http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/the-banality-of-obama.php

It’s all so confusing. If we only knew what both countries wanted to achieve in the region we might be able to broker a political settlement.

Now I remember!! America wants to promote democracy in Central America and Nicaragua wants Marxist Global Domination.

I guess political accommodation is not going to work after all. I wish Obama was not so smiley and hand shakey with all those thugs.

The main problems I see with the tribunal approach is two fold. 1.) Its hard to imagine a scenario where Aemrica or its government can get a fair trial. As it stands right now, this court would simply be a kangaroo court designed to try and convict the American government or its officials. 2.) If the court finds that the United States owes reparations to one or more Central or South American countries the Americans would have no choice but to live up to these obligations even if they wanted to not live up to them. Media scrutiny on the United States and its government is always intense. As such, the United States would have no choice but honor the terms decided by the court. Countires in South and Central Aemrica do not face the kind of scrutiny that the United States faces. As such, it is unlikely there would be any mechanism in place to ensure their compliance with any obligations the court may impose on them.

Until these issues are addressed, I would find it impossible to support the tribunal approach. As soon as a way is found to ensure the United States gets a fair trial and to ensure compliance of South and Central American countries with any findings by the tribunal, I think we can go ahead with this approach and justice for all can finally be achieved.

I remember Ronald Reagan’s speech explaining that Sandinista rebels were two days drive from Texas. Maybe this is just about national security?

Are we ready?

I didn’t see any of the things you were alleging for Nicaragua and Venezuela from the link you provided.

As for Bolivia, they are in the middle of civil strife over a new Constitution largely between the indigenous Morales government an the old guard opposition. The violence is primarily instigated by opposition to the new Constitution which does allow for nationalizing the mineral resources and free health care for all. I know that offends your right wing sensibilities, though it doesn’t mine.

As for your allegations of election fraud here is what you said.

While Ortega and Chavez won quasi-democratic elections, they employed old school Marxist techniques to help achieve their victories. To an extent, the same applies to Morales in Bolivia. All of which is to say these leaders squelched as much speech as possible, threatened opposition leaders and parties, and possibly worse since people simply disppeared in some cases. I didn’t read anywhere that there was massive voter fraud but I might have missed it, hence, the “quasi-.”

Lost in translation is the fact I consider so called Marxist Techniques a form of “election fraud”. And I still did not see any evidence of “Marxist Techniques” for this at AI for Nicaragua and Venezuela, except maybe from Bush’s embassy in those countries with no evidence to support it. And Bolivia is in the middle of a quasi civil war with all sorts of shenanigins from both sides.

If I missed at AI what you were alleging, please let me know and where it is.