Author
|
Topic: Santa Cruz, the Alberta of Bolivia, plans a right wing revolt
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 29 April 2008 07:18 AM
WHOOPS! Could a moderator move this to rabble news feature under rabble content? From rabble news: right wing revolt threatens Bolivia quote: At the heart of the latest round of tensions in Bolivia are the plans by the elite in the eastern department of Santa Cruz (a stronghold of Bolivia's oligarchy) to push ahead with a referendum on "autonomy" scheduled for May 4.Despite the referendum being declared illegal by the national electoral court, the Santa Cruz electoral court has stated it will press ahead with the vote, which many fear is aimed at fracturing the country. The right-wing campaign of destabilization against the indigenous-led government of President Evo Morales -- of which the referendum is one component -- has intensified in the last few weeks.
Here's another link on the same story ... Right wing revolt threatens Bolivia [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 03 May 2008 11:50 AM
Here's a good source of information: Boliviarising
quote: As I write this article, the situation in Bolivia seems to be heading toward a civil war provoked by the secessionist attitude of the oligarchies in Santa Cruz and the other departments of the Half Moon (Tarija, Pando and Beni), the prefect of Cochabamba, and maybe someone else who remains in the shadows.The position of Evo Morales' government weakened after the failure of the talks with the separatist prefects and his refusal -- very human but not very political -- to call the people to the streets and prevent the partition of Bolivia into two nations, one rich, the other poor. The defiance of the oligarchy in Santa Cruz, led by prefect (governor) Rubén Costas and the president of the so-called Civic Committee of Santa Cruz, Branco Marinkovic (of Croatian origin), is an unequivocal sign that they feel supported by powerful internal and external forces. It is no secret that the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Philip S. Goldberg, is a specialist in the dismemberment of countries, an experience he acquired during his term in the former Yugoslavia. Goldberg spends more time in Santa Cruz than in La Paz, Bolivia's capital. Why? .... Next May 4, several issues will be settled in Bolivia. An unconstitutional referendum called by the Santa Cruz oligarchy can lead the country to a state of civil war in which -- have no doubt -- external forces will participate on the side of the secessionists. In an urgent meeting of ALBA, called by President Chávez, the other three member countries (Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela) gave their unconditional support to President Morales. How far they can furnish that support, only they know. But there is another way to keep the Bolivian oligarchy to achieve its purposes: to call the people to the streets. A people "who have nothing to lose, except their chains." I think that it is better to die defending the interests of that nation than to surrender. Before it is too late, it is up to Evo Morales to mobilize the people and, if possible, the Army (though that's not known) before the oligarchy achieves its purposes and implants anew the neoliberal model, with all its consequences. Several years ago, a gallows was built in Santa Cruz de la Sierra for Evo Morales and his followers. I invite you to meditate.
[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 04 May 2008 10:55 AM
The future is at stake quote: Every person with a consciousness should be worried and concerning themselves with what is occurring in Bolivia. The United States is on the verge of unleashing a war that would shake the region and which, in the short term, could lead to a state of commotion and belligerence in all of South America.The excuse is the demand for autonomy by four departments (Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija); the instrument, the oligarchy; the means, mercenaries financed, trained and commanded by the State Department via the CIA and other agencies; the objective, fragment Bolivia, detain the revolutionary process headed by Evo Morales, start a prairie fire in the Southern Cone and create the conditions to attack Venezuela and Ecuador afterwards. Following the events of last Sunday, Paraguay is now also threatened.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 04 May 2008 11:14 AM
quote: In effect, what the coalition of wealthy landowners, capitalist agribusinesses and key sections of the Bolivian ruling class are attempting is a unilateral declaration of independence so that they will not have to implement the laws passed by the MAS government of Evo Morales, particularly in relation to land reform and hydrocarbons. This is a very powerful coalition, that has been described as the "100 clans", which controls large amounts of land (25 million hectares as opposed to 5 million hectares which are in the hands of 2 million poor peasants), meat packing plants, the profitable business of soy bean plantations, the country's main banks and media and the main private industries. They are defending their class interests and they are prepared to go until the end and use any means necessary.They have used the issue of "autonomy" to mobilise mass support for what in reality is a rebellion of the slaveholders, to use Marx's expression. At the same time they have been arming thousands of young people, recruited from the sons of the wealthy and from lumpen elements, in what can only be described as the fascist gangs of the Union Juvenil Cruceña. With a strong element of racism against the "Highland Indios", people with dark, indigenous, skin have been beaten up, lists of MAS activists pasted on the main square in Santa Cruz, a city where only right-wing political activity is now allowed. Evo Morales himself has been called a "monkey" by leading figures in the Santa Cruz "Civic" Committee. There are clear indications of involvement of the US embassy in this movement of the upper class. At the beginning of April Evo Morales denounced the fact that the government had discovered an office of the CIA within the presidential palace. This had been set up by a former high-ranking officer of the national police who, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, was passing vital information to the CIA. A government minister also denounced the fact that 93 million dollars of USAID had gone directly to opposition groups and organisations in the last year.
Jorge Martín
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
blake 3:17
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10360
|
posted 09 May 2008 07:25 AM
A commentary from Marta Harnecker:Bolivia: Who Won the May 4th Referendum? Marta Harnecker - Rebelión Translation: Machetera Following uncertain results, the two conflicting sides claim to have won the referendum on the autonomy statute held in the Department of Santa Cruz, [Bolivia] last Sunday, May 4th. How should the winner be determined? In order to judge or measure the results of any action, it's essential to take into account the objective sought by both sides. The Cruceña oligarchy sought to achieve a massive poll turnout: it was the only way to diminish the government's arguments about the illegality of the process; if this objective was accomplished, then it might be argued that although it was not a legal process, it was a legitimate one because the people had massively expressed their feelings in regard to the autonomy statute and the government would have to take popular sentiment into account. For its part, the government, the MAS (Movement Toward Socialism) and the social movements wanted to achieve the largest abstention possible, to diminish the voting results, where a large "Yes" vote was forecast. The concept of abstention promoted by official propaganda came together in a slogan to vote "NO," a slogan that some sectors promoted, thinking of the pressures that the [autonomy] opposition was using to force people to go and vote. Although the available figures are not official and probably never will be, because there was no neutral body observing the process and furthermore, ballots pre-marked "Yes" were discovered, if we take the latest figures provided by the media and used by the government, it can be said that the abstention rate was larger than expected: in Santa Cruz, the abstention was 17% in the 2006 autonomy referendum and now it amounts to 39% and this figure, a total of the "No" and null votes, represents a little less than half the electorate; some 48.3%. For every 10 people who should have voted, around 4 did not or could not, and 1 voted "No" or canceled their vote. From this analysis, the government and its followers can feel satisfied. However, one must ask if one can really speak of victory when a little more than half the Cruceña population expressed itself as opposing the country's direction, represented by Evo Morales, and either consciously or under manipulation, supported the large oligarchies that dominate the region economically, ideologically and politically. One must also ask oneself if this result can solely be attributed to the Machiavellian actions of the local oligarchy, supported by imperialism. It seems more likely that the government's own mistakes and weaknesses, and those of MAS, its key policy instrument, played a role.[1] Didn't Evo Morales not call for a "No" vote in the 2006 autonomy referendum, held at the same time people were being chosen to make up the Constituent Assembly, leaving the autonomy banner in the hands of reactionaries (something which the MAS leaders themselves later acknowledged) ? Weren't organizational schemes and criteria applied in the eastern part of the country that were in conflict with the lowlands' own idiosyncrasies? Hasn't there been a tendency to group the secessionist oligarchs with all those who, following a sense developed over generations, have manifested themselves to be in favor of autonomy; ignoring the contradictions that exist between the large pro-imperialist oligarchs and a significant part of the urban white sector which, although critical of specific policies and actions of the present government, generally support it because it means dignity at last for the indigenous people and an affirmation of the country's sovereignty? Yet while the outcome of the election can be debated, with each side claiming victory based on various arguments, it is indisputable that the country's agenda, headed by Evo Morales, emerged strengthened. The majority of Bolivia's popular sectors, especially the indigenous campesino movements and the workers in the cities, managed to understand that the Cruceña oligarchy was behind the vote and was using the banner of autonomy as demagoguery. Important professional and technical sectors had the same reaction. It was especially significant that the group "Santa Cruz Somos Todos" (All of Us Are Santa Cruz), risking their physical well-being and that of their families, raised a dissenting voice from the belly of the beast, and called for a "No" vote. What the oligarchy sought and continues to seek is the toppling of Latin America's first indigenous president, in order to regain control of the immense wealth that surrounds the region and has begun to be controlled by the state, which on May 1st ratified the government's decision to move ahead with the recovery of control over four transnational oil companies and the nationalization of ENTEL, the telecommunications company. It's an oligarchy that never understood the call for a real agrarian reform and more equitable distribution of Latin America's wealth, such as that made nearly half a century ago by the President of the United States, John Kennedy. One must bear in mind that the person who made this call was a liberal bourgeois who could never be classified as a communist and who made it to halt the advance of revolution in our América. But the [Bolivian] people not only understood what was at stake, they felt the need to articulate their struggles in order to hit back for once at a tiny elite which, supported by the United States, sought a reversal of the democratic and cultural revolution happening in the country. Since Evo Morales was elected, this was the first May 1st in which the workers movement represented by the legendary Bolivian Workers Central, presided over by its Secretary General, the miners leader Pedro Montes, participated along with the indigenous campesino movements in the same mobilization, and this made everyone believe that this gesture of unity, coming as it did on top of the natural differences and contradictions between various groups, signified that the interests of a Bolivian homeland were here to stay. The popular Bolivian organizations appear to have understood that unity between all sectors defending the country's agenda of humanity and solidarity, respectful of differences and respectful of nature, represented by Evo Morales, is the only way to make it irreversible. And speaking of unity, I'd like to recall the words of Fidel, the great architect of Cuban unity: I also belonged to an organization. But the glories of that organizatino are the glories of Cuba, the glories of its people, the glories of all. And one day, I ceased to belong to that organization. What day was it? It was the day when we'd made a revolution greater than our organization. And on the march through towns and cities I saw many men and many women; hundreds, thousands of men and women in their black and red uniforms of the July 26th Movement; but many thousands more had uniforms that were not black and red, but the shirts of workers, and campesinos, and humble men of the town. And since that day, frankly, in the depths of my heart, I went, from that movement that we cherished, under whose flags we fought as companions. I went to the people; I belonged to the people, to the revolution, because really, we'd created something higher than ourselves." [2] [1] Very soon a book about this "sui generis" political organization will be released at this website: Bolivia's MAS IPSP - A Party Built on Social Movements, by Marta Harnecker and Federico Fuentes. [2] Speech, Fidel Castro, May 26, 1962 in "Obra revolucionaria" No. 11, May 27, 1962, pp. 36-37. Text cited in "La estrategia politica de Fidel. Del Moncada a la victoria," various Latin American editions; see www.rebelion. org, Autores, Harnecker Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 May 2008 11:53 AM
Oh gee! She's such an "interesting thinker on the left". Tell me one goddamn thing which she's ever written that is in any way original.She's a hack and a laughingstock. I won't even bother to go into her booklength argument that the Cuban party-military dictatorship is a "democracy". How theoretically sophisticated! How convenient. As for "giving it a rest", do you feel the same way about the people who turn babble into an ongoing forum for Stalinism? You know, the ones who cannot post one single goddamn thing not approved of by the Party? Should they give it a rest, too, or do you just like it when ONE side is told to be quiet?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 May 2008 12:14 PM
I don't think so. I think that babble is filled with all sorts of Soviet agitprop, with a much smaller presence of non-Party approved material.Maybe you don't see it, but that's what is happening here. Oh yes: Did you hear about that great book by the stimulating intellectual Marta Harneker? Hoo hah.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 09 May 2008 02:30 PM
quote: you were more interesting when rose above such bullshit yourself, and floated counter-arguements beyond anti-communist slogans, and ad-hominem denounciation
Oh, I can be interesting! But every time I go to babble, I see black-and-white Commissar crap. Bolivia Good! Marta Harneker Good! Obama bad! USA bad! And, if I take issue with these simplistic presentations, then The Faithful get all upset. ------- Right now, I think the Bolivian Revolution MIGHT achieve something for the poor of Bolivia, who, God knows, need it desperately. But I am not sure that twenty years from now, more moderate leftists such as Lugo, Lula, and Bachilet will not have done more for their people than MAS does. Maybe that's because I still remember the Bolivian Revolution of 1952--supported by the Harnekers of the world at the time--which ended up producing nothing, at much cost. Or maybe it's because I can't help noticing that Revolutionary Communism leads inevitably to capitalism. So, what's the point?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 14 May 2008 08:53 AM
quote: Maybe that's because I still remember the Bolivian Revolution of 1952 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Good God Jeff, you were 6 years old!
Oh! Oh! I meant that the Bolivian Revolution of 1952, which continued for a number of years; people differ as to when its revolutionary promise was dissipated in corruption. I think I can say I remember the Chinese Revolution, too, even though it started in the 1920's (more or less), because it continued for decades (before its revolutionary promise was dissipated in corruption. Some of the claims made by today's Bolivian Revolution, (ie. first President of native extraction) were also made by the Mexican Revolution of the 1860s, which I don't remember at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Ju%C3%A1rez
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 14 May 2008 04:43 PM
The showdown in Bolivia will come August 10, 2008, when Morales's program will be subject to a national recall referendum. quote: President Evo Morales committed himself and Bolivia's nine governors on Monday to face recall votes on Aug. 10, gambling that his unfinished term will survive a referendum whose peculiar rules tilt in the populist leader's favor. ``Personally I have no fear of the people,'' Morales said. ``Let the people judge us.'' Morales originally proposed the recall vote in December amid a fierce battle over his proposed draft constitution that would increase the political power of Bolivia's long-oppressed indigenous majority. Bolivia's lower house of Congress approved it. But the idea went nowhere until last week, when it was suddenly revived by the opposition-controlled Senate. The president's opponents figured Morales had been weakened by the landslide victory of the autonomy measure in Santa Cruz, Bolivia's largest and richest state. But they rushed the recall referendum through without considering the fine print - which clearly gives Morales the upper hand. Morales immediately accepted his opponents' challenge in a nationally televised address, and signed the bill on Monday.
Guardian
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 15 May 2008 01:20 AM
OK, Jeff, good things have happened in Bolivia. It goes without saying that the referendum can't possibly be considered a good thing, since it's a tragedy that Morales can't break up the huge estates that were built in Santa Cruz solely through exploitation and theft.You can't seriously argue that it's good for Bolivia's poor for Morales to be denied the ability to carry out a radical program. And please tell us why you persist in this idea that everyone on Babble whose position is to your left takes that position on the orders of the Communist Party. Why can't you accept the fact that no CP anywhere in the English-speaking world has the power to force anyone to say anything? And why do you still think it's important for you to be able to label people as "communists", when we've clearly established that such labeling doesn't actually discredit anyone on Babble? Are you ever going to give this rant a rest, Jeff? And finally, why do you assume that Stalinism was Stalinism because it was too LEFT? Most of Stalin's most repressive acts actually occurred when he was enforcing a rightward swing in "the line". For myself, I've always seen the old-line and now extinct Communist tradition as a conservative nationalist betrayal of the values of radical socialism. [ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2008 10:41 AM
quote: And why do you still think it's important for you to be able to label people as "communists", when we've clearly established that such labeling doesn't actually discredit anyone on Babble?
Because it discredits Babble as a whole. Well, no. It actually DOES discredit an individual to perform serial lying on behalf of Stalin-Milosevic-Castro-Mugabe. If you'd rather pretend otherwise, go ahead.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2008 11:36 AM
Oh gee! No matter how many times I say it, there's always some knucklehead who needs to misinterpret what I said.The fact that Communists post on babble does not discredit babble. The fact that Babble policy treats Communists differently, and better than other posters, does discredit babble. For example, if Obama says something, he will be jew-baited, it will be said that he is "suckholing AIPAC". If anyone says that imaginary poster X "is "suckholing Communist Party propaganda points", then that person will be in violation of Babble Policy. A further problem is that, if the most prolific posters basically don't believe in elections, think Castro holds the key to the future, and are kinda queasy about saying anything negative about Stalin, this also discredits babble, because these opinions have no possible support outside of the cult itself. As for me being warned: Please note that a poster asked me a specific question about why I believe as I do. I answered him. What in babble policy makes that improper?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2008 12:03 PM
Sorry if I was rude. But I would never say that Communists shouldn't be allowed to post on babble.I simply say that they should say who they are, because transparency is important. That way, the person complaining that Obama and McCain are equally flawed, would have to explain why HIS or HER candidate or party is better. But pretending that one HAS no party, when that isn't the case, while advancing the party line against Obama, is simply dishonest. I dislike dishonesty.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152
|
posted 15 May 2008 12:06 PM
Jeff:Thanks for the clarification. What if someone is not a member of any party? Or do you mean people should self-declare ideology? And if that is what you mean do we all accept that declaration? (I know this is meandering further off topic but I'm curious)
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2008 01:12 PM
D, Thanks for your question.If someone is a small-c communist, I don't much care what they do, though I am not sure what about the last century of disaster would be attractive about that position. Unfortunately, posters who belong to a Leninist Party are required by that fact to support party policy, no matter what. If they do not, they will be kicked out. So, one has the phenomenon of numerous people apparently all holding the same opinion, when in fact they may not personally believe what they are writing at all. They'll all support Iran, cause that's the party line. And they all supported Hitler when THAT was the Party Line. On a DISCUSSION board, it is important to understand that some members of the group CANNOT be convinced of anything which goes against the party position. So, it doesn't matter what you say about Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Mugabe, or whoever they are supporting at the moment.
They won't be convinced. They won't change their position. They do not really discuss anything, they just TELL us what we should believe. This sort of dictatorial behaviour has a hundred-year history, and is a necessary part of the idea that the Party brings truth to the lesser folk, like non-party babblers. So, all I say is this: if you are following the party line on everything, you don't have to tell; but we should be allowed to point it out. On babble, identifying the Communist Party members is not allowed. This is of great help to them, but leaves others in the dark.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 15 May 2008 01:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: If you can't get along with leftists, may be you should find another forum.
Leftists. Can't get along with 'em. Can't find anything to say without 'em. Ay, there's the rub. ETA: quote: To bait, or not to bait, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler on the board to suffer The jokes and comments of consistent Leftists Or to take arms against a sea of Commies And, by repeating, become a crashing bore.
[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 15 May 2008 01:43 PM
quote: So, one has the phenomenon of numerous people apparently all holding the same opinion, when in fact they may not personally believe what they are writing at all. They'll all support Iran, cause that's the party line. And they all supported Hitler when THAT was the Party Line.
Jeff...please tell me you DIDN'T just say that there are Babblers who supported Hitler.
What you don't seem to get, Jeff, is that redbaiting actually HURTS the cause of the antistalinist Left. [ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ] [ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 15 May 2008 02:19 PM
quote: What you don't seem to get, Jeff, is that redbaiting actually HURTS the cause of the antistalinist Left
I don't think so. I think it EXPOSES semi-totalitarians who want to DESTROY the gains of the anti-Stalinist left. This is a topic which might be debated somewhere, since there possibly are those who think that alliances with the Communist Party are wise policy decisions. But not on babble. Here, the communists will just use invective, calling people "Ol-tray" because they don't want the question debated honestly.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 15 May 2008 02:27 PM
Jeff, saying someone is suckholing the Communist position is not in violation of Babble policy as I understand it. Claiming that they do so because they are a secret Communist is.Given how invisible the communist position is in the mainstream media it might be more useful for your argument if you could cite identified Communist publications as espousing these positions. There are many things that Fidel, N. Beltov, unionist and others say here that I consider to be spectacularly foolish, however, I am perfectly content to challenge them on their foolishness believing they came to these positions through their own idiocy rather than being instructed in it. I have almost no faith in the idea that people who have made a public statement about something will change their minds and I don't think it's particularly important. When I write about these things I am looking to influence the audience that hasn't already committed themselves.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 15 May 2008 03:25 PM
The thing is, Jeff, there isn't actually a Communist Party in either the U.S. or Canada that has any meaningful political role or any real strength of numbers or analysis.There certainly isn't one that has the power to enforce anything even vaguely resembling a line. Those who take the positions you object to, Jeff, take them out of sincere personal conviction. You're just going to have to accept that and debate them on the actual merits of their positions. This isn't 1947, and there aren't KGB types lurking in every dark leftwing corner anymore. If there ever actually were. [ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 15 May 2008 06:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: There are many things that Fidel, N. Beltov, unionist and others say here that I consider to be spectacularly foolish, however, I am perfectly content to challenge them on their foolishness believing they came to these positions through their own idiocy rather than being instructed in it.
Actually, I have always considered your posts rather measured and intelligent. I now consider you to be an asshole. Not a Commie or Nazi, mind you - just much much lower than any of those. There, how does that feel? [ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 19 May 2008 09:27 PM
Wait wait, James Bond is a communist???? quote: Michael G. Wilson confirmed the film (Quantum of Solace) continues "an hour after" Casino Royale's conclusion, when Mr. White is shot and captured by Bond at Lake Como.[4] Bond is then involved in a car chase in Siena, Italy.[5] The official synopsis shows that White reveals to Bond and M that his organisation (called Quantum)[6] has agents in Her Majesty's Government and the Central Intelligence Agency. Forensic evidence of an MI6 traitor leads Bond to Haiti, where he meets Camille, who then helps him find Dominic Greene, a ruthless businessman and chairman of Green Planet,[7] the legitimate cover for Quantum.[6]Greene intends to use his government contacts to help overthrow the current regime in Bolivia,[8] and place the exiled General Medrano as the head of state. Medrano will in exchange give him a barren piece of land, which will actually give them total control of the nation's water supply.[9] Bond travels to Austria and South America to unravel Greene's plan, staying one step ahead of the CIA, terrorists, and M whilst trying to keep his desire for retribution over Vesper Lynd's death in check.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|