Morales leest blank rechts de les - Pagina 3

Lof der Zotheid · 1 februari 2006, 21:52

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kaal

Het is idd zo dat de kleine minderheid "blanke" zuid-amerikanen tot voor kort de plak zwaaiden en de indianen over het algemeen onderdrukt hebben maar pas op met die Rogoberta Menchu : het is gebleken dat haar boek van A tot Z verzonnen was. Dit wil niet zeggen dat wat erin staat nergens gebeurt, maar wel dat zij het zelf niet heeft meegemaakt.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rigoberta-mench

Uw bron toont enkel aan dat er een controverse is ontstaan betreffende het verhaal van Menchú door middel vna David Stoll. Onomstotelijke bewijzen heeft hij niet, enkel vermoedens en beschuldigingen. Hoe dan ook, Menchú's boek is een uitstekende illustratie van de toestanden in Guatemala tussen 1955 en 1990.

Jaani_Dushman · 2 februari 2006, 00:46

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

Grootste drugleverancier van de wereld...

Is dat niet Afganistan?

democratsteve · 2 februari 2006, 01:01

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jaani_Dushman

Is dat niet Afganistan?

Right.
En wie runt Afghanistan?
Wie zorgt dat al die troep buiten geraakt?

Vanaf dag één heb ik de War on Terror vergeleken met de War on Drugs.
Iemand met enig inzicht in de manier waarop de "oorlog" tegen drugs wordt gevoerd, had veel sneller door dat de War on Terror "a bogus" (om het met Meacher's woorden te zeggen) was.

Nierika · 2 februari 2006, 10:37

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

Voorbeeldig wat de blanken in Bolivië uitgehaald hebben: veertig jaar burgeroorlog...
Grootste drugleverancier van de wereld...etc

Het zal de indianen niet moeilijk vallen het net iets beter te doen.

De helft van de Boliviaanse bevolking is van Quechua of Aymara afkomst, indianen dus. Tien procent is van Spaanse afkomst, de overige veertig procent is van gemengde Spaans-indiaanse afkomst (mestizos). Dus zo blank... is je Bolivia niet.
En om de blijkbaar goedkope titel "grootste drugleverancier" zal toch wel gewedijverd worden tussen Afghanistan of Colombia zeker?

Nierika · 2 februari 2006, 10:41

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door eno2

En overigens verhopen en verwachten we in Noord-Amerika ook de terugkeer van de Cherokee-Nation...

Hoeveel Cherokee denk je daar nog van te kunnen overtuigen? Good luck!

Nierika · 2 februari 2006, 10:43

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door democratsteve

Right.
En wie runt Afghanistan?
Wie zorgt dat al die troep buiten geraakt?

Vanaf dag één heb ik de War on Terror vergeleken met de War on Drugs.
Iemand met enig inzicht in de manier waarop de "oorlog" tegen drugs wordt gevoerd, had veel sneller door dat de War on Terror "a bogus" (om het met Meacher's woorden te zeggen) was.

Als je het boek "de Taliban" leest, van Ahmed Rashid, een Pakistaanse journalist die als enige bij de Taliban werd gedoogd en derhalve hun enige biografie mocht schrijven, zul je gauw weten wie er drugs verhandelde in Afghanistan:

De Taliban natuurlijk.

Dat de Amerikanen tot nog toe niet veel papavervelden verbrand hebben is goed mogelijk, het beetje steun dat ze binnen Afghanistan genieten zou smelten als de zon als ze de enige bron van inkomsten van ganse streken wegnemen.
Fervente America-bashers zullen daar natuurlijk meteen uit opmaken dat Amerika nu de drugsmarkt in Afghanistan heeft overgenomen. Iemand die zijn emoties wat beter onder controle weet te houden en dus niet lijdt aan een door tranen vertroebeld zicht, zal dit beter weten in te schatten. Het is maar hoe je het bekijt.
Vanuit jouw emotioneel standpunt heb je natuurlijk gelijk!

Kaal · 2 februari 2006, 11:09

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cynikus

Uw bron toont enkel aan dat er een controverse is ontstaan betreffende het verhaal van Menchú door middel vna David Stoll. Onomstotelijke bewijzen heeft hij niet, enkel vermoedens en beschuldigingen. Hoe dan ook, Menchú's boek is een uitstekende illustratie van de toestanden in Guatemala tussen 1955 en 1990.

Dat is gewoon een link die ik gauw opgezocht heb op het Net. Ik had dat echter al jaren geleden gelezen, in de geschreven pers (vraag mij niet welke krant).

Het verandert niets aan de grond van de zaak, hé (De toestanden in Guatemala zijn genoeg bekend), ik wou je er gewoon op wijzen dat die mevrouw niet betrouwbaar is.

Ambiorix · 2 februari 2006, 12:40

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nierika

Hoeveel Cherokee denk je daar nog van te kunnen overtuigen? Good luck!

"ironie"

Lof der Zotheid · 2 februari 2006, 13:26

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kaal

Dat is gewoon een link die ik gauw opgezocht heb op het Net. Ik had dat echter al jaren geleden gelezen, in de geschreven pers (vraag mij niet welke krant).

Het verandert niets aan de grond van de zaak, hé (De toestanden in Guatemala zijn genoeg bekend), ik wou je er gewoon op wijzen dat die mevrouw niet betrouwbaar is.

Ik heb dat drie jaar geleden ook ergens gelezen. Het is inderdaad een feit dat Rigoberta Menchú nogal omstreden is...

democratsteve · 2 februari 2006, 16:23

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nierika

Als je het boek "de Taliban" leest, van Ahmed Rashid, een Pakistaanse journalist die als enige bij de Taliban werd gedoogd en derhalve hun enige biografie mocht schrijven, zul je gauw weten wie er drugs verhandelde in Afghanistan:

De Taliban natuurlijk.

!

Hahahahahaahahahhaah.
Meestal zijn je posts goed, maar hier sla je de bal wel erg mis.
Tentijde van de Taliban was er nauwelijks nog produktie.
Weet je niet meer dat de Taliban in 2001 nog een hoop geld hebben gekregen van Powell omdat ze het zo goed deden in hun strijd tegen drugs??

Iedere ernstige analist, (er is genoeg over geshreven in de mainstream pers) weet dat de produktie sinds de val van de taliban een VEELvoud is van wat het was.
En ja, het zijn de Amerikanen (cia) die met hulp van lokale warlords via Pakistan de handel exporteren.
Ik heb 10 jaar lang verslag uitgebracht van hun War on Drugs, dus mij kom je over die oorlog niets meer wijsmaken hoor.

democratsteve · 3 februari 2006, 17:32

Hier een update over de situatie in Afghanistan sinds de VS er "democratie" heeft gebracht.

MIKE WHITNEY | February 3 2006

Five years after toppling the fanatical Taliban, Hamid Karzai is expected to sign an agreement for economic assistance from more than 60 donor countries. The Afghanistan Compact is just the latest of many plans to restore security to the war-torn nation and revive the fragile economy. It is a poignant reminder that the Bush administration's promises to rebuild the country and establish democracy have never been realized.

Afghanistan has been a policy disaster from the get-go. The country is ravaged by war and unemployment, security beyond the capital of Kabul is virtually nonexistent, and malnutrition rates among children are higher than they are anywhere other than sub-Saharan Africa. Now, Karzai, who has seen his funding from the US slashed year after year, is forced to take his begging bowl to the world community; asking for the crumbs they can spare to bandage his failed-state together.

Afghanistan excels in one thing alone; the production and export of opium, a booming business which now provides 90% of the world's heroin.

Is this what Bush had in mind when he promised Americans to rebuild and democratize the battle-scarred country; a modern-day drug-colony, occupied by legions of indifferent volunteers who rarely venture beyond their US controlled compounds?

His promise of a Marshall Plan was similar to all of Bush's promises; just more hot air hissssssing from a punctured tire.

After overthrowing the Taliban Bush made this commitment to the people of Afghanistan:

"We know that true peace will only be achieved when we give the Afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirationsWe're working hard in Afghanistan. We're clearing minefields. We're rebuilding roads. We're improving medical care. And we will work to help Afghanistan to develop an economy that can feed its people without feeding the world's demand for drugsBy helping to build an Afghanistan that is free from this evil and is a better place in which to live, we are working in the best traditions of George Marshall. Marshall knew that our military victory against enemies in World War II had to be followed by a moral victory that resulted in better lives for individual human beings."

"Marshall Plan?" "Building roads?" "Improving medical care?" "Developing the economy?"

Bush's penchant for hyperbole has not been lost on the Afghani people.

"The new Afghan government promised us new schools, clinics, water pumps, but it has done nothing at all. People are so disappointed. At least the Taliban would grade the roads, build madras's, while this government has done nothing," said Nyamatullah, Zabul tribal leader.

"This government has done nothing" is a fitting summary of the Afghanistan failure. The Bush administration had no intention of rebuilding or democratizing the country, rather the full thrust of the American effort has been to paper-over the obvious deficiencies of the policy with glowing media reports. The western media has done an impressive job in convincing the American people that progress is being made in Afghanistan when, in fact, the country continues to languish in destitution and chaos.

On a recent trip, Secretary Rumsfeld said that Afghanistan was "a model" of a growing democracy.

"A model"?

The majority of the new Afghan Parliament is comprised of warlords and ex-Taliban fighters reintegrated into the system by a reconciliation program endorsed by the United States. This has weakened the central government and ensured that the countryside has remained under the control of the regional warlords. American puppet, Karzai has no power beyond the capital and must be protected by 40 to 50 U.S. paid bodyguards wherever he goes.

Is this Rumsfeld's model of democracy?

Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is equally disingenuous in her praise of Afghanistan's strides towards democracy:

"The transformation of Afghanistan is remarkable but incomplete, and it is essential that we all increase our support for the Afghan people."

There's been no "transformation" of Afghanistan. As the New York Times reports, "Afghanistan does not have a viable economy. Its government is largely reliant on foreign aid (while) it struggles with an insurgency" "The country of 25 million people has some of the worst economic and health indicators in the world. 6 million people rely on food aid, 80% of the people are illiterate, and there is virtually no industry."

In the last year the resurgent Taliban have increased their attacks, further destabilizing areas in the south and prompting President Karzai to publicly announce that he would provide amnesty for Taliban chieftain Mullah Omar.

Have him "get in touch" if he wants to talk peace, Karzai said.

Karzai's remarks show us how far we have come from the swagger and bravado of George Bush who promised to capture Omar "dead or alive"? Now even Bin Laden's closest allies are being offered amnesty in an effort to quell the violence.

What does that say about the administration's claim that "We will never bargain with terrorists"?

Afghanistan is Bush's dystopia, a failed narco-state run by American puppets, Islamic fundamentalists and human rights abusers. The corporate media has done the American people a grave disservice by characterizing this drug-dependent settlement as a burgeoning democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Karzai regime has no popular mandate and will vanish in the first hours after the American occupation ends.

And, it should end immediately.

Like Iraq, American troops have become the catalyst for hostilities; the focus of blame for the country's grim predicament. The recent incident of American servicemen burning the corpses of dead Taliban soldiers has only exacerbated the tensions that exist between the native Muslims and the Christian occupiers. The cultural divisions, and the violence they incite, are the inevitable upshot of the imperial project.

The invasion of Afghanistan was sold to the American people by a silver-tongued executive and a battery of public relations fraudsters. 5 years later we can see that all the hype about "democratic revolution" and "liberation" was just baseless twaddle. The country is a basket-case and "ranks among the half-dozen poorest countries in the world". "with the highest level of malnutrition in the world at 70%." (Jim Lobe)

This is Bush's definition of success; endless bloodshed surrounded by grinding poverty.

The Bush administration will never rebuild Afghanistan. In fact, they are ideologically opposed to "nation building" as a waste of revenue that can be siphoned off to multinational corporations. So, too, they are against any form of governance that does not conform to the economic diktats of the central banks and their satellites at the IMF, World Bank, and the Federal Reserve.

Afghanistan illustrates the shortcomings of a foreign policy that depends entirely on war to achieve its objectives. Neither peace nor security can be achieved under occupation. America needs to withdraw its troops so that sovereignty can be restored, order can be reestablished, and the long march towards economic recovery can begin.

3 februari 2006, 17:32	#51
democratsteve Minister-President Geregistreerd: 29 oktober 2002 Locatie: Turkije Berichten: 4.785	Hier een update over de situatie in Afghanistan sinds de VS er "democratie" heeft gebracht. MIKE WHITNEY \| February 3 2006 Five years after toppling the fanatical Taliban, Hamid Karzai is expected to sign an agreement for economic assistance from more than 60 donor countries. The Afghanistan Compact is just the latest of many plans to restore security to the war-torn nation and revive the fragile economy. It is a poignant reminder that the Bush administration's promises to rebuild the country and establish democracy have never been realized. Afghanistan has been a policy disaster from the get-go. The country is ravaged by war and unemployment, security beyond the capital of Kabul is virtually nonexistent, and malnutrition rates among children are higher than they are anywhere other than sub-Saharan Africa. Now, Karzai, who has seen his funding from the US slashed year after year, is forced to take his begging bowl to the world community; asking for the crumbs they can spare to bandage his failed-state together. Afghanistan excels in one thing alone; the production and export of opium, a booming business which now provides 90% of the world's heroin. Is this what Bush had in mind when he promised Americans to rebuild and democratize the battle-scarred country; a modern-day drug-colony, occupied by legions of indifferent volunteers who rarely venture beyond their US controlled compounds? His promise of a Marshall Plan was similar to all of Bush's promises; just more hot air hissssssing from a punctured tire. After overthrowing the Taliban Bush made this commitment to the people of Afghanistan: "We know that true peace will only be achieved when we give the Afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirationsWe're working hard in Afghanistan. We're clearing minefields. We're rebuilding roads. We're improving medical care. And we will work to help Afghanistan to develop an economy that can feed its people without feeding the world's demand for drugsBy helping to build an Afghanistan that is free from this evil and is a better place in which to live, we are working in the best traditions of George Marshall. Marshall knew that our military victory against enemies in World War II had to be followed by a moral victory that resulted in better lives for individual human beings." "Marshall Plan?" "Building roads?" "Improving medical care?" "Developing the economy?" Bush's penchant for hyperbole has not been lost on the Afghani people. "The new Afghan government promised us new schools, clinics, water pumps, but it has done nothing at all. People are so disappointed. At least the Taliban would grade the roads, build madras's, while this government has done nothing," said Nyamatullah, Zabul tribal leader. "This government has done nothing" is a fitting summary of the Afghanistan failure. The Bush administration had no intention of rebuilding or democratizing the country, rather the full thrust of the American effort has been to paper-over the obvious deficiencies of the policy with glowing media reports. The western media has done an impressive job in convincing the American people that progress is being made in Afghanistan when, in fact, the country continues to languish in destitution and chaos. On a recent trip, Secretary Rumsfeld said that Afghanistan was "a model" of a growing democracy. "A model"? The majority of the new Afghan Parliament is comprised of warlords and ex-Taliban fighters reintegrated into the system by a reconciliation program endorsed by the United States. This has weakened the central government and ensured that the countryside has remained under the control of the regional warlords. American puppet, Karzai has no power beyond the capital and must be protected by 40 to 50 U.S. paid bodyguards wherever he goes. Is this Rumsfeld's model of democracy? Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is equally disingenuous in her praise of Afghanistan's strides towards democracy: "The transformation of Afghanistan is remarkable but incomplete, and it is essential that we all increase our support for the Afghan people." There's been no "transformation" of Afghanistan. As the New York Times reports, "Afghanistan does not have a viable economy. Its government is largely reliant on foreign aid (while) it struggles with an insurgency" "The country of 25 million people has some of the worst economic and health indicators in the world. 6 million people rely on food aid, 80% of the people are illiterate, and there is virtually no industry." In the last year the resurgent Taliban have increased their attacks, further destabilizing areas in the south and prompting President Karzai to publicly announce that he would provide amnesty for Taliban chieftain Mullah Omar. Have him "get in touch" if he wants to talk peace, Karzai said. Karzai's remarks show us how far we have come from the swagger and bravado of George Bush who promised to capture Omar "dead or alive"? Now even Bin Laden's closest allies are being offered amnesty in an effort to quell the violence. What does that say about the administration's claim that "We will never bargain with terrorists"? Afghanistan is Bush's dystopia, a failed narco-state run by American puppets, Islamic fundamentalists and human rights abusers. The corporate media has done the American people a grave disservice by characterizing this drug-dependent settlement as a burgeoning democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Karzai regime has no popular mandate and will vanish in the first hours after the American occupation ends. And, it should end immediately. Like Iraq, American troops have become the catalyst for hostilities; the focus of blame for the country's grim predicament. The recent incident of American servicemen burning the corpses of dead Taliban soldiers has only exacerbated the tensions that exist between the native Muslims and the Christian occupiers. The cultural divisions, and the violence they incite, are the inevitable upshot of the imperial project. The invasion of Afghanistan was sold to the American people by a silver-tongued executive and a battery of public relations fraudsters. 5 years later we can see that all the hype about "democratic revolution" and "liberation" was just baseless twaddle. The country is a basket-case and "ranks among the half-dozen poorest countries in the world". "with the highest level of malnutrition in the world at 70%." (Jim Lobe) This is Bush's definition of success; endless bloodshed surrounded by grinding poverty. The Bush administration will never rebuild Afghanistan. In fact, they are ideologically opposed to "nation building" as a waste of revenue that can be siphoned off to multinational corporations. So, too, they are against any form of governance that does not conform to the economic diktats of the central banks and their satellites at the IMF, World Bank, and the Federal Reserve. Afghanistan illustrates the shortcomings of a foreign policy that depends entirely on war to achieve its objectives. Neither peace nor security can be achieved under occupation. America needs to withdraw its troops so that sovereignty can be restored, order can be reestablished, and the long march towards economic recovery can begin.