Garzon, was assassinated, and after the investigation, taking years, during which time AUC narcotrafficker, Carlos Castano, publicly admitted he had set up the assassination himself. It didn't get tracked down until very recently, in a trial, that the original order came from the Colombian military, itself, even though it had been discussed, the object of speculation for years. The Colombian military had been one of his targets, too, in his comedy routines.

[center]

[/center]

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
13. Oh, I am pretty well aware of problems in Colombia
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 11:50 PM
Nov 2013

I suppose it would be just as well if the Colombian government would implement laws against citizens and the press to not say things that may cause "panic" in the population, cause "hate", or are contrary to socialist ideas and goals, or counterrevolutionary, or against public officials particularly the comandante. Those laws are probably for the benefit and protection of the people and press themselves lest they be offed by some pissed military official, police, or politicians.

Yeah, lets have those laws. That's what a real "leftist" government does.

Judi Lynn

(160,656 posts)
14. You're aware of Colombia's problems? That's news to this forum.
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 01:10 AM
Nov 2013

You've never acknowledged any of the hideous, wildly inhuman atrocities committed there by the right-wing, racist, murderous government, military, or its filthy paramilitaries who handled the massacres the government didn't want to be traced to it. You have acted specifically as a PR agent for the Colombian power structure with every word you've written here.

There's no way in the universe you'd get anyone to agree with you that the welfare of the "news" media in
Venezuela, and the freedom of the media people in Colombia are comparable. Nothing whatsoever in common.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
17. thats because you don't keep up
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 08:12 AM
Nov 2013

I acknowledged atrocities by the paramilitaries, the government, the FARC (and your sympathies to them), on going high level of violence, kidnappings, extortionf, etc. Of course I also acknowledge the gains over the last decade Colombia has made and you don't even though you post at least every week about another prosecution case against paramilitaries or military people which is demonstrative of a functioning justice system compared to say your beloved government next door.



And I agree that the Venezuelan and COlombian policies toward free expression and a free press are not comparable as Venezuela doesn't even maintain a pretense of allowing free expression against the government.

Judi Lynn

(160,656 posts)
31. Wow! You support a system in which the President would publicly rage
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 07:32 PM
Nov 2013

against various people he hated, and they would eventually get murdered! People who offended him would disappear, and later be discovered murdered.

His own secret service department, the D.A.S. chief was discovered during investigation to give lists of Uribe's enemies to the paramilitaries and they would suddenly cease to be.

I can't imagine the work involved in twisting up the facts to the degree you do. It must have taken years and years to develop your muscles to get the facts so wildly bent. And for what end? Who benefits? The same murdering whores who've been driving the greedy war machine all these years.

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
8. If you don't think
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:28 PM
Nov 2013

The US isn't looking for another war then you haven't been paying attention. There is no way they are just going to send all of those contractors home. Look how badly the US was itching for a war in Syria until Putin of all people became the peace maker.

They will find themselves another war.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
9. No, I don't think the US under the Obama administration is looking for another war
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:33 PM
Nov 2013

Did you notice how quickly the US backed off the threat to strike Syria after the overwhelming opposition from everywhere? Or didn't you notice? If keeping war contractors was a primary goal of the administration then we would have kept high troop levels in Iraq AND Afganistan? The administration's actions are contrary to what you say are their plans and goals.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
10. The President backed down in part because only 17% of ALL
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:44 PM
Nov 2013

Americans supported him.

Seventeen lousy percent. Even so, those of us in the know realize we have been fighting a war against the people of Syria, by arming the "rebels" who are Al Queda, and those actions go back at least 16 months.

Through his NDAA/PatriotAct/Surveillance Network, he has declared war on most Americans. We are no longer a free people.

The rule of law is broken, as under the Obama/Holder Doctrine, the banks write the laws. Steal trillions of dollars, and nothing happens.



Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
11. thats pretty much what I just said, he couldn't get out of that mess quick enough
Wed Nov 6, 2013, 09:55 PM
Nov 2013

Supporting Assad certainly isn't an option. Is it for you? So now you are worried about the "system", big brother, "the man". That's nothing new.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
20. Nothing happened, he didn't get the US involved at all
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:46 AM
Nov 2013

Syria's people are left to their own fate. That's what the world has pretty much decided.

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
21. I think we are remembering things differently
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:06 PM
Nov 2013

I recall him really wanting to get in, and the world telling him "we are sick of your bullshit invented wars"

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
22. We are since it was a near total lack of domestic support while some countries such as France
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:08 PM
Nov 2013

wanted to do the air strikes too. So, he never got the US involved.

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
25. That's like
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:27 PM
Nov 2013

Planning to cheat on your wife, but when she reads the texts and catches you and you decide not to do it pleading "But I didn't cheat!!!!"

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
26. yep, using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is just like cheating on your wife.
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:38 PM
Nov 2013

what so your upset that the US considered bombing Syria as punishment? If N. Korea sent a nuke over to S. Korea would you be upset if the US retaliated?

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
27. What are you talking about?
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:40 PM
Nov 2013

It's called an analogy. It's about WANTING to do something, getting called out, and then using the defense of "But I didn't do it".

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
28. But Obama never attacked Syria
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:49 PM
Nov 2013

like Assad is attacking his own people. There was no military action undertaken. No-one is willing to get involved. Are there any circumstances in your mind where US military involvement is justified? What if N. Korea launched a nuclear strike or even conventional attack on Syria? Would that be enough to trigger US intervention for you?

What if the DR invaded Haiti? how about that one?

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
29. Good god.
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:50 PM
Nov 2013

This is a circular argument. Yes there are times when military force is justified. Getting involved in civil wars halfway around the world is not one of them, in my opinion.

Bacchus4.0

(6,837 posts)
30. I agree too but I disagree with you that the US wants another war
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 12:53 PM
Nov 2013

to keep contractors employed or whatever your reasoning is.

 

Paolo123

(297 posts)
15. I disagree
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 01:29 AM
Nov 2013

They have to withdraw. Hell, The President has been dragging his feet on his promises of 5 years ago. Meanwhile they are looking for places to put them. Take a look at the massive base being built in Djibouti, and then there are smaller bases being built all over Africa. But It's still not enough. They need another war. The world told the US to fuck off on Syria, so now they will take another avenue.

O'Grady is just the first step.. the first person throwing the idea out there.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
16. There has to be some country weak enough for us to occupy permanently and exploit.
Thu Nov 7, 2013, 06:12 AM
Nov 2013

I'm sure the grunts will like living at 14000 feet.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Latin America»Is Bolivia the New Afghan...