Colombia: Santos wins presedential vote by 70%

[Das war einmal]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-31/santos-crushes-rival-in-colombia-presidential-vote-update1-.html

Any critical background?

[The Vegan Marxist]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-31/santos-crushes-rival-in-colombia-presidential-vote-update1-.html

Any critical background?

I'd consider that fucker as a neo-fascist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqVLWeK3QjY&feature=player_embedded

[Scary Monster]

^^Yes. Colombia is still under imperial control of the US. The US would never sit by and allow a leftist politician to come to power, threatening a strategic foothold in south america, as well as another source of cheap labor.

[RedSonRising]

Santos is a prick. The general opinion among voters was that he was the more experienced, and while his opponent, Mockus, had good ideas for social/civil matters such as health and education, lacked experience. It was more or less a similar dynamic to the McCain-Obama presidential race in the US, except that the atrocities of the prevalent right-wing regime of Uribe of the past term were hidden from view, while his entire platform was built on fighting the FARC as a popular initiative, instead of the unpopular war on terror leading people to pick democrat after a tiresome republican idiot leading the country.

We should see more of the same imperialist cooperation with the United States from Santos, continuing the support of the repression of labor activism and the dominance of elite interests over those of social benefit to the lower classes.

[Guerrilla22]

Any critical background?

Santos was Defense Minister under Uribe that pretty much says it all.

[~Spectre]

Santos is probably to the right of your average Mafia boss when it comes to the use of violence.

There's a lot of details to show how much of a gangster the guy is, but I am le tired.

FWIW though: regardless of his murderous tendencies, he's still on the U.S. payroll, so that will be the agenda that gets priority.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Santos will be a hollow victory for imperialism. Why, you ask? Well...

If you want to succeed as a fascist down south you gotta be guapo as fuck to get away with it.

Join me in a little compare y contrast, amigos.

YES:
http://www.ufctogo.com/IMG/jpg/pinochet-b.jpg http://www.biographicon.com/images/Alfredo_Stroessner_military.jpg http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/media/4/45/jperon.jpg http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/alvaro-uribe.jpg

FAIL:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Videla-PRN.jpg http://vivirlatino.com/i/2007/06/fujimori.jpg http://venezuelanalysis.com/files/imagecache/block_node_images/images/2008/01/Pedro_Carmona_durante_golpe_Chavez_2002.jpg http://www.psywarrior.com/noriega2x.jpg

So then, Senor Santos?
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/21/1277102550702/Juan-Manuel-Santos-delive-006.jpg

UR DOING IT WROGN!!!!

[praxis1966]

^^Yes. Colombia is still under imperial control of the US. The US would never sit by and allow a leftist politician to come to power, threatening a strategic foothold in south america, as well as another source of cheap labor.

Ever hear of Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales? Perhaps Michelle Bachelet? No? Oh well. That's too bad.

[Crux]

Colombia is a different ballgame though. look at what happened to barely-left of center president Zelaya of Honduras.

[Usui]

Santos will be a hollow victory for imperialism. Why, you ask? Well...

If you want to succeed as a fascist down south you gotta be guapo as fuck to get away with it.

Did you just.. call Pinochet a fascist? "Repressive dictator" doesn't necessarily mean "fascist".

[Proletarian Ultra]

Did you just.. call Pinochet a fascist? "Repressive dictator" doesn't necessarily mean "fascist".

Oh, come on Donny, they were threatening castration! Are we gonna split hairs here?

[Usui]

Oh, come on Donny, they were threatening castration! Are we gonna split hairs here?

Just saying, man. Throwing 'fascist' around like it was nothing is just as bad as when Glenn Beck calls Obama a Maoist or something. Gotta call 'em like they are, not like you see them.

[Scary Monster]

Colombia is a different ballgame though. look at what happened to barely-left of center president Zelaya of Honduras.

Exactly


Ever hear of Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales? Perhaps Michelle Bachelet? No? Oh well. That's too bad.

Ever hear that Colombia is not Venezuela or Bolivia? Or how Chavez has survived numerous assassination attempts by US-backed groups as a price for holding onto his power (thus my "..the US would never sit by.." statement)? No? Oh well. Thats too bad. Ass.
:lol:

[scarletghoul]

Just saying, man. Throwing 'fascist' around like it was nothing is just as bad as when Glenn Beck calls Obama a Maoist or something. Gotta call 'em like they are, not like you see them.
Yes, the word Fascism is misused often, but Pinochet was definately a fascist, as is Santos.

[praxis1966]

Ever hear that Colombia is not Venezuela or Bolivia? Or how Chavez has survived numerous assassination attempts by US-backed groups as a price for holding onto his power (thus my "..the US would never sit by.." statement)? No? Oh well. Thats too bad. Ass.
:lol:

A) I wasn't trying to say that Columbia was Venezuela or Bolivia, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said. What I was driving at is that despite US disdain for South American leftist leaders, they are occasionally able to conduct their business. There's an uneasy peace where Venezuela's concerned despite the coup attempt, primarily because of America's insatiable thirst for oil and the fact that (last I heard) the US imports about 25% of its foreign oil from Venezuela. As for Morales, there hasn't been any attempt on his government so far as I know. Further, I don't say this to defend the US. I say it to commend those countries' leaders and people for standing up to the regional bully and asserting their right to self-determination.

Apparently, you're so fatalistic that you think that a leftist government can't be successful in the region. Frankly, I'm glad that I'm nowhere near as cynical as you are.

B) I'd say considering that it was you who resorted to name calling that you're the only one behaving like an ass in this thread, friend, but thanks for playing.

EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that, while of course Columbia, Venezuela, and Bolivia are certainly separate countries, when discussing them in relation to US foreign policy it is necessary to discuss them as a group since said foreign policy tends to be of an overarching, regional character rather than a piecemeal, country by country approach. I'd suggest you pick up Blum's Killing Hope or take a couple of college courses on the subject before lashing out again.

[Nolan]

Yes, the word Fascism is misused often, but Pinochet was definately a fascist, as is Santos.

Pinochet was not a fascist. Santos is simply another spawn of the same old caudillo thug culture the Latin American ruling class seems to love so much.

[Barry Lyndon]

A) I wasn't trying to say that Columbia was Venezuela or Bolivia, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said. What I was driving at is that despite US disdain for South American leftist leaders, they are occasionally able to conduct their business. There's an uneasy peace where Venezuela's concerned despite the coup attempt, primarily because of America's insatiable thirst for oil and the fact that (last I heard) the US imports about 25% of its foreign oil from Venezuela. As for Morales, there hasn't been any attempt on his government so far as I know. Further, I don't say this to defend the US. I say it to commend those countries' leaders and people for standing up to the regional bully and asserting their right to self-determination.

Apparently, you're so fatalistic that you think that a leftist government can't be successful in the region. Frankly, I'm glad that I'm nowhere near as cynical as you are.

B) I'd say considering that it was you who resorted to name calling that you're the only one behaving like an ass in this thread, friend, but thanks for playing.

EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that, while of course Columbia, Venezuela, and Bolivia are certainly separate countries, when discussing them in relation to US foreign policy it is necessary to discuss them as a group since said foreign policy tends to be of an overarching, regional character rather than a piecemeal, country by country approach. I'd suggest you pick up Blum's Killing Hope or take a couple of college courses on the subject before lashing out again.

You know, just because he said a few things slightly off does not give you the right to attack him in such a condescending, snooty way. Not everyone drops out of the womb reading Das Kapital like you did. He's right, you are an ass.

[Scary Monster]

A) I wasn't trying to say that Columbia was Venezuela or Bolivia, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said. What I was driving at is that despite US disdain for South American leftist leaders, they are occasionally able to conduct their business. There's an uneasy peace where Venezuela's concerned despite the coup attempt, primarily because of America's insatiable thirst for oil and the fact that (last I heard) the US imports about 25% of its foreign oil from Venezuela. As for Morales, there hasn't been any attempt on his government so far as I know. Further, I don't say this to defend the US. I say it to commend those countries' leaders and people for standing up to the regional bully and asserting their right to self-determination.

Apparently, you're so fatalistic that you think that a leftist government can't be successful in the region. Frankly, I'm glad that I'm nowhere near as cynical as you are.

B) I'd say considering that it was you who resorted to name calling that you're the only one behaving like an ass in this thread, friend, but thanks for playing.

EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that, while of course Columbia, Venezuela, and Bolivia are certainly separate countries, when discussing them in relation to US foreign policy it is necessary to discuss them as a group since said foreign policy tends to be of an overarching, regional character rather than a piecemeal, country by country approach. I'd suggest you pick up Blum's Killing Hope or take a couple of college courses on the subject before lashing out again.

Well, its pretty difficult to figure out exactly what you were saying in your first post, since it was only one sarcastic sentence mocking my post and contributing nothing else. And i see youre still being quite an ass with the post quoted above.

Anyhoo, maybe I should have said no "real" leftist politician would make it, without constant assassination attempts on him/her.

Im being cynical? First of all, i definitely wouldnt be a communist if i were cynical. Second, Latin history from the past century or two is full of leftist/sovereign (mostly Marxist) governments being overthrown and their politicians assassinated (Nicaragua, Ecuador, Chile etc.) by the US and CIA because they would not let themselves be subjugated to US "foreign policy".
My point is that, regarding the OP's question, the US would never let Santos win some election if he werent a Right winger, especially a fascist, letting his people continue to be exploited by US interests.

[praxis1966]

You know, just because he said a few things slightly off does not give you the right to attack him in such a condescending, snooty way. Not everyone drops out of the womb reading Das Kapital like you did. He's right, you are an ass.

I reserve the right to be a snooty, condescending, ass with whomever I like, lulz. Not that I believe in god, but to borrow an expression, "I am as God made me.":lol:


Well, its pretty difficult to figure out exactly what you were saying in your first post, since it was only one sarcastic sentence mocking my post and contributing nothing else. And i see youre still being quite an ass with the post quoted above.

Fair enough.


Anyhoo, maybe I should have said no "real" leftist politician would make it, without constant assassination attempts on him/her.

By this logic, Morales and Chavez aren't "real" leftist politicians, because if they were the US would have stepped in and nipped their candidacies in the bud, so to speak. I'm not trying to make a positive assertion as to whether or not I think they are, I'm just trying to figure out if you think they aren't and if not, why.


Im being cynical? First of all, i definitely wouldnt be a communist if i were cynical. Second, Latin history from the past century or two is full of leftist/sovereign (mostly Marxist) governments being overthrown and their politicians assassinated (Nicaragua, Ecuador, Chile etc.) by the US and CIA because they would not let themselves be subjugated to US "foreign policy".

Yeah, I know all that. But the topic at hand isn't history, it's current affairs. Granted, the US's national interests (at least as far as the policy makers are concerned) haven't changed that much since the events you're talking about happened. However, if what you're circling around is that the Columbian election was somehow tampered with, I'd be willing to hear your evidence of that. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if it had happened, but I just need proof is all.


My point is that, regarding the OP's question, the US would never let Santos win some election if he werent a Right winger, especially a fascist, letting his people continue to be exploited by US interests.

Again, while this has certainly been the case historically, it hasn't been so recently. Personally, I chalk it up to logistics. If it weren't for the "War on Terror" spreading the resources the US would normally use for such interventions so thinly, we might well have seen CIA/US paramilitary backed coups in Bolivia or Chile (during the Bachelet government). As it stands, though, I don't think the US is in any practical position to be overthrowing anything. This is why I believe that there's never been a better time than now for leftism, whatever the tendency, in Latin America.

[Crux]

A) I wasn't trying to say that Columbia was Venezuela or Bolivia, you deliberately misinterpreted what I said. What I was driving at is that despite US disdain for South American leftist leaders, they are occasionally able to conduct their business. There's an uneasy peace where Venezuela's concerned despite the coup attempt, primarily because of America's insatiable thirst for oil and the fact that (last I heard) the US imports about 25% of its foreign oil from Venezuela. As for Morales, there hasn't been any attempt on his government so far as I know. Further, I don't say this to defend the US. I say it to commend those countries' leaders and people for standing up to the regional bully and asserting their right to self-determination.

Apparently, you're so fatalistic that you think that a leftist government can't be successful in the region. Frankly, I'm glad that I'm nowhere near as cynical as you are.

B) I'd say considering that it was you who resorted to name calling that you're the only one behaving like an ass in this thread, friend, but thanks for playing.

EDIT: I think it's worth mentioning that, while of course Columbia, Venezuela, and Bolivia are certainly separate countries, when discussing them in relation to US foreign policy it is necessary to discuss them as a group since said foreign policy tends to be of an overarching, regional character rather than a piecemeal, country by country approach. I'd suggest you pick up Blum's Killing Hope or take a couple of college courses on the subject before lashing out again.
You are wrong pretty much your every assumption here. So, while I can't speak for him, as far as I understand you fail to understand scary monsters position. You've certainly failed to understand mine. Yes, there are specific commonalities between counties in south america, and no that does not mean there are not other important thing's to look at as well, especially if you're looking in the shrt-- to midterm. Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, panama I might be missing one here. Anyway these presently share some characteristics, noto the exact same degree of course, that still enables the far right. Oh an fuck bachelette, amntaining a pinochetista system and in case you didn't know the pinochetistas recenly won in chile making the hard right pinochetistas the largest group in government together with a slightly les to the right conservative party that holds the presidency. So yeah add chile as well.

[praxis1966]

You are wron pretty much your every assumption here. So far as I understand you fail to understand scary monsters position. You've certainly failed to understand mine. Yes, there are specific commonalities between counties in south america, and no that does not mean there are not other important thing's to look at as well, especially if you're looking in the shrt-- to midterm. Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, panama I might be missing one here. Anyway these presently share some characteristics, noto the exact same degree of course, that still enables the far right. Oh an fuck bachelette, amntaining a pinochetista system and in case you didn't know the pinochetistas recenly won in chile making the hard right pinochetistas the largest group in government together with a slightly les to the right conservative party that holds the presidency. So yeah add chile as well.

No, I'm not, and no, I haven't. I am aware that there are differences between all of those countries in just about every way imaginable because, well, I'm not a fucking racist. You're the one that's missing the point, because this conversation isn't as much about the politics or cultures of those countries as it is about US foreign policy which is pretty much the same no matter what Latin American country we're talking about.

[Scary Monster]

No, I'm not, and no, I haven't. I am aware that there are differences between all of those countries in just about every way imaginable because, well, I'm not a fucking racist. You're the one that's missing the point, because this conversation isn't as much about the politics or cultures of those countries as it is about US foreign policy which is pretty much the same no matter what Latin American country we're talking about.

Lmao dude thats what we were all saying

[praxis1966]

Lmao dude thats what we were all saying

Well, you and I aren't exactly saying the same thing, but fuck it. I give up. lulz

[Crux]

Well, you and I aren't exactly saying the same thing, but fuck it. I give up. lulz
yeah, "lulz". perhaps you ought to learn how to argue then. Sure, I can see some differences, but mostly ignorance on your part and a fucking hack-job of of an argumentation.

[Barry Lyndon]

I reserve the right to be a snooty, condescending, ass with whomever I like, lulz. Not that I believe in god, but to borrow an expression, "I am as God made me.":lol:

Glad to see that a so-called leftist thinks he has the 'right' to be a condescending ass to people who are relatively new to leftism and want to learn, what a great way to draw people to our cause. I guess your selfish individual 'right' stands above the need of the revleft collective to be politically educated and informed.

Also glad to see that you also don't think you can be reformed for the better. If you can not do so as an individual, why bother to attempt to reform an entire society for the better? Why be a Marxist or anarchist at all?