NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/26/penhaul.bolivia/index.html

Well again the spectre of leftist have raised its head in Bolivia. See article. Do any of the people familiar with Latin America think this will spread like a disease again. I remember the past with leftism in Latin America. Didnt turn out to well in my opinion.

Now im a diehard Capitalist. But in Bolivias case I believe something should be done with the native population. They are poor as hell. They need some help. Although I just read about natives in the Amazon attacking loggers in Brazil. Where are the answers for our non-Spanish/Portugues natives. I know we did a poor job in the US with our natives. What could be a solution that could make everyone happy?

If something doesnt happen i believe the Leftist will continue to harness this peasant power to further its agendas.

Well, the right failed miserably in many places too. Look at what happened in Venezuela pre-Chavez, Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil. It's not surprising that they're willing to give the left another chance.

"Spread like a disease?" "[leftism's] agenda?" I think I've seen threads by you before, and you are really starting to piss me off.

What 'history with leftism?' If I recall, the history with leftism more had to do with the US funding terrorist actions against legally elected left governments and assasinating democratically elected socialist and communist leaders. That would be a negative history with leftism, but thats like saying the Jews have a negative history with Judaism because Hitler killed so many of them. You have the blame on the wrong people.

Seriously. I'm willing to accept that you have your own views. But you have major issues with accepting mine, and even over an internet connection I can feel the contempt and hatred you hold, glimsed at in your wording.

Unless of course you are just being an ignorant troll. In that case *plants a "Don't feed the trolls" sign*

I'd say a wave of leftism couldn't hurt South America. The IMF and the World bank certainly haven't done the area any favors, so why not give the leftists a shot at it. Chavez certainly seems to be doing a good job in Venezuela--literacy is up, poverty is down. Hell, he had a copy of Don Quixote given to every person in the country in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the novel. They could do far worse.

Sovereign nations should be allowed to determine their own destinies as long as they don't kill other nation's citizens or invade other nation's territories. We're not in the dark ages or imperial ages anymore. People can think for themselves and determine what's right for themselves.

Hey guys! I did some research, and found this nasty history the South Americans have had over the last century... see if you can tell just how much Leftism had to do with it...

I'll give you a cookie if you can...

1909
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.
1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.
1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.
1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.
1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.
1948
José Figueres Ferrer wins a short civil war to become President of Costa Rica. Figueres is supported by the U.S., which has informed San José that its forces in the Panama Canal are ready to come to the capital to end "communist control" of Costa Rica.
1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.
Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life
The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.
"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon
1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.
1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.
1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Bahía de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan José Arévalo was favored to win.
"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964
1964
João Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.
1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist José Napoleón Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)
1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

Ahhh I love research.

PS sorry about the long post. There's a LOT of history there.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0204-05.htm

"The Anti-Political Politician
Reflections on Bolivia

By NEWTON GARVER

Bolivia is blessed not only with gorgeous scenery that ranges from
Amazonian rainforest to the High Andes but also by being generally
ignored by the press of the northern hemisphere. Searching for
"Bolivia" in the New York Times online, I often go months without
having any new hits, save for an occasional item where Bolivia is
included as one of a number of Latin American countries. The past 18
months has been different. In October 2003 the elected President,
Gonz?es de Lozada, was forced to resign: using the army to break a
campesino blockade of the capital backfired. The Indians all around
the country, not just around the capital, responded with mass
demonstrations and peaceful marches, exhibiting discipline and
determination for which the President had no response.

He fled the country and was replaced by his vice-president, Carlos
Mesa. Carlos Mesa has proved to be an imaginative anti-political
politician, surviving longer than any of the pundits conceived possible.


POLITCS AND ANTI-POLITICS

I had better explain my terms. Politics has to do with securing,
exercising, and retaining power, where power is understood as
domination and control of the institutions and resources of a
nation-state or other political entity, by what means are available.
It is in the spirit of such a conception of politics that Clausewitz
said that war is an extension of politics by other means. In gaining
control of a nation-state, a politician gains control of powerful
instruments of coercion, including the treasury, the army, the police,
the secret service, and the prisons. In totalitarian states the press,
the churches, and the judiciary are included among the instruments of
political power, and even in the United States we often see a yearning
by the administration for control these institutions that our
Constitution separates from the seat of political power. It is normal
for Presidents and other political leaders to employ whatever
instruments of persuasion and coercion are available.

Philip Pettit, the Australian philosopher, has said that we cannot
understand the working of modern society, particularly the workings of
democracy, unless we supplement this basic conception of politics and
power with an understanding of anti-power. Anti-power has to do with
limits on the use and employment of the ordinary instruments of
political power. It comes in two main forms, limitations on what
politicians actually do, and limitations on what politicians are
authorized to do. The U.S. Constitution not only establishes political
powers but also establishes limits on political powers, particularly
through the separation of powers, States' Rights, and the first ten
amendments (the Bill of Rights). These provisions have led to the
independence of the judiciary, the press, and religion, the courts
becoming an instrument for ensuring and elaborating these limitations.
Our democracy has also been blessed by the establishment of
independent institutions, such as the ACLU, whose whole purpose is to
promote anti-power, that is to be anti-political. Just as politics is
the exercise of power, anti-politics is the exercise of anti-power.

None of our Presidents, with the possible exceptions of Washington and
Jefferson, has been anti-political. If we look at recent elections, we
see that the attempt to secure power is highly partisan and involves
intensive and detailed work by political parties at every level. Carl
Schmitt has said (in The Concept of the Political) that politics
begins with a distinction between friends and enemies. He had
nation-states in mind, but we can see this phenomenon clearly in the
partisan character of electoral politics. Washington became President
without a partisan campaign, but nothing similar has happened in the
past 200 years. The election of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams was
highly partisan and divisive, and today we cannot imagine a democratic
election that does not involve political parties and all the divisive
partisan activity they entail.


THE UNELECTED PRESIDENT

Let us return to Bolivia. Carlos Mesa is President of a democratic
country, but he was not elected to be President. Nor does he lead a
political party that might constitute his political base. He has no
political base. There are numerous political parties in Bolivia, half
a dozen that have played a significant role in recent elections. None
of these parties put forward Mesa as a candidate for the presidency,
each having put forward instead its own candidate. Gonz?es de Lozada
chose him as a running-mate in 2002, probably as a way to attract
support from outside his party and from outside politics. Mesa had
been a historian and a television journalist, and he was known to the
public through his writings and through television. He had led no
party, he never held any political office, nor had he any experience
as the executive of any large institution. No one expected him to
become President, and few thought him capable of it. He therefore came
into politics from outside of politics - non-political but not yet
anti-political.

As the events of October 2003 unfolded, Mesa immediately deplored the
use of the army to break the blockade, and the next day withdrew his
support of Gonz?es de Lozada. He did not, however, resign. When
Gonz?es resigned, Mesa therefore came to power by right of
constitutional succession. He did not seek the endorsement of the
outgoing President's party or of any other party, but remained as
President with no ability through party affiliation to wield a block
of votes in parliament. Many people doubted whether he would long
remain in office, since in spite of his constitutional legitimacy he
lacked both democratic (electoral) legitimacy and political support.


CARLOS MESA AND THE INDIANS

It was the Bolivian Indians who had done in Gonz?es, and Mesa
undertook three significant measures to try to stave off Indian
opposition to his policies. The first was to promise a referendum on
the exploitation of the huge resources of natural gas, and the
referendum was duly held last year. The second was to undertake to
improve the infrastructure in the indigenous city of EL Alto. He has
not succeeded in finding a way to provide drinking water and sewage
because of the high capital costs, but both the main roads and the
side streets in EL Alto have been significantly improved in the past
eighteen months. In November 2004, I visited a Quaker school on one of
those side streets, and the formerly dirt roadway was being replaced -
expertly and expeditiously - with an impressive cobblestone street.
This project uses only local materials, and it not only improves the
appearance and accessibility of the neighborhood, but also is a
labor-intensive project that helps reduce unemployment. Mesa's third
undertaking was anti-political: he vowed not to use the army or the
police to break up roadblocks or peaceful demonstrations.

When Bolivia hit the front page of the New York Times again in
February/March 2005, it was because of a confrontation between
President Mesa and Evo Morales, the most prominent Indian politician
in Bolivia, leader of a socialist party known as MAS, leader also of
the unions of miners and of coca farmers, and the candidate who came
in second to Gonz?es de Lozada in the 2002 elections. The issue,
besides being a contest of power, concerned the exploitation of the
reserves of natural gas.

For at least two years, Morales has demanded that the royalties on the
extraction of natural gas be raised to 50 %, and the roadblocks of
2003 were meant to enforce that demand. President Mesa found this
demand unacceptable, but he did believe, especially following the
referendum, that the revenues to Bolivia for the exploitation of the
gas needed to be raised. He therefore held extensive discussions with
officials of the International consortium and others, and proposed a
law enacting a new energy policy. The new law proposes no change in
the division of royalties, but proposes a dramatic increase in the tax
on profits from the exploitation of gas, to 32%. It was at this point
that Morales withdrew his support from President Mesa.


THE TRIUMPH OF ANTI-POLITICS

So far, everything is normal relatively politics.

Bolivia made the news when President Mesa responded with an
anti-political gesture: he sent a letter to the legislature submitting
his resignation. In some sort of broad fuzzy sense of politics, such a
letter might be thought a political gesture or tactic. When one
regards it seriously, however, one sees that it is not an exercise of
power or a utilization of the instruments of power but a resignation
from power and the instruments or power. In the event it did secure
for President Mesa declarations of support from all the major
political parties with the exception of MAS. Evo Morales and his
supporters among the impoverished Indian population on the Altiplano
restored the roadblocks that has been their most effective political
instrument over the past five or six years, a powerful form of
coercion . In the face of this confrontation, President Mesa
steadfastly refused to become political. He reiterated his refusal to
order the army to clear the roads, declared that he had done
everything that he knew how to do and that the country was
ungovernable with its main roads blocked, and so he would ask Congress
to call early elections to find someone as his replacement.

At this point Morales began to see his power ebb away. During a
two-day strike he had called to protest the new energy law, teachers
continued to meet their classes although they constitute the third or
fourth largest union; so his base shrunk. In addition Morales did not
want Mesa to leave the presidency, recognizing that any replacement
would use armed force to break the blockades and open the roads. So
the roadblocks were removed by the Indians who had put them in place.
President Mesa withdrew the bill to establish early elections and he
remains in office with a remarkably high approval rating in the polls,
about 60%.

If Bolivia were not such an obscure country, Carlos Mesa would be a
good candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Politics is inherently
divisive, and although we cannot do without it, it can never lead to
peace. Nor can we expect that there will be very many, if any,
anti-political politicians in positions of authority. Simone Weil said
that it is a natural necessity that politicians should employ
political power, and therefore a miracle when a politician acts
anti-politically. Perhaps it is. Certainly we cannot expect other
politicians to follow the example of Carlos Mesa. But he does deserve
recognition and admiration.

Newton Garver is SUNY Distinguished Service Professor and UB Professor
of Philosophy Emeritus. He is co-author of Derrida & Wittgenstein
(1995) and a frequent contributor to Buffalo Report."

These particular fellows?

"Spread like a disease?" "[leftism's] agenda?" I think I've seen threads by you before, and you are really starting to piss me off.

What 'history with leftism?' If I recall, the history with leftism more had to do with the US funding terrorist actions against legally elected left governments and assasinating democratically elected socialist and communist leaders. That would be a negative history with leftism, but thats like saying the Jews have a negative history with Judaism because Hitler killed so many of them. You have the blame on the wrong people.

Seriously. I'm willing to accept that you have your own views. But you have major issues with accepting mine, and even over an internet connection I can feel the contempt and hatred you hold, glimsed at in your wording.

Unless of course you are just being an ignorant troll. In that case *plants a "Don't feed the trolls" sign*

See this is the problem. The liberals such as yourself are filled with anger and dare i say hate. You display it very well by going off on irrelevent tangents and making points that are way out there. Then you wonder why you cant win elections with candidates that share your view.

Anyway my belief that Going to far right poses just as much risk as going to far left.

Sovereign nations should be allowed to determine their own destinies as long as they don't kill other nation's citizens or invade other nation's territories. We're not in the dark ages or imperial ages anymore. People can think for themselves and determine what's right for themselves.


Well I dont believe there is a suggestion that anyone go there and change there government or stop there citizens from making a choice.

Hey guys! I did some research, and found this nasty history the South Americans have had over the last century... see if you can tell just how much Leftism had to do with it...

I'll give you a cookie if you can...
.

(singing in a cockney accent)
It's the syme the whole world over
It's the poor who gets the blayme
While the rich gets all the pleasure
Ain't it such a crying shyme...

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/history/liliuokalani.html
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/twain/index.html
http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/gift.html

"Congratulations," Andrew Carnegie wrote to a leading expansionist. "You seem to have about finished your work of civilizing the Filipinos. It is thought that about eight thousand of them have been completely civilized and sent to heaven. I hope you like it."

Well I dont believe there is a suggestion that anyone go there and change there government or stop there citizens from making a choice.

Good. I just react sometimes when labels are thrown about because sooner or later this labelling will lead to invasion forces being sent over. If anything can be done to help the people there, wean them away from decades of drug raising and corruption, good. Just as long as there's no fine print and strings attached... cheers!

See this is the problem. The liberals such as yourself are filled with anger and dare i say hate. You display it very well by going off on irrelevent tangents and making points that are way out there. Then you wonder why you cant win elections with candidates that share your view.

Anyway my belief that Going to far right poses just as much risk as going to far left.

Don't even try. You post a thread in the most insulting manner possible, reffering to my heart-felt beliefs as a spectre, a disease, and an "agenda." You are right that I was filled with anger. You pissed me off. I have no doubt that that was indeed your intention.

There were no irrelevent tangents in my post. First, I tell you that you are pissing me off, with threads like that, but more specifically, worded like that.
Then I address you accusation that a "history with leftism" has hurt latin america, with a rather effective counter that the only issue Latin America has had with leftism are the ones the US caused. I later backed that up with proof.

Then I fade back into the issue of you wording your post in an offensive manner. In fact, I was reffering to the hate I felt from you. Ending, of course, with the omnipresent possiblity that you were just intentionally being trollish, in that case one should avoid it.

In fact, my post had far more to do with the subject than your rebuttal, which reffered to the Liberal party's candidates and the election results, which had nothing to do with this discussion at all.

At any rate, I have no more time to waste here. My idea was to express that you were being offensive, and then to dispute your entire arguement. My rebuttal having been chosen because 1. you dislike Leftism and 2. You claim to be "somewhere in America," I decided to show that any negative history of Leftism in SA came from US opposition to Leftism rather than Leftism itself. If in fact the "history of leftism" was NOT negative for SA, then your entire point would be moot.

That was my thought process, laid bare.

Good day.

"Spread like a disease?" "[leftism's] agenda?" I think I've seen threads by you before, and you are really starting to piss me off.

What 'history with leftism?' If I recall, the history with leftism more had to do with the US funding terrorist actions against legally elected left governments and assasinating democratically elected socialist and communist leaders. That would be a negative history with leftism, but thats like saying the Jews have a negative history with Judaism because Hitler killed so many of them. You have the blame on the wrong people.

Seriously. I'm willing to accept that you have your own views. But you have major issues with accepting mine, and even over an internet connection I can feel the contempt and hatred you hold, glimsed at in your wording.

Unless of course you are just being an ignorant troll. In that case *plants a "Don't feed the trolls" sign*

There you go. Leftism is inherently flawed. Every country that embraces it is destroyed by a wave of American sponsered terrorist death squads. Just as Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats because Democrats keep letting Republicans fuck up the country, Latin Americans shouldn't support Leftist governments because they're not able to keep Facists with the military might of the USA behind them from staging a counter revolution. (I'm considering adding the [\sarcasm] disclaimer, but I want to make it understood that the sarcasm only applies to the opinion that leftism demonstrates a flaw by inviting US imperialism).

Well I dont believe there is a suggestion that anyone go there and change there government or stop there citizens from making a choice.

Because of course such an action would be totally unprecedented in US history. We never overthrow democraticly elected South American leaders. Except when we do, but we always have a good reason. Such as "we felt like it." Or "you got a fuckin' problem with that?"

But yes. We're probably not that likely to try anything with Bolivia's government. We've almost drained their resources. Venezuela's the one we're concerned about. We've failed to have him overthrown, we've failed to have him voted out. All that's left to try is to have him killed, or to invade. When we get back to South America, Venezuela will be much too time consuming for us to bother establishing facist military dicatorships in Bolivia any time soon.

A sometime relative of mine descibed the US relationship to south america (and its own internal politics) the best.


Make me a deal and make it straight
All signed and sealed, i´ll take it
To robert e. lee i´ll show it
I hope and pray he don´t blow it ´cause
We´ve been around a long time just try try try tryin´ to
Make the big time...
Take me on a roller coaster
Take me for an airplane ride
Take me for a six days wonder but don´t you
Don´t you throw my pride aside besides
What´s real and make believe
Baby jane´s in acapulco we are flyin´ down to rio

Throw me a line i´m sinking fast
Clutching at straws can´t make it
Havana sound we´re trying hard edge the hipster jiving
Last picture shows down the drive-in
You´re so sheer you´re so chic
Teenage rebel of the week
Flavours of the mountain steamline
Midnight blue casino floors
Dance the cha-cha through till sunrise
Open up exclusive doors oh wow!
Just like flamingos look the same
So me and you, just we two got to search for something new
Far beyond the pale horizon
Some place near the desert strand
Where my studebaker takes me
That´s where i´ll make my stand but wait
Can´t you see that holzer mane?
What´s her name virginia plain

See this is the problem. The liberals such as yourself are filled with anger and dare i say hate. You display it very well by going off on irrelevent tangents and making points that are way out there. Then you wonder why you cant win elections with candidates that share your view.

Anyway my belief that Going to far right poses just as much risk as going to far left.

Conservatives are filled with just as much anger and dare I say hate. It really does go both ways. Most "liberal" and "conservative"(I don't really think that liberal or conservative are good terms to use-way to specific) politicians are exactly the same. Neither side seems really rational.

Oh, and by the way, being a Democrat does not make you liberal, and being Republican does not make you Conservative. If you think so, you are really out of touch.

Random Quip.

The socialist/Communist movement in Latin America is a relatively recent phenomena, it really took off in the 1960's with Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna. There were earlier movements such as Juan Peron in Argentina and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala but not until Che arrived on the scene did the movements gain strength or following. Che established the principles which lie at the heart of Latin American and South American Marxist guerillas, one of which is protection of indigenous peoples (land,life, reasonable pay, safe working conditions). They reject the homogenizing of the world based upon this idea of protecting indigenous inhabitants from the wider Capitalist west's exploitation. I'll write more later, but right now I'm going to have a kip.

There you go. Leftism is inherently flawed. Every country that embraces it is destroyed by a wave of American sponsered terrorist death squads. Just as Americans shouldn't vote for Democrats because Democrats keep letting Republicans fuck up the country, Latin Americans shouldn't support Leftist governments because they're not able to keep Facists with the military might of the USA behind them from staging a counter revolution. (I'm considering adding the [\sarcasm] disclaimer, but I want to make it understood that the sarcasm only applies to the opinion that leftism demonstrates a flaw by inviting US imperialism).

Well that's true... at least until the small country kicks the USA where the sun doesn't shine

Vietnam.

Well that's true... at least until the small country kicks the USA where the sun doesn't shine

Vietnam.

On the other hand, isn't Vientamese leftism to blame for all of those American land mines that are still blowing penniless rice farmers legs off to this day?

On the other hand, isn't Vientamese leftism to blame for all of those American land mines that are still blowing penniless rice farmers legs off to this day?
No, deciding that we needed to put the landmines there to tell the poor ignorant Vietnamese what's right for them economically was to blame.

They have their nation, whole and undivided, and their national pride. More than what can be said of a lot of Asian nations. Then you're gonna say, so that's more important than their lives?

Ultimately yes. The right to dictate your own fate sometimes need payment in blood. Ask Nathan Hale, Crispus Attucks and other dead heroes of 1776-1781. They laid the foundation for free and democratic America and allow it to bask in the glory it does today.

War has casualties, sometimes even after the drums and bugles are silenced. The Vietnam vets who have to deal with their nightmares are as much victims as the Vietnamese farmer whose leg is blown off thanks to a landmine.

I'd say a wave of leftism couldn't hurt South America. The IMF and the World bank certainly haven't done the area any favors, so why not give the leftists a shot at it. Chavez certainly seems to be doing a good job in Venezuela--literacy is up, poverty is down. Hell, he had a copy of Don Quixote given to every person in the country in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the novel. They could do far worse.
That's not saying much, if I remember that book correctly it is mainly concerned with madness and despair. The whole thing ends in ruin. As for whether the movement will be good for the countries, ask again in 20 years. However leftism has certainly not done much for Cuba. I see no reason for it to work in Venezuela except that they have oil to help keep themselves afloat like certain arab governments.

No, deciding that we needed to put the landmines there to tell the poor ignorant Vietnamese what's right for them economically was to blame.
Or you could blame it on the French for asking the americans for backing in the first place. Had we not backed the French Ho CHi Minh could very well have gone capitalist instead of communist.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/26/penhaul.bolivia/index.html

Well again the spectre of leftist have raised its head in Bolivia. See article. Do any of the people familiar with Latin America think this will spread like a disease again. I remember the past with leftism in Latin America. Didnt turn out to well in my opinion.

Now im a diehard Capitalist. But in Bolivias case I believe something should be done with the native population. They are poor as hell. They need some help. Although I just read about natives in the Amazon attacking loggers in Brazil. Where are the answers for our non-Spanish/Portugues natives. I know we did a poor job in the US with our natives. What could be a solution that could make everyone happy?

If something doesnt happen i believe the Leftist will continue to harness this peasant power to further its agendas.

You can't be serious! After the whole 80's Reagan era of violently erradicating any small spectre of slightly leftist thought, and everyone else who got in the way, for our own greedy self interests over fruit production, resource grab, and trade, which left most of Latin America destitute, you actually have the nerve to berate these nations for returning to the strong social culture of which they have always tended to lean towards?

I always find it interesting that guys like you forget about little episodes like Iran Contra so easily. And what about the Honduras death squads, overseen by none other than our newly appointed war criminal ambassador to Iraq, Negroponte.....but I suppose you'll just say those never really happened.

Sigh, yes, I'll give you what you want, yes, it's such a crying shame that Latin America is returning to it's warm cultural roots of sharing, taking care of the working class, and demanding that it get a fair share in trade agreements. The nerve!! How dare they think for themselves!! How dare they expect to be treated fairly. They should get down on their knees and praise the U.S. everyday for raping them economically over and over again, after all, Jesus loves us, and no one else. Happy now?

Leftism is inherently flawed. Every country that embraces it is destroyed by a wave of American sponsered terrorist death squads.

Quote of the Year.

Or you could blame it on the French for asking the americans for backing in the first place. Had we not backed the French Ho CHi Minh could very well have gone capitalist instead of communist.

Ah, that's true. But at the same time, the whole "domino theory" doctrine seemed to be the generally accepted modus operandi by the time the French asked us to help. Also, if we hadn't helped the French, who else would have? Their loyal subjects in, say, Algeria? ;)

The thing is, any time someone - especially someone in the U.S. - talks about the spectre of leftism in Latin America, I get a little edgy. I have living relatives on my dad's side who lived through a part of the junta in Argentina, and my family has close personal friends who have lived in Pinochet's Chile. Ultimately, the reason why leftism didn't turn out well is because North America wouldn't allow it to work out. Allende was a democratically elected leader, and Nixon chose to have him offed.

One other thing to think of is that, for the most part, these 'leftists' in power in Latin America at the moment are of an entirely different era than those like say Castro, with the exception of Chavez, whose diplomacy is mad. Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Lula in Brazil, Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay, and Ricardo Lagos in Chile, were all elected within and currently operate within the constitutional frameworks of their countries, and their policies are generally far more pragmatic than their 'revolutionary' counterparts of bygone eras. Indeed, I would go far enough to say that, in many ways, those leaders are more along the tradition of their current European counterparts than anything else.

Why don't you poxy north american butt out of south american affairs?
You are so self rightious, so convinced that your way is the only way.
Leave them alone I say.

That's not saying much, if I remember that book correctly it is mainly concerned with madness and despair. The whole thing ends in ruin. As for whether the movement will be good for the countries, ask again in 20 years. However leftism has certainly not done much for Cuba. I see no reason for it to work in Venezuela except that they have oil to help keep themselves afloat like certain arab governments.
Leftism allows for the redistribution of wealth and letting people in lower economic levels to enjoy some of what has been created in the country. The error is to hold on to it for too long, because then you will stop creating wealth and kill the incentive to generate more wealth.

Unbridled capitalism is also an error, because it creates ecomic gaps, builds up social tension and the whole thing can fall under its own weight if not propped up properly. It happened in the USA in 1929.

The best is to have periods of one and the other without going to extremes.

Bless you, Domici.

Good luck to the Bolivians. The (mildly) red tide is making good progress across South America. Excellent.

Quote of the Year.

I concur. That's going straight in my siggy.