Military coup in Bolivia removes president Morales.

[Childlike Empress]

CJ Hopkins on the apologists: Reclaiming your inner fascist

Originally Posted by CJ Hopkins

[...] The empire is “regime-changing” Bolivia currently. It has “regime-changed” most of Latin America at one time or another since the Second World War. It “regime-changed” Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, Indonesia … the list goes on. It very much wants to “regime-change” Iran, which it “regime-changed” back in the 1950s, before the Iranians “regime-changed” it back. It would love to “regime-change” Russia and China, but their ICBMs make that somewhat impractical. Basically, the empire has been “regime-changing” everyone it can since the end of the Cold War. It has run into a little bump in Syria, and in Venezuela, but not to worry, it will get back there and finish up eventually.

Now, let’s be clear about this “regime-change” business. We’re talking about invading other people’s countries, and orchestrating and sponsoring coups, or otherwise overthrowing their governments, and murdering, torturing, and oppressing people. Sending in terrorists, death squads, and such. We have organizations that train guys to do that, i.e., to round people up, take them out to the jungle, or the woods, or wherever, rape the women, and then summarily shoot everyone in the head. We pay for this kind of thing with our taxes, and our investments in the global corporations that our militaries and intelligence agencies serve. We know this is happening. We can google this stuff. We know “where the trains are going,” as it were.

And yet, we do not see ourselves as monsters.

The Nazis didn’t see themselves as monsters. They saw themselves as heroes, as saviors, or just as regular Germans leading regular lives. When they looked at the propaganda posters which surrounded them (as the Internet surrounds us today), they didn’t see sadistic mass-murderers and totalitarian psychopathic freaks. They saw normal people, admirable people, who were making the world a better place.

They saw themselves. They saw “the good guys.”

This is primarily how propaganda works. It isn’t meant to fool anybody. It is there to represent “normality” (whatever “normality” happens to be in whatever empire one happens to inhabit). It is Power’s way of letting us know what it wants us to believe, how it wants us to behave, who our official enemies are. Its purpose isn’t to mislead or deceive us. It is an edict, a command, an ideological model … to which we are all expected to conform. Conform to this ideological model, and one is rewarded, or at least not punished. Deviate from it, and suffer the consequences.

It is a question of obedience, not one of truth. [...]

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

CJ Hopkins on the apologists: Reclaiming your inner fascist

He's either an ignorant fool, or a liar.

An example:

It very much wants to “regime-change” Iran, which it “regime-changed” back in the 1950s, before the Iranians “regime-changed” it back.

Iranian religious conservatives were at the forefront of the Iranian coup of 1953. These same religious conservativs then siezed power again 26 years later. Somehow USA and UK deserve all the blame for both coups.

Go figure.

McHrozni

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

CEPR is not known for being independent or unbiased.

Well, it does have a left bias which it does not try to hide.

Quote:

CEPR a propaganda mouthpiece for the Latin American left, financed by Venezuelan oil and other vested interests.

Paul Krugman finds their work legit.

Do you think you understand this stuff better than him?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

[apologetics]

It's a bit unwise to make up apologies about events as well documented as Operation Ajax.

Now leave me alone with your unappetizing apologetics.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I know. The island quickly gets too small then.

Does it end in overpopulation relative to resources or something?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Does it end in overpopulation relative to resources or something?

Yes, pretty much. If you keep growing it. If you have a stable system after the 50 years you can close the borders and let it run as it is (no financial system that forces growth ), but then you don't play anymore.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Yes, pretty much. If you keep growing it. If you have a stable system after the 50 years you can close the borders and let it run as it is (no financial system that forces growth ), but then you don't play anymore.

Oh, cool!

Have you ever read any of Philip Bobbitt's work?

[Belz...]

Not looking good there.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Oh, cool!

Have you ever read any of Philip Bobbitt's work?

No, never even heard that name.

edit: Should anyone feel like trying Tropico, make sure to play the original one. It's around 5 bucks on Good Old Games. You won't regret it.

[Childlike Empress]

How Human Rights Watch Whitewashed a Right-Wing Massacre in Bolivia

Originally Posted by Alan Mcleod

[...] In confusing and alarming situations such as these, millions of people around the world look to international human rights organizations for leadership and guidance. However, far from standing up for the oppressed, Human Rights Watch has effectively endorsed the events. In its official communiqué, it refrained from using the word coup, insisting Morales “resigned”, its Americas Director José Miguel Vivanco claiming the President stepped down “after weeks of civil unrest and violent clashes” and does not even mention opposition violence against his party or the role of the military in demanding, at gunpoint, that he resign. Therefore, Morales mysteriously “traveled to Mexico,” in the organization’s words, rather than fleeing there to escape arrest. Instead, it tacitly endorses the new government, advising it to “prioritize rights.”

Human Rights Watch Director Kenneth Roth went further, presenting the elected head of state fleeing the country at gunpoint as a refreshing step forward for democracy, claiming that Morales was “the casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy…against electoral fraud and his own illegal candidacy,” noting that Morales had ordered the army to shoot protesters.

Roth also described the coup approvingly as an “uprising” and a “transitional moment” for Bolivia, while presenting President Morales as an out-of-touch “strongman.” [...]

Actually not surprising. Kenneth Roth is one of the most disgusting frauds around and his organization a joke in the face of all who legitimately engage in the defense of human rights.

[Childlike Empress]

For people who don't know much about Evo I would recommend to listen to the speech he made at the last UN General Assembly:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, it does have a left bias which it does not try to hide.

Well, yes.

In the same sense as Breitbart has a right-wing bias which it does not try to hide.

Quote:

Paul Krugman finds their work legit.

Do you think you understand this stuff better than him?

Paul Krugman finds the work of Centre for Economic Policy Research (founded 1983) legit.
https://cepr.org/

Centre for Economic Policy Research is a reputable economic think-thank that I have nothing but respect for.

I'm talking about Centre for Economic and Policy Research (founded 1999).
http://cepr.net/

Centre for Economic and Policy Research is a foreign propaganda wing of the Venezuelan government, established shortly after ascension of Hugo Chavez. They pretend to be a reputable economic think-thank. The organization has since evolved to cover the entirety of Americas and beyond, pushing blatant propaganda of their favorite slant.

I was also confused at first. It took me a while before I realized they're two completely different organizations. I do wonder if the similar names are a coincidence or a deliberate plot to confuse people into thinking they're a legitimate think thank.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

How Human Rights Watch Whitewashed a Right-Wing Massacre in Bolivia

Actually not surprising. Kenneth Roth is one of the most disgusting frauds around and his organization a joke in the face of all who legitimately engage in the defense of human rights.

The same 'source':

https://www.mintpressnews.com/houthi...-yemen/262730/

Israeli intervention in Yemen is nigh!

There are plenty of other dubious stories, blatnatly favoring Assad over SAA, Russia over Ukraine and many others. That site is just like InfoWars, but with a different slant. Do you really believe these feces?

McHrozni

[dann]

The Humanist Report: U.S.-Backed Military Coup in Bolivia Condemned by Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Papi Chulomin: Bernie Sanders Calls Out Bolivia Coup

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Bernie Sanders Is the Only Presidential Candidate to Call Bolivia Presidential Ouster a 'Coup' (Newsweek, Nov. 19, 2019)
Sanders doubles down on Bolivia 'coup,' few follow suit (The Hill, Nov. 19, 2019)
Bernie Sanders Calls Fraudulent Bolivian Election, ‘A Coup’ (The Federalist, Nov. 12, 2019)

[dann]

Bolivia funeral procession turns violent – in pictures; Marchers clash with police during the funerals of eight indigenous people killed by security forces in La Paz (Guardian, Nov. 22, 2019)
WATCH Bolivian police fire tear gas at mourners carrying coffins of protesters killed in previous clashes (RT, Nov. 22, 2019)
Bolivia: Police Attack Protesters Carrying Coffins of Killed (teleSUR, Nov. 21, 2019)
Supporters of Bolivia's Morales march with coffins of dead protesters (Reuters, Nov. 21, 2019)
Bolivia: global education union leaders firmly condemn the coup d’état (Education International, Nov. 22, 2019)

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Well, yes.

In the same sense as Breitbart has a right-wing bias which it does not try to hide.



Paul Krugman finds the work of Centre for Economic Policy Research (founded 1983) legit.
https://cepr.org/

Centre for Economic Policy Research is a reputable economic think-thank that I have nothing but respect for.

I'm talking about Centre for Economic and Policy Research (founded 1999).
http://cepr.net/

Centre for Economic and Policy Research is a foreign propaganda wing of the Venezuelan government, established shortly after ascension of Hugo Chavez. They pretend to be a reputable economic think-thank. The organization has since evolved to cover the entirety of Americas and beyond, pushing blatant propaganda of their favorite slant.

I was also confused at first. It took me a while before I realized they're two completely different organizations. I do wonder if the similar names are a coincidence or a deliberate plot to confuse people into thinking they're a legitimate think thank.

McHrozni

Nope. It's the one you're (apparently falsely) accusing of being Venezuelan propaganda which Krugman respects. It's the specific economist Dean Baker who Krugman respects.

I've never even heard of the one with the European spelling of "centre."

Look for the American one, with Dean Baker.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Nope. It's the one you're (apparently falsely) accusing of being Venezuelan propaganda which Krugman respects. It's the specific economist Dean Baker who Krugman respects.

I've never even heard of the one with the European spelling of "centre."

Look for the American one, with Dean Baker.

So Krugam doesn't say they're legit, he says one of their employees is respectable.

Cool.

McHrozni

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

So Krugam doesn't say they're legit, he says one of their employees is respectable.

Cool.

McHrozni

You should ask Paul Krugman what he thinks.

They mostly share economics views, refer to each other often, expounding upon one or the other's points, and have very clear mutual admiration for one another.

See, for example:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-ourselves/

[dann]

Indigenous Bolivians fear renewed racism after Morales removed (AlJazeera, Nov. 25, 2019)

Quote:

Diego von Vacano, a Bolivian political scientist from the Texas A&M University, said he believed “a pretty significant purge” of Morales’s supporters and his pro-indigenous policies was under way.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea. Evo did transform Bolivia from almost an apartheid state into something better. He made obviously a lot of mistakes but Bolivia should assimilate those positive changes instead of trying to erase them and go back to something before Evo.”
New Bolivian interior minister vows to jail Evo Morales for rest of his life - Rightwing government claims former president is guilty of terrorism and sedition (Guardian, Nov. 24, 2019)

"We call upon the international community to stop supporting this government, which is committing alarming human rights abuses"
Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky , Molly Crabapple, John Pilger and others
Repressive violence is sweeping Bolivia. The Áñez regime must be held to account (Guardian, Nov. 24, 2019)

[theprestige]

Noam Chomsky? Say no more! I'll give the new regime my full support.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by kellyb

You should ask Paul Krugman what he thinks.

They mostly share economics views, refer to each other often, expounding upon one or the other's points, and have very clear mutual admiration for one another.

See, for example:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-ourselves/

This is a reply to a blog post, itself a reply to a blog post, from eight years ago.

Dean Baker himself stopped blogging about this time last year.

https://www.huffpost.com/author/dean-baker

This is the link to his blog, from cepr.org web page. His last entry is from November 2018. This is one of his posts from 2017.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trade...b04f2f0792726a

This is the argument he makes as to why manufacturing job losses are related to trade:

There really is very little ambiguity in this story. Does anyone believe that if we had balanced trade it wouldn’t mean more manufacturing jobs? Do they think we could produce another $1.2 trillion in manufacturing output without employing any workers?

Yes, that is the entirety of his proof. Check the article yourself if you don't believe me. I think it's called "argument from incredulity". I tend to dislike those. You should too.

I might also mention the said deficit growth he mentions was worth $80 billion a year. I'm not sure how this fully explains the $1200 billion trade gap he mentions, but hey, Paul Krugman reffered to him in a blog post eight years ago and probably since too, so he must be legit. Right?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by dann

"We call upon the international community to stop supporting this government, which is committing alarming human rights abuses"
Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky , Molly Crabapple, John Pilger and others
Repressive violence is sweeping Bolivia. The Áñez regime must be held to account (Guardian, Nov. 24, 2019)

Why on Earth does anyone still listen to Chomsky?

Here's Chomsky giving an interview about the abuses of Maduro government.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The question is about the Maduro government and Chomsky opens up about the 2002 coup, alledging the military disbanded the Parliament. Military wasn't involved, parliament was not disbanded. He then says the people involved in the coup were left alone, even the media. Over 100,000 people were summarily dismissed from their jobs and subsequently left the country, the media was systematically purged of opposition through forced sales and closures. He then describes how Chavez spending the vast fortune on the poor was popular, okay I suppose. He lauds Venezuelan elections for being free and fair by Carter center, which is false - Carter center said their election system was fine, but criticized the media coverage (the media that was supposedly 'left alone' spouted little but government propaganda). No connection is made to Maduro, he just skips to present in between sentences.

He starts with Maduro about halfway, explaining how horrible the economic policies he just lauded for half the answer were bad and how Maduro made them even worse.

Que? Man, you just spent four minutes lauding Chavez for his social programs and now you're saying how terrible they were? Make up your mind already.

He then claims Venezuela had trouble getting international credit (from Russia and China) because USA dominates the credit markets. Not because their budget deficits of 10-15% of GDP, no. That was all fine and dandy, it was the US that was at fault.

Chomsky is the leftlist equivalent of Trump. Just ignore him.

McHrozni

[dann]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Noam Chomsky? Say no more! I'll give the new regime my full support.

I look forward to your summary from the next China Marxism conference:

Noam Chomsky joins academics boycotting China Marxism conferences - Academics respond to detention of students who supported workers trying to unionise (Financial Times, Nov. 27, 2018).

[dann]

This sounds more and more like Chile in 1973:

Quote:

The OAS’s attack on the validity of the results relied almost exclusively on its focus on the “interruption”, on election night, of the quick count: the non-official count carried out by a private firm to give the media and the general public some preliminary information on the electoral results.
Incidentally, Bolivia’s electoral authorities had previously announced that the quick count would only include 80 percent of tally sheets. Given that it was halted at 83.85 percent, there were in fact no legal grounds on which to question this decision. But more importantly, the binding, official count, was never stopped. Yet, all around the world, newsrooms claimed, falsely, that the “vote-count” had been interrupted.
How the OAS, and the media’s lack of scrutiny, caused a violent coup in Bolivia (Open Democracy, Nov. 25, 2019)

The Coup Temptation in Latin America – Overlooking the tragic lessons of the region’s dictatorial past, politicians are turning again to the armed forces to resolve crises (NYT, Nov. 26, 2019)

Quote:

On the day of my scheduled interview with a leftist Bolivian journalist, I learned that he had been disappeared. Every outspoken opponent of the military junta is a target and subjected to charges of sedition.
With the right-wing coup in Bolivia nearly complete, the junta is hunting down the last remaining dissidents (The GrayZone, Nov. 27, 2019)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

I look forward to your summary from the next China Marxism conference:

Noam Chomsky joins academics boycotting China Marxism conferences - Academics respond to detention of students who supported workers trying to unionise (Financial Times, Nov. 27, 2018).

Why? Chomsky likes the China Marxism conference (because of course he does). So I'm going to give it a pass.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by dann

This sounds more and more like Chile in 1973:

It's not even similar to Chile. In Chile, military deposed the government, killed the key leaders and established a junta. There were air strikes carried out over key targets, FFS.
In Bolivia, a fradulent election led to street protests, police sent to suppress the protests joined in and the president fled the country. The new interm president was appointed in accordance with the Bolivian constitution and tried to organize new elections as mandated by the constitution. The deposed president's allies in the parliament blocked that from happening. Now the new interm president is said to be at the head of a junta, because she won't organize a new election.

Que?

OAS also reports this:
The Mission also took note of mistrust in the electoral authority. According to those interviewed, recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), along with some decisions by the full Court, have weakened electoral institutions. Worth recalling, in that regard, is the fact that in the year prior to the election, the President, Vice President, and a judge on the TSE resigned and that only two of the three were replaced. A number of technical staff in the Tribunal, some in senior positions and with ample experience, also left it

https://www.oas.org/documents/eng/pr...a-23-10-19.pdf

Bolivians did not trust the electoral authorities prior to the election. The events in Bolivia are as much a rally against the electoral authorities than against the president, yet his allies sternly refuse to do anything about it, worsening the situation further. There is no way to run an election in Bolivia right now and that's on Morales and his ilk.

It's clear the Bolivians were deeply unhappy about Morales for some time. Such things just don't happen if Morales was really as popular as commonly portrayed.

McHrozni

[Hevneren]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

He's either an ignorant fool, or a liar.

An example:

It very much wants to “regime-change” Iran, which it “regime-changed” back in the 1950s, before the Iranians “regime-changed” it back.

Iranian religious conservatives were at the forefront of the Iranian coup of 1953. These same religious conservativs then siezed power again 26 years later. Somehow USA and UK deserve all the blame for both coups.

Go figure.

McHrozni

The coup may have been supported by Iranian religious conservatives, but there's no doubt that the CIA orchestrated and executed it.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Hevneren

The coup may have been supported by Iranian religious conservatives, but there's no doubt that the CIA orchestrated and executed it.

CIA and MI6 did, of course. No one is arguing they played a key role.

Yet the exact same people (or their successors) in Iran who now whine about the coup played an equally key role. You can't carry out a coup without powerful domestic allies.

This needs repeating:

The religious conservativse in Iran who whine about the 1953 coup in Iran, helped carry out the 1953 coup in Iran. They were allies of the foreign agents and without them the coup would be impossible. You can't carry out a coup without sufficient allies in the country and the conservatives who now use the coup as an excuse to hang homosexuals (to name just one example) were those allies in that same coup and without them the only alternative would be a full-scale invasion. That worked wonderfully in Egypt three years later.

Yet it was all the CIA's fault. The willing allies in Iran were all innocent. CIA made them do it. They paid them money, or else they wouldn't have risen up against the man they loved so much they tried to get rid of. For a few bucks. Right.

At least CIA/MI6/USA/UK have the decency of not using events from many decades ago as an excuse for their current sins. Not even Trump sinks this low, yet this is the norm with Iran and widely cheered by people who want to be liberals, but fail at it.

McHrozni

[dann]

Yes, Mohammad Mossadegh^WP, the elected leader of Iran:

Quote:

An author, administrator, lawyer and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of social and political measures such as social security, land reforms and higher taxes including the introduction of taxation of the rent on land. His government's most significant policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).
Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history. Following an initial, failed coup attempt by the CIA/MI6-backed General Fazlollah Zahedi, Mosaddegh resigned four days later on 19 August 1953, with Zahedi succeeding him as prime minister.

He was overthrown by the combined forces of the CIA and Islamic fundamentalists - not the last time something like that has happened. Does anybody deny that it was so? Why is it so important to you to emphasize that the CIA regularly joins forces with religious fundamentalists?
They appear to have done so in Bolivia, too, but some of the Catholics are already starting to regret it:

Quote:

The Bolivian bishops’ conference quickly declared Mr. Morales’s fall from power “not a coup,” but individual Bolivian bishops have expressed conflicting sentiments on social media since the crisis began. Bolivia’s interim leaders appear ready to exploit fissures that have emerged in the Latin American church since the recent Bishops’ Synod on the Pan-Amazonian Region in Rome. During that historic gathering, indigenous images deployed in prayer became an obsession of a transnational collection of self-described Catholic traditionalists who perceived a creeping indigenous idolatry within the church.
Was there a coup in Bolivia? After Evo Morales, what’s next? (America - The Jesuit Review, Nov. 27, 2019)

So the USA, religious fundamentalists, and white supremacists have joined forces to topple a Latin American democracy. What else is (not) new?

[dann]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

It's not even similar to Chile. In Chile, military deposed the government, killed the key leaders and established a junta. There were air strikes carried out over key targets, FFS.
In Bolivia, [hilite]a fradulent election led to street protests, police sent to suppress the protests joined in and the president fled the country. The new interm president was appointed in accordance with the Bolivian constitution and tried to organize new elections as mandated by the constitution. The deposed president's allies in the parliament blocked that from happening. Now the new interm president is said to be at the head of a junta, because she won't organize a new election.

There was nothing fraudulent about it. The only thing that was fraudulent was the press coverage of the event. The election was in accordance with the Bolivian constitution. The coup (obviously) wasn't, even though the (hopefully very interim) president claims that it was.
That the police and the army participated in the coup doesn't make it any less of a coup.

Quote:

OAS also reports this:
The Mission also took note of mistrust in the electoral authority. According to those interviewed, recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), along with some decisions by the full Court, have weakened electoral institutions. Worth recalling, in that regard, is the fact that in the year prior to the election, the President, Vice President, and a judge on the TSE resigned and that only two of the three were replaced. A number of technical staff in the Tribunal, some in senior positions and with ample experience, also left it

https://www.oas.org/documents/eng/pr...a-23-10-19.pdf

Bolivians did not trust the electoral authorities prior to the election. The events in Bolivia are as much a rally against the electoral authorities than against the president, yet his allies sternly refuse to do anything about it, worsening the situation further. There is no way to run an election in Bolivia right now and that's on Morales and his ilk.

A majority of the Bolivians appear to have voted for Morales. And the most recent events appear to be a rally against the white supremacist putschists. So now, even though Morales is out of the country, it has now become more difficult to run an election?! Yeah, right!

Quote:

It's clear the Bolivians were deeply unhappy about Morales for some time.

Quote:

It seems to be very clear that the Bolivians are even more unhappy about the coup, doesn't it?!

Such things just don't happen if Morales was really as popular as commonly portrayed.

What 'things' don't happen? White supremacists toppling a government? I don't think that anybody has claimed that he was popular among those guys. And he obviously wasn't popular in the White House neither.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by dann

Yes, Mohammad Mossadegh^WP, the elected leader of Iran:

Yes. The elected leader of Iran. Let's see the whole thing, shall we?

Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum—had been elected.


(...)

Thus, in his statement asserting electoral manipulation by "foreign agents", Mosaddegh suspended the elections. His National Front party had made up 30 of the 79 deputies elected. Yet none of those present vetoed the statement, and the elections were postponed indefinitely.

(...)

A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against. According to Mark J. Gasiorowski, "There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddeq" and that the "controversial referendum...gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign to show up Mosaddeq as an anti-democratic dictator an easy target". On or around 16 August, Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mosaddeq's emergency powers were extended.

This man is hailed as paragon of democracy in Iran and his ouster as the day democracy in Iran died. I wonder if that's parody or just ignorance.

Quote:

He was overthrown by the combined forces of the CIA and Islamic fundamentalists - not the last time something like that has happened. Does anybody deny that it was so?

Yes. Islamic fundamentalists who now Iran and use the coup as pretext to repress Iranians do.

Quote:

Why is it so important to you to emphasize that the CIA regularly joins forces with religious fundamentalists?

Because religious fundamentalists now run Iran and use the coup as a pretext for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the coup any more.

Quote:

So the USA, religious fundamentalists, and white supremacists have joined forces to topple a Latin American democracy. What else is (not) new?

It might be news to you the world is rarely as simple or as straightforward as you think it is.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by dann

There was nothing fraudulent about it. The only thing that was fraudulent was the press coverage of the event. The election was in accordance with the Bolivian constitution.

That's an allegation made by a web site.

This web site:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...onomic-legacy/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ope...havezs-legacy/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bin...vez-1954-2013/

It's safe to say the site is not credible when it comes to Latin American left.

Quote:

That the police and the army participated in the coup doesn't make it any less of a coup.

That the police and the army joined in the protestors and not stormed the parliament and took the MPs hostage tells you two things:
1. this wasn't planned in advance and
2. Morales was deeply unpopular among the rank and file

I find it ironic that you invoke Chile and Iran coups in comparison. In Chile, the coup was over within a day, Aliende was killed and the key institutions taken over. In Iran the whole affair also lasted four days and ended with Mossadegh arrested and imprisoned until his death. In Bolivia, it took 19 days of street demonstrations for Morales to resign his post and flee the country.

One of these three is not like the other two.

Quote:

A majority of the Bolivians appear to have voted for Morales.

OAS noted major problems with the way electoral campaign was run, public broadcasters ran Morales electoral propaganda and disregarded his opponents. As such the election has no popular mandate, irrespective of how people voted.

Quote:

So now, even though Morales is out of the country, it has now become more difficult to run an election?!

The problem is not (just) Morales, it is the unfair system either he or his goons set up. The electoral authorities of the country do not have the trust of the electorate. That trust must be restored before an election can be held. Obviously.

Quote:

What 'things' don't happen?

Widespread riots with police and the army joining in don't happen to presidents who genuinely have ten points on the nearest competitor.

Of course Morales was already barred from running in the office. Bolivian constitution has term limits, Morales is out of terms. The country held a referendum in 2016 on it and the electorate rejected removing the term limits. Then their supreme court judged term limits (filled by Morales loyalists in a grotesque parody of democracy in 2011, read on it) as violating the American Convention on Human rights and voided a part of the consitution and thus allowed Morales indefinite terms.

They cited article 23 of the treaty: Right to participate in government. Supposedly the Treaty supercedes Bolivian constitution and previous service may not be used to disqualify a candidate.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publicat...55-English.pdf

How's that for original? Dismiss the will of the people on the basis of an international treaty that somehow supercedes Bolivian constitution, while eviscerating the spirit of the treaty. It's no wonder there was an uprising. Morales has been using the Bolivian constitution as toilet paper for some time and running the country as a private fief, while making a mockery of the "demos" part of democracy.

McHrozni

[dann]

This is one of the most egregious jobs of cherry picking I have ever seen, so I recommend that anybody who is the least bit interested in what actually happened and what Mossadegh actually represented reads the whole Wikipedia article because it's against the rule to quote the whole thing here. McHrozni's first quoted sentence is cherry picked from the paragraph: Mohammad Mossadegh: Appointment as Prime Minister, and McHrozni doesn't even make it clear that at this point Wikpedia is quoting from somebody else.
I don't think that I have ever seen the words "Let's see the whole thing, shall we?" be used as an introduction to such a blatant lie as in this case. And again, please read the actual "whole thing" instead of McHrozni's cherry picking:

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Yes. The elected leader of Iran. Let's see the whole thing, shall we?

Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum—had been elected.
(...)
Thus, in his statement asserting electoral manipulation by "foreign agents", Mosaddegh suspended the elections. His National Front party had made up 30 of the 79 deputies elected. Yet none of those present vetoed the statement, and the elections were postponed indefinitely.
(...)
A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against. According to Mark J. Gasiorowski, "There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddeq" and that the "controversial referendum...gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign to show up Mosaddeq as an anti-democratic dictator an easy target". On or around 16 August, Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mosaddeq's emergency powers were extended.

This man is hailed as paragon of democracy in Iran and his ouster as the day democracy in Iran died. I wonder if that's parody or just ignorance.

Yes. Islamic fundamentalists who now Iran and use the coup as pretext to repress Iranians do.

Yes, the CIA and Islamic fundamentalists staged a coup against Mossadegh in 1953. The CIA then instated the Shah of Persia as the brutal dictator of Iran until he was toppled by the popular uprising against him from 1977-79. At that point, he had become an embarrassment even to his former allies in the USA. Unfortunately, the Islamic fundamentalists (Khomeini) took power and had the left-wing supporters of the revolution jailed or killed. I know a few of those who managed to escape and went into exile in Denmark.
I can recommend Ulrike Meinhof's Open Letter to Farah Diba (1967), the Shah's wife, for those of you who want to know what the Shah represented. (Ulrike Meinhof was a serious journalist at the time and not yet a terrorist.)

Quote:

Because religious fundamentalists now run Iran and use the coup as a pretext for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the coup any more.

That is true! Khomeini and his Islamic fundamentalists weren't happy with the outcome of the coup in 1953. And the USA wasn't happy with the fundamentalists taking power in 1979.
And the true revolutionaries weren't happy with any of those regimes and were (are) persecuted by both.
It is probably worth pointing out again that a similar thing happened when the USA supported Islamic fundamentalists, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Quote:

It might be news to you the world is rarely as simple or as straightforward as you think it is.

You mistake me for you, apparently. I never thought that the world was as simple as USA: Goooood!; its enemies: Baaaaad!

And to get back to the theme of Bolivia: McHrozni's cherry picking in the case of the Bolivian coup is just as bad as his cherry picking in the Wikipedia article about Mossadegh.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by dann

There was nothing fraudulent about it. The only thing that was fraudulent was the press coverage of the event. The election was in accordance with the Bolivian constitution. The coup (obviously) wasn't, even though the (hopefully very interim) president claims that it was.
That the police and the army participated in the coup doesn't make it any less of a coup.

Well that isn't really true is it? If it were in accordance with the Bolivian Constitution, Morales wouldn't have been on the ballot.

Quote:

A majority of the Bolivians appear to have voted for Morales. And the most recent events appear to be a rally against the white supremacist putschists. So now, even though Morales is out of the country, it has now become more difficult to run an election?! Yeah, right!

Also not exactly true, a plurality, yes, not a majority. Not all that important though.

Quote:

What 'things' don't happen? White supremacists toppling a government? I don't think that anybody has claimed that he was popular among those guys. And he obviously wasn't popular in the White House neither.

I'm not sure "white supremecists" is an appropriate description, seems like taking political language from the US and painting a foreign nations politics with it. Anez's party seems pretty bad though, so I shouldn't quibble. It does seem to be a coup but one that was clearly precipitated by Morales' narcism(IDK, probably not the right word, but he like a lot of leaders thinks he's the indispensable man which is about the worst thing for democracy).

I hope they really will hold elections within 90 days, probably more like 70 now. I don't have much hope they will.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm not sure "white supremecists" is an appropriate description, seems like taking political language from the US and painting a foreign nations politics with it.

Maybe not the term, but surely the ideology. You can call them "conquistadores" if you want. Literally the descendants of the European colonialists, these people all over South America have the problem that unlike in North America, huge numbers of those nasty "indian" heathens are still around refusing to accept Christ, and their hate of them is hot and deep. In Bolivia, add a geographical division between indigenous highlands and "white"-dominated lowlands, and a grain of "recently" arrived full blown European fascists, here mostly from Croatia IIIRC, and you get this ugly situation.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by dann

I don't think that I have ever seen the words "Let's see the whole thing, shall we?" be used as an introduction to such a blatant lie as in this case.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

True or false:
1. Mossadegh subverted democratic elections in Iran in order for his opponents not to win a majority.
2. Mossadegh held a referendum on giving him legislative power and won it with highly credible 99.5% of the vote.

If those are true then what I said is not a blatant lie, but exposing the truth. You'd be better off rationalizing it under the usual excuse: Mossadegh was facing foreign interference from CIA and MI6 and thought his dictatorship was the better option for Iran than one imposed by CIA and MI6. The good old "okay, he wasn't a democrat, but he was the lesser evil" excuse. In this case it may even be factual, I don't know. Mossadegh was facing a hostile campaign by CIA and MI6, that is clear, it is not clear he was the lesser evil.

But Mossadegh a democrat? Lulz. He was a left-wing populist like Chavez. We all know how that ended up.

Quote:

You mistake me for you, apparently. I never thought that the world was as simple as USA: Goooood!; its enemies: Baaaaad!

I believe that's called an ad hominem attack. Falling on personal attacks like that show a profound lack of arguments on your side. I also think you're projecting your own flaws onto others, you just mirror them first.

Quote:

And to get back to the theme of Bolivia: McHrozni's cherry picking in the case of the Bolivian coup is just as bad as his cherry picking in the Wikipedia article about Mossadegh.

What cherry picking?

Does Bolivian constitution have term limits? Yes.

Article 168 • Head of state term limits
The period of the mandate of the President or Vice President is five years, and they may be reelected once for a continuous term.

https://www.constituteproject.org/co...livia_2009.pdf

Did Bolivia have a referendum on abolishing term limits? Yes. The change was rejected by the electorate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_B...nal_referendum

Then the relevant Bolivian court struck down the consitutional limit as ... unconstitutional I suppose. It probably helped the court was stuffed by Morales loyalists back in 2011. They passed a law on electing new judges and Bolivian Parliament opted to nominate solely Morales loyalists and a few token oddballs that were even worse, for diversity. The results show the electorate was not happy about it either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_B...icial_election

Was Morales able to serve two terms? He served more but after the constitutional changes he served one term from 2009 to 2014 and one term from 2014 to 2019. One and one equal two, I can provide a mathematical proof if you need it, but most people accept it at face value. This puts his supporters in a bind, because the fact Morales was allowed to run in this election at all is already an affront to democracy. You can't just ignore the constitution like that on the basis of an international treaty (while you eviscerate the spirit of the treaty) with the help of a stuffed court and call yourself a democracy. Morales and his goons have perverted Bolivian democracy well before the election. Bolivian constitution has this to say on the matter:

Article 122
The acts of persons who usurp functions, which are not their responsibility, as well as the acts of those who exercise jurisdiction or power that does not emanate from the law, are null and void.

(...)

The international treaties existing prior to the Constitution, which do not contradict it, shall be maintained in the internal legal order with the rank of law. Within the period of four years after the election of the new Executive Organ, the Executive shall renounce and, in that case, renegotiate the international treaties that may be contrary to the Constitution.

The treaty cited by the 'court' predates the Bolivian constitution and the constitution clearly states two things: treaties that do not contradict the constitution remain valid, the ones that do need to be renegotiated. The inter-American treaty on human rights predates the Bolivian constitution, it was not renegotiated. Jurdistictions that does not emanate from law are also null and void. This is exactly what happened here: Morales was expressly forbidded to run in the election but he did it anyway. Electoral authorities that permitted his candidacy in the first place must be replaced before Bolivia can hold a free and fair democratic election. Furthermore, as the Article 122 shows, removing an usurper is not a coup, because he doesn't hold office and his decisions are null and void.

Isn't the coup when you ignore the constitution and do something else with force or threat of force? If so, it is more factual to argue that Morales was able to stand in the election at all proves a coup did in fact occur in Bolivia - by Morales.

You are free to argue against it. This is what you're up against: Morales served two terms (2009-2014; 2014-2019) as Bolivian president and Bolivian constitution he himself wrote expressly forbids a third. He was about to be named into an unconstitutional third term, but was forced not to as enshrined by the constitution. Good luck finding an actual argument as to how this is somehow a 'coup'.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Maybe not the term, but surely the ideology. You can call them "conquistadores" if you want. Literally the descendants of the European colonialists, these people all over South America have the problem that unlike in North America, huge numbers of those nasty "indian" heathens are still around refusing to accept Christ, and their hate of them is hot and deep.

I hope this helps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Bolivia

McHrozni

[carlitos]

A few thousand Croatians emigrated to Bolivia a hundred years ago, which has **** all to do with the politics there today.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

The same 'source':

https://www.mintpressnews.com/houthi...-yemen/262730/

Israeli intervention in Yemen is nigh!

There are plenty of other dubious stories, blatnatly favoring Assad over SAA, Russia over Ukraine and many others. That site is just like InfoWars, but with a different slant. Do you really believe these feces?

McHrozni

Actually some of their stands are not that far from Infowars…..

Particularly the pro Putin crap.

Vlad has done something the Soviet Union could never had done;He has found useful idiots on both the left and the right.

[dudalb]

After reading about the background, count me in the "Plague On Both Their Houses" on this one.
Don't Like Morales scrapping a lot of election laws so he could run again, but the actions the military are just as bad if not worse.
Sometimes there is just not a "good guy" in the story.
Amused by how many people are willing to accept corrupt sheningans if commited by people on their ideological side of the fence.