Somethings in life gather so much of their own momentum that even if it were to try and halt its own inertia, fate would slap it across the face with a raw 40 pound tuna and send it on its way. With Floyd ‘Money’ Mayweather in retirement last year, a new ‘pound for pound’ star blossomed into the peak of his career. This was none other than the Philippine sensation, Manny Paquiao: a soft-spoken, well-mannered, religious and extraordinarily gifted fighter who used to sell dougnuts in Manila for a nickel a piece. Born into an impoverished family, they were so poor at one point that Manny’s father actually cooked and ate the family dog. Now a prolific boxer, fans around the world have seen him involved in epic battles with Juan Manuel Marquez, Antonio Barrera, Eric Morales: saw him out-class De-La Hoya, destroy Hatton and pulverize Miguel Cotto most recently. But it is in this last year or so that his boxing class has truly developed under the watchful eye of his trainer and ‘Master’ Freddie Roach.

Mayweather, who could not stay retired for long, stepped out to fight Marquez.  Paquiao, having devastated Ricky Hatton was in the process of setting his sights on  Miguel Cotto in November. So it seemed that the former world pound for pound champion and the new pound for pound prodigy were on an aligned collision course. Mayweather needed to beat Marquez, and Paquiao needed to beat Cotto in order to set up what would possibly be the fight of the decade between ‘Money Mayweather’ and ‘The Pac Man.’

Marquez was made to look average. Average he was not, but that is how Mayweather made him look. One felt so sorry for Marquez and sympathised with his frustration at Floyd’s elusiveness and ability to hit him at will. He was virtually made to miss over and over again, and was punished for every single mistake. Take nothing away from Marquez, and give every praise to Mayweather, who was in scintillating form and dominated him the way Paquiao never could. One could argue that Floyd’s performance that night completely out-shone Manny’s. But let us remind ourselves of how Manny destroyed Hatton inside of two rounds, Mayweather only managing it by the tenth. However, Floyd’s first knock-down of the Hatton fight was arguably one of the greatest left hooks ever witnessed. On the back foot, in the corner of the ring, while side stepping! I do digress.

What Mayweather did to Marquez,  Paquiao answered with his performance over Cotto. Inch by inch, closing off the ring, picking him apart and darting in and out with waspish tactics. By the eighth or ninth round, it was evident that Cotto had nothing left in the tank. He was running on his pride as a fighter, the only thing keeping him on his feet. The referee should have stopped the punishment earlier, as Cotto’s face was beginning to resemble a bruised watermelon with Paquiao’s relentless marauding taking its toll. And so the inevitable result bubbled to the surface. Mayweather defeated Marquez in dominant fashion, and so too did Paquiao. The two ‘acclaimed’ best pound for pound fighters in the world are indeed the best ‘pound for pound.’ At this moment in time, no-one else even comes close.

So now we are closer than ever to a real possibility of a clash between the cream of the crop. But there is only one space on the throne for these two kings of the division. Mayweather or Paquiao? Class, skill, speed and strength versus class, skill, speed and strength. Skill wise and physical conditioning-wise, they are nigh inseparable. However, I believe the advantage does lie with Mayweather. His defensive skills are superior, he’s bigger, has more reach, has a more well-rounded boxing style and is unbeaten. It would be a crying shame for both of them to come this far, and miss out on a momentous duel. I am not a superstitious man, but somewhere right now, Floyd Mayweather and Manny Paquiao have just been slapped by a 40 pound tuna.

FAKTOR, Rabu, 25 November 2009 | 03:21 WIB

Oleh TRIAS KUNCAHYONO

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/11/25/03214526/chavez.morales.correa.ortega.dan.siapa.lagi

Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, dan Rafael Correa telah berhasil ”menyiasati” konstitusi negara masing-masing—Venezuela, Bolivia, dan Ekuador—untuk memperpanjang masa kekuasaan. Alasan mereka klasik: demi stabilitas dan kesinambungan pembangunan untuk rakyat!

Ada rakyat yang terbuai, terbius, dan mendukung penghapusan pembatasan masa jabatan yang tertulis dalam konstitusi. Akan tetapi, ada juga yang menentang ”akal-akalan” tiga presiden itu. Mereka berpendapat yang dilakukan ketiga presiden itu tidak demokratis dan berbahaya bagi demokrasi. Bila dibiarkan, negara akan kembali terlempar ke masa lalu, ketika negara dikuasai oleh para caudillos, diktator dan orang kuat.

Istilah caudillos muncul pada awal abad ke-19 saat gerakan kemerdekaan Amerika Latin mulai bergelora. Gelombang gerakan kemerdekaan membuat wilayah itu secara politik tidak stabil. Lamanya konflik bersenjata mendorong munculnya orang-orang kuat di negara-negara baru yang lepas dari kaum penjajah. Mereka inilah cikal bakal caudillos.

Negara-negara di kawasan Amerika Latin lepas dari pemerintahan diktator militer pada dekade 1980-an. Mereka juga menyusun konstitusi baru yang membatasi masa jabatan presiden, yang kini diterjang. Chavez mengatakan, jabatan dua kali presiden tidak cukup untuk menyelesaikan ”revolusi sosialis Venezuela.”

Morales mengikuti langkah Chavez, demikian pula Correa. Kini, Presiden Nikaragua Daniel Ortega mengikuti langkah Chavez, Morales, dan Correa. Majelis Nasional

sudah menghadang usaha Ortega. Mereka berpendapat masa jabatan presiden harus dibatasi mencegah terjadinya penyalahgunaan kekuasaan dan lahirnya diktator, lahirnya caudillos lagi.

Namun, jalan lapang diberikan Mahkamah Agung kepada Ortega. Terbukalah kini kesempatan bagi Ortega untuk terus memegang kekuasaan karena diperbolehkan mengikuti lagi pemilu pada tahun 2011 meski harga yang harus dibayar Ortega sangat mahal, yakni pecahnya masyarakat.

Kekuasaan membutakan

Mengapa mereka begitu bernafsu mempertahankan kekuasaan? Franz Magnis-Suseno menulis, ”Sejak semula kekuasaan selalu berwajah dua: sekaligus mempesona dan menakutkan” (Kuasa dan Moral, 2000).

Kekuasaan memberikan kenikmatan, privilege, dan hak-hak istimewa, yang justru sering membuat pemegang kekuasaan lupa diri. Lupa bahwa sebenarnya kekuasaan juga menuntut tanggung jawab. Ungkapan bahasa Perancis noblesse oblige merupakan peninggalan dari masa aristokrasi, yang percaya bahwa status sosial yang lebih tinggi membawa serta kewajiban yang lebih banyak, termasuk di dalamnya juga kewajiban dalam memberikan teladan hidup. Itu yang semestinya dipegang oleh pengemban kekuasaan.

Dalam retorika politik Indonesia dewasa ini, masih sering terdengar keinginan atau harapan akan adanya pemimpin panutan, yang memegang teguh noblesse oblige. Seseorang dianggap menjadi panutan apabila dia memiliki kebajikan-kebajikan yang patut dicontoh oleh orang lain, yang melihat dalam diri sang panutan suatu model tentang perilaku yang baik dan benar.

Akan tetapi, dalam praktiknya tidak jarang asas noblesse oblige diganti oleh prinsip power tends to corrupt, yaitu bahwa kecenderungan kepada penyelewengan dan kejahatan selalu melekat pada tiap kekuasaan. Ini adalah sisi yang menakutkan dari kekuasaan.

Yang banyak terjadi, memang, kecenderungan kekuasaan untuk memperbesar dirinya jauh lebih kuat daripada kemampuannya membatasi diri. Kecenderungan kekuasaan untuk membenarkan diri juga berkali-kali lebih besar dari kemampuannya mengkritik dan mengawasi dirinya. Saat itulah sang pemimpin lupa diri. Kedua kakinya tidak lagi menapak tanah. Ia berdiri di awang-awang dan hanya melihat dirinya sendiri.

Apa yang terjadi di beberapa negara Amerika Latin memberikan gambaran yang jelas tentang hal itu. Chavez, Morales, Correa, Ortega, dan entah siapa lagi.

Pierwsza walka Marco Antonio Barrery z Erikiem Moralesem. Pojedynek odbył się 19 lutego 2000 roku w Las Vegas i uznany został za “Walkę roku”.

Przecena w sklepie Pretorian – sprawdź teraz!

I wasn’t going to do this. I really, really wasn’t. I was having fun.

I had 2nd thoughts through the ENTIRE thing. From day 2. Not day 1, ’cause that’s when I was impulsive. But day 2 I felt like, Ok, I want to do this, yet I don’t want to do this, because it feels like nothing more than a popularity contest. Joie said Oh just do it! You’re good at this sort of thing, you’ll have fun. And there’s a gorgeous bracelet that was added an extra prize.

So I did.

As I read, and visited competing bloggers, I see bribes for votes. Now I’m not thrashing them, don’t get me wrong. To each his/her own. And it was a creative strike. Kudos. However, I didn’t feel like that was fair. (at the risk of sounding like a child.) So I told Joie, again how I felt, and that I thought of withdrawing myself from the competition. (it was just starting to get fun) Again, she reminded me, oh just have fun with it! So I trudged on. No giveaways for my votes. NONE. No extra entries for a vote. No monetary promises. The only promise I made was to show off my socks, and pics of me wearing the mighty tiara. No tiara for me folks. However I’m upholding my end of my deal. You did vote for me, so at the bottom of this post, I am showing off my feet.

Then today, I’m on twitter, with my tweep buddies, and blog followers, and fellow bloggers, and I see that someone has tweeted a bit of something about how one of the competitors has offered to pay voters. WHAT?

I’m frustrated to say it nicely.

I worked hard for my votes. Ethically. Fairly. Socially. The way I thought this was going to be with everyone. Maybe I was a nut to think such things? No matter, this is how I feel. And if I don’t get it out …. well I’m venting. It’s my right isn’t it? What do you think?

I have my tiara. It’s a great circle of readers,and loyal friends, and many others that I have worked with. My shiny tiara will never fade. And has no monetary value. But, it’s mine. To keep. Forever. Really, I’m disgusted that it come to this. Disgusted.

Maybe I’m wrong to remove myself. Maybe I’m wrong to be upset/annoyed/irritated. I don’t know. But I know one thing, I’m walking away from this wearing my big girl panties. Maintaining my dignity. And I’m not afraid to say my morale’s. I have a lot of other things to do, that are much more constructive.

I don’t stake claim to fashion queen, or drama queen for that matter. I’m a mom. I take care of my elderly mother. I.AM.A.LADY. I have full intentions of keeping that too! I’m perfectly content hugging my little ankle biters doggies, and putting deer meat in for dinner tonight. Yes! Deer meat Venison. Fresh.

Thanks, to whoever you are for screwing it up for the rest of us. And I’m damned glad I apparently gave you a run for your money! lol Literally. I got something that you lost. Dignity. New Friends.

Thanks for reading, I already feel better.

Best of luck, and well wishes to those of you that are going to hang in there!

P.S. The bracelet would have been prettier on me anyway! You should have been tossed from the competition by your toes. TOES.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Rumors Of Coups And War: U.S., NATO Target Latin America

by Rick Rozoff

 
Global Research, November 18, 2009
Stop NATO

There is no way of overestimating the challenge that the emergence of ALBA and the overall reawakening of Latin America pose to the role that the U.S. arrogates to itself as lord of the entire Western Hemisphere. The almost two-century-old Monroe Doctrine exemplifies Washington’s claim to exclusive influence over all of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean Basin and its self-claimed right to subordinate them to its own interests. Never before the election victories of anti-neoliberal forces throughout Latin America over the past eleven years has the prospect of a truly democratic, multipolar New World existed as it does now.

It is in response to those developments that the U.S. and its former colonialist allies in NATO are attempting to reassert their influence in the Americas south of the U.S. border.
November 28 will mark five months since the coup led by U.S.-trained commanders deposed the president of Honduras, the next day will see a mock election in the same nation designed to legitimize the junta of Roberto Micheletti, and the day following that will be a month since Washington signed an agreement with the Alvaro Uribe government in Colombia for the use of seven military bases in the country.

While intensifying a full-scale war in South Asia, continuing occupation missions in Iraq and the Balkans, maintaining warships off the coasts of Somalia and Lebanon, and deploying troops and conducting war games in most parts of the world, the United States and its NATO allies have not neglected Latin America.

Central and South America and the Caribbean are receiving a degree of attention from the U.S. and its partners not witnessed since the Cold War and in some ways are the targets of even more intense scrutiny and intervention.

Nearly five months since the June 28 coup d’etat against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya led by General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, a graduate of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the School of the Americas, Washington has not used its substantial – decisive – leverage with the illegal government and its military supporters to reverse the armed takeover of power. Instead it has conspired with the junta to drag out deliberately futile negotiations and has thrown its weight behind the November 29 election which, occurring without the previous reinstalling of President Zelaya, will be a travesty of law and international protocols and is in fact intended to lend false credibility to the current regime.

On November 15 Manuel Zelaya wrote a letter to American President Barack Obama decrying Washington’s machinations and stating that accepting the terms of the U.S.-sanctioned (to say no more) arrangement with Micheletti regarding the upcoming election would amount to “covering up the coup d’etat, which we know has a direct impact due to the military repression on the human rights of the inhabitants of our country.”

The letter also said “The same day that the accord’s Verification Commission was set up in Tegucigalpa the statements by officials from the State Department surprised (everyone) where they modify their position and interpret the accord unilaterally with the following statement: ‘the elections should be recognized by the United States with or without the reinstatement’” of President Zelaya. [1]

The accord in question was one brokered by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias and signed on October 29 which would have led to a unity government with Manuel Zelaya returned to the presidency preparatory to a new election.

Micheletti and his supporters in the country’s business community and “muscle” in the military unilaterally abrogated the terms of the agreement by thwarting Zelaya’s reinstatement and appointing all members of the national cabinet. With the active connivance of Washington, as Zelaya’s letter to Obama contends.

If a government friendly to the United States was overthrown in the manner that the Honduran one was on June 28 it would not take the White House and the State Department five months to respond, and even then only to abet the crime. Censure, sanctions and covert operations would have been resorted to immediately.

In nations where candidates not entirely to the West’s liking win elections or unapproved presidents win reelection, the whole panoply of “regime change” interventions are put into effect with some variation of a “color revolution” ultimately negating and reversing the result. That such efforts have not been extended in Honduras is ample proof that the U.S. is satisfied with matters as they stand and would prefer the likes of Micheletti and General Vasquez to preside over a country where the Pentagon has a military facility at the Soto Cano Air Base and there stations its Joint Task Force Bravo replete with Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters.

On November 16 a photograph appeared on a Pentagon website, Defense Link, of the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, and his Colombian opposite number, General Freddy Padilla de Leon, shaking hands outside the Pentagon three days earlier. [2]

No story on or details of their meeting are available, not even on Defense Department sites. Only the photograph and brief notices on Facebook and Twitter.

Padilla’s resume is both illustrative and typical. He earlier matriculated in “terrorism studies” at George Washington University and received a fellowship for the Foreign Service Program at Georgetown University, as well as taking a course on advanced military studies at Fort Belvoir, Virginia and and training in strategic intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center in Washington, D.C.

The transcripts of his discussions with Mullen would prove intriguing, focusing as they no doubt did on the buildup at the seven military bases in Colombia recently turned over to the Pentagon and on the uses thereof.

Since the agreement on their acquisition by the United States was signed on October 30 confirmation of the bases’ dual purpose – escalating the counterinsurgency war inside the country and containing and confronting two of its neighbors, Venezuela and Ecuador – has been witnessed.

Bogota reported that nine of its soldiers were killed and four wounded in a major clash with FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) fighters in the southwestern department of Cauca on November 10.

Five days later Colombia seized four Venezuelan border guards on a river off Colombia’s Vichada Department. A few days earlier two Venezuelan National Guard troops were killed in the state of Tachira on the Colombian border, leading Caracas to deploy 15,000 troops to the area on November 5.

The preceding week Venezuela arrested eight Colombian nationals and two locals suspected of paramilitary activity on the two countries’ border. Government official Ricardo Sanguino “denounced increasing paramilitary activity as a strategy to conceal soaring US access to Colombian military bases” and said “they are trying to destabilize the government of Venezuela….” [3]

Recently Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez renewed repeated concerns over the new American bases on the territory of his western neighbor, saying “that according to recently produced documents, the military bases would be used for espionage purposes, allowing US troops there to launch a military offensive against Venezuela.” [4]

On November 8 Bolivian President Evo Morales said that “the use of Colombian military bases by U.S. troops meant a provocation to the Latin American peoples, mainly to the members of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA).”

He specified that “With the excuse of fighting against drug trafficking and terrorism, thousands of U.S. soldiers will be deployed in Colombia.” [5]

ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, consists of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras (until the coup), Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda, the last three nations joining this June.

Washington using Colombia as the nucleus of a new Latin American military bloc to counteract ALBA has been explored in a previous article in this series. [6] Other prospective candidates include post-coup Honduras, Panama, Peru and Chile, with pressure placed on Brazil, Guyana and Suriname to either supply bases or in other ways augment American and European military presence in Latin America and the Caribbean. [7]

The seven new U.S. military bases in Colombia allow the Pentagon far more scope than is required merely for alleged drug interdiction surveillance and even for the counterinsurgency war against the FARC. The agreement on the bases, bearing the sleep-inducing title of Supplemental Agreement for Cooperation and Technical Assistance in Defense and Security Between the Governments of The United States of America and the Republic of Colombia, lists where U.S. military personnel and equipment will be deployed:

German Olano Moreno Air Base, Palanquero; Alberto Pawells Rodriguez Air Base, Malambo; Tolemaida Military Fort, Nilo; Larandia Military Fort, Florencia; Capitan Luis Fernando Gomez Nino Air Base, Apiay; ARC Bolivar Naval Base in Cartagena; and ARC Malaga Naval Base in Bahia Malaga. [8]

The document also states that “the Parties agree to deepen their cooperation in areas such as interoperability, joint procedures, logistics and equipment, training and instruction, intelligence exchanges, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, combined exercises, and other mutually agreed activities” and Washington’s Colombian client concedes, in addition to the seven bases named above, “access to and use of other facilities and locations as may be agreed by the Parties.”

Furthermore, “The authorities of Colombia shall, without rental or similar costs to the United States, allow access to and use of the agreed facilities and locations, and easements and rights of way, owned by Colombia that are necessary to support activities carried out within the framework of this Agreement, including agreed construction. The United States shall cover all necessary operations and maintenance expenses associated with its use of agreed facilities and locations.”

U.S. military, intelligence and drug enforcement personnel – and American private contractors – “and their dependents” are granted “the privileges, exemptions, and immunities accorded to the administrative and technical staff of a diplomatic mission under the Vienna Convention….Colombia shall guarantee that its authorities verify, as promptly as possible, the immunity status of United States personnel and their dependents who are suspected of criminal activity in Colombia and hand them over as promptly as possible to the appropriate United States diplomatic or military authorities.”  

One of the military bases obtained by the United States – the Larandia Military Fort in Florencia – is within easy striking distance of Ecuador (as the Alberto Pawells Rodriguez Air Base in Malambo is of Veneuzela).

Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa and Defense Minister Javier Ponce visited Russia late last month and on October 29 the two nations signed a declaration on strategic partnership. Correa and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev discussed energy and military cooperation. Ahead of the visit Ecuador’s president stated, “We need to restore the might of our army” in reference to the U.S. buildup in Colombia, its neighbor to the north. “Ecuador has been alarmed by the decision of Colombia, with which it severed diplomatic relations in March 2008, to allow U.S. troops to use its bases.” [9] The severing of relations occurred after Colombia’s army launched an attack inside Ecuador.

Ecuador and Russia signed a contract for the delivery of Mi-171E Hip transport helicopters to the Ecuadoran Ground Forces and a Russian newspaper said “Russia could supply six Su-30MK2 Flanker multirole fighters, several helicopters, and air defense systems to Ecuador, which would increase the value of their military cooperation to over $200 million.” [10]

Like other members of ALBA – Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua – Ecuador is purchasing Russian military equipment as a counterbalance to traditional U.S. domination of its defense procurements, with the potential for sabotage and blackmail it entails, and as protection against potential attacks from Washington and its proxies, most notably Colombia.

There is no way of overestimating the challenge that the emergence of ALBA and the overall reawakening of Latin America pose to the role that the U.S. arrogates to itself as lord of the entire Western Hemisphere. The almost two-century-old Monroe Doctrine exemplifies Washington’s claim to exclusive influence over all of North, Central and South America and the Caribbean Basin and its self-claimed right to subordinate them to its own interests. Never before the election victories of anti-neoliberal forces throughout Latin America over the past eleven years has the prospect of a truly democratic, multipolar New World existed as it does now.

It is in response to those developments that the U.S. and its former colonialist allies in NATO are attempting to reassert their influence in the Americas south of the U.S. border.

The Pentagon recommissioned the Navy’s Fourth Fleet, disbanded in 1950 after World War II, last year and fully activated it this one. Its area of responsibility is the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America.

In early November a new commander for U.S. Army South was appointed, Major General Simeon Trombitas. The Army Times of November 10 provided background information on him:

“Trombitas, a 1978 West Point graduate, began his career in the 2nd Armored Division and served three tours with 7th Special Forces Group. He served in U.S. Southern Command and Special Operations Command in Panama and commanded the U.S. Military Group in Colombia. His general officer assignments include commanding general of Special Operations Command, Korea, and he served on the Iraq National Counter-Terrorism Force Transition Team.” [11]

The United States is not alone in threatening a newly and truly independent Latin America and Colombia and Honduras are not the only parts of Washington’s plans. On November 5 Paraguay’s President Fernando Lugo replaced the nation’s top military commanders – Army General Oscar Velazquez, Navy Rear Admiral Claudelino Recalde and Air Force General Hugo Aranda – against a backdrop of what Agence France-Presse reported as a fear of “an ouster similar to the one that befell Honduran President Manuel Zelaya….” [12]

That the Honduran putsch is intended to be the first in a series of similar plots in Latin America and is neither an aberration nor the last of its kind was also indicated last week when Nicaragua expelled a Dutch European Union parliamentarian. Radio Netherlands characterized the motivation for the action as follow: “Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega says Dutch MEP Hans van Baalen was in Nicaragua to see how the army felt about attempting a coup d´etat, but found no officers willing to go along with the idea.”

Van Baalen then moved to Honduras to “mediate in the political conflict between ousted President Manuel Zelaya and his de facto successor Roberto Micheletti.” [13]

Mexican journalist Luis Gutierrez, speaking at a conference against NATO’s global expansion in Berlin last month and in particular of the bloc’s Article 5 military mutual assistance clause, observed that “Mexico’s 3,000 kilometer border with the United States is also a border with NATO.” [14] Troops from 50 nations on five continents and in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and the South Pacific are serving or pledged to serve under NATO command in Afghanistan at the moment because of Article 5.

The Netherlands, for example, is not only assisting its American NATO ally in Nicaragua and Honduras, but allows its island possessions in the Caribbean – the Netherlands Antilles – to be employed for surveillance of and future military actions against Venezuela.

In Curacao, a Dutch possession only 70 kilometers from the Venezuelan coast, the leader of an opposition party, Pueblo Soberano (Sovereign People), demanded that the U.S. military base on the island be closed down.

Helmin Wiels said that “he wants to prevent Curacao from being dragged into what he predicts will be a future war between the US and Venezuela.

“The US has a number of military bases in Colombia, and Mr Wiels claims the country is intent on a confrontation with Venezuela’s leftwing President Hugo Chavez.” [15]

In May of 2008 a U.S. warplane flying from Curacao violated Venezuelan airspace, conducting surveillance of the Venezuelan military base on
Orchila Island. President Chavez said of the intrusion: “They’re spying, they’re even testing our reaction capacity.” [16]

Moreover, Venezuela accused the U.S. of coordinating the action with Colombia, whose soldiers had crossed the Venezuelan border the day before.

In 2005 Chavez appeared on the American television news program Nightline and warned that the U.S. and its NATO allies were rehearsing invasion plans for his nation, codenamed Balboa, which involved aircraft carriers and warplanes, and said that American troops had been deployed to Curacao as part of the preparations.

He further admonished: “We are coming up with a counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared.” [17]

A former Dutch possession in the Caribbean, Suriname, one country (Guyana) removed from Venezuela, offered the Pentagon bases to test military vehicles for jungle warfare in 2007.

In Guyana, Venezuela’s eastern neighbor, the nation’s former colonial master Britain canceled a security agreement after the Guyanese government questioned its partner’s real intentions.

The nation’s Office of the President released a statement which in part said: “This decision by the UK Government is believed to be linked to the administration’s refusal to permit training of British Special Forces in Guyana using live firing in a hinterland community on the western border with Brazil and Venezuela.” [18]

The Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, stated, “It could be that the UK Government did not fully appreciate how dearly held was our position on the non-violation of the sovereignty of Guyana. Their insistence in installing in their design in April…management features that seriously compromise Guyana’s ownership and when our new design re-established ownership that was more consistent with our notions of sovereignty, the plug was pulled….” [19]

With U.S. bases in Colombia to the west and in the Netherlands Antilles to the north, British military presence in the east would tighten the encirclement of Venezuela. A collective siege conducted by NATO allies the U.S., the Netherlands and Britain.

This June the chief of the Pentagon command that covers Central America, South America and the Caribbean – Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) – Admiral James Stavridis, was transferred to Brussels to become top military commander of United States European Command (EUCOM) and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

The transition was seamless, as one of the first initiatives on his new watch was to recruit U.S.-trained Colombian counterinsurgency troops for the war in Afghanistan. When they arrive they will be the first forces from Latin America, and the Western Hemisphere in general except for NATO members the U.S. and Canada, to serve under the Alliance’s command in the escalating South Asian war. [20]

Elsewhere in the Caribbean, Panamanian opposition sources report that Washington is in the process of securing four air and naval bases in their country. A news story from late September revealed that a preliminary agreement on the bases “was reached between Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during recent talks in New York.” [21]

On November 9 Senator Bill Nelson of Florida spoke out against drilling for oil off his state’s coast, saying “many of the activities at Florida military bases, including testing missile and drone systems and training pilots, depend on the vast open stretches of ocean, much of it restricted airspace.”

He mentioned that the Gulf of Mexico is “the largest testing and training area for the U.S. military in the world.” [22]

A Cuban analysis of three years ago described the overall American military blueprint for Latin America and the Caribbean:

“The United States has a system of bases that has managed to establish two areas of control:

“1. The circle formed by the Caribbean islands, the Gulf of Mexico and Central America, which covers the largest oil deposits in Latin America, and is formed by the bases of Guantanamo, Reina Beatriz, Hato Rey, Lampira, Roosevelt, Palmerola, Soto Cano, Comalapa and other lesser military posts.

“2. The circle that surrounds the Amazon basin, downward from Panama, where the canal, the region’s wealth and the location of an entry to South America have been essential, and which is formed by the bases of Manta [closed by Ecuador this July], Larandia, Tres Esquinas, Cano Limon, Marandua, Riohacha, Iquitos, Pucallpa, Yurimaguas and Chiclayo, which in their turn are linked to those of the region further north….” [23]

The U.S. strategy to control the Amazon Basin and the Andean region depends on Colombia on the northwest of the South American continent and on obtaining bases and military allies further south. Peru is one such likely location and so is another which is at loggerheads with it, Chile.

Under former defense minister and current president Michelle Bachelet the nation has amassed a formidable arsenal of advanced weapons from NATO states: Hundreds of German, French and American tanks; F-16s from the Netherlands and the United States; Dutch and British destroyers; French Scorpion submarines. [24]

This unprecedented – and unjustified – arms buildup has alarmed Chile’s neighbors: Argentina, Bolivia and Peru.

A commentary from four years ago pointed out that “Foreign analysts have said that Chile is seeking hegemonic military power in Latin America vis-a-vis Peru, Argentina and Bolivia in order to defend Chilean economic interests in those countries and, in case of armed conflict, to expand its territory in the way it has done in the past.” [25]

On November 6 Bachelet appointed General Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba Poblete as new commander in chief of the Chilean army, which “aroused objections from human rights organizations, since he has been accused of being involved in a series of massive [violations] during the military regime of 1973-1990.” [26]

Six days later the Reuters news agency reported that the U.S. is to provide Chile with $655 million dollars worth of new arms: “The Pentagon on Thursday [November 5] advised the U.S. Congress of the possible sale of stinger missiles worth about $455 million, AIM medium-range missiles worth $145 million and Sentinel radar systems worth $65 million.” [27]

Several days later a report titled “U.S. Authorizes Sale of German Missiles to Chile” detailed:

“Seven months after Chile’s Defense Minister expressed interest in purchasing a fleet of used (U.S. made) F-16 Fighter Jets from Holland, the U.S. government helped seal the deal by supporting Chile’s bid to buy missiles for the jets.”

It added: “Also last week, the Pentagon endorsed two other possible defensive arms sales for Chile’s army. The first purchase would include six new Sentinel radar systems and six SINCGARS radio systems, at a cost of US$65 million. The second deal could include 36 Avenger planes and 390 ground-to-air missiles at a cost of US$455 million.” [28]
….
The accelerating pace and wide-ranging scope with which the U.S. and its allies are militarizing the world is unparalleled. Even during the depth of the Cold War most nations avoided being pulled into military blocs, arms buildups and wars. No longer. And Latin America is no exception.

Notes

1) CNN, November 15, 2009
2) Photograph
   http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/homepagephoto/2009-11/hires_091116-N-0696M-004d.jpg
3) Prensa Latina, November 2, 2009
4) Press TV, November 16, 2009
5) Xinhua News Agency, November 10, 2009
6) Colombia: U.S. Escalates War Plans In Latin America
   Stop NATO, July 22, 2009
   http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/colombia-u-s-escalates-war-plans-in-latin-america
7) Twenty Years After End Of The Cold War: Pentagon’s Buildup In Latin
   America
   Stop NATO, November 4, 2009
   http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/stop-nato
http://justf.org/content/supplemental-agreement-cooperation-and-technical-assistance-defense-and-security-between-gov
9) Vedomosti, October 27, 2009
10) Ibid
11) Army Times, November 10, 2009
12) Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2009
13) Radio Netherlands, November 15, 2009
14) World Future Online, October 24, 2009
15) Radio Netherlands, November 16, 2009
16) Bloomberg News, May 21, 2008
17) Associated Press, September 16, 2005
18) Stabroek News, October 28, 2009
19) Ibid
20) Afghan War: NATO Builds History’s First Global Army
    Stop NATO, August 9, 2009
    http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-builds-historys-first-global-army
    South Asia, Latin America: Pentagon’s 21st Century Counterinsurgency
    Wars
    Stop NATO, July 29, 2009
    http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/south-asia-latin-america-pentagons-21st-century-counterinsurgency-wars
21) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 27, 2009
22) Tampa Tribune, November 10, 2009
23) Granma International, April 18, 2006
24) NATO Of The South: Chile, South Africa, Australia, Antarctica
    Stop NATO, May 30, 2009
    http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/nato-of-the-south-chile-south-africa-australia-antarctica
25) OhmyNews International, December 31, 2005
26) Xinhua News Agency, November 7, 2009
27) Reuters, November 12, 2009
28) Santiago Times, November 16, 2009

Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff

Senior year leaves its mark on any high school student. For Jocelyn Morales, it was life-changing. It was the year she had her son Angel.

Morales hadn’t planned to get pregnant, but wasn’t willing to get the abortion Angel’s father suggested. “I had a choice,” she told the New York Times, “and I chose to be a parent.”

The 21-year-old Sunset Park native appeared today in the New York Times’ Neediest Cases series. The newspaper has for nearly 100 years published stories of those in need to encourage donations to local agencies. The Neediest Cases Fund has raised $244 million for struggling New Yorkers since it began the series in December 1912.

For Morales, help came in a $317 grant. She used the money to buy a professional wardrobe for her job at Americare, a home health service agency.

She puts on those clothes each morning before she kisses her son goodbye and begins her 1.5 hour commute to work in Mill Basin, Brooklyn. The $1,532 she nets each month just covers the bills, with a little extra to buy basketballs, baseballs and soccer-balls for 2 1/2-year-old Angel.

“Everything he has is because of me, because I did it for him,” she said.

Read more of Jocelyn Morales’ story here.

12 de octubre de 1942: llegada de los/as europeos/as a América. La colonización europea de América se impulsa más o menos finales del siglo XV después de que Cristóbal Colón llegara en 1492 con el mecenazgo de la Corona de Castilla. A partir de ahí, el Imperio Español, el Imperio Portugués, el Imperio Británico, Francia y Holanda, conquistaron y colonizaron algunos territorios y poblaciones que ya habitaban el continente.

Guerras de independencia

- 4 de julio de 1776:

4 de julio de 1776: liderada por Thomas Jefferson, John Adams y Benjamin Franklin. Sitio: Archivos Nacionales de EEUU. Signaatarios: Congreso Continental. Declara la independencia de Gran Bretaña.

- 20 de julio 1810

- 8 de agosto de 1819

Las guerras de independencia hispanoamericana fueron un una serie de conflictos armados que se desarrollaron en el continente americano y que enfrentaron a los partidarios de establecer nuevas naciones independientes donde se encontraban las colonias españolas en América, enfrentando al Rey de España Fernando VII, las autoridades virreinales y los partidarios de la Monarquía española. Las guerras de independencia tuvieron tanto el carácter de guerra civil como de guerra internacional (entre naciones).

Lideradas por Simón Bolívar, San Martín y Agustín de Iturbide

Se reunían en la casa del venezolano Francisco Miranda. San Martín se encontró con hispanoamericanos, como Andrés Bello, de Venezuela, y Agustín de Iturbide, de México.

La Guerra de Independencia cubana o Guerra del 95 es el nombre con el que se conoce a la última guerra por la independencia de los cubanos contra el dominio español y se trata de una de las últimas guerras americanas contra el Reino de España. La guerra se inició en 1895 con el “Grito de Baire” y terminó con la rendición de las tropas realistas ante el avance de la Armada estadounidense en 1898, en la ya Guerra Hispano-Estadounidense.

Siglo XX

17 de octubre de 1899 – 21 de noviembre de 1902: La Guerra de los Mil Días fue una guerra civil que a soló a la República de Colombia y a Panamá (que en ese entonces era un Departamento de Colombia), entre 1899 y 1902 . Tuvo como resultado la victoria conservadora y la posterior separación de Panamá en 1903

- 6 de diciembre de 1928: La Masacre de las Bananeras fue un episodio que ocurrió en la población colombiana de Ciénaga el 6 de diciembre de 1928 cuando un regimiento de las fuerzas armadas de Colombia abrieron fuego contra un número indeterminado de manifestantes que protestaban por las pésimas condiciones de trabajo en la United Fruit Company.

Líderes de la huelga de los trabajadores en las plantaciones bananeras. De izquierda a derecha: Pedro M. del Río, Bernardino Guerrero, Raúl Eduardo Mahecha, Nicanor Serrano y Erasmo Coronel. Guerrero y Coronel fueron asesinados por el ejército colombiano.

9 de abril de 1948: asesinato del lider liberal Jorge Eliécer Gaitán por la oligarquía colombiana. Punto clave para entender el conflico social y armado de Colombia. Este acotecimiento desencadena una violencia por todo el país conocida como el Bogotazo (en la capital) y la etapa de violencia (en el resto del país)

- 1 de enero de 1959: la Revolución Cubana es el término con el cual se designa al movimiento revolucionario que comenzó con la insurgencia que se opuso a la dictadura de Fulgencio Batista. Posteriormente este nombre ha pasado a definir un período histórico tras su triunfo el 1 de enero de 1959, por varias fuerzas insurgentes, entre las que predominaba ampliamente el Ejército Rebelde, brazo armado del Movimiento 26 de Julio comandado por Fidel Castro.

Golpes de Estado

- Argentina:

• 1 Golpe del 6 de septiembre de 1930
• 2 Golpe del 4 de junio de 1943
• 3 Golpe del 16 de septiembre de 1955
• 4 Golpe del 29 de marzo de 1962
• 5 Golpe del 28 de junio de 1966
• 6 Golpe del 24 de marzo de 1976

- 11 de septiembre de 1973: Golpe de Estado por parte de los poderosos chilenos, el ejército y el fascimo chileno. Liderado por Pinochet y con apoyo de Estados Unidos.  Derrocan al legítimo presidente Allende quien lideró una revolución socialista pacífica.

Allende y el movimiento social de su gobierno hacia el socialismo

Golpe de Estado fascista. Resulta con la muerte del presidente Allende, funcionarios y de miles de desaparecidos durante la sangrienta dictadura

Pinochet y Videla (dictador de Argentina)

- 27 y 28 de ferero de 1989: el Caracazo o Sacudón fue una serie de fuertes protestas y disturbios durante el gobierno de Carlos Andrés Pérez, que comenzó el día 27 de febrero y terminó el día 28 de febrero de 1989 en la ciudad de Caracas, e iniciados realmente en la ciudad de Guarenas, cercana a Caracas. El nombre proviene de Caracas, la ciudad donde acontecieron parte de los hechos, recordando a otro hecho ocurrido en Colombia el 9 de abril de 1948; el Bogotazo. La masacre ocurrió el día 28 de febrero cuando fuerzas de seguridad de la Policía Metropolitana (PM) y Fuerzas Armadas del Ejército y de la Guardia Nacional (GN) salieron a las calles a controlar la situación.

- 2 de febrero de 1999: asume la presidencia Hugo Chávez. Desde esntonces no ha peridido ninguna de las elecciones y vigiladas que se han dado en Venezuela. Inicia lo que se llama la Revolución bolivariana en busca del soialismo del siglo XXI y apoyado por las grandes capas populares.

- 7 de agosto de 2002: asume la presidencia Álvaro Uribe en Colombia. Se presenta con mano dura a acabar los las guerrillas colombianas y militarizar el país. Es el gobierno más afin con la doctrina neoliberal y más pro-EEUU del continente. Sus vinculos con los paramilitares y el narcotráfico lo ha desacreditado en la región.

- 1 de enero de 2003: asume la presidencia Igancio Lula en Brasil. Se presenta como la esperanza para los sectores menos favorecidos siendo la mayoría.

- 22 de enero de 2006: asume la presidencia, por primera vez en la historia, un presidente indígena: Evo Morales. Propone un cambio social, económico y político que integre a la mayoría de bolivianos/as (gran mayoría indígena)

- 10 de enero de 2007: asume la presidencia Daniel Ortega, del Frente Sandinista (derrocatdo en los años 80). Propone un cambio político, económico y social.

- 15 de enero de 2007: asume la presidencia Rafael Correa. Propone una revolución ciudadana que vincule a los desfavorecidos de Ecuador.

Been awhile since I’ve been able to check in here.  I figured I’d stop in and post up on some of the things that have happened and those that are rumored.

Tony Reagins Contract

I’m happy with the Angels extending Reagins’ contract.  With Scioscia’s extension and now Reagins, this shows a stability that this team has become known for.  I also think this extension is going to be a prelude to some big moves this offseason, but more on that later.

The rumor mill…gotta love the off-season.  Where to start?

John Lackey – I don’t think the Angels are going to re-sign him.  I think that they will make an offer in good faith hoping to sign him, but he’ll go elsewhere.  My gut is telling me that he’ll sign in the NL somewhere, be it the Mets or the Brewers.  He will probably get 5-6 years for $15 million per.  Too rich in my opinion for the Angels.  I have always liked Lackey’s competitive nature and his ability to pitch the big game.  But Lackey has never felt like a true ace to me.  I’ll be sad to see him go, but I just don’t see how the Angels can sign him at what he’ll be seeking.

Figgins – Figgins is coming back, I’m pretty sure of it.  The Angels do not have a suitable lead off hitter.  I think if asked, most fans would say Aybar would be the leading candidate to replace Figgins at the top of the order.  But the numbers say otherwise.  Let’s take a look.

Aybar has  career .285 batting average and .353 on base percentage.  He finally got to play full time and it showed.  He hit .312 in 2009, which really helped bring up his career .262 average.  Playing full time has really allowed Aybar to shine.  But is he ready for a leadoff role?  The .298 OBP prior to 2009 says otherwise.  Granted, those numbers come in less playing time, but if you watch him at the plate, you can see he’s better deep in the lineup.

Figgins on the other hand. has a career .298 batting average and .395 on base percentage.  He was more patient at the plate this year by drawing 101 walks…36 more than his previous best in 2006.  Figgins also ranked 3rd overall in the majors in runs scored in 2009 with 114.  Pujols was first and Pedroia was second.

Unless the Angels are looking to trade for a true leadoff hitter and let Figgins go, there isn’t anyone suited within the organization to fill Figgins’ shoes.

I’ll post up my thoughts on the Curtis Granderson rumors later.

Pretend Time!

Now it’s time for me to pretend I’m Tony Reagins and tell you what my offseason plans are.  Rumors have it that the Blue Jays are looking for a middle infielder, a starting pitcher and relief help.  I offer up Saunders, Aybar and Jespen (or some minor leaguers in lieu of Jespen) for Roy Hallay.  This would be contingent on being able to sign Halladay to a contract.

Brandon Wood gets his chance to play full time by moving back to SS and taking over for Aybar.  There’s no pressure offensively on him as he’ll be batting deep in the lineup.

I sign Vlad to a 1 year with 2nd year option on the cheap.  Vlad is still a feared hitter and can still do damage despite declining power numbers.  Signing him at $7 million per with incenives will be a bargain to DH and hit deeper in the lineup.

I sign some bullpen help, but make a serious run at Jose Valverde.  He’s the best closer available and can be insurance to Fuentes (or a replacement) depending on the situation coming out of spring training.

I re-sign Oliver for 2 years to solidify the bullpen even more.  Getting Shields back from injury and signing Oliver replaces Jespen and brings the bullpen back to a more reliable relief situation.

I shop Gary Matthews Jr to whomever may be interested.  I don’t think he’ll be traded, but if the right deal comes along to solidify the team and perhaps the minors, even at the expense of picking up his salary, I certainly consider it.

I also look to pick up a solid #5 starter.  If I can bring Jon Garland back cheap, I do it.  But there are plenty of pitchers available that can be had cheaply.  If nothing fits, O’Sullivan can fill in, as can Palmer.

2010 lineup:

Figgins – 3B

Abreu – RF

Hunter – CF

Morales – 1B

Rivera – LF

Napoli/Mathis – C

Kendrick – 2B

Wood – SS

Rotation

Halladay

Weaver

Santana

Kazmir

Free Agent/O’Sullivan/Palmer

Bullpen:

Oliver

Shields

Bulger

Fuentes

Valverde

Arredondo

Ortega

Rodriguez

Rodriguez

Bench:

Quinlan

Izturis

Sandoval

After the last few offseasons, I think the Angels are really poised to make a big splash this year.  Frustrating postseasons and the inability to land th players they targeted via trades of free agency have had an impact.  The Angels will incapable of making a trade for Miguel Cabrera or landing CC Sabathia or Mark Teixeira.  The thoughts of what could have been with Teixeira at 1B and Morales in LF make me drool!  The Angels have not made a huge move in the offseason since landing Vlad in 2003.  Signing Hunter was big, but not huge.

It’s time to do it again, this time it will have a direct impact on the postseason.

And Tony, if you’re reading this, my counselling is for hire.

Looks like the increased U.S presence in Colombia is causing South American nations, especially those involved in the ALBA contingency, to continue preparations for a potential U.S proxy-conflict. With Colombia, the U.S now has a visible military presence on every continent, a precedent which is not lost on Morales, Chavez, Correa and others, especially with the recent increase of violence of the northwest border of Venezuela.

Russian F.M Sergei Lavrov and Ecuador President Rafael Correa

Vedomosti: Ecuador Seeks Russian Aid Against U.S. Military Buildup In Colombia

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa will come to Moscow to discuss weapons supplies, but the Kremlin also expects him to speak about the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

“We need to restore the might of our army,” Correa said about the goal of his visit to Moscow, which he will make together with Defense Minister Javier Ponce.

Ecuador has been alarmed by the decision of Colombia, with which it severed diplomatic relations in March 2008, to allow U.S. troops to use its bases.

The Ecuadorian officials plan to sign the contract, which was initialed last week, for the delivery of two Mi-17 Hip multirole helicopters for its Defense Ministry’s civilian purposes, said a representative of the Russian state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport.

However, Moscow also expects Ecuador to sign other contracts. A source at Russian Technology said Russia could supply six Su-30MK2 Flanker multirole fighters, several helicopters, and air defense systems to Ecuador, which would increase the value of their military cooperation to over $200 million.

In response, Russia expects Ecuador to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A source at the Russian Foreign Ministry said Ecuador had unofficially promised to announce its intention during the president’s visit…

==========

Reuters: Venezuela arrests eight Colombian ‘paramilitaries’

Xinhua News: Venezuela Strengthens Military Presence On Colombian Border

DEL CORRESPONSAL

Nos eviaron una extensa carta que por falta de espacio no reproducimos pero que en lo medular trata de hacer notar la posibilidad real de MANUEL FEDERICO MORALES para ser candidato del PRI a la PRESIDENCIA MUNICIPAL DE COMONDU o a presidir el PRIMER AYUNTAMIENTO DE INSURGENTES si se aprueba su municipalizacion en el paquete que se dice presentara al H.Congreso el gobernador Agundez.

Para este grupo de tobeños cuyas firmas conservamos tal como lo solicitan en reserva la capacidad y lealtad de Manuel Federico Morales respecto al PRI lo ubica como el abanderado ideal en los futuros procesos politicos.

Federico tiene un basto curriculum en la fucnion publica y un record de militante muy destacado.

EDITORIAL DE VILLANOTAS….A no dudar que es muy cierta la relacion de esta misiva y el locutor cuenta con gran arrastre en Comondu.

Ademas,en el frigido priismo local su nombre resalta,primero p0r no estar en la lista del maiz del actual comite y segundo por sostene rsu conviccion ideologica cuando la mayoria de los auto llamados priistas se fugaron a engordar la contra.

Reklama piwa San Miguel z udziałem Manny Pacquiao i Erika Moralesa oraz Freddie Roacha.

Promocja dnia w sklepie Pretorian – sprawdź teraz!