Posted on 07/04/2008 4:27:27 PM PDT by Flavius
PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - Panama has ruled out hosting a U.S. military base to replace one in Ecuador which is being reclaimed by the Quito government, a senior Panamanian official said on Friday.
Panama -- along with Peru and Colombia -- had been tipped as a possible site to replace the Manta air base in western Ecuador, a key strategic asset in Washington's campaign to stop Latin American cocaine from reaching the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN1822750820080619
Don’t ask for help when Chavez comes calling...
I don’t have a problem with us having bases, but the drug war causes more problems than it solves (does it solve any problems?). It needs to end now.
All I can say is Jimmy Carter you suck
Thank you Jimma Carter. sarc
Agreed.
we could and should have gotten a base concession there. As far as the Canal, I don’t think US could have held it for longer with the protests and bad press.
I lived in Panama for 5 years, and this was the sense of it that I got. It was just a few communist agitators in the Colleges and a few in the government who wanted this.
My guess is that Torrijos asked for the moon, as a negotiating position, and was surprised as could be when Carter handed it to him on a platter.
People make choices all the time that others think is bad for them. The problem is that in trying to enforce choices that do not clearly hurt another person, you open the door to the State running your own life when you are in the minority.
A lot of people think that *you* should not be able to criticize homosexuality, for example, or own a big car, or smoke in your own house, or home school your children, because they believe that you are indirectly hurting yourself and other people.
This may come as a shock to you, but drugs are easily obtainable in the US. It isn’t working. What it is doing, is pissing off a whole lot of people by us being involved in their business (Peruvians were chewing on coke leaves for hundreds of years before we came along and told them to kill their plants). Friends in Holland have pot available in coffee shops, and look down upon it like you would the corner booze shop. It provides terrorists and gangs with lucrative sources of income, and costs you and me billions of dollars.
I don’t need the government to make sure I’m staying away from vices. Also, pornography is legal.
okay by me as long as we say no to any $$$$ to assist the government. Plus most parts of Panama looks like a dump!
you are correct. Coke should be legal. Throwing money down a rat hole to maintain a base to throw more money down the WOD rat hole.
This may come as a shock to you, but as a society, we need to take a moral stand. Pornogrophy is legal but very detrimental, drugs even more so. Will these things go away? No, but we do need to keep them at bay as much as possible.
Personally no, however laws reflect the general society(ideally). If your law condones an activity your conscience considers immoral, your society is schitzophenic (of which we can find many examples today).
I'm glad we agree. It is society's place to be concerned about these things, and do everything to prevent them; however, government, as in most cases, is not the solution as we have seen in the last 15 years of the War on Drugs.
I think alcohol is a fairly good parallel. People are going to do it anyway, and at least now, we're not funding a chaotic criminal underground.
“Personally no, however laws reflect the general society(ideally). If your law condones an activity your conscience considers immoral, your society is schitzophenic (of which we can find many examples today).”
In the United States, that which is not forbidden, is allowed.
In police States, that which is not allowed, is forbidden.
condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless...
In the United States, that which is not forbidden, is allowed.
In police States, that which is not allowed, is forbidden.
Too broad for this argument.
So we should tax prostitution rather than legally condem the activity because people are going to do it anyway? We should give birth control to minors because they're going to do it anyway?
"Because they're going to do it anyway" is not a good argument.
Let me guess, you’re libertarian?
I don’t vote Libertarian, no, in fact I’ve always voted Republican. I am pro-life, and I have no problem with the US defending its interests in the world (such as in Iraq). However, I am on the libertarian side of the Republican party.
How about securing the borders and beefing up the Coast Guard? Cocaine isn't grown here in the U.S. Just seal the borders and the drug war will disappear on its own. We all know that ain't going to happen because Big Gov't, Big Law Enforcement, and Big Rehab will go broke.
But it's REGULATED, if it was ILLEGAL there'd be child porn and bestiality and all other crap sold underground. Porn mostly exists on the internet now, where parents can block it from their children. The bookstores and peep booths have went out of business.
You don't get out much, do you?
Great. Another liberal busybody slithers in under the false pretense of being 'conservative'.
L
Clarify your statement.
you consider the role of govnerment relative to the people to be roughly the same as the role of parents relative to their children. Classic nanny state, "Big Brother knows whats best for us" mentality. Thanks for getting it out in the open for us.
Nice strawman. Now, why don’t you hop down off that libertarian high horse and stick to the argument?
Which is “immoral things should be legal because people are going to do them anyway”, in case you’ve forgotten.
By the way, how do you justify this:
prostitution should be legal if all involved are adults. That doesn't mean I think it is morally right
Do you have a sliding scale of morality or is it based on something solid? Just what wouldn’t you allow in your neighborhood?
Ok, so as a society, we should not take a moral stand?
t
Take all the moral stands you want. But keep your greedy hands off my wallet and your idiot ideas about 'enforcing' your morality at the point of a gun away from me.
Most especially, take a good hard look at Article 3, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Then pop on over to the FR homepage and have a gander at what the founder and owner of this forum has to say about it.
You're free to take any 'moral' stand you wish. What you're not free to do is forcibly take money from me so you can hire people to do what you're to big of a pussy to try to do yourself.
People like you are so frigging blind it makes me sick. In your headlong rush to enforce your twisted version of 'morality' you've become more imorral than you could possibly recognize.
'Moralists' like you have done more damage to what used to be a Constitutional Republic than you'll ever realize. It's my most fervent hope that one day you and yours are called to account for all of the evil you've done in the name of 'morality'.
L
O, and if you've got time, you just might want to elaborate on why you think my morality is twisted and what you think proper morality should be.
'Moralists' like you have done more damage to what used to be a Constitutional Republic than you'll ever realize.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Either about me personally or the moral underpinnings of the Constitution.
Feel free to take a moral stand all you want. Just don't force me to. And while you are at it, don't erode my 4th amendment rights to further your moral stand. Thanx.
Please elaborate.. while I guess I am not familiar with the moral underpinning of the constitution, I am familiar with teh concepts of federalism that mosts of the holier than thou crowd have no use for.
That pretty much sums it up. I rest my case.
1. Please enlighten me. 2. To be clear, I am greatly familiar with the constitution. I am not familiar with the sections that give people like you the right to tell everyone else what to do. Please provide the relevant information.
People like me keep this country from turning completely rancid. We're a preservative like salt.
2. To be clear, I am greatly familiar with the constitution.
Maybe with the words but not the motivation. You apparently know nothing of the men behind the document nor of the 'hand of Providence' in it's creation. Not that I think anyone linking themselves to such a loathsome creature as Ron Jeremy would have moral capacity to understand any of it.
For like, the 3rd time, please enlighten me. Please explain these moral underpinnings of the constitution that support your right to tell everyone else what to do.
Sure I'm familiar with the motivation. Let's accept as a premise that the men were all moral, Christian men. They had the opportunity to write a constitution with the clear ability for other moral Christian men to tell everyone else to do, yet they didn't. Instead they imposed strict limits on what the Fed Gov't could do, and delegated the rest to the states or the people.
Your view of the Constitution is very similar, actually to Stephen Breyer's, and is an anathema to freedom. Breyer's basic point is that the founders intended to create a great country, and the Constitution was a vehicle for that. Therefore, he feels free to rule in whatever way makes the country better, as making the country better is what the founders would have wanted.
Your view is that the founders wanted a moral and Christian nation, therefore anything that promotes that is constitutional.
Both interpretations are wrong.
Both products of your fevered imagination.
Case in point. You say:
Your view is that the founders wanted a moral and Christian nation, therefore anything (emphasis added) that promotes that is constitutional.
Tell me, since you know me so well, what exactly do I believe on the issue of church and state?
The constitution has no prohibition against bank robbery so I guess saying we should take a moral stand against it flies in the face of the constitution?
In all of these threads, I have never advocated for taking a moral stand based on the Constitution!!!
You people (to borrow a phrase) get in a hyper constitutional frenzy whenever someone suggests acting on a moral standard. The constitution is to protect us generally and keep government off our back. It is not, Mr Ron Jeremy, a license for morally ambivalent lifestyle. The problem is not me, sir, it's your conscience.
I’ve asked you numerous times now to back up your original assertions. You refuse to do so. Therefore there is nothing more to talk about. When you back up your original assertions, I will answer your questions to me.
Until then, I will assume that you are just a loudmouth who makes grand pronouncements that he is incapable of backing up.
Back to your bong, rottndog.
Sorry...never taken an illegal drug in my life. Never will.
Next insult?
My original assertion was that as a society, we should moral stand.
And the backup is: Proverbs 14:34
34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.
(You might want to pick a better hero. I'm pretty sure RJ is going to hit the fires of hell penis first.)
PEOPLE LIKE YOU BELONG IN PRISON!
“You’re right. I think we ought to give in and allow every thing that destroys peoples’ souls; drugs, prostitution, pornography, whatever vice”
The sarcasm dripping from your reply was void of wine/beer and spirits. Don’t forget those soul crushing evil vices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.