More like 94 total dead as a result of that assault:
Edit: Re-reading that, the total death toll also reflects people killed when the army re-took the "Palacio de Justicia" (an analog of the Supreme Court, as far as I can tell.)
"En cambio, la toma del Palacio de Justicia en 1985, con el objetivo de hacer un juicio al presidente Betancur se convirtió en una tragedia con la retoma del Palacio por parte del Ejército, con un saldo de 11 magistrados muertos, varios civiles, y desaparecidos, para un total de 94 muertos. Otros actos, como el asesinato de José Raquel Mercado, presidente de la central sindical CTC..."
There is absolutely no evidence that Petro is a terrorist or a murderer, and, just beyond whatever anyone thinks of M-19, it's politically ill-advised for a head of state to rhetorically fly off the handle like that. Milei is not a TV commentator anymore; he's the leader of a country who has had to expend unnecessary diplomatic energy in reestablishing trust after baselessly accusing a neighboring president of terrorism and murder.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend Milei. The government of Colombia in the '70s and '80s was likely a brutal military dictatorship installed by Henry Kissinger (may he rot in Hell), and propped up with US aid. However, the leftist guerillas of the time did plenty of murdering and torturing too. Latin America's blood-soaked 20th century has left scars that people in the US don't see or would understand.
I don't know how fair Milei's characterization of Petro is, but I do know that it's not as crazy and over the top as it sounds when you quote it with no context.
Another attack on Milei based on the false idea that he doesn't want to negotiate. It has been just 3 months and given how Milei entered into the ring one should have expected him to spend some months trying to distinguish between opponents willing to negotiate and opponents ready to remove him by any means. Given the many pro-K-factions and anti-K-factions represented in Congress and the provincial governments (where K means Cristina Kirchner) and their inside fightings, it has been a very difficult task. On March 1, Milei said clearly he expected to end negotiations with those willing to negotiate by May 25. At this very moment, it's still difficult to say whether Milei will be able to negotiate reforms with Congress and provincial governments' approval by May 25, but its probability still is at least 50%. If he fails to negotiate the reforms, then he will rely entirely on whatever powers the Constitution and Congress have already granted to the President. Though these powers may not be enough to change radically my home country's economy, the new economy may turn out to be much better than the K-economy of 2003-23 (it was a good one when agricultural prices were quite high in 2003-2012 thanks to China, but they will never be that high again). If he fails to negotiate, however, pro-K-opponents will attempt to remove him asap (yes, something they know how to do it and they know that fake liberals everywhere will celebrate it).
What "idea"? What "false idea"? It is that "somebody" in other words Milei, does not want to "negotiate." ...and there are bad people, who "attack" him. So somebody is saying that Milei "does not want to negotiate." What does the discussion of whether he is willing to "negotiate" come in? I don't know what this is about.... That a president, in any democracy, has to negotiate in order to pass his reforms isn't news.
Anyone who "rushes to embrace" Trump is saying all he needs to say.
Also doesn't help me make up my mind about him. Ardent support for Israel is not necessarily a bad thing. Ardent support for Netanyahu or the way the war in Gaza is being conducted is a different thing.
To be clear, I am not an ardent supporter of Israel.
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, because I do not know the history well enough. There are people whose opinion I respect on both sides. I only have so much time to chase rabbits.
For this reason, support of Israel is not a litmus test for me. If that makes me not-a-libertarian, so be it. Not that I wanted to be counted in their number anyway:
You should read La Nación de Buenos Aires from 12/10/23 to today and you will see how often Milei has been presented as someone not willing to negotiate. In his post, David Agren says that Milei has chosen confrontation rather than negotiation. He's wrong, very wrong, because in Argentina's political ring there are too many politicians fighting and you have to choose with whom you are going to fight rather than negotiate before you start negotiating. Macri failed to find who should negotiate with, and Milei learned the lesson. In Argentina, there have been too many politicians ready to fight for a long time, and the President should know who his enemies in Congress and elsewhere are because they will do anything to remove him. You should read Milei's address to Congress on March 1, 2024, to understand what is going on.
I did find his speech on Youtube(1) and in text form(2). He does say a lot of the right things (please forgive the rough translation.)
"Populism robbed us of 90% of our income, leading to the insane outcome where one third of all workers in the formal economy live in poverty."
But I have trouble squaring what he says with his embrace of and admiration for a man who would install in the US the very system of grift, corruption, and nepotism that he rails against in Argentina. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that he's decided that the enemy of his enemies is his friend.
I read and listened to the part where he describes the 10-point plan that he proposes to install at a gathering on the 25th of May. It sounded to me like he was saying "my way or the highway" to the opposition. This is not necessarily a bad thing if his opposition is as corrupt and criminal as he says, but it's not exactly an opening of negotiations.
Also, as a firm believer in the separation of church and state, I found his bible quotes distasteful and inappropriate.
I agree that one need not negotiate with everyone. And that Milei is willing to negotiate, but only with some parties. I don't think you can force him to negotiate with everyone. It sounds like maybe he is "willing to negotiate" with local governors.
A libertarian wouldn’t ban gender inclusive language in official documents. Libertarians should be more inclusive on gender than the average liberal. Otherwise, you’re simply a fascist cosplaying as a lover of freedom.
Well, slashing 10 cabinet level ministries and 52 undersecretaries sounds pretty good to me. I also like his shutting down of Telam, a state-funded propaganda machine.
"His descriptor for Colombia’s leftist president, Gustavo Petro, whom he called a 'terrorist murderer.'"
Mr. Petro was a member of M-19, which was a terrorist organization at the time of his membership:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Petro#M-19_militancy
There’s a very important second half of that descriptor that is supplying the inflammatory juice there.
"The M-19 group was responsible for the death of 13 Colombian politicians at a shooting they produced on the Justice Palace. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Petro#M-19_militancy
More like 94 total dead as a result of that assault:
Edit: Re-reading that, the total death toll also reflects people killed when the army re-took the "Palacio de Justicia" (an analog of the Supreme Court, as far as I can tell.)
"En cambio, la toma del Palacio de Justicia en 1985, con el objetivo de hacer un juicio al presidente Betancur se convirtió en una tragedia con la retoma del Palacio por parte del Ejército, con un saldo de 11 magistrados muertos, varios civiles, y desaparecidos, para un total de 94 muertos. Otros actos, como el asesinato de José Raquel Mercado, presidente de la central sindical CTC..."
https://www.radionacional.co/actualidad/historia-colombiana/m-19-que-es-historia-moviemiento-19-abril#:~:text=El%20acuerdo%20fue%20firmado%20por%20el%20presidente%20Virgilio,Acuerdo%20de%20Paz%20fue%20asesinado%20en%20un%20avi%C3%B3n.
There is absolutely no evidence that Petro is a terrorist or a murderer, and, just beyond whatever anyone thinks of M-19, it's politically ill-advised for a head of state to rhetorically fly off the handle like that. Milei is not a TV commentator anymore; he's the leader of a country who has had to expend unnecessary diplomatic energy in reestablishing trust after baselessly accusing a neighboring president of terrorism and murder.
I'll let the facts speak for themselves.
I'm not necessarily trying to defend Milei. The government of Colombia in the '70s and '80s was likely a brutal military dictatorship installed by Henry Kissinger (may he rot in Hell), and propped up with US aid. However, the leftist guerillas of the time did plenty of murdering and torturing too. Latin America's blood-soaked 20th century has left scars that people in the US don't see or would understand.
I don't know how fair Milei's characterization of Petro is, but I do know that it's not as crazy and over the top as it sounds when you quote it with no context.
Another attack on Milei based on the false idea that he doesn't want to negotiate. It has been just 3 months and given how Milei entered into the ring one should have expected him to spend some months trying to distinguish between opponents willing to negotiate and opponents ready to remove him by any means. Given the many pro-K-factions and anti-K-factions represented in Congress and the provincial governments (where K means Cristina Kirchner) and their inside fightings, it has been a very difficult task. On March 1, Milei said clearly he expected to end negotiations with those willing to negotiate by May 25. At this very moment, it's still difficult to say whether Milei will be able to negotiate reforms with Congress and provincial governments' approval by May 25, but its probability still is at least 50%. If he fails to negotiate the reforms, then he will rely entirely on whatever powers the Constitution and Congress have already granted to the President. Though these powers may not be enough to change radically my home country's economy, the new economy may turn out to be much better than the K-economy of 2003-23 (it was a good one when agricultural prices were quite high in 2003-2012 thanks to China, but they will never be that high again). If he fails to negotiate, however, pro-K-opponents will attempt to remove him asap (yes, something they know how to do it and they know that fake liberals everywhere will celebrate it).
What "idea"? What "false idea"? It is that "somebody" in other words Milei, does not want to "negotiate." ...and there are bad people, who "attack" him. So somebody is saying that Milei "does not want to negotiate." What does the discussion of whether he is willing to "negotiate" come in? I don't know what this is about.... That a president, in any democracy, has to negotiate in order to pass his reforms isn't news.
Anyone who "rushes to embrace" Trump is saying all he needs to say.
Milei is going nowhere.
I find his embrace of the Orange One distasteful, but viewing Latin American politics through the lens of U.S. politics always distorts and confuses.
I'm not sure quite what to think of Mr. Milei. I agree with about half of his actions, but find his persona and antics buffoonish.
Also doesn't help me make up my mind about him. Ardent support for Israel is not necessarily a bad thing. Ardent support for Netanyahu or the way the war in Gaza is being conducted is a different thing.
To be clear, I am not an ardent supporter of Israel.
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, because I do not know the history well enough. There are people whose opinion I respect on both sides. I only have so much time to chase rabbits.
For this reason, support of Israel is not a litmus test for me. If that makes me not-a-libertarian, so be it. Not that I wanted to be counted in their number anyway:
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/how-the-libertarian-party-became
You should read La Nación de Buenos Aires from 12/10/23 to today and you will see how often Milei has been presented as someone not willing to negotiate. In his post, David Agren says that Milei has chosen confrontation rather than negotiation. He's wrong, very wrong, because in Argentina's political ring there are too many politicians fighting and you have to choose with whom you are going to fight rather than negotiate before you start negotiating. Macri failed to find who should negotiate with, and Milei learned the lesson. In Argentina, there have been too many politicians ready to fight for a long time, and the President should know who his enemies in Congress and elsewhere are because they will do anything to remove him. You should read Milei's address to Congress on March 1, 2024, to understand what is going on.
That's one heck of a reading assignment 8)
I did find his speech on Youtube(1) and in text form(2). He does say a lot of the right things (please forgive the rough translation.)
"Populism robbed us of 90% of our income, leading to the insane outcome where one third of all workers in the formal economy live in poverty."
But I have trouble squaring what he says with his embrace of and admiration for a man who would install in the US the very system of grift, corruption, and nepotism that he rails against in Argentina. The most charitable explanation I can think of is that he's decided that the enemy of his enemies is his friend.
I read and listened to the part where he describes the 10-point plan that he proposes to install at a gathering on the 25th of May. It sounded to me like he was saying "my way or the highway" to the opposition. This is not necessarily a bad thing if his opposition is as corrupt and criminal as he says, but it's not exactly an opening of negotiations.
Also, as a firm believer in the separation of church and state, I found his bible quotes distasteful and inappropriate.
I still don't know what to think of the man.
(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl4GkVgjlYw
(2) https://www.infobae.com/politica/2024/03/02/el-discurso-completo-de-javier-milei-en-la-apertura-de-sesiones-ordinarias-en-el-congreso/
I agree that one need not negotiate with everyone. And that Milei is willing to negotiate, but only with some parties. I don't think you can force him to negotiate with everyone. It sounds like maybe he is "willing to negotiate" with local governors.
he is after power - like all of them.
A libertarian wouldn’t ban gender inclusive language in official documents. Libertarians should be more inclusive on gender than the average liberal. Otherwise, you’re simply a fascist cosplaying as a lover of freedom.
Well, slashing 10 cabinet level ministries and 52 undersecretaries sounds pretty good to me. I also like his shutting down of Telam, a state-funded propaganda machine.