Anti-Drug Air Base Pact To Be Ended (Ecuador)

The Washington Times ^ | Oct 30, 2007 | not specified

[RDTF]

QUITO, ECUADOR — The Ecuadorean government on Friday insisted on ending a cooperation agreement with the United States that allows the U.S. military to use a coastal air force base for anti-drug operations in the Andes.

-snip-

...Galo Mora, a representative of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, told participants at a solidarity forum with Cuba.

The 10-year agreement, signed by the United States and Ecuador in 1999, allows Washington to deploy up to 475 military personnel in Manta in support of counternarcotics operations.

[domenad]

It’s very simple. Under the cloak of the War on Drugs, men have been imprisoned unjustly. Money and property has been confiscated without due process. Civil liberties have been routinely violated. An entire generation of men and women have been turned into criminals because a government entity wants to dictate what they can and can’t put into their bodies. Their livelihoods are often stripped from them. Billions of your tax dollars go down a hole in Columbia. An entire plane of NUNS was shot down in the jungle because it was mistaken for a drug runner plane. For a fraction of the money we spend interdicting other countries, we could treat victims of drug addiction and reduce drug use by the same amount that enforcement currently does without the attendant abuse. The drug war is an infrigement on the liberties of every single American. I don’t know any piece of Democratic legislation to compare to it.

[LibLieSlayer]

We just need to execute drug dealers as they cross into this country. No big war... just dead mules.

LLS

[domenad]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/20/Pasco/Pain_patient_hopes_fo.shtml

Here's another idiot - a man in terrible pain, arrested, put in jail, and deprived of his life. You ever need pain management my friend? You know how difficult it is to get pain medication, or to even get a pain management specialist to prescribe it? Know why that is? They're terrified that their licenses will be revoked by some scumbag DEA agent who is looking to make his quota. People don't seek treatment because of the stigma attached to illegal drugs. People are in pain and suffering because of the war on drugs, just another facet of its injustice.

If ever I hated being conservative, it is the rife hypocrisy that goes unnoticed. South America will turn into anarchy? So what? And what does that say of your opinion of the people down there? We can handle freedom up here, but down there, they need a little nudge eh? Nice. I thought we were about limited government. Are we, as conservatives, serious about that or not?

[domenad]

Why not? You hittin’ the herb? Any day of the week, the only thing turning up in my blood work is iron and Jack Daniels. How about you?

[RDTF]

ZOT ALERT!

you need to find another forum, I can’t believe you have existed this long on here

[VeniVidiVici]

So if you legalize drugs, who gets to sell it?

[domenad]

Boy you really can't put together any type of argument, can you? "Hey, admins, I can't defend myself, can you please ban this guy?"

That's okay. I won't tax your...ahem....intellect any more.

[domenad]

That’s a whole other thread, wouldn’t you say? They seem to have figured out a system in Amsterdam. Couldn’t we?

[jas3]

You are a certifiable idiot.

Turn off the drug war and regions of South America will turn into anarchy. It is exactly things like School of the Americas, our DEA and DoD efforts in Columbia, financial aid packages to some of these governments that is keeping a resemblance of normalcy and some stability in some of these places.

Rather than debasing yourself by resorting to ad hominem attacks on your opponent (which make you look childish and unprepared to actually argue your points), perhaps you can enlighten us by expounding on your theory.

Exactly which regions of South America "will turn into anarchy" if the United States "turn[s] off the drug war"? How much does it cost the US taxpayer annually to prevent anarchy in these specific regions? And why do you suppose that it is the responsibility of the US taxpayer to prevent anarchy in South America?

Should we suppose that you are not so much anti-drug as anti-anarchism? Do you support anti-anarchist spending across the rest of the world? Zimbabwe is currently anarchic, as is Somalia to name only two countries. Should the US military be involved in both of these countries too? What about anarchic regions within countries?

Can you think of any reason why the United States government should not try to police the entire world to prevent anarchy?

Also, you meant "semblance" not "resemblance."

jas3

[VeniVidiVici]

As far as I know they allow pot and hash, but are even rethinking that. I’m pretty sure they don’t allow sales of coke, heroin, meth., etc.

[Red6]

You’re clueless and a waste of my time.

If you don’t know anything about the narco traffickers/cartels, Soviet influence in the past and Russian present, if you have no concept of US dependence on this region economically or the drugs that are produced there, you’re beyond the point where you’re salvageable.

” Also, you meant “semblance” not “resemblance.” “ But you make a good point! That’s a good argument right there, good reasoning.

There are better web-site more suited for people like you. Try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com
http://www.dailykos.com
http://www.moveon.org

There you can find many likeminded people who think that sticking ones head in the sand is an answer; or that if we just ignore Islamic threats, ignore a revitalization of former Soviet threat pictures, just ignore the influx of drugs, and ignore banana republics upon which we are dependent in economic aspects, we’ll be OK.

Maybe look for a misspelling, that’ll prove your point.

[avacado]

I would like to add to your post that the War on Drugs also serves to keep an very inflated cost on drugs which only serves to easily enrich the drug cartels by providing maximum profit per goods sold.

The WOD should be eliminated. We have pharmaceutical drugs, booze, homegrown meth, and homegrown marijuana. There is no reason to be in other countries worrying about what they produce. The WOD only serves to make the business highly profitable.

It's a bit dishonest to have politicians, e.g., "Patches" Kennedy and his Uncle Teddy all boozed up and on meds while passing drug laws. It's ridiculous. And has it stopped cocaine, heroin, and marijuana? Nope. It's only driven profit up for the cartels.

[domenad]

I’m willing to start anywhere, at any place. Pot and hash, whatever, something needs to change. But the status quo is not acceptable.

[domenad]

Do you have anything to say to the Americans in pain who cannot get sufficient medicine because of the WOD? Do you have anything to say to the victims of cancer who must make arduous trips to their pain managment specialist because they cannot get a script for more than 30 days? Do you have anything to say to the individuals who are helped by Hospice who are persecuted and relentlessly dogged because they use pain meds to ease the suffering of the terminally ill? Do you have anything to say to the cop who takes a fatal bullet over arresting a guy for smoking a joint? Do you have anything to say to the student who cannot go to college or get financial aid because he was caught with marijuana as a teen?

Do you have anything to offer other than the status quo? My guess is the answer to every question is a resounding "No."

[jas3]

You’re clueless and a waste of my time.

If you don’t know anything about the narco traffickers/cartels, Soviet influence in the past and Russian present, if you have no concept of US dependence on this region economically or the drugs that are produced there, you’re beyond the point where you’re salvageable.

” Also, you meant “semblance” not “resemblance.” “ But you make a good point! That’s a good argument right there, good reasoning.

There are better web-site more suited for people like you. Try:

http://www.democraticunderground.com http://www.dailykos.com http://www.moveon.org

There you can find many likeminded people who think that sticking ones head in the sand is an answer; or that if we just ignore Islamic threats, ignore a revitalization of former Soviet threat pictures, just ignore the influx of drugs, and ignore banana republics upon which we are dependent in economic aspects, we’ll be OK.

Maybe look for a misspelling, that’ll prove your point.

I was simply responding to your insulting reply to domenad on post 20.

Sadly for you, I am not clueless. In fact I have challenge you to expound on your assertions, and you once again had to resort to personal attacks. This time you attacked me instead of domenad.

One wonders why people like you bother to post on public forums that are designed to encourage debate at all. Do you mistakenly believe that the sole purpose of FreeRepublic is to insult other posters? Regardless, I'm sure your mother would be extremely disappointed in your manners.

I do agree that I am a waste of your time. In fact any attempt at rational discourse seems to be a complete waste of your time.

Since you suggested the contrary, I will tell you that I am quite familiar with Russian history. I am less familiar with "US dependence on this region economically." Remind me of what significance Columbia and Ecuador are to the United States, if you can find the time to type a few rational thoughts between your personal attacks.

Back to your last post: yes, I am quite familiar with the drugs that are produced there, and in Afghanistan, and in Baja, and in Seattle, and in Thailand, and all over the world. Fortunately, by your definition, this makes me salvageable.

Also, you meant “semblance” not “resemblance.” “ But you make a good point! That’s a good argument right there, good reasoning.

I typed the comment on your misuse of the English language as a reminder that words have meaning and as a caution to you to be more careful with your posts.

Thank you for your list of web-site[s] that are more suited for people like me. Do you always hyphenate the word website? Based upon your poor etiquette, poor spelling, inadequate use of language, and your inability or unwillingness to provide an argument for your juvenile claims, I assure you that you would find the sites on that list far more to your liking than I. Most of the posters there are prone to emotional outburst and refuse to actually debate any issues logically, very much like yourself. Any attempt to actually engage in dialog is usually met with emotional claims that one is a certifiable idiot, clueless, or a waste of time, much as you have done on this thread.

This statement: There you can find many likeminded people who think that sticking ones head in the sand is an answer; or that if we just ignore Islamic threats, ignore a revitalization of former Soviet threat pictures, just ignore the influx of drugs, and ignore banana republics upon which we are dependent in economic aspects, we’ll be OK. is so off target, perplexing, irrational, and ill worded, that I'll leave it for a later reply. As for now, you have yet to answer any of my questions in post 29.

If you so emotionally belive that the United States taxpayer should be preventing anarchy in South America, lets start with the basics. When the United States withdraws from Ecuador, as it must by international treaty, what areas specifically do you expect "will turn into anarchy"?

As an exercise in self control try to write a complete post in response without attempting to insult anyone.

jas3

[RDTF]

lol - just enough rope and they hang themselves, all you have to do is sit back and enjoy.

[Tailgunner Joe]

February 20, 2006 - Ecuadorian troops clashed with Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas Feb. 18 in Ecuador's northeastern province of Sucumbios. Ecuador had declared neutrality in the conflict between the Colombian government and FARC and had refused to brand the guerrillas as a terrorist organization.

This is the first time under the current administration that the Ecuadorian army has clashed directly with FARC guerrillas who settled in its territory. This confrontation was in the same area where Colombia's air force has made at least three raids against FARC since November, with the most recent raid generating a diplomatic spat between Quito and Bogota.

The Colombian army's expeditions were a response to the Ecuadorian government's lack of recognition of FARC camps on its side of the border.

[Conservative til I die]

So if you legalize drugs, who gets to sell it?

This is a question that does really need to be answered. I've flirted with both extremes of the WOD/legalization issue, and while I agree that a lot of the excesses of current drug policy are draconian and unnecessary (people do not need to go to jail for years for posessing some dope, something which I am sure many of us have done at some point), libertarian-minded people tend to view the world like any good theorist would. The problem is, utopian theories don't work in practice, because human nature is predispositioned toward the basest behavior.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Of course it would be regulated and taxed. Essentially the government would become a dope-pusher, interested in hooking more addicts in order to raise revenue.

[VeniVidiVici]

This is a question that does really need to be answered.

You're absolutely right. And I can never get a really good answer for it.

The problem as I see it is that they may eventually go so far as to legalize pot and hash. So then where does one go to buy it? 7/11? Over the counter? Prescription?

People abuse prescription drugs now. They buy it and sell it on the street. Even though they are legal.

7/11? So then people will steal it and sell it on the streets. Mainly because HUGE taxes will be levied on it so people can then go to "government treatment centers" promised to them by the legalizers.

Anyhow, the taxes will cause a large black market will begin. Which will be filled by (gangs, terrorists, your mom, fill in any name here) who will get top dollar to plow back into their sales of illegal drugs: heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

You want to end the war on drugs? Fine. Sell it all. Don't regulate it and don't pay for rehab. You have a tweeker family member that gets hooked on the legal meth; pay for rehab yourself.

Maybe if we don't pay for any of it once people start dying in huge numbers because the government is not paying for their rehab, they'll think it's not a good idea and drug use will drop.

Hey, this could work to lower drug use!!