South America

[Reverend Blair]

So Tabare Vazquez took power in Uruguay yesterday. He was the sixth socialist elected in South America over the last few years, a part of the Bolivarian revolution that Hugo Chavez has been calling for. Vazquez's platform is familiar...help the poor. Land reforms, education, health care, access to water and and power...the usual things that people want. That's a good platform in a place with so many poor.

The US expressed concern that totalitarianism was sweeping through the area. Hmmm...a country has an election, the guy wins, so he's some kind of petty dictator? His platform was popular because of what was in it. A lot of that popularity comes from the way the US imperialism has been screwing that continent over for the last century or so.

Here's what the US is really pissed off about. Oil.

 

[no1important]

Too bad America will never learn to BUTT OUT where they don't belong.

America is worried about losing their perceived influence in these areas as well. They want someone in power they can control or is an American puppet.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think they are learning the hard way. Hugo Chavez and Lula have basically done an end-run around them. That very much took hold at the trade summit in Cancun when the develping world stood up and told the US to piss off...now it's showing up in the elections of these nations.

The US can't do to much about it because the entire world is fed up with them and their imperialist policies.

Canada should be down in South America trying to join in this trade zone they are forming down there. We can benefit and, more importantly, we can do a lot of good by tying trade to human rights and environmental concerns.

 

[ElPolaco]

There have been so many great political movements in Latin America that looked as if they were heading in the right direction only to be destroyed by the US. Quien sabe? Maybe this time the US will be so heavily involved with its obsession in the middle east that some good things will start again in Latin America. Maybe some good will come out of the Iraq war. Yea, right.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think this could be different, El Polaco. The dynamic is different now and the US is pre-occupied with the mess they've made in the Middle East. All of George Bush's rhetoric about democracy also makes it look really when South American leaders say thing like, "If I am assassinated, it was the CIA."

South America also has Africa more on-side than at any time since the early 1960s and real interest from Asia for the first time ever. Brazil is becoming something of an economic powerhouse.

It could still well fail, and the Bush regime sure doesn't want it to succeed, but South America could make it this time.

 

[EagleSmack]

Silly... so silly... and so insignificant.

Reverend... Now you want to place your lips on the backside of S. America.

Did you know that most nations do not even care about Canada? You have nothing to offer them. You need us much more than we need you, that is why you are so desparately seeking other countries (via CanadianContent) to have new trade agreements and alliances.

"We should get involved with S. America"
"We should get more involved with China"
"We should get more involved with Africa"

You're like a school girl wallflower trying to find a date.

 

[Reverend Blair]

:roll:

 

[ElPolaco]

I hope you're right Reverend. The middle east's curse could be Latin America's big chance. The trouble with the "economic powerhouse" of Brazil is that domestically it has some of the world's worse poverty. It seems that they have always had the misconception that it can magically be eliminated by encouraging migration from the coast to it's interior which is causing an environmental disaster.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The thing with Brazil's wealth is that it can fuel growth in other South American countries though. They do have problems, but in the larger context of South America those can be overcome if they are dealt with properly.

The environmental problems are something that are becoming more and more serious every year and will be the biggest sticking point in the future. That's why I'd like to see trade deals tied to environmental concerns as well as human rights.

A collapse of the eco-system will lead to the end of any progress, but we not only know how to prevent that but we have the technology that will allow preventing it to be a long-term economic benefit to Brazil.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes... the Rev can solve all the world's problems.

 

[peapod]

At least he seeks the truth...can you say the same :?: :?: :?: or does it even matter to you.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Eaglesmack seems to have a school-girl crush on me. Sorry, buddy...I'm married.

 

[no1important]

The thing is America does not want any other country or region to get ahead. If other countries or area's get ahead, America loses "control" and "influence" over them. The planet is becoming a world economy now and not a US based (and basically US controlled) economy as it has been in the past. The US does not like losing control or influence and America should start to get with the program instead of the protectionist crap spewing from their politicians mouth's. America signed and wanted all these free trade agreements but when someone else benefits, the politicians in America cry's foul.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: South America

Eaglesmack seems to have a school-girl crush on me. Sorry, buddy...I'm married.

Are you still upset when I called you a school girl Rev? I must have struck a nerve with that. :lol:

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

I do not totally agree with your line of thinking in your initial post. Purely technical speaking. You said "The US expressed concern that totalitarianism was sweeping through the area. Hmmm...a country has an election, the guy wins, so he's some kind of petty dictator? His platform was popular because of what was in it" I do not really know the now-elected president of Uruguay, but I do know that in history, elected leaders are not always as democratic as one might think, and could indeed go on the way of totalitarianism. Again, that does not mean it also applies to the president of Uruguay, absolutely not. But free elections do not always mean we end up with a leader who respects democracy. Which makes me come up with the following question: are free elections "sacred" to that extent and always respect the outcome, or should we be more cautious when it comes to free elections in countries with for example, no democratic tradition, like Afghanistan? Or Iraq? (to use two popular countries)

 

[EagleSmack]

I do not totally agree with your line of thinking in your initial post. Purely technical speaking. You said "The US expressed concern that totalitarianism was sweeping through the area. Hmmm...a country has an election, the guy wins, so he's some kind of petty dictator? His platform was popular because of what was in it" I do not really know the now-elected president of Uruguay, but I do know that in history, elected leaders are not always as democratic as one might think, and could indeed go on the way of totalitarianism. Again, that does not mean it also applies to the president of Uruguay, absolutely not. But free elections do not always mean we end up with a leader who respects democracy. Which makes me come up with the following question: are free elections "sacred" to that extent and always respect the outcome, or should we be more cautious when it comes to free elections in countries with for example, no democratic tradition, like Afghanistan? Or Iraq? (to use two popular countries)

I think it was because it was a Socialist elected and that is a free and fair election. These election results should never be questioned.

When a Pro-US politician is elected... the fix is on.

(See sarcasm)

 

[Reverend Blair]

If we are going to respect the results of elections, then we have to respect the results of elections. If George Bush gets to be president of the USA, and we accept the presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have accept the president of Uruguay.

It isn't just a single country that the US is concerned about in South America though. Remember that Vazquez is the sixth in growing trend. Nobody is questioning Lula's win and Chavez has survived a coup attempt and a recall election due to massive popular support.

The only government in South America that the US has voiced full approval of recently is the one in Colombia, and it's decidedly undemocratic.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Well, I agree, the word respect I should not have used. Of course, the outcome of free elections should always be respected. But from how I see it, "free elections" equal too much "democracy" in the eyes of many. More than once have I read on the Internet Republicans saying that with the free elections in Iraq, "democracy has been brought to the country". I disagree. Democracy is far more than just free elections. And that is my point: should we be more critical when a country with a non-democratic tradition has free elections, also concerning its outcome?

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: South America

If we are going to respect the results of elections, then we have to respect the results of elections. If George Bush gets to be president of the USA, and we accept the presidents of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we have accept the president of Uruguay.

It isn't just a single country that the US is concerned about in South America though. Remember that Vazquez is the sixth in growing trend. Nobody is questioning Lula's win and Chavez has survived a coup attempt and a recall election due to massive popular support.

The only government in South America that the US has voiced full approval of recently is the one in Colombia, and it's decidedly undemocratic.

Most S. American govts. are corrupt no matter who is in power. I know because I helped invade one in 1989. Pro-US, Socialist... down there corruption rules the day.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hmmm....corrupt like the Bush government, or corrupt like the Reagan government?