Cabron Warfare: It's Never Too Late Part I
Steve Elepan — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 04:21
It seems to be a common belief that Puerto Ricans could not win freedom against a greater force. This belief is the very thing that prevents us from being a free nation. This belief is false.
First of all, the independence movement should have an objective that goes beyond Independence. I say “should” because it may be sufficient to have independence as your objective, since that is the topic. It is wise, however, to have a plan for after independence so not to let the nation transition from organized chaos (war) to total instability. It’s important that we define independence for Puerto Rico.
The next step, which cannot be skipped, is civil support. There can be no victory without the support of the people. Now this does not mean you need the support of all of Puerto Rico from day one, but you do need the support of the people in the area you are operating in. Whether that be as small as Barrio Obrero or as big as Mayagüez, you must be supported where you fight. A war against conventional forces is won by gaining territory, not by killing soldiers. This is a bit like rock climbing. You start with one foot hold and step-by-step you will rise up as you find other nooks and crannies that will support your effort.
In your area of operation you must build up your forces whenever possible. You do this by supplying, training and preparing your units between operations. This is never-ending during a war. It is also costly, and for a small force, cannot be done well without civil support.
Now here is my favorite part, the Attrition Phase. The opposing force must be worn down by hit and run attacks and absent ambushes (both we will discuss another time). Striking not always at soldiers but at resources and infrastructure as well. If you must cause bodily harm, it is best to wound lower ranking officials and kill higher and command officials. But the aim isn’t to kill many people, but to demoralize and wear the enemy down. It’s more effective and frugal to shoot once and disappear than it is to hang around and empty a magazine. It’s even better to get the enemy to give up without actually killing anybody. You do this by giving reason to the enemy to chase. Give them a reason to stay awake. Give them a reason to stretch themselves out and divide up.
Of course none of this is all that simple, but it is simple enough to start now. We must meditate on the sacrifices already made. We must decide if we will take our freedom at risk of death and imprisonment or accept defeat and go on with business as usual. Algeria was a colony for more time than Puerto Rico has before it got its independence. We still have a chance.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The Problem with the Ghandi Approach
Red Jaguar — Sun, 03/07/2010 - 23:34Civil Disobedience is overglorified these days. Diplomacy in the form of a small populace confronting a strong Central Force is a romanticized ideal that will never see success. if you want proof look at the events that transpired at Tianemann Square. Didn't the tanks roll over all of those students? Didn't the Mexican Army slaughter thousands of students at the Tlatelolco? Didn't The Hutus kill thousands of Tutsis? Civil disobedience is a great way to get attention towards an issue but it doesn't resolve much. Tibet isn't free, Taiwann isn't free, South Ossetia isn't free. A person's opinion on a pressing issue cannot be invalidated by people who call it stupid. There are many flaws with modern diplomacy. And it is all capital driven. The People of PR are living in a fallacy. A world where ipods and fancy cars, loud music and pretty girls or boys, I don't judge, are the instant gratification a person can strive for. And in reaching this state of "high" all other real issues become mundane and we can forget about self identity, a cultural identity, or a common history. throw a dog a bone every now and then and he will lick your feet. Puerto Ricans are not perros.
About civil disobedience
vanessa seijo — Mon, 03/08/2010 - 11:44I think the argument on whether civil disobedience is effective or not depends on where are you standing geographically speaking.
Puerto Rico is not Taiwan, is not Africa, is not Tibet. The devil is in the details.
Puerto Ricans have not been involved in armed revolt since the Fifties. Did it work? No. But I can tell you this much, it did destroy not only lives but families. How do I know? Because it did cause heartache and loss and persecution in mine.
When Red Jaguar talks about the perils of the love of Puerto Rican society for all things shiny I believe he answers himself. Revolutions cannot be achieved from an armchair. How many among us will be willing to go through hardships for years, perhaps decades? If there is anything someone cannot say of me is that I am hypocrite. My dear friend, I like my things shiny.
Does that mean I am less of a Puerto Rican? No. I am one of those who work for my people. I am a law-abbiding citizen. I contribute.
I am a pacifist. I cannot imagine being otherwise.
Civil disobedience depends
Al Carbon — Mon, 03/08/2010 - 12:50Civil disobedience depends upon an implicit respect for the authority you are disobeying. It worked in India because the British weren't willing to mow down the peaceful protestors. It didn't work quite as well in China. Protestors who go the civil disobedience route are willing to give their lives for their cause, but are expecting not to have to.
Call me deluded, but I personally don't see the U.S. reacting to a peaceful protest with extreme violence and extermination of the protestors. It's just not how they do business.
But no matter what form the protests take, they depend upon a unified body of people committed to one cause (i.e. statehood OR independence). This is what is really lacking in Puerto Rico; without it there is no point in blaming the US for anything beyond getting Puerto Rico into this mess in the first place. A valid complaint, but complaining about the past won't solve the future.
Ok, you are deluded
Steve Elepan — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 02:06I dont think your deluded really just maybe do not care enough about the topic to research it. Thats fine. I care about what i care about and you care about what you care about. It could just be we are the blind men examining the elephant. BUT That is how the U.S. does buissness. here and abrod. Frequently? no, but its done.
Really? When? The US hasn't
Al Carbon — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 08:49Really? When?
The US hasn't been blameless in its treatment of peaceful protesters. There has been police brutality. People have been shot and some people have lost their lives. There were unfortunate incidences with fire hoses. But rolling over people with tanks and direct military conflict between peaceful protesters and armed soldiers, a la Tienamen Square? Point me to an example. For what it's worth, in the US peaceful protest is legal and is upheld as a citizen's right.
I'm not saying the US is a saint. They meddle in the political affairs of other countries to their own ends. They have leaders they don't agree with assassinated. They act like they are the world police, but generally to their own interests, not to what would really be right or just.
I just get tired of hearing complaints about the US, because most of the complaints basically boil down to, "It's a world power. It shouldn't want to be a world power. And it shouldn't do anything to keep that power". And fine, some of the things they do to keep that power are very wrong. Like Guantanamo Bay. But, it's such an easy target. Every country has skeletons in its closet, it's just more popular to bitch about the US's because they are more public. And when you get down to it, the US has good principles and good laws, that don't always get implemented. The world is much better off with the US as the world power than, say, China.
So it is alright for law
Steve Elepan — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 23:42So it is alright for law enforcement but not for the military? And in the case of shine notice that the ant personnel machine gun on the tanks were not ready to fire and it would be a waste of money to fire tank shells into a crowd yet protesters were killed by tanks. Is it less bad to run over protesters with a SWAT van? Maybe I am missing your point please enlighten me.
May 4th 1970 there was the Kent State Shooting. Protesters were fired upon by soldiers. Those soldiers were armed with what is called a M1 Grand. There were reportable 29 of these semi automatic rifles discharged. Of these 29, 67 rounds were fired, about 2.3 per rifle. The M1 Grand being a semi automatic rifle can put 4 rounds down range in seconds before the operator would have to reload. There were four killed and nine wounded. The nearest person nearest to the soldiers that was killed was about 354 ft away. These shots took focus and intent.
Also, compare Kent State to
Al Carbon — Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:05Also, compare Kent State to Tienamen Square where estimates range from 250 to 10,000 killed. Even if it was "only" 250; it absolutely makes a difference. The scale is so different because the laws and the political atmosphere are so different.
No, it's not okay, and it's
Al Carbon — Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:03No, it's not okay, and it's not legal. It sucks that it happened, and it's shameful for the country. But it's a much different environment than other countries where protests are outright illegal and protesters get killed, or locked up for decades, like Cuba or Russia or China.
Police officers get put on trial all the time in the US for brutality and are often punished; not as often as they should be, IMO, especially in certain parts of the country and in certain time periods in our history, but it's an established law that is enforced. It's a completely different atmosphere than a totalitarian regime where it's illegal to speak anything against the party line, where your life is literally on the line if you do.
I can't believe you are even forcing me to compare the two.
Sohow many lives does it take
Steve Elepan — Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:18Sohow many lives does it take to make turn those people into numbers. How many have to be killed before its a big deal. We can not simply dehumanize people. But thats just my opinion. You can have all the protective laws you want, you can punish all the delinquint police officers you want it dosent hurt any one that matters in command. No real corrective mesures are taken. We have a police force not a police service. This an issue that I have found dosent just trouble me but it bothers members of law enforcment as well. We lock up those we catch and persucute those we dont. It really isnt all that difrent from Cuba or China. The difrence would be the conditions in our federal prisons are much better than Canaleta. We also have better P.R. than China wich goes out of its way to make information disapear.
There's a reason why the world hates the US
Red Jaguar — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 12:45I can get into it forever but we are not discussing that issue. As far as the world being better off with the US as THE world power, that is a very strange point of view. I don't mean to come off condescending, but I am curious as to what cultivates that thought process. Perhaps it's ignorance on my behalf, but as an american born citizen living in the states, even I don't understand the necessity of a superpower. Perhaps isolationism is the best defense against an increasingly turbulent world? Not everyone wants to follow the American model of success because as good as it is getting for China, this is their first venture into a capital driven system after decades of Maoist Socialism. And while they have become the world manufacture and assembly leader, the reality is that they're population is ridiculous. And the ratio of men to women is not good, due to selective abortion. And the gap between the rich and poor in Modern China is astonishing. If we should be encouraging any one state into becoming a world power it should be Brazil, but with their dedication to the destruction of the Amazon, supplier of 70% of the world's oxygen, you know, what humans require to live, one can only question their rationale and progress. But their ironic dedication to ecofriendly energy sources is commendable especially when they are the largest economy in the western hemisphere after the United States.
The United States' fundamental principles are certainly noble. It's system was at one point the model for democracy and the protection of the common man from a strong and abusive central government. However the Industrial revolution changed a domestic based self sufficient economy into an international export and import capital driven system. However since then, we really haven't done much to reduce our foreign debt since we are increasing our mass production of commodities at a level never before seen in any other time or place in the world. This system of over indulgence while it may seem profitable in the short term, it is essentialy a long term Bear market. Which brings me to my point.
Seeing how much of a financial mess the US is in, if PR were to take an aggressive route towards autonomy short of an armed revolution, then that step should be becoming a financial burden on the US. And while in the short run it may affect the welfare system on which many people rely on to just survive, it can lead to PR becoming financially self sufficient. By becoming a finacial burden the US can suspend aid to the Island and doing so would cause an uproar among the Populace who will then hopefully start weighing its options. In time this could potentially lead to independence. And as a new nation, PR can find help and support from the many Latin American up and coming economies. PR is a great location for importing and exporting trade between the Western and Eastern world. It can have a place among the great Latin American economies. Any opinions?
I think a world with no
Al Carbon — Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:18I think a world with no superpower would be great, I'm all for it. I'm not sure how realistic it is, but I've considered moving to Europe frequently throughout my life because I'd rather live in a socialist country where education is valued, healthcare is free, and everyone isn't so fucking greedy. Maybe in the future that will happen, who knows. But it seems that at most every non-transitional moment since the beginning of recorded history there has been at least one superpower or dominant empire in the world, so I'm not super optimistic.
As far as your comments regarding economics in PR, I totally agree with you on a few points; PR has many resources that could be taken advantage of; trade is one for sure, others are alternative energy and the movie industry. I'd love to see more farms here so that we could decrease the amount of stuff we import. I think your comments to that effect are sensible.
OTOH, I don't think that becoming a financial burden to the US is a good strategy for becoming economically or politically independent. If the US cuts funding to PR, you are looking at civil war. The poorest and most desparate (and well armed) factions would become even more so and personally I detect serious class conflict already here; the last thing PR needs is a catalyst to set off that conflict. I think if the US were to cut the funds the result would be a catastrophic 3rd world nightmare. Sooooooooooo much can be done economically to make Puerto Rico economically independent, and THAT is what would really foment support for political independence in Puerto Rico among its populace, which IMO would be peachy.
Unfortunately, that requires a grand vision and the unity and work ethic to achieve it – and that's what I see lacking in PR, although with some good leadership that can all change very quickly.
The poorest and most desprete
Steve Elepan — Wed, 03/10/2010 - 01:25The poorest and most desprete or some would say the majority, is not well armed. Nor is it organized. Those on top have the funds, weapons and manpower not to mention the excelent organization. The police force in Puerto Rico is a parimilitery body. But I do belive it could be defeated wich is what Cabron Warfare is all about. It is just Steve Elepan talking about militery science and using Puerto Rico as an example. Just my opinions based on what i have lived and what I have observed.
Sit and fight or stand and fight
Steve Elepan — Mon, 03/08/2010 - 00:28Now Red lets not put down civil disobediance. civil disobediance like direct action is an ends to a meens and just as affective. Like direct action, it depends on the situation and the manner one goes about it. In China people were killed but tanks were stopped. In the russian revolution the Cossaks had killed civilians before, shortly after they realized what they had done was horrible. they themselves realized the were killing people that could easily be their family and friends. In China that tank driver chose to stop. He made a concious decision not to runover that guy. The tank Commander could have shot his driver. If there was a gunner he could have moved him down. (Or maybe not, there was a dust cover on the gun so maybe it wasnt ready to fire.) Yes folks get hurt and killed, no difrent than in war. Death is a hazerd in the fight for freedom no matter how you go about it. What resulted was a weapons embargo on china and loans were suspended. I suspect that China has a state capitalist government so the opressors inthis tale were at leats anoyed and frustrated by the event to the point that they have tryed to earse that bit of history.
So yes cicvil disobediance works and so does direct action but neither work well alone. I also belive that civil disobedience should be used before direct action but direct action should be prepared for.
I don't get this title in reference to the context
vanessa seijo — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 21:20I'm a Ghandi type of person, so the whole issue of violence is lost on me.
(Yes, I get that Ghandi was killed, that happens to. Yes, I hope it doesn't happen to me.)
If you look back on how the Vieques situation was handled, you realize that non-violent civil disobedience did the trick.
It's not the sixties, it's not the seventies. No army that is still resorting to guerilla warfare is bettering its countrymen's lives.
Violence is a terrible price to pay for freedom. And for millions throughout history, it did not bring a better life. It may have been the way out in past centuries. We should learn from history, not repeat it.
Did anyone stop to think...
rantes — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 20:24Did anyone stop to think that this sort of war would not be a war against the USA, but rather a civil war. The soldiers involved in this hypothetical conflict would be Puerto Ricans against Puerto Ricans. If that is the way that you want to start a new nation, let me tell you that I don't think you have honestly thought it through.
The Puerto Rico status situation is thoroughly unique. Even though there are some people that desire independence, the vast majority of the population still likes some sort of union with the USA. That is REALITY!
So if you would like to change the present status, first you must create a desire among the population to really cause that change. Only then, does armed conflict become an additional tool to the politics of war.
If anyone has actually sat down and studied any of the great revolutions of history such as the American Revolution, you will notice that first and foremost it was a conflict won by politicians, not soldiers. Soldiers are the tools of distraction that politicians use to gain diplomatic leverage. The people must be on your side BEFORE the conflict starts, otherwise you are doomed to fail.
The "welfare state" has been the "opiate of the masses" for the Puerto Rican people, most people will not give up their homes and food, for an unproven "pipe dream".
You must prove to the people that you can actually successfully run this country before "the leash" can be taken off.
The next step, which cannot be skipped, is civil support. There
Steve Elepan — Sun, 03/07/2010 - 02:41"The next step, which cannot be skipped, is civil support. There can be no victory without the support of the peopl" Yeah Its in there
turn to agriculture, that's
efh (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 06:52turn to agriculture, that's the real revolution
tumbar cabezas??? empieza por monsanto
more can get done with food
Elepan (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 14:09more can get done with food than with guns. I agree Im just talking about one part of revolution. Combat forces can only support change not make it. The farmers not the the soldiers and poloicians will overcome. Farmers can easily lern and do the job of fighters and leaders but leaders and fighters have a hard time picking up a hoe.
Thats an awsome idea but he
Anonymous — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 12:17Thats an awsome idea but he really isnt saying chop off heads and shit. Steve does say at some point how killing isnt really how you win a gurilla war
Honestly, this is straight up
Number 3 — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 00:27Honestly, this is straight up stupid. Steve you are a smart guy; stop dreaming of action movie nonsense and start actually building something. Violence is not going to solve PR's problems nor will some bizarro anachronistic war of independence. We need to build industry and to strengthen our economy. Violence at best will get people killed and will increase suffering in the world. What is the point of that?
Instead, let's aim to improve people's standard of living. If you want independence, then the first step is making welfare a non-issue here. Something like 60% of Puerto Ricans live off of federal welfare. You are going to find zero traction on the independence front with that crowd. So you are left with at most 40%, and even that 40% at the bare minimum half of that is for statehood. So now you are at best working with 20% of the population.
It is one thing to advocate a violent uprising in a society where the majority want said independence and a colonial power is denying it. It is quite another to impose it on an unwilling populus just because it is what you think is right. This is a democracy, not Steve's dictatorship. I would prefer the status issue be resolved in a way I'm unhappy with as long as the values of democracy and pluralism are respected, over getting my preferred outcome by shoving it down the majority's throat.
"Violence at best will get
Jean — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 09:04"Violence at best will get people killed and will increase suffering in the world. What is the point of that?"
Although I do not agree with Steve's point of view, at all, it's his space and he has every right to say whatever it is he wants to. Now, that being said, your above quoted statement is so naive Marco.
Violence gets people killed and increases suffering, but if done wisely, you end up improving people's lives (ie. American revolution, coup d'etats for democratic change, Civil rights riots). It is fair to argue how effective or not they were, or if they could have been achieved by other means, but to go on a blanket statement that "violence is always bad, let's hug it out", is naive at best.
Keep rocking the flames Steve (even though I do not agree with your point of view, at all).
Jean Vidal anti
Al Carbon — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:48Jean Vidal anti hugging-it-out? Color me surprised.
i dont think he is against
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:52i dont think he is against it. I the Jean may be some where in the middle. wich would be excelent. then some one would be on the right track.
Jean thank you. I belive that
Steve (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 12:27Jean thank you. I belive that all ideas should be shared and heard. I like for my space to dialect ( i hope im using the word coerrectly)
I hope you follow this article for a bit and share your thoughts and suggestions. I have a few ideas on war and how they can be fought with little or no casualties. Most important is no civilian casualties. It can be done.
But war is an exspression of polotics and If there are other options they must be used to their fullist as well. What I know well is militery science and Im sharing that knowledge.
As for Monsanto, hell yeah. Those feilds of theres will destroy our island. Burn baby burn. LOL
I hope I have not ofended any
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 04:48I hope I have not ofended any one with my views. I have not done so then I ask that you do have some respect if not for my views then for me. I hope you do not speek to all youe fellow writers like this when you have a disagreement. I dont want you to feel I take your comments personal but I belive that since this is your project and you and your wife invited me to write that maybe you should be a bit more tactful.
I know that you are both very respectful folks and I would not like anyone else not having met you think otherwise.
Steve, you know I totally
Al Carbon — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:22Steve, you know I totally respect you and am happy that you are writing for the site and hope you continue to do so.
On the other hand, I reserve full right to make mincemeat of any argument I disagree with or find to be weak. I wouldn't be respecting you as a writer, as a thinker, or as a person if I DIDN'T do so.
make mincemeat of any argument I disagree with
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:36I fail to see how that is constructive at all. Im not making an argument I am writing a paper on militery science. Notice it says part one. Perhaps my exseriance gives me uncommen view of violence and war. however I hope you be patient and open. Somtimes we have to go to the edge to find the middle ground. I know you meen well but in reality you are not actually respecting me. But hay I know I put myself at risk when I put my ideas out in public. Freedom of speech is for everyone. I just think as an editor maybe you should be more diplomatic. But this is your house as far as I am concerned. If you would have me stop then I will.
I absolutely want you to keep
Al Carbon — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:46I absolutely want you to keep writing. The thing is, La Acera is a space for debate, not just a space for dissemination of information. I fully expected you to come back at me defending your point.
I don't want you to feel jumped on or disrespected, we are just debating the ideas you presented. I'm truly sorry if you feel personally attacked; that was not anybody's intention. Marco even called you smart, which trust me is high praise coming from him and a title he uses sparingly.
You seem to be saying that your article is a thought experiment of what would happen if it came to military conflict here. As such I can see why it might be irrelevant to debate whether it would ever happen or should ever happen. It's just that that's been the theme of multiple posts by you, so you seem preoccupied with it beyond on the thought-experiment level.
Well then I will continue
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 23:02Well then I will continue along my train of thought. If the topic displeses you or Mrcos by all meens let me know. But I dont think it is wish fullfillment. I also belive that even you folks give me a turd sandwich on sweet bread its still eating shit. But hay freedom of speech is wasome and somthing no one can give or take away. Ill keep on posting.
Hey man some shit smells
Al Carbon — Sun, 03/07/2010 - 00:14Hey man some shit smells sweet you of all people should know that...
What? No I wouldent know. I
Steve Elepan — Sun, 03/07/2010 - 00:21What? No I wouldent know. I have never been in a situation where I thought shit smeeled nice. Please explain maybe I am missing somthing here. Im open to try and understand before I tell you that your comment is strate up stupid. As far as I know maybe you have had a sweet smell exspriance with shit and all because i havent I cant just atack your idea blindly.
your poem dude, your poem.
Al Carbon — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 08:51your poem dude, your poem.
That poem was a silly story.
Steve Elepan — Tue, 03/09/2010 - 21:58That poem was a silly story. It was fun but not based on reality.
The government that you are
Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 01:58The government that you are hoping will solve the status uncertainty problem has sunk so low into fundamentalism and an ignorant Western view that they will never do anything to even get close to solving the problem. This government is anti-identity and national culture, its full of 'politicians' not leaders...
This problem can only be solved by the ones who care enough to find the meaning of life beyond materialistic blessings. The problem of solving Puerto Rico's status is not just papers in an office, and labels, its of finding the origin of our nationality, getting to know who we are, finding pride in our past! This case of Identity Theft that is our status is being taken upon by Puerto Rico's government? The same ones who are destroying our identity? Good luck reaching a logical and favorable for your nation solution with those corrupt selfish politicians up there in El Capitolio...
Be glad for Yates v. United States
Vox Pop — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 17:53I recognize that the expression of comments advocating the violent overthrow of federal authority constitutes protected speech so long as the advocacy is meant purely as an abstract idea and not an actual call to action (see Yates v. United States).
However, as a fellow La Acera contributor, I wish to disassociate myself entirely from this piece and the views of its author.
Armed Revolution?
Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 09:57On thing you need before even considering an armed uprising is humans both willing and able to fight, and as an Independentista, I don't care enough about the status to take up arms.
war?
Al Carbon — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 09:22If PR wants independence, why don't they just ask for it? They might just get it that easily.
Considering they overwhelmingly don't want independence, why should anyone be fighting for it?
Changes are always done by
Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 01:49Changes are always done by minorities... Majorities are always too conformed with the actual situation so as to make a significant change at all in historical events. Great ideas come from one visionary!
No they dont they come from
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 04:52No they dont they come from many people with many ideas that dont always agree at first. Eventually they do settle on somthing and go forwerd with it. Unfortunatly it ends up being one person that gets all the credit while the struggle of the masses goes on forgoten. No one makes change alone.
Not neciseril and says who?
Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 09:43Not neciseril and says who? Besides indipendince isnt somthing to be asked for.
Says every referendum ever
Al Carbon — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 10:03Says every referendum ever taken, and the breakdown of the parties, where only 2% of the country (if that) is in the PIP.
It's at best irresponsible and at worst crazy to kill and die for something that can be easily obtained through diplomatic means. The day PR (as a democratic majority of its citizens) tells the US it wants to be an independent country and is refused is the day a lot of militant revolutionaries will be born.
Going about it any other way is putting the cart before the horse, at best.
EL PIP es un partido que
Jorge Camacho (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 02:10EL PIP es un partido que existe para existir, en otras palabras, la comision estatal de elecciones es la parte mas saludable en ese organismo. Ellos se encargan de conseguir las firmar para inscribir el partido cada vez que pierden. Ahi en ese partido, eso solo se ha convertido en un trabajo para darle dinero a la familia y meterse unos cuantos al bolsillo. Ellos no estan haciendo un muy buen trabajo de darle una moral positiva a las personas en tanto a la soberania. Aqui en Puerto Rico la estadidad y el commonwealth siempre van a ganar una vez sigan fluyendo las AYUDAS FEDERALES y LOS CUPONES... una vez eso pare (porque nada dura para siempre, especialmente cuando CHINA le pare de perdonar las deudas a EU) Veras que la acepation de la soberania y la independencia no se vera tan loca como hoy en dia... porque ahi es cuando empieza la competencia de sobreviviencia... y ahi es que la gente empieza a ver la realidad.
Im not so sure that the PIP
Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 03/05/2010 - 17:15Im not so sure that the PIP represents all indipendistas just like how i dont represnt all indipendistass. Not only that but voting for any of the available parties does not secure any status. We can screamm for state hood or indipendince till we are blue and not get it. We can vote all we want but its really up to congress if we go that route. In no way am i against diplomacy but diplomacy works better when both sides have the capacity to fight but chose not to. Indipendince and state hood are things that should be demanded not requested. If neither nor granted then we must find other meens. But never forget that war is an exspression of polotics.
"Im not so sure that the PIP
Al Carbon — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 00:38"Im not so sure that the PIP represents all indipendistas just like how i dont represnt all indipendistass."
No, probably not. But you have to admit all statehooders are not for independence, and many PPDer's. The majority of Puerto Ricans do not want independence, as things stand right now. The numbers just aren't there.
"Not only that but voting for any of the available parties does not secure any status."
No, but voting in the referendum, as the people's direct voice to the US regarding what future they want for Puerto Rico, DOES. And when they vote in that referendum, people vote for the status quo, which is what the people want.
"We can screamm for state hood or indipendince till we are blue and not get it. We can vote all we want but its really up to congress if we go that route."
That's 100% correct. However, Puerto Rico has never screamed one way or the other. They've never even stated it politely. When asked, they say they are happy as they are, according to every referendum ever taken. If and when a referendum does come up expressing a preference for one status or the other, we all hope that congress would grant said preference. In the event they do, end of problem. In the event they don't, THEN AND ONLY THEN do you have a revolution on your hands.
"But never forget that war is an exspression of polotics."
I would say it's more like a last result in the event that politics fail.
100 years of status
Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 01:46100 years of status uncertainty, I call that government failing...
Well. Well. Well.
Angel D'inginna (not verified) — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 16:38Independence seems like a "dream-like no easy way out" of the colonial status we live by each year.
But we forget a little detail. Even if we are a colony. Some of us have worked hard to keep what we have so far...
It may not seem like much but some of our eldest and by that I mean family members have seen misery the way we could never had the chance to.
We didn't Swam out of that misery in the blink of an Eye once General Miles set foot on Guanicas' shores.
For the first half of the 20th century. P.R. has seen poverty and exploitation by the hands of imperialistic interest. For the first half of the century. It was building up until it crumbled to the ground and hit rock bottom in the 30's. During the 40's and through the end of WW2 it finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel.
But this tunnel is far gone now. Still we live under its long gone shadow. I don't think Steve has any misdirection on what the future should hold for P.R.
It may seem very unrealistic. But from my point of view it is even more unfair TO CASTRATE HIS IDEALS ON WHAT OTHERS THINK is more proper. And worse. To think that he fights his fight alone.
To me it has to be no more than a Hypocrite one that calls himself "pluralist" and then mocks every other "violent" or rebel act as stupid, naive, or maybe just unreal.
Come on Guys. America formed itself on a revolutionary basis.
This text just opens for me more questions that just definite answers.
Is more mature to question oneself or others than to just bluntly call it stupid...!!!!
In all fairness the subject
Steve Elepan — Sat, 03/06/2010 - 23:13In all fairness the subject of violence and war gets most folks out of their comfort zone as it should. Such things should not be done lightly and without be meditated on nor should they be dismissed and ignored. All things should be taken into consideration. Millitery Diplomactic Econmic and Social issues should be talked about. all four are options available and you arnt limited to picking just one at a time for the same task. When we discuss one out of four we are only comiting to 75% of the task at hand. I am prsenting a topic I happen to know intimitly.