US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:50 pm

Good news!
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:26 am

Good news for who, and in what way?
User avatar
Guiri
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:27 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby Guiri » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:26 am

mammamia wrote:Good news!
??? for whom?? :?
Alpineprince
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: "Miraflores State of Mind"

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby Alpineprince » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:18 am

For Peruvians, now the long rumored attack by Chile will not happen and we can all sleep soundly at night, knowing that the USA has your back Jack or Joaquin!
User avatar
caliguy
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:55 pm
Location: Lima-13

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby caliguy » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:23 am

did i miss something in that story? what will their role be here? traffic control :lol: looks like it will be more like drug trafficking and terrorism.
every place has it's own spirit. you just need to tune into it.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:35 am

caliguy wrote:did i miss something in that story? what will their role be here? traffic control :lol: looks like it will be more like drug trafficking and terrorism.


Absolutely right. I guess it will be a drug trafficking thing. Five years ago I happened to talk to a US colonel who was in charge of a unit sent to VRAEM. No uniforms, no military insignia though, not exactly an undercover (otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it to me, I believe) but quite an informal mission. So, he was complaining that there was no law allowing foreign troops in Peru. Before Peru he was stationed in Colombia consulting local authorities there in their endeavors to undermine drug production and trafficking.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:03 pm

Those damn Peruvians, how dare they have no law allowing foreign troops on the soil of their sovereign nation. The gall. How insolent.

Out of curiosity, does the US have a law allowing Peruvian or any other foreighn troops to patrol US soil?
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:12 pm

ironchefchris wrote:
Out of curiosity, does the US have a law allowing Peruvian or any other foreighn troops to patrol US soil?


Why should I care??? If the US involvement helps eliminate or at least weaken the drug mafia in Peru I'll be more than happy. And I don't care who'll do this: the US, Brazilian or even Chilean troops because the Peruvians aren't capable of achieving this goal and will never be, IMHO.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 12:46 pm

Why should you care? Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You might not care about foreign troops on sovereign soil, but I think a lot of US citizens would be quite upset if foreign troops were patrolling US soil to help eliminate or at least weaken crime/mafia's/gangs in the US, because the US isn't capable of achieving this goal and likely never will be. I doubt Peru, or any other nation, has any desire to send troops to inner-city Detroit, Chicago, and many other cities that have crime problems to help bring down the murder rate and curb gang violence, which is often centered around drugs.

Before spending US taxpayer money to intervene in yet another foreign country, the US should consider taking care of their own problems on their own soil. For instance, the US has a voracious demand for cocaine and other drugs. Maybe the US should focus on curbing the demand amongst their own citizens before sending military troops to other, sovereign nations. As long as there is a demand, the supply will be met. It's like playing wack-a-mole. Shut down supply in one location and the source of supply will simply move somewhere else to satisfy the demand in the marketplace. Look at what happened in the US when Prohibition outlawed alcohol. Alcohol was no longer produced in legal distilleries, but in bathtubs and more elaborate illegal distilleries, or smuggled in from Canada and Cuba. Consumption of alcohol actually increased during the Prohibition years, and made the mafia stronger by creating a black market where none existed before. As long as there's demand, there will be supply. The US should focus on their own problems, in this case the gluttonous demand for cocaine, before sending yet more troops to yet more foreign nations for missions that have nothing to do with protecting the US from foreign invaders. Perhaps a start would be education. The US has shown success in reducing the demand for tobacco/nicotine, partially through education by alerting people to it's dangers and effects. If a sovereign nation outlawed cigarettes would you support their sending troops to the US to wipe out tobacco farmers or the companies that use tobacco to produce cigarettes?

But, yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:49 pm

ironchefchris wrote:
Before spending US taxpayer money to intervene in yet another foreign country, the US should consider taking care of their own problems on their own soil.


I'm terribly sorry but as usual I'm going to abridge your long discourse to the above quote. Do you think the US government is a bunch of idiots who spend taxpayers money for amusement only? Don't you think that those drugs might end up in inner-city Detroit or Chicago or elsewhere in the US? The demand-supply argument sounds very weak in this regard, don't you find? And, have you not noticed the changes for the better in the long-fought war against drug cartels in Colombia after the US "meddled in" the "effective" efforts undertaken by the Colombian police and armed forces?

And, please, let's not go as far as the Prohibition era... come on, we're living in the 21st century now. Let bygones be bygones. We've come a long way since those times and none of those extreme measures can be and definitely will be applied nowadays.
User avatar
craig
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1214
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:34 pm
Location: Pueblo Libre

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby craig » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:59 pm

mammamia wrote:Do you think the US government is a bunch of idiots who spend taxpayers money for amusement only?

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I think. Well put!

mammamia wrote:And, have you not noticed the changes for the better in the long-fought war against drug cartels in Colombia after the US "meddled in" the "effective" efforts undertaken by the Colombian police and armed forces?

No, I have not noticed anything of the kind. Fruitless decades and hundreds of billions of dollars of US intervention in Columbia only made things much worse.
--
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. -- Thomas Jefferson
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:09 pm

craig wrote:
mammamia wrote:
Do you think the US government is a bunch of idiots who spend taxpayers money for amusement only?

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I think. Well put!


And that's why you're here in the country with one of the worst corruption and corruption control indexes. Good judgment, congratulations!
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:27 pm

mammamia wrote:I'm terribly sorry but as usual I'm going to abridge your long discourse to the above quote.

Sorry if a couple of paragraphs of length (less than an average newspaper article) is too much for you, but I guess since newspapers started dying people's attention spans starting shrinking along with newspaper circulation rates. Since when has abridging someone's two paragraph argument become an accepted form of discussing an issue? It comes across as not liking what someone else has to say and/or being unable to retort so let's just cut the parts we don't like out and keep the discussion limited to sound-bite sized rhetoric, kind of like how we've become accustomed to expecting politicians to give no more than a thirty second answer as to how they'd fix the economy during a debate.

mammamia wrote:Do you think the US government is a bunch of idiots who spend taxpayers money for amusement only?

I never said that, but it's obvious the US government loves to spend taxpayer money. Check out the size of the US deficit if you don't believe me and the fact that the US government had to actually borrow money from China to finance their war on Iraq. I was amused in a "what else can you do but laugh" way about the "Bridge to Nowhere" that was built in Alaska, though I'm not saying the government just built it for their own amusement. I'm sure there were a lot of happy contractors.

mammamia wrote:Don't you think that those drugs might end up in inner-city Detroit or Chicago or elsewhere in the US?

I'm sure some of those drugs will end up in American inner cities. Sounds like the US has a problem with their citizens raptous appetite for these drugs and that troops would be better placed in these cities to deal with the demand problem on their own turf - though I believe there is a law against using military troops domestically. Have you heard any complaints about no law allowing US troops to be used domestically?

mammamia wrote:The demand-supply argument sounds very weak in this regard, don't you find?

The law of supply and demand has been around and relevant ever since the dawn of trade. It's the one of the first things taught in High School Economics classes. I don't find it weak in this regard at all, but a perfect example of how the law of supply and demand works. The black market where drugs are traded is actually closer to the pure and perfect competition without government interference as Capitalism is described in Econ 101 than the supply and demand that sets the price for a gallon of gasoline. As long as US citizens want cocaine (and boy do they want it!) there will be a market for it. If the supply cannot be filled through domestic production, the market will seek it from international sources. You can change the word 'cocaine' for 'oil' or 'petroleum' and its the same thing. If the US took care of it's problem of it's citizens demand for cocaine, the suppliers would shift their supply to other markets with larger demands - no more problem for the US, no need to send US troops to sovereign nations. Can you explain with some detail why you believe the supply and demand explanation for this commodity (cocaine) is less relevant or "very weak" than it would be for any other commodity, such as petroleum?

mammamia wrote:And, have you not noticed the changes for the better in the long-fought war against drug cartels in Colombia after the US "meddled in" the "effective" efforts undertaken by the Colombian police and armed forces?

Better for who? The dealers and cartels who are profiting off the US's insatiable desire to snort coke? According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the US ranks #2 in cocaine consumption, per capita. Only the Scots like blow more than the US. Peru ranked so far down the unnumbered list that I didn't even bother counting it's ranking. The US War on Drugs has been a monumental (and monumentally expensive) failure. Take out one cartel kingpin and another is ready to take his place. Taking down a cartel kingpin just creates press to be used to ask Congress for increased funding in the failed War on Drugs. It does nothing to solve the problem of cocaine consumption because the problem/demand doesn't go away. As long as there is a demand for a commodity, capitalism tells us there will be a supply.

mammamia wrote:And, please, let's not go as far as the Prohibition era... come on, we're living in the 21st century now. Let bygones be bygones. We've come a long way since those times and none of those extreme measures can be and definitely will be applied nowadays.

Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it. What "extreme measures" are you referring to that happened with prohibition that aren't happening now? Smuggling the prohibited substance in from other countries? Isn't that what we're talking about? Smaller scale production as opposed to larger, legal means of production? Maybe not so much with cocaine that lacks a domestic supply of coca leaves, so it's much more effective to smuggle the finished product, but the US is filled with tweakers who cook up meth in small batches, moonshiners, people growing marijuana in their closets, etc.. I even have a friend with a coca plant in his greenhouse because he likes chewing on the leaves. I don't see how the prohibition of alcohol and it's effect on the free market and unexpected rise in demand differs at all from the current situation. The law of supply and demand has been known and in existence for a very long, long time. It's why it's still taught in school.

What's your opinion of foreign troops on US soil to deal with these problems since these problems not only still exist, but are actually worse? Obvious the US government is not capable of taking care of their own problems and could use some help, possibly from countries that don't have these problems such as Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, etc..
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:38 pm

Just to clarify my previous post. I don't want to see US troops (or foreign troops) patrolling the inner city. I believe taxpayer money would be better spent on educational programs (much like programs that educated smokers and children about the dangers and effects of smoking tobacco) in order to curb the demand that exists for cocaine in the US.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Feb 12, 2015 5:25 pm

ironchefchris wrote:
Since when has abridging someone's two paragraph argument become an accepted form of discussing an issue? It comes across as not liking what someone else has to say and/or being unable to retort so let's just cut the parts we don't like out and keep the discussion limited to sound-bite sized rhetoric


What makes you think that I want to avoid discussing some parts of your "essay"??? Not at all, dear sir! I'm just trying to make a point here, nothing else. By abridging your long and tiresome discourse I simply want to make you see (no, the verb "make" isn't appropriate in your case since it looks like nobody and nothing CAN make people like you change their minds) or rather show you that this forum isn't your blog, nor your twitter account which, I suppose, you used to have in the past but failed to get people to like them, so you started littering forums like this with irrelevant comments about "how bad Prohibition was", or "the US should spend more taxpayers' money on education", or "how inefficient the US government is". Open your eyes, sir, wake up, you're posting on Expatperu forum, not the USA Today, The Washington Post or The Chicago Tribune official sites!!! The thread is about the law allowing the US troops on Peruvian territory. I said that I liked that and explained why and don't want to read your endless stories about the US taxpayers, bridge projects and other nonsense!
lesgiu
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:02 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby lesgiu » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:27 pm

Since when did this site become infested by pricks?

I'm Peruvian and it's sad to see each and every single post by an expat being hijacked by another and turned into bitter arguments and grandstanding.

Every single day.

Without fail.

Where have all the good guys/gals gone? Tsk..tsk..
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:56 pm

mammamia wrote:
ironchefchris wrote:
Since when has abridging someone's two paragraph argument become an accepted form of discussing an issue? It comes across as not liking what someone else has to say and/or being unable to retort so let's just cut the parts we don't like out and keep the discussion limited to sound-bite sized rhetoric


What makes you think that I want to avoid discussing some parts of your "essay"??? Not at all, dear sir! I'm just trying to make a point here, nothing else. By abridging your long and tiresome discourse I simply want to make you see (no, the verb "make" isn't appropriate in your case since it looks like nobody and nothing CAN make people like you change their minds) or rather show you that this forum isn't your blog, nor your twitter account which, I suppose, you used to have in the past but failed to get people to like them, so you started littering forums like this with irrelevant comments about "how bad Prohibition was", or "the US should spend more taxpayers' money on education", or "how inefficient the US government is". Open your eyes, sir, wake up, you're posting on Expatperu forum, not the USA Today, The Washington Post or The Chicago Tribune official sites!!! The thread is about the law allowing the US troops on Peruvian territory. I said that I liked that and explained why and don't want to read your endless stories about the US taxpayers, bridge projects and other nonsense!

Really? A short paragraph followed by a paragraph of normal length constitutes an essay? What makes me think you want to avoid discussing the issue is that you choose to focus on me and not the topic or the points I've made. You originally said "Good news!" without saying why. When I and others asked 'good for whom?' you gave a short answer that didn't really say much. "Good for Peruvians." Are you Peruvian by chance or just presuming to know what's best for Peruvians? To me, the issue of US troops on foreign soil is an issue that deserves deeper discussion than simply saying "Good news" or "Bad news." This is a forum, which by definition is a place for the discussion and exchange of ideas that are in the public interest. You think US troops should be in Peru because of drug/crime problems in the US so it would seem the drug/crime situation in the US is relevant. You brought up drug trafficking. Do you really think it's a one sided problem and the US has no part? If that were true there would be no talk of US troops in Peru. I'm just trying to look at both sides of the problem, supply and demand. You might not think that referencing the failure of Prohibition by trying to crush the supply of alcohol and thus giving more power to the mafia is relevant to trying to crush the supply of cocaine and thus giving more power to the cartels but I do. I kept to the topic and didn't say anything personal about you at all. You did say you liked it, but sorry, you didn't really explain why, just that supply/demand didn't apply, stating that the long fought drug war has been effective (which another member also disputed), and that potential lessons to be learned from past Prohibition of a commodity didn't apply. When asked for details or countered with a retort all you can mention is that you can't read two paragraphs of someone's opposing point of view. I didn't avoid answering relevant questions. If you're so quick to deploy foreign troops to Peru how would you feel about foreign troops on US soil to solve existing problems the US Govt. seems unable to handle? You've also yet to mention why you think my speaking of supply and demand of a commodity in a Captialist society sounds weak in this regard. You'd rather talk about "essays" of two relatively short paragraphs instead of the issue. It's like not liking a politician's position on an issue because you don't like the color of his tie.

You seem quick to blame Peru for America's failure to curb it's appetite for cocaine and then criticize me for making "irrelevant comments" for saying the US government is inefficient in handling it's drug problem. So am I wrong about the failure of the US government's War on Drugs? I haven't read anyone say it's been successful. Quite the opposite. The demand for drugs continues to rise while the US continues to spend billions of taxpayer $$$ on a losing battle that's been going on for around 40 years. Success! I'm one of those smaller government/spend less types though, so maybe that's why I think a less costly/more effective educational campaign such as the one that actually worked to decrease the demand for tobacco products is a better investment of taxpayer money than this ginormous failure called The War on Drugs. Though you tried to twist my words by suggesting I said "the US should spend more taxpayers' money on Education" I only suggested a far less expensive educational campaign to alert people to the dangers and effects of drugs would be more effective than the far more expensive methods tried so far. Contrary to your misquote of my words, I didn't suggest anything at all about raising the overall Education budget. Weak sauce.

You mention Twitter. I don't use it, or FaceBook. It seems you want discussions of serious issues reduced to "tweets" of no more than 140 characters but fail to recognize this is a "forum," not Twitter. "US Troops in Peru." "Good News." "Bad News." "No it's not." "Yes it is." "Ur wrong." "No I'm not." End of discussion. I'm not trying to change your or anyone elses mind and I don't care if you think my two short paragraphs are "essays." I'm here for the exchange of information and discussion of topics relevant to Peru. Sometimes we tend to go off on tangents a bit, even to discuss the price of a bottle of wine in Spain or Asian planes disappearing into the sea. If you don't like my posts my suggestion would be to not read them. You could also put me on your "Foes" list so you wouldn't even have to see them. But it really seems that you don't want to hear viewpoints that counter your own and use excuses to avoid meaningful discussion. Maybe you should stick to forums of like minded individuals for political discussions or cable "News" channels that broadcast exactly what you want to hear and use Twitter for everything else so you never have to be burdened with ever having to read anything as long as a paragraph or two. But how are you sure you are living in a free society if you don't hear points of views counter to your own?
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:22 pm

mammamia wrote:
craig wrote:
mammamia wrote:
Do you think the US government is a bunch of idiots who spend taxpayers money for amusement only?

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I think. Well put!


And that's why you're here in the country with one of the worst corruption and corruption control indexes. Good judgment, congratulations!

This sounds like one of those 'the US is perfect, it's the rest of the world that has problems,' type of comment. Do you believe there's no corruption in the US? My friend and relatives in New Jersey would beg to differ. Ever since 2008, right wing politicians, pundits, and their followers have been harping on the corruption of the Chicago political machine regarding Obama and Rahm Emanuel. I believe the last three Governors of the state of Illinois are in prison so I'm not saying they're wrong. Before that the left got a lot of mileage on corruption regarding Jack Abramoff, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, etc.. Look at Enron. The US is not immune to corruption. There's even been accusations of the US government engaging the US military in other countries in order to divert the US public attention away from corruption or other scandal in a "Wag the Dog," type scenario, such as when Clinton attacked Afghanistan in August of '98 to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Deploying troops to foreign lands has long been a way for the US to avoid dealing with its' own problems, sometimes putting those troops/pawns in harms way solely for political reasons, not national interest.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:46 pm

lesgiu wrote:Since when did this site become infested by pricks?

I'm Peruvian and it's sad to see each and every single post by an expat being hijacked by another and turned into bitter arguments and grandstanding.

Every single day.

Without fail.

Where have all the good guys/gals gone? Tsk..tsk..

It's the internet. People state their points of view. I didn't see any bitterness at all in this thread. I don't believe having an opposing point of view on a topic and stating it is being bitter. If someone doesn't like having their point of view questioned, perhaps a public internet forum isn't the best place to state their opinion.
User avatar
chi chi
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 6060
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Location: Granada, Andalusia

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby chi chi » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:15 am

craig wrote:No, I have not noticed anything of the kind. Fruitless decades and hundreds of billions of dollars of US intervention in Columbia only made things much worse.


The cocaine production simply moved from Colombia to Peru. And if they start getting tough on the cocaine production in Peru then it will move to to Bolivia. And Evo Morales won't allow any US involvement in his country.

If the US and Europe want to tackle the cocaine problem then it's citizens should stop sticking that stupid garbage up their nose. If there no more demand then the cocaine production will stop.

Besides that, every country that the US military got involved in has been taken over by Al Qaida or IS terrorists.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Kenia, Syria, Lybia,...
Do we want Peru to be run by Al Qaida or IS?
User avatar
Guiri
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:27 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby Guiri » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:58 pm

chi chi wrote:
craig wrote:
Do we want Peru to be run by Al Qaida or IS?
Yeah..there is really a thread that this will happen.. :roll:
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:07 pm

mammamia wrote:
ironchefchris wrote:
Out of curiosity, does the US have a law allowing Peruvian or any other foreighn troops to patrol US soil?


Why should I care??? If the US involvement helps eliminate or at least weaken the drug mafia in Peru I'll be more than happy. And I don't care who'll do this: the US, Brazilian or even Chilean troops because the Peruvians aren't capable of achieving this goal and will never be, IMHO.



Drug Mafia is the Peruvian Govt.... Secret accounts in Panama with HBSC.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:14 pm

This could possible related to the Muslim who was arrest upon finding bomb materials in his possession.'
To irradicate future incidents.

Peru also reinstituted shooting down planes flying in drug country.

I am against US meddling.. Take a look at the unstable middle east intervention.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:19 pm

tupacperu wrote:

Drug Mafia is the Peruvian Govt.... Secret accounts in Panama with HBSC
.


I wouldn't be too much surprised if it were true. And this mafia is the toughest to eradicate...
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:46 pm

T
tupacperu wrote:
mammamia wrote:
ironchefchris wrote:
Out of curiosity, does the US have a law allowing Peruvian or any other foreighn troops to patrol US soil?


Why should I care??? If the US involvement helps eliminate or at least weaken the drug mafia in Peru I'll be more than happy. And I don't care who'll do this: the US, Brazilian or even Chilean troops because the Peruvians aren't capable of achieving this goal and will never be, IMHO.



Drug Mafia is the Peruvian Govt.... Secret accounts in Panama with HBSC.

US taking out Drug Mafia/Peruvian Govt. reminds me of CIA involvement in Chile in early 70's/Allende/Pinochet. I agree with you about being against US meddling. It's not like the US doesn't already have enough balls their juggling, trying not to drop any. I have serious doubts the US wants to stop cocaine coming into the US in the first place. It's been well documented how the CIA helped bring cocaine into the US. The Reagan Administration even admitted to Contra-Cocaine connections. The CIA has a long, sordid history of interfering with Latin American affairs. Drugs is big business. Good for the military. Good for the (increasingly privatized) prison industry that is happy (along with the powerful prison guards unions) to see more citizens turned into criminals and placed behind bars, good for law enforcment, keeps the "less desireable" part of the population addicted and strung out, etc.. Like Sonny Corleone said in 'The Godfather.' "Lot a money in them white powders, pops."

I'd hate to see Peru become another victim of US foreign policy.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Tue Feb 17, 2015 7:33 pm

The US Embassy in Lima is a State within Peru.
I bet there is an underground military base there. The property it takes up is large enough
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:01 am

tupacperu wrote:The US Embassy in Lima is a State within Peru.
I bet there is an underground military base there. The property it takes up is large enough

The place is ginormous, and that's just considering what's visible. Who knows what they've built underground. US citizens services takes up one small room so every time I'm there I wonder what goes on in the rest of the compound. Every other embassy I've passed is far more modest in size and seems able to manage the typical functions an embassy performs in far more modest buildings. I think I read here how the British embassy takes up just one floor of a Miraflores office building. It wouldn't surprise me if every other embassy in Lima could fit in the US embassy compound.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:28 pm

ironchefchris wrote:
tupacperu wrote:The US Embassy in Lima is a State within Peru.
I bet there is an underground military base there. The property it takes up is large enough

The place is ginormous, and that's just considering what's visible. Who knows what they've built underground. US citizens services takes up one small room so every time I'm there I wonder what goes on in the rest of the compound. Every other embassy I've passed is far more modest in size and seems able to manage the typical functions an embassy performs in far more modest buildings. I think I read here how the British embassy takes up just one floor of a Miraflores office building. It wouldn't surprise me if every other embassy in Lima could fit in the US embassy compound.


LOL.... You see Military coming in and out of the place.....
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:25 pm

ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:34 am

Interesting article and comments. One of the commenters posted a link to this article on US involvement in Latin America which was also interesting:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/20/e ... ted_states

As one commenter in the original referenced article put it:

"US military wouldn't go to Peru unless it was good business. They are cooking something and all Peruvians can smell it." Here's what some military vets have to say:



Any Peruvian who knows the long history of US intervention in Latin America and remembers what happened with their Chilean neighbors has good cause to be wary of opening the door to those Washington bullets.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:24 pm

Only a vassal country would allow imperialist troops on their land, this is sad news. After the ridiculous declaration that Venezuela is a threat to US National Security, this geopolitical chess move can only be taken as another aggressive step in a process of destabilization by Washington to undermine those countries not toeing their line. Let's not be surprise if we start hearing of a South American "spring" or a "Maidan" taking place in those countries.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:06 pm

JoshuS wrote:Only a vassal country would allow imperialist troops on their land, this is sad news. After the ridiculous declaration that Venezuela is a threat to US National Security, this geopolitical chess move can only be taken as another aggressive step in a process of destabilization by Washington to undermine those countries not toeing their line. Let's not be surprise if we start hearing of a South American "spring" or a "Maidan" taking place in those countries.



So, again, it's the US government's fault that Venezuela's economy went bust and Maduro and the late Chavez have nothing to do with it... The typical communist way to look at things: the Western democracies are to blame for the mess the commies and other leftist governments have gotten their own countries into.
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:52 pm

I believe it's no longer a matter of Capitalist West vs. Communist East (so Cold War). Being anti-Imperialist doesn't mean one is pro-Communist. Communist nations such as the USSR and China have their sordid histories of Imperialism as well. I wouldn't want to live in Venezuela under either Chavez or Maduro. I'm not privy to inside information, but the US does have a well known history of destabilizing governments they don't like with the hopes of a regime change more favorable to the US. I'd guess that's part of what's going on, but I'd also guess based on what I've read and Venezuelans I've spoken with that even without US interference Maduro would probably run Venezuela into the ground on his own. Who knows? Cuba seems to have survived after close to 60 years of US antagonism. Imagine where they'd be without that antagonism.

Remember what happened in Chile with Allende and how the US backed dictator Pinochet took power. I visited Nicaragua in the late 80's (and again in the 90's and 21'st Century) and without doubt US interference was the largest contributing factor to the Sandinistas losing the elections. After the revolution life improved for many. Literacy increased greatly, but the US wanted a Government more friendly to their needs and so the US illegally funded/CIA trained Contras made it hard for the Sandinistas to effectively govern. I don't agree with Imperialism, but I understand it. The first thing taught in International Relations classes is that Nation-States operate in their own best interest.

Mammamia, I believe in a past thread you mentioned being from Eastern Europe. If so, and especially if from a Communist country, I could see how that could effect ones world view. I grew up in the US and came of age during the 70's and 80's and so my world view is shaped by events such as Watergate, US invasions of sovereign nations, illegal interventions in world affairs such as Iran/Contra, etc.. I never liked seeing my tax dollars funding these activities and I never liked seeing friends and family who serve(d) in the military being used not to defend their country, but risk their lives to make the world safe for Coca-Cola and line the pockets of companies like Haliburton who profit on destabilization, war, and violence. The might of the US can and has been used for good, but often they're less concerned about the freedom of oppressed people in the world while being primarily interested in expanding influence, extracting resources and exploiting business opportunities. If a country has no resources or strategic importance the US doesn't intervene no matter what atrocities are taking place.

If I were from a country with an oppressive system of government and US intervention helped end that I might have a different view and wouldn't focus as much or at all on the true reasons they helped liberate my country. I might just be happy that it was out with the old and wouldn't care much about their new military bases, attempts to supplant my culture, or that they are now building pipelines, canals, extracting resources, etc.. But I wasn't born in such a country. I feel fortunate for having been born in the US because of the opportunities it provided me, but I've long removed any rose colored glasses that would have me believing its a perfect and benign country. My prosperity is unfortunately at the expense of exploited nations elsewhere in the world. Perhaps my being anti-Imperialist is a way of dealing with any associated guilt I may feel.

Apologies for going on. US imperialism is a topic important to me that I feel passionate about.

If you can find an Afghan rebel
That the Moscow bullets missed
Ask him what he thinks of voting Communist...
...Ask the Dalai Lama in the hills of Tibet,
How many monks did the Chinese get?


[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1FWWSVgDYM[/youtube]
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:01 pm

JoshuS wrote:Only a vassal country would allow imperialist troops on their land, this is sad news. After the ridiculous declaration that Venezuela is a threat to US National Security, this geopolitical chess move can only be taken as another aggressive step in a process of destabilization by Washington to undermine those countries not toeing their line. Let's not be surprise if we start hearing of a South American "spring" or a "Maidan" taking place in those countries.

This "threat" reminds me of when the US tried to sell its citizens on the notion that Nicaragua, a much smaller country with a poorly armed army consisting primarily of peasant conscripts, was a threat to the much larger US and their professional army who is the most heavily armed nation in the world. The current threat is that Venezuela is sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves and the US wants to control it. Kind of like Americans who wonder why God put their oil under the sands of Middle Eastern countries. So they'll make the former bus driver, current clown, a boogeyman and once again try to scare Americans.
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:33 am

ironchefchris wrote:Interesting article and comments. One of the commenters posted a link to this article on US involvement in Latin America which was also interesting:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/20/e ... ted_states

As one commenter in the original referenced article put it:

"US military wouldn't go to Peru unless it was good business. They are cooking something and all Peruvians can smell it." Here's what some military vets have to say:



Any Peruvian who knows the long history of US intervention in Latin America and remembers what happened with their Chilean neighbors has good cause to be wary of opening the door to those Washington bullets.


Lol... They are entering without arms , meanwhile there are battleships and aircraft carriers on the coast..lol
Who needs a gun when you have laser guided missles?
User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Pimentel Beach-Chiclayo- Sanford NC
Contact:

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tupacperu » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:47 am

US MILITARY HISTORY IN LATIN ANERICA

Opinion
David Boryszewski
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Following is a timeline of intervention of the United States in Latin America.

Guatemala, 1954: A CIA coup overthrew the democratically elected and progressive Government of Jacabo Arbenz on the pretext that he was comfortable with the Soviets. The two countries had no diplomatic relations yet.

Real reason for participation was land of United Fruit Company was taken as part of the agrarian reform of the President. This action by the CIA became the book of plays for the intervention of the CIA in Latin America. The bribing of military officials and a propaganda campaign against the Government which included the operation of radio stations. Mass distribution of anti-Government leaflets and the anonymous submission of articles to newspapers painting the Arbenz Government as Communists.

United States also used its influence at the United Nations to ignore Arbenz requests for an investigation. The coup was followed by 40 years of instability and brutality in Guatemala.

Here is a list of CIA using the same or similar tactics to paint the evil leaders of the Communist country and a threat to the United States.

Ad

British Guyana, 1953-1964; Cuba, 1959 to present; Ecuador, 1960-1963; Brazil, 1961-1964; Peru, in the mid-1960s; Dominican Republic, 1963-1965; Uruguay, 1964-1970; Chile, 1964-1973; Bolivia, 1964-1975; Argentina, in the 1970s; Nicaragua, 1978-1990; Honduras, in the 1980s; Granada, 1979-1983; El Salvador, 1980-1992; Haiti, 1987-1994; Panama, 1989; Mexico-Peru - Columbia, 1990s to present.

So perhaps you will understand why these people are trying to escape death, slavery, torture, rape and there is more choice and no voice more in his life.

For sources, see William Blum, "Rogue State: a guide to the only superpower," 2005; William Blum, "killing hope: the interventions of the United States and the CIA since World War II," press common value. 2005 and 2003, updated for this article. Now replace these for countries of the Middle East and the photo.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:19 am

mammamia wrote:So, again, it's the US government's fault that Venezuela's economy went bust and Maduro and the late Chavez have nothing to do with it... The typical communist way to look at things: the Western democracies are to blame for the mess the commies and other leftist governments have gotten their own countries into.


Notwithstanding the hyperbolic, run amok propaganda against Venezuela by Western media, imperialist aggression against a sovereign country should not be tolerated. Example of this is the failed coup of 2002 by the US in collusion with the ultra-right against Chavez, then another one after that, and the latest failed one last month or so, not to mention the on-going destabilization activities carried out by the ultra-right sponsored and financed by US embassy, organizations and NGOs, etc. Moreover, this is pretty much the same pattern carried out by the US all over the world against countries that don’t bend to Washington’s desires, not just Venezuela. Russia, another example, is now under attack by the Anglo North American imperial coalition, Putin is all over Western media demonized as the new Hitler, dictator, crook, aggressor, blah, blah, does it sound familiar?
There is a true saying at high levels of government and those who know real politik that the only country in the world where there will never be a coup is the US, because it doesn’t have a US embassy.

For those who would like to know and understand more about the atrocities committed by the US in South America, watch the following documentary by the acclaimed and well renowned film producer John Pilger.
In it you will hear from the horse’s mouth how it works as well many witnesses and stories by the victims themselves. Venezuela 2002 US coup, Chile 1973 US coup and other covert activities, etc.

https://youtu.be/oeHzc1h8k7o https://youtu.be/oeHzc1h8k7o
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:03 pm

tupacperu wrote:US MILITARY HISTORY IN LATIN ANERICA

Opinion
David Boryszewski
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Following is a timeline of intervention of the United States in Latin America.

Guatemala, 1954: A CIA coup overthrew the democratically elected and progressive Government of Jacabo Arbenz on the pretext that he was comfortable with the Soviets. The two countries had no diplomatic relations yet.

Real reason for participation was land of United Fruit Company was taken as part of the agrarian reform of the President. This action by the CIA became the book of plays for the intervention of the CIA in Latin America. The bribing of military officials and a propaganda campaign against the Government which included the operation of radio stations. Mass distribution of anti-Government leaflets and the anonymous submission of articles to newspapers painting the Arbenz Government as Communists.

United States also used its influence at the United Nations to ignore Arbenz requests for an investigation. The coup was followed by 40 years of instability and brutality in Guatemala.

Here is a list of CIA using the same or similar tactics to paint the evil leaders of the Communist country and a threat to the United States.

Ad

British Guyana, 1953-1964; Cuba, 1959 to present; Ecuador, 1960-1963; Brazil, 1961-1964; Peru, in the mid-1960s; Dominican Republic, 1963-1965; Uruguay, 1964-1970; Chile, 1964-1973; Bolivia, 1964-1975; Argentina, in the 1970s; Nicaragua, 1978-1990; Honduras, in the 1980s; Granada, 1979-1983; El Salvador, 1980-1992; Haiti, 1987-1994; Panama, 1989; Mexico-Peru - Columbia, 1990s to present.

So perhaps you will understand why these people are trying to escape death, slavery, torture, rape and there is more choice and no voice more in his life.

For sources, see William Blum, "Rogue State: a guide to the only superpower," 2005; William Blum, "killing hope: the interventions of the United States and the CIA since World War II," press common value. 2005 and 2003, updated for this article. Now replace these for countries of the Middle East and the photo.


Judging from the heading of your post it's just an opinion. There might be millions of different opinions on the matter, right? Nobody will deny the fact that there will be undesirable consequences to any military intervention whatever good the initial intentions might have been. But you seem to forget under what circumstances those interventions were conducted, willingly or unwillingly, you are omitting one hell of a player in that gigantic chess play - the USSR. Would you personally prefer the Russians meddling in Nicaragua's affairs in the mid 80-s, or the same Russians placing their nukes in Cuba in the early 60-s?

I'm not trying to say that the US meddling in Latin America or elsewhere in the world is the perfect solution to the world's problems, not at all, but I think that the smaller countries like Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru, etc. are not and, unfortunately, will never be fully independent states in terms of geopolitics and will always be "guided" by a superpower. And I'd, personally, prefer this superpower to be the lesser of the "evils", namely such western, modern, democratic state as the US instead of the corruption ridden and warmongering Russia or communist China.
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:15 pm

JoshuS wrote:
Russia, another example, is now under attack by the Anglo North American imperial coalition, Putin is all over Western media demonized as the new Hitler, dictator, crook, aggressor, blah, blah, does it sound familiar?


Do you seriously believe that Putin is a good guy, defender of the suppressed, fighter for the new and better world where no superpower (unless it's a sacred orthodox Russia) could dictate its will to smaller nations?

If it is so, then you know nothing about the guy and the Russia he's building. Try to google Beslan slaughter, Musical Nordost hostage crisis, the Chechen wars atrocities, the Eastern Ukraine crisis. Maybe it'll help you see things more clearly.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:10 pm

mammamia wrote:
JoshuS wrote:
Russia, another example, is now under attack by the Anglo North American imperial coalition, Putin is all over Western media demonized as the new Hitler, dictator, crook, aggressor, blah, blah, does it sound familiar?


Do you seriously believe that Putin is a good guy, defender of the suppressed, fighter for the new and better world where no superpower (unless it's a sacred orthodox Russia) could dictate its will to smaller nations?

If it is so, then you know nothing about the guy and the Russia he's building. Try to google Beslan slaughter, Musical Nordost hostage crisis, the Chechen wars atrocities, the Eastern Ukraine crisis. Maybe it'll help you see things more clearly.



Please, don’t project your own insecurities and biases against Russia on me. I never praised Putin or said he is a either a good or bad guy. I was talking about the only clear and present danger in the world today, and that is the Anglo-North American empire, the most corrup alliance in the world today. Unlike you, I don’t believe in top down authority, especially in the need to have a “lesser of all evils” superpower, that’s just the mentality of an indoctrinated and well trained Pavlovian slave, if you ask me.
Russia is not USSR, and as far as I know based of what I’ve been closely observing Russia has no desire to “revive the old USSR” as spewed out loud by the press-titutes in Westerm nedia propaganda and parroted by the nescient. This is a long winded subject that I could write pages and pages but I just don’t have the time. BTW, all the aggression in the Ukraine crisis started from the US/NATO side as they funded and sponsored at all levels the coup against the democratically elected Ukranian president back in February 2014, this is well documented and overtly acknowledge by Obama now. Victoria “F…k the EU” Nuland (she admitted that 5 billion dollars have been invested in Ukraine groups to bring about a coup)and team saw to it that Bandera’s Nazis were installed as their puppets, they were their best option. Russia naturally reacted defensively, reclaimed Crimea (historically Russia’s) and is trying now to manage the damage since Ukraine is Russia’s buffer zone and space of influence. Of course you won’t hear the true story in the BBC, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc, you’ll hear the exact opposite. On another note, the so called rebellion in Chechnya was funded and sponsored by the CIA, again to destabilize Russia. So it was with Georgia, the US used his puppet Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia to provoke Russia, Russia naturally reacted regaining control of that Russian territory, and so on. We are at the cusp of a possible WWIII, all caused by the neocon aggressive foreign policy of the US.

Here’s an interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939), which puts pretty much what’s going in the world today in perspective.
He is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics.[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.He has written extensively on the effects of the neo-liberal economic policies pursued since the 1990s and about jobs-offshoring which he has strongly criticised. He has argued that these policies, favouring the financial services "industry" at the expense of other sectors of the economy, has eroded America's industrial capacity, its workers' skills and has sharply decreased upward social mobility. He has stated that these policies which condemned American workers to low-paying unskilled jobs, as the only jobs available, caused them to increase their net personal debt to maintain living standards, significantly contributed to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. These positions are covered in greater detail in his book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism and the Economic Erosion of the West (2012).
Excerpts:
“The Saker: It has become rather obvious to many, if not most, people that the USA is not a democracy or a republic, but rather a plutocracy run by a small elite which some call “the 1%”. Others speak of the “deep state”. So my first question to you is the following. Could you please take the time to assess the influence and power of each of the following entities one by one. In particular, can you specify for each of the following whether it has a decision-making “top” position, or a decision-implementing “middle” position in the real structure of power (listed in no specific order)
• Federal Reserve
• Big Banking
• Bilderberg
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Skull & Bones
• CIA
• Goldman Sachs and top banks
• “Top 100 families” (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Dutch Royal Family, British Royal Family, etc.)
• Israel Lobby
• Freemasons and their lodges
• Big Business: Big Oil, Military Industrial Complex, etc.
• Other people or organizations not listed above?
Who, which group, what entity would you consider is really at the apex of power in the current US polity?

Paul Craig Roberts: The US is ruled by private interest groups and by the neoconservative ideology that History has chosen the US as the “exceptional and indispensable” country with the right and responsibility to impose its will on the world.”
“In the 21st century, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have served only the interests of the large banks. This has been at the expense of the economy and the population. For example, retired people have had no interest income for eight years in order that the financial institutions can borrow at zero costs and make money.
No matter how rich some families are, they cannot compete with powerful interest groups such as the military/security complex or Wall Street and the banks. Long established wealth can look after its interests, and some, such as the Rockefellers, have activist foundations that most likely work hand in hand with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund and encourage various pro-American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in countries that the US wants to influence or overthrow, such as occurred in Ukraine. The NGOs are essentially US Fifth Columns and operate under such names as “human rights,” “democracy,” etc. A Chinese professor told me that the Rockefeller Foundation had created an American University in China and is used to organize various anti-regime Chinese. At one time, and perhaps still, there were hundreds of US and German financed NGOs in Russia, possibly as many as 1,000.”

“The Saker: I have always believed that in international terms, organizations such as NATO, the EU or all the others are only a front, and that the real alliance which controls the planet are the ECHELON countries: US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand aka “AUSCANNZUKUS” (they are also referred to as the “Anglosphere” or the “Five Eyes”) with the US and the UK are the senior partners while Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the junior partners here. Is this model correct?

Paul Craig Roberts: NATO was a US creation allegedly to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. Its purpose expired in 1991. Today NATO provides cover for US aggression and provides mercenary forces for the American Empire. Britain, Canada, Australia, are simply US vassal states just as are Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the rest. There are no partners; just vassals. It is Washington’s empire, no one else’s.
The US favors the EU, because it is easier to control than the individual countries.”

“Paul Craig Roberts: The US military is a creature of the armaments industries. The whole purpose of making general is to be qualified to be a consultant to the “defense” industry, or to become an executive or on the board of a “defense” contractor. The military serves as the source of retirement careers when the generals make the big money. The US military is totally corrupt. Read Andrew Cockburn’s book, Kill Chain.

The Saker: If the USA is really deliberately going down the path towards war with Russia – what should Russia do? Should Russia back down and accept to be subjugated as a preferable option to a thermonuclear war, or should Russia resist and thereby accept the possibility of a thermonuclear war? Do you believe that a very deliberate and strong show of strength on the part of Russia could deter a US attack?

Paul Craig Roberts: I have often wondered about this. I can’t say that I know. I think Putin is humane enough to surrender rather than to be part of the destruction of the world, but Putin has to answer to others inside Russia and I doubt the nationalists would stand for surrender.
In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.
Putin should also make sure China understands that China represents the same perceived threat to the US as Russia and that the two countries need to stand together. Perhaps if Russia and China were to maintain their forces on a nuclear alert, not the top one, but an elevated one that conveyed recognition of the American threat and conveyed this threat to the world, the US could be isolated.”

Read more:
http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews ... g-roberts/
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:03 pm

ironchefchris wrote:
JoshuS wrote:Only a vassal country would allow imperialist troops on their land, this is sad news. After the ridiculous declaration that Venezuela is a threat to US National Security, this geopolitical chess move can only be taken as another aggressive step in a process of destabilization by Washington to undermine those countries not toeing their line. Let's not be surprise if we start hearing of a South American "spring" or a "Maidan" taking place in those countries.

This "threat" reminds me of when the US tried to sell its citizens on the notion that Nicaragua, a much smaller country with a poorly armed army consisting primarily of peasant conscripts, was a threat to the much larger US and their professional army who is the most heavily armed nation in the world. The current threat is that Venezuela is sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves and the US wants to control it. Kind of like Americans who wonder why God put their oil under the sands of Middle Eastern countries. So they'll make the former bus driver, current clown, a boogeyman and once again try to scare Americans.


Indeed, the below short clip pretty much sums it all up, most of it anyway:

https://youtu.be/r6zsp4tBUnQ?list=PLG9f ... d3w2XSgGdD
ironchefchris
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:10 pm
Location: Arequipa

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby ironchefchris » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:21 pm

mammamia wrote:Judging from the heading of your post it's just an opinion. There might be millions of different opinions on the matter, right? Nobody will deny the fact that there will be undesirable consequences to any military intervention whatever good the initial intentions might have been. But you seem to forget under what circumstances those interventions were conducted, willingly or unwillingly, you are omitting one hell of a player in that gigantic chess play - the USSR. Would you personally prefer the Russians meddling in Nicaragua's affairs in the mid 80-s, or the same Russians placing their nukes in Cuba in the early 60-s?

"Whatever good the initial intentions..." Good for who exactly? United Fruit Company? The CIA? The defense industry? Any "good intentions" certainly had nothing to do with helping the people of the invaded/controlled countries and everything to do with forwarding US military, government and business interests.

"Russians meddling in Nicaragua's affairs?" Please. I visited Nicaragua in the 80's. The biggest meddling I saw was a Soviet truck from the 1950's, given to the Cubans when the Soviets no longer wanted it and eventually passed on from Cuba to Nicaragua. Here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor about Soviet influence and aid in Nicaragua. Nothing at all compared to the US illegally fuming and training the Contras, partly with proceeds from an arms deal the US did with Iran, trading for hostages. How were the Nicaraguans who were focused on literacy campaigns and agrarian reforms and a small, ill equipped peasant army a threat to the mighty US? I just don't see where the Soviets meddled anything close to how the US did. Unless you count farm tractors, teachers, doctors and other medical personnel, etc.. The US gave to Nicaraguan people increased violence, bullets, mined harbors, CIA, etc..

Soviet aid to Nicaragua: ideology, tractors
By James Nelson Goodsell, Latin America correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor APRIL 16, 1982

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA — Under dark of night, stevedores at Nicaragua's big Pacific Coast port of Corinto recently unloaded a Russian freighter.

Off came more than 200 Super General farm tractors, a Soviet donation to the Nicaraguan government. The spanking-new green tractors were quickly dispatched to government-run farms in northwestern Chinandega and Leon provinces.

This is not really an indication of increasing Soviet aid to Nicaragua.

In fact, the arrival of the tractors was the first major Soviet assistance to Nicaragua in 1982. Moreover, it follows a year in which the Soviet Union contributed a mere 3 percent of the foreign assistance and credit received by Nicaragua from all sources.

Although Soviet assistance to the Marxist-leaning government is not large, Soviet influence appears to be growing. Indeed, the Sandinistas are increasingly aligned with the Soviet bloc ideologically and on foreign affairs.

Cuba is the conduit for this alignment. While the Soviet Union tends to play a cautious and reserved role in Nicaragua, Cuba is playing a highly visible role.

As many as 3,000 Cubans are in Nicaragua, serving as teachers, doctors, nurses, and hospital technicians -- skilled professionals of whom Nicaragua has a large deficit. There are undoubtedly some Soviet military advisers offering the type of military assistance the United States is giving elsewhere in the Americas. But it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number of Soviets.

Unlike the Russians, the Cubans have provided sizable quantities of aid and credit to the Nicaraguans -- at least $70 million in 1981, although the total apparently includes what is spent on supplies for Cuban teachers and medical personnel.

But this Cuban assistance is only a fraction of a much larger amount of aid and credit that comes from non-Marxist sources. Although the US cut off aid more than a year ago, Nicaragua in 1981 continued to receive funds from Mexico, Venezuela, the Common Market countries, Sweden, and Libya -- with such assistance reaching an estimated $350 million.

International lending institutions like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank helped, too, by granting $200 million more in credits in 1981.

This non-Soviet-bloc assistance has clearly played a role in maintaining the Sandinistas' promises of political pluralism. Yet the ideological inclination of the Sandinista government is toward socialist countries -- and this inclination is growing.

The local press, with the notable exception of the opposition newspaper La Prensa, plays up Soviet-bloc assistance almost to the exclusion of aid that comes from other sources.

This has led to considerable criticism from Western governments and from socialist political parties in Europe and Latin America.

Although the US has been criticized for its aid cutoff and its efforts to isolate Nicaragua, officials from Mexico, France, West Germany, and Venezuela have been pressuring the Nicaraguans to lessen their alignment with the Soviet bloc.

''What is needed,'' a West European diplomat here said, ''is a continuing effort to offer the Sandinista government an alternative to greater dependence upon the Soviet bloc. That is why we are offering so much aid.''

At the same time, this Western diplomat, a longtime observer of Nicaragua, admits the situation is a paradox for the US and makes analysis of what is taking place difficult.

''The Soviet bloc is simply not big on assistance, but is long on ideological influence,'' he adds.

That is the very point that Washington makes. It was a factor, although not the deciding one, in the US aid cutoff.

Washington also points to the self-professed Marxism of each of the nine members of the Sandinista directorate, the ultimate authority here.

Sergio Ramirez Mercado, a member of the three-member governing junta although not a member of the directorate, admits ''our close ties with socialist countries,'' but stresses that ''we want to keep open our options.''

And Daniel Ortega Saavedra, another junta member but also a member of the directorate, says, ''We believe in nonalignment.''

To that a Western diplomat comments, ''It is a strange nonalignment.''
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:41 pm

[quote="JoshuS"]

Please, don’t project your own insecurities and biases against Russia on me. I never praised Putin or said he is a either a good or bad guy.

I never intended to project any biases against anybody. You said you'd never praised Putin, all right, maybe saying that he's under attack by the Anglo American imperial coalition doesn't sound a biased opinion to you (though sounds pretty much biased to me), but certainly he's stupid enough to believe he can withstand this alleged attack.

Russia is not USSR, and as far as I know based of what I’ve been closely observing Russia has no desire to “revive the old USSR” as spewed out loud by the press-titutes in Westerm nedia propaganda and parroted by the nescient.

That's another proof of your superficial knowledge of the subject. In his many interviews this hypocrite confessed to trying to revive the USSR and was always emphasizing that the collapse of it in 1991 was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Besides, Russia's interventions to Georgia in 2008, Moldova in 1992, Chechnya in 1994-98 and now to the Crimea and eastern Ukraine leave no doubts as to Russia's ambitions to restore the former imperial borders. It's obvious and I don't see how you can overlook them unless being heavily brainwashed by the Russian propaganda.

BTW, all the aggression in the Ukraine crisis started from the US/NATO side as they funded and sponsored at all levels the coup against the democratically elected Ukranian president back in February 2014, this is well documented and overtly acknowledge by Obama now. Victoria “F…k the EU” Nuland (she admitted that 5 billion dollars have been invested in Ukraine groups to bring about a coup)and team saw to it that Bandera’s Nazis were installed as their puppets, they were their best option

Another big lie. If this is well documented I would love to see the links. Bandera's Nazis as you call them didn't manage to get even 2% of the votes in the last purely democratic election to the parliament. And "the democratically elected president" was well known to have rigged the elections on all levels before he was so "undemocratically" deposed.

And to recap, don't place to much confidence in China's desire to cooperate with Russia in trying to rid the world of its "biggest tyrant" the USA. This union will never happen just because the Chinese aren't that stupid to ally themselves with the world's biggest loser Putin. It's obvious that his days as a politician who can influence the world's politics are numbered.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:49 pm

mammamia wrote: I never intended to project any biases against anybody. You said you'd never praised Putin, all right, maybe saying that he's under attack by the Anglo American imperial coalition doesn't sound a biased opinion to you (though sounds pretty much biased to me), but certainly he's stupid enough to believe he can withstand this alleged attack.


This is not a biased opinion but facts, Russia is under attack indeed. Not just because of the proxy war US/NATO is carrying out against Russia in Ukraine (while being responsible at the same time for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians) so they can pursue their imperial agenda in the region, but also because now they’re trying to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria “F…k the EU” Nuland to Armenia to organize a “color revolution” or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government’s allegiance away from Russia. This is aiming in my view at attempting to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization while destabilizing Russia and China where they can least afford it. In other words, attempting to recreate three more “Ukraines” type of situations so that Russia faces the renewal of conflict just like in Ukraine all simultaneously along its Asian border.

Last March 18, the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia’s military assault on South Ossetia in 2008, a flagrant provocation backed and sponsored by US/NATO/Israel, to which Russia naturally and rightfully defended sending is military across. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it “hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region.” Look closely at this statement. It defines the “international community” as Washington’s NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia’s border. Just recently in Poland and the Baltic states, Washington and NATO lies about a “pending Russian invasion”, lies which are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia’s borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia’s borders. In a week or so, NATO will lead a military convoy parade through some Baltic states in route to its base in Germany, this is all sabre rattling which amount to flagrant provocation. Russia, naturally, has been forced to respond with some “exercises” of its own. There was even a crazed US general on national TV calling for “killing Russians”. If all of these are not acts of aggression and attacks then I don’t know what is. I don’t see Russia trying to create “color” revolutions in Hawaii, Puerto Rico or Mexico so they can install their military bases, and I highly doubt it the US would allow it either.

mammamia wrote: That's another proof of your superficial knowledge of the subject. In his many interviews this hypocrite confessed to trying to revive the USSR and was always emphasizing that the collapse of it in 1991 was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Besides, Russia's interventions to Georgia in 2008, Moldova in 1992, Chechnya in 1994-98 and now to the Crimea and eastern Ukraine leave no doubts as to Russia's ambitions to restore the former imperial borders. It's obvious and I don't see how you can overlook them unless being heavily brainwashed by the Russian propaganda.


Show me the interview where he specifically said that, that “he confessed he’s trying to revive the USSR”, that’s a total piece of propaganda by corporate control main stream media. Putin did say however, that the “collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century because that break-up of the USSR in 1991 was "a real drama" which left tens of millions of Russians outside the Russian Federation.” There is a media war against Russia these days, like I said before, demonizing Putin as the new boogeyman. Of course the nescient run with it.

mammamia wrote: Another big lie. If this is well documented I would love to see the links. Bandera's Nazis as you call them didn't manage to get even 2% of the votes in the last purely democratic election to the parliament. And "the democratically elected president" was well known to have rigged the elections on all levels before he was so "undemocratically" deposed.


What you have in Kiev is a proxy regime, supported by “Western democracy” and the “international community”, US’ puppets. Like I said, confirmed by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria “F…k the EU” Nuland, key organizations in the Ukraine including the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda were generously supported by Washington:
“We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. … We will continue to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.” ~ Victoria Nuland
The Kiev puppet cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector who are Neo Nazis (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), but also the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security.

mammamia wrote:
And to recap, don't place to much confidence in China's desire to cooperate with Russia in trying to rid the world of its "biggest tyrant" the USA. This union will never happen just because the Chinese aren't that stupid to ally themselves with the world's biggest loser Putin. It's obvious that his days as a politician who can influence the world's politics are numbered.


China and Russia are geographically natural partners, they wisely have recognized this by geopolitical shifting towards a Russia-China integration and a trade/commerce alliance of the pair with Germany forming perhaps the greatest strategic maneuver of the past 100 years. This is what the Anglo-North American empire dreads the most and it is happily taking place. Russia and China clinched a massive $400 billion natural gas deal back in May 2014, around the Power of Siberia pipeline, whose construction began last year, they also added a second agreement worth $325 billion around the Altai pipeline originating in Western Siberia. On the military front, Russia and China are now committed to large-scale joint military exercises, while Russia's advanced S-400 air defense missile system will soon enough be heading for Beijing. In addition, for the first time in the post-Cold War era, Putin recently raised the old Soviet-era doctrine of "collective security" in Asia as a possible pillar for a new Sino-Russian strategic partnership.
The Chinese president has even called all this the "evergreen tree of Chinese-Russian friendship", so this all is why all the covert and overt aggression by Washington in the region, the alliance, especially if it integrates Germany formally, is what the criminal Anglo North American empire dreads the most. So, I guess these two presidents are not that stupid after all. 
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:41 pm

[quote="JoshuS"]

Washington has sent Victoria “F…k the EU” Nuland to Armenia to organize a “color revolution” or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government’s allegiance away from Russia. This is aiming in my view at attempting to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization while destabilizing Russia and China where they can least afford it.


Very doubtful. Is that another opinion of yours or are you going to corroborate it with some factual information? Or will simply stating that it's a classified info will do for you? Anyways, even if part of what you've written here were true, isn't it part of any diplomat's job description to protect and promote their country's interests? Especially under the circumstances when a state possessing thousands of nuclear warheads is trying to blackmail the rest of the world with a possibility of using its nuclear potential in case a certain country (Ukraine) tries to restore its control over the territory previously occupied by its neighbor (Russia).

You also mentioned the new threats to the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Very interesting, indeed. How about the unilateral violation by Russia of the 1994 Budapest treaty which was supposed to secure Ukraine from any territorial demands including those from Russia in exchange for Ukraine's nukes? Oh, I forgot, the mentioned treaty is rather insignificant to you since Russia and Putin in particular are turned into sorts of boogeymen for trying to withstand the mighty and ferocious Anglo-American imperialism and, according to you, are free to use their military machine to retrieve "the Russian Crimea" and "the pro-Russian Donbass".


Russia, naturally, has been forced to respond with some “exercises” of its own.


Nice exercises: with around 40 thousand troops participating in the vicinity of Ukraine's borders and more than 10 thousand Russian militaries involved in the conflict itself inside Ukraine. BTW, didn't those NATO military maneuvers start after Russia's involvement in Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Again, Russia is the innocent victim here, isn't it?


Show me the interview where he specifically said that, that “he confessed he’s trying to revive the USSR”, that’s a total piece of propaganda by corporate control main stream media.


Here are a few links, in Russian though, I didn't try to look up any videos bearing in mind that your Russian might not be good enough to catch the evasive meaning. So, only printed material:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/russia ... 484057.stm
http://www.zerkalo.az/2014/putin-vospri ... tragediyu/
http://expert.org.ua/statias/?id=32775&st=2


key organizations in the Ukraine including the Neo-Nazi party Svoboda were generously supported by Washington:
“We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. … We will continue to promote Ukraine to the future it deserves.” ~ Victoria Nuland



Doubtful again... How come, with a massive support like that Svoboda is not in the parliament after failing to collect the necessary 5% of the votes??? 5 billion dollars of the US taxpayers money going down the drain? And, by the way, Svoboda is a far right nationalist party (Marine Le Pen's National Front type) but has never been a neo nazy party as you put it.


The Kiev puppet cabinet is not only integrated by the Svoboda and Right Sector who are Neo Nazis (not to mention former members of defunct fascist UNA-UNSO), but also the two main Neo-Nazi entities have been entrusted with key positions which grant them de facto control over the Armed Forces, Police, Justice and National Security.


Untrue again. None of the cabinet ministers is a member of the above mentioned parties and entities, especially ridiculous sounds you mentioning of UNA-UNSO whose members indeed take an active part in fighting the Russian troops in the east but the movement itself has a marginal presence (2-3 MP's) in the parliament, let alone the government.



Russia and China clinched a massive $400 billion natural gas deal back in May 2014, around the Power of Siberia pipeline, whose construction began last year, they also added a second agreement worth $325 billion around the Altai pipeline originating in Western Siberia.


A big bust for Russia, of course. Firstly, the Chinese insisted on a below-average ($30 below the market price) price for 1000 m3 of gas. Secondly, Russia doesn't have sufficient workforce to haul a costly, 4000 km long pipeline along the frozen Siberian terrain, so China with its 1.5 billion people population will definitely profit from the project much more than scarcely populated Russia.

And finally, do you sincerely believe that China will turn its back on its biggest economic partner the USA trying to forge the "invincible alliance" with Russia? Nothing more than a groundless rhetoric . It may certainly happen in the future and only in case the USA ceases to be the biggest buyer of China's goods. But at a given level of China's economic dependency it'd be a suicidal move for China.
User avatar
tomsax
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tomsax » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:31 am

JoshuS wrote:In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.


As someone in Europe I am so glad Putin is probably not so stupid as to take your advice. But thanks for the support.

Do you really think that Putin threatening to nuke us would make us want to leave Nato? I find it hard to believe you can be that delusional. Oh I see, it just slipped your mind we have all being brainwashed by the great Satan. Remember we are SO gullible!

Good luck with the peace brockering!
Tom
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby JoshuS » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:49 am

tomsax wrote:
JoshuS wrote:In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.


As someone in Europe I am so glad Putin is probably not so stupid as to take your advice. But thanks for the support.

Do you really think that Putin threatening to nuke us would make us want to leave Nato? I find it hard to believe you can be that delusional. Oh I see, it just slipped your mind we have all being brainwashed by the great Satan. Remember we are SO gullible!

Good luck with the peace brockering!


Pooper! What took you so long to make your lousy appeareance, take note that your dyslexia is letting you down, again! Go back and re-read who wrote that. And yes just go back to your BBC for the next chapter of the new boogey man threatening to blow up the world, he's coming to get you Pooper, look under your bed when going to sleep tonight he might just be there! :lol:
User avatar
tomsax
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby tomsax » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:52 am

JoshuS wrote:Go back and re-read who wrote that.


Oh I take it back ! it was your often quoted fount of wisdom Mr Roberts, he who should know (you know he worked for the US government!). I can relax, Mr Putin will know he is a confirmed idiot.
Tom
mammamia
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:49 pm

Re: US MEDDLING IN PERU : Troops

Postby mammamia » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:53 am

tomsax wrote:
Good luck with the peace brockering!


May God save us from the peace brokers like this one!

Tom, I've tried to PM you but seems like the message didn't get through, got stuck in my outbox. Thanks for the support.

Return to “Expat Conversations”

Login  •  Register