rrman, You have a point. Or two. Or three.
>The drug war is an excuse to meddle in the affairs of these countries.
That may be true of Columbia, and certainly was true for Panama. It brings in money to other less legitimate regimes, however. The U.S. is not going to meddle in the affairs of Syria to any great extent. The U.S. is far more concerned about limiting Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbolla.
>The drug cartels treat the peasants much better then the USA backed regimes in power.
Also true to some extent, at least in Columbia. The cartels do build schools and the odd clinic to build support among the peasants. Are they better off overall? I would suggest not, because they will never advance as long as their internationally recognized government and their de facto government are at war. And they certainly can't speak out against drugs. The government also builds schools and clinics, without the threats.
> It's also used to launder money as in the North episode for funding more covert involvement in these countries.
That was true in at least once instance - Olly North's "Iran Contra" scandal. One would assume it has happened many other times.
>REBELS, is a word we see often. Hmmmmm, I guess that means that they are inherently evil, right?
No. It means they are rebelling. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the common assumption that what they are rebelling against is legitimate, that makes one assume they are not.
I would say the government in Columbia still has more legitimacy than the FARC, but that is a mute point. I wouldn't want to be ruled by either, thank you very much. The FARC has gained some legitimacy by virtue of its possession of the DMZ and the government is rapidly losing legitimacy through its human rights abuses.
As far as I know, drugs are not a major issue in the Chiapas conflict. It is largely a peasant revolt fanned by a few socialist idealists, and fueled by extreme poverty.
-g
BTW, welcome to the thread. |
