Overnight, Bolivia has taken center stage in the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism in Latin America.
In a forceful move against the socialist centrist policies of Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, residents of Santa Cruz province, the country’s wealthiest, heeded the call of their Governor, Rubén Costas and last night seized control of Viru Viru airport, Bolivia’s busiest.…
Article comments
76 - gonzo marx
in other words, they sold out...became the Reaganites and followers of "trickle down" policies
fair enough...
but you hear it here first, and from yer gonzo
last week the first Boomer applied for Social Security
this silver tsunami is going to cause a sea change in American politics in the coming years as those Boomers eschew the GOP for their cost of living increases, healthcare and cheap college for the grandkids
Excelsior?
77 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thanks for the link, Marthe. But you really do need to learn to make a link live. Maybe Chris Rose can post a brief tutorial on it. Hey, if a dummy like me can do it, anyone can.....
78 - Dr Dreadful
Ruvy, MR: I think Chris has posted links to suggested HTML 'how-to' websites several times. Besides which, I think there is a little tutorial somewhere on the site (mostly for the benefit of the writers, but still - ).
I suppose it really isn't that much of a pain to copy and paste the URL into the address box... unless you're using one of those horrible old trackball mice [mouses?] with enough dust on it to start a simoom.
79 - moonraven
Only the folks on THIS site would complain because I cut and pasted a link to IMPORTANT INFO which clavos and company said was not available on ANY news sites.
I am NOT following some pinche tutorial to post.
If you don't like the FORM in which I post info, go back to being ignorant savages and reading folks like Nalle who never post any documentation for their bullshit.
Ungrateful gringos. Give you books and you chew the covers.
80 - gonzo marx
the bukkake lover gets her birdie creme rinse once again...
mr - you miss the point that not only is it polite to properly embed your links, but calling folks "ignorant" when you won't spend 2 minutes learning how to tag properly clearly demonstrates your own projection issues...among others...
this has been a public service announcement, had there been a real Emergency you would have been informed of how to place your head between your knees to kiss your ass goodbye...
Excelsior?
81 - Dr Dreadful
On a single road I use to get to work, I now have to pay at three different locations (the freeway, the Lane Cove tunnel and the harbour bridge/or harbour tunnel).
Stan, would it be cheaper for you to take the train, the bus or the ferry (or a combination) to work? Or is that not feasible because of your odd hours?
What you describe sounds like just one more reason why friends don't let friends drive in cities!
Anyone who's ever driven in downtown San Francisco (as I did this past weekend) knows what I mean.
82 - Christopher Rose
I have posted a link to a very clear and simple explanation of how to format a link several times but moonraven has always refused to trouble herself by acquiring the skill. I must confess to being a tad disappointed that someone with so varied a skill set declined to add one more to her portfolio.
Maybe she is really starting to be afraid of new ideas?
83 - Clavos
For those who don't speak Spanish, mr's two links (the ones which had to be coded for her) are NOT about seizure of the airport, which is the subject not only of the article, but also of my responses to Ruvy's inquiry.
The two links refer to the incidents at the Venezuelan consulate and the Cuban doctor's house. Neither even mentions (or links these incidents to) the situation at the airport.
84 - Dave Nalle
in other words, they sold out...became the Reaganites and followers of "trickle down" policies
Actually, I think Reagan came too soon after the 60s for them to become full-on Reaganites. I think they were still holding onto their illusions or at least some of them at that point.
On the other hand, it's possible that the disappointments of the Carter era followed by two factors of Reagan's presidency may ultimately have turned them.
During the Reagan era, Reagan's genial personality was very attractive to people who did not agree with him ideologically. It put an acceptable face on conservative policies. Also during that era, the housing crisis of the mid-80s had a very substantial impact on those in the middle class who were getting ready to buy their first houses. It instilled in them a materialism which made Republican policies attractive.
For me, the turning point was probably 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed the draft registration bill. I missed qualifying for it by one year, but it really pissed me off and showed me how basically illiberal the democrats were. Coming out of a background raised in a family where protesting the Vietnam war was de rigeur, having a democrat president open the door to a future draft was absolutely alienating. Carter's failed Iran policy also played a big role because of our family background in the diplomatic corps and in Iran. Allowing the Shah to fall and Iran to descend into chaos and theocracy was so utterly dismaying that I could never forgive the Democrats.
Of course, the things which drove me away from the democrats may be different from other folks because I've always been politically aware and active.
fair enough...
but you hear it here first, and from yer gonzo
last week the first Boomer applied for Social Security
I actually mentioned it last week, but it deserves repeating.
this silver tsunami is going to cause a sea change in American politics in the coming years as those Boomers eschew the GOP for their cost of living increases, healthcare and cheap college for the grandkids
I'm one of those boomers and I hope that economic pressures won't cause me to lose my principles. IMO the AARP is already one of the most destructive lobbies in America and I wouldn't want to become part of that rapacious me-first mentality.
Dave
85 - Lapdog
I can't imagine any sane human being bemoaning the fall of the Shah.
But for the nutters who enjoyed reading horror reports about his torture chambers it was no doubt disappointing.
86 - moonraven
Just another few quick ones:
1. Moonraven is a bird in your face. She has priorities for what she learns, and POLITELY linking is WAAAAAAAAAAAY at the bottom of the list. Especially since she is flying with luggage tomorrow and has had last minute visits and packing to do. She is just WAAAAAAAAAY busier than you pajama posters.
2. If Nalle was out there protesting when I was--which he was NOT-he was no more born in 1965 than my grandfather was. That was the year the major anti-war protests BEGAN--and they lasted for approximately 10 years. Amnesty Day for folks who left the US so as to avoid going to war, was in the spring of 1976.
I remember it well, as the US Army flew me back to Seattle just in time to give a speech there. Depending on what sign Nalle is, he would have been at most, 11.
[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]
3. clavos the ersatz journalist was caught with his pants down so he tried to pooh pooh the links to what happened with the dynamite bombs in Santa Cruz by saying that they bore no relationship to what happened to the airport.
Right.
The seditious governor's capers at the airport bear no relationship to the seditious governor's bombing capers at the Venezuelan consulate and the house of the cubano doctor.
Logic of clavos: The USA is not the USA.
Where do they GET you guys?
Five year olds are both smarter and more truthful.
87 - Lumpy
Seriously moonraven. Waht is wrong with u? Are you this not hateful face to face or do you associate with people in the real world who are somehow forced to put up with your behavior?
But I shouldn't complain. Your behaviour so completely discredits your views that u lose every argument as soon as you open your beak.
88 - Lapdog
Lumpy, why do you have a phobia about no-nonsense commentary. You need to get some healthy color in your liver. Try a daily dose of carrot/beet juice.
89 - Dave Nalle
I can't imagine any sane human being bemoaning the fall of the Shah.
Millions of Iranians do. For all his shortcomings and abuses, the Shah modernized the economy and made education available to a large number of people and the population as a whole benefited enormously from modernization and his generally liberal policies. Now most of those people are either imprisoned in Iran or have fled the country by the hundreds of thousands. The entire intellectual class there has ceased to exist under the new regime.
As for the Shah's abuses, the Theocrats killed about the same number of people as the Shah did in his 17 years in power in their first year in power when they purged the intellectual leadership of the country. If the Shah's transgressions were worse than those of the current government you'd have a point, but since they're both equally bad and the Shah also did many good things for the country and the people which the current regime has largely reversed, the Shah wins.
Dave
90 - moonraven
Nalle,
Apparently you have forgotten that I regularly spend time in Bahrain, which has plenty of Iranians from right next door--and they ALL hate9d) the shah.
How do you have the nerve to just MACKE UP this drivel that you write?
I think the one task I might bury the hatchet with the Comments Editor to do in tandem would be not to have you banned, but to have you COMMITTED.
91 - Clavos
"clavos the ersatz journalist was caught with his pants down so he tried to pooh pooh the links to what happened with the dynamite bombs in Santa Cruz by saying that they bore no relationship to what happened to the airport."
Now, you see, birdbrain, I didn't say that; what I said was "The two links refer to the incidents at the Venezuelan consulate and the Cuban doctor's house. Neither even mentions (or links these incidents to) the situation at the airport."
I actually think these incidents were related to the airport seizure, but not in the way you think they were.
My thoughts about them are more along the lines of the government forces being the perpetrators of those incidents to further stir up sentiment (and international press coverage) against the people of Santa Cruz.
92 - moonraven
Evidence for your wild claims?
You have never posted even a logical analysis for any of your wild claims. Much less documentation of proof.
Why would 3 events happening at essentially the same time with the same aim and the same style be done by antagonistic elements? Doesn't make sense. If it walks like a duck, quacks, etc.
You are simply trying to blame the victim. As usual. Because that's the only way your prejudice would have ANY connection with reality. I am not buying it.
And you should be ashamed for trying to peddle that "theory" on a public forum.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
93 - Lapdog
The majority of Iranians loathed the Shah.
The leader they democratically elected in 1951, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, was overthrown by the US and Britain and the Shah was installed as their murdering puppet. British and American companies took back control of Iran's oil production and profits, leaving the majority of the population
in poverty.
Responsibility for the horrors that followed lies at the feet of the UK and the US.
94 - moonraven
That's absolutely right.
They are the Axis of Evil.
Anything else is just bullshit.
95 - Christopher Rose
Whilst not wishing to go so far as to attempt to portray the British, or at least its then governments, as benign, it is certainly going too far to make the statement that the people themselves are malign.
I'm not entirely sure why this conversation has veered from Bolivia to Iran but with regard to the latter, a little historical context might make the actions of those in power at that time a little more comprehensible. As with many features of our contemporary political scene, the roots lie in events before, during and after the last world war. Hopefully we will never see another one of them.
From Wikipedia: From the Pahlavi era to the Iranian Revolution (1921 - 1979)
With the rise of modernization and encroachment of stronger Western powers in the late nineteenth century came the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911. Reformers hoped the constitution would strengthen Iran against Imperial Russia and Britain by centralizing and modernizing it. Ultimately the constitution became law, but its provisions were seldom followed during most of its history.
In 1921, an army officer Reza Khan of Mazandarani and Persian descent (known as Reza Shah after assuming the throne) staged a coup against the weakened Qajar dynasty. An autocrat and supporter of modernization, Reza Shah initiated the development of modern industry, railroads, and establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance the influence of Russia and Britain by seeking out assistance and technology from European powers traditionally not involved in Iranian affairs, but when World War II started his closeness to Germany alarmed allied powers Russia and Britain, Germany's enemies.
In summer of 1941 Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to prevent Iran from allying with the Axis powers. The Allies occupied Iran, securing a supply line to Russia, Iran's petroleum infrastructure, and forced the Shah to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves.
In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power.
In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
The CIA faced many setbacks, but the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.
Iranians were hired to protest Mossadegh and fight pro-Mossadegh demonstrators. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost three hundred dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power greatly strengthened and his rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini, who was popular in religious circles, was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months.
After his release in 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.
And there we have it; I get the impression that once again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I wish some of our more extreme political figures would take that on board.
96 - Dave Nalle
It's the law of unintended consequences, Christopher. Or 'no good deed goes unpunished'. But contrary to what Lapdog and others here are saying, the population of Iran was not hostile to America during the Shah's reign - quite the opposite. It was a period of intense friendship and cooperation between the two countries and Iran flourished economically and intellectually as it never had before.
When the Shah was removed from power there was a huge diaspora of Iranians and Iranian Jews from Iran and mostly to the US, including a large portion of their skilled and educated classes. These people overwhelmingly supported the Shah and feared reprisals from the new government, which killed 3000 of them and imprisoned many more almost immediately on taking office.
Despite our role in putting the Shah in power, the US directed huge amounts of money and resources to the country, largely to the benefit of its people. My father was the director of the Iran America Society, which played a large role in providing education and opportunities to young Iranians which they had never had before. My family lived in Iran during this period, and while there was certainly fear of SAVAK, plenty of people knew that the alternative would not have been any better and could have been much worse.
Frankly, the US and Britain did everything they could to make sure that Iran prospered under the Shah, which was to our advantage as well, but certainly greatly to the advantage of the people of Iran. Western guilt is as powerful a weapon for good as Western fear is for harm.
Today I've got friends and relatives in the Iranian exile community and the current situation there has affirmed clearly for them that the Shah was the 'good old days'.
Dave
97 - Dave Nalle
Apparently you have forgotten that I regularly spend time in Bahrain, which has plenty of Iranians from right next door--and they ALL hate9d) the shah.
Given that they are almost certainly supporters of and beneficiaries of the current regime, that's not at all surprising. Just like the fattening bureaucrats and socialist overlords of Venezuela love Chavez despite the fact that the people are being increasingly oppressed while they are enriched.
Dave
98 - Dave Nalle
2. If Nalle was out there protesting when I was--which he was NOT-he was no more born in 1965 than my grandfather was.
True enough. I was born well before 1965 and my grandfather was born in 1888.
That was the year the major anti-war protests BEGAN--and they lasted for approximately 10 years. Amnesty Day for folks who left the US so as to avoid going to war, was in the spring of 1976.
And I was living in DC at the time and had been on numerous marches with my parents between 67 and 1972, as well as attending fundraisers for McCarthy. We didn't go to any protests in 65 or 66 because we were out of the country.
Dave
99 - Christopher Rose
I'd call it the law of interfering in other people's affairs is always a bad idea myself, Dave. I find your version of the story far too subjective personally.
100 - moonraven
Nalle,
If the Iranians in Bahrain were so supportive of the current regime they would have returned there.
Duh.
For Nalle 2 plus 2 is always still 2.
101 - Dave Nalle
I'd call it the law of interfering in other people's affairs is always a bad idea myself,
Well, that might be a good one, but it's not as catchy as the old standards I brought up. Perhaps the MYOB rule...
Dave. I find your version of the story far too subjective personally.
Well sure it's subjective. I'm personally invested in the dream of a middle-class, educated Iran which flourished briefly under the Shah. There certainly could have been a better government in Iran instead of the Shah, but there wasn't, and it's only gotten worse since then.
Dave
102 - moonraven
Nalle can't even get a visa to visit Iran, but he is PERSONALLY INVESTED?
Megalomania from a rusted out trailer in West Texas.
Just what we need as the arbiter and fomenter of discussion on this forum.
103 - moonraven
This thread is dead because clavos refused to post current info since it makes his anti-Morales position into being a shill for Bush.
I willpost further info on the Chavez thread.
104 - STM
There is no doubt the Shah was a ratbag and his instruments of state control were the kind of thing you'd expect to see among the military dictators of south america: Pinochet, Galtieri and their ilk.
True, the alternative for the Iranian people hasn't been much better - although part of their suffering came from having to fight a war of survival that cost millions of lives, against Saddam Hussein's Iraq (at that time supported financially and militarily by the US).
It's telling isn't it? Support for the Shah's methods of state control and support for Saddam might go some way to explaining Iran's intransigence in its dealings with the United States and the West in general.
However, Americans should understand that Iran is a democracy - they might not like the outcome of the polls, but the current government was voted in fair and square, and if it gets any more unpopular in Iran than it is, it will likely be turfed out on its head fair and square.
Islam and democracy need not be mutually exclusive. In this regard, they are a legitimate government, no matter how the west views them. I say in this case, talk isn't cheap even if Bushco find it unpalatable ... it's the only answer. Our intransigence makes us all complicit in whatever outcomes unfold as a result of it.
105 - Franco
#99 " Christopher Rose
I'd call it the law of interfering in other people's affairs is always a bad idea myself, Dave.
Would that include say, Sudan and Durfar, or where exactly would you draw the line, and why?
106 - Dave Nalle
Nalle can't even get a visa to visit Iran, but he is PERSONALLY INVESTED?
I've been considering a family ski trip to Iran, but not until things calm down a bit. If you read some of my earlier comments you'd know that I have Iranian relatives (by marriage), as well as business associates and friends from Iran. Plus as you may recall I lived there as a kid, so yes I have a personal connection to the country that's a bit more meaningful than just a desire to incorporate it into a grand neo-marxist alliance against the US.
Dave
107 - Christopher Rose
I'd say that history has shown that on balance the impulse to interfere in other countries affairs has done more harm than good.
Obviously what's going on in Sudan and Darfur is terrible but my remarks were made in the context of a broader historical view rather than a specific instance.
If you refer back to the Wikipedia information I posted, the roots of the situation we face today are clearly depicted.
108 - moonraven
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
STM makes a good point that Iran is a democracy.
Unlike the US, which some on this site view as a BENEVOLENT dictatorship based on their fanatical belief that Lonesome George is actualy looking out for their interests, and which savvier folks see for the tyranny and despotism he manifests.
109 - moonraven
The infantiley destructive antics of the US-backed governors of Santa Cruz and company were hoist on their own petard.
Evo indicated yesterday that there will be a 50% cut in their gas taxes at the governor level--with that tax going to the municipalities instead as part of a program of in-depth development.
110 - Franco
The opposition-run Bolivian Senate repelled Thursday Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's "serious meddling" for his warning against a "machine-gun Vietnam" if his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales were overthrown or killed.
Bolivian Senate refuses Chávez's "serious meddling"
111 - Zedd
Franco,
Darfur is IN Sudan. Saying Darfur AND Sudan is like saying Tuscan AND Italy. :o)
112 - Zedd
that's Tuscany...
113 - Franco
Zedd
Yes, just like Caracas, Venezuela or Los Angeles Calif. You assume that I am confused about this, I'm not.
114 - REMF
"Megalomania from a rusted out trailer in West Texas."
- moonraven
Actually it's a fortified compound.
115 - moonraven
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Franco failed to excise the word OPPOSITION from his post about the Bolivian Senate. Of course the OPPOSITION shoots off its mouth about Chavez. Lots of CIA money in the US Embassy in La Paz, of course, is NOT INTERFERENCE?
How stupid and gullible can you be--and not be dead already?