NationStates Jolt Archive

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine. Well isn't this guy just special... Care to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html

I'm sure his motivation for ending the destruction of the cocaine crop is entirely due to his desire to free his people from the evil US...not the fact that their cocaine crop would probably be worth more than God to the Peruvian government and himself.

He's another joke who's going to screw up the country and drown it in corruption..."socialist" in South America seems to be a euphemism for corruption and incompetence and dictatorship rather than any kind of socialism.

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine.


Allow a people to choose their own government, rather than becoming exactly what he accuses America of being? Independant governments ruled by independant people ought to be treated that way, no?

Allow a people to choose their own government, rather than becoming exactly what he accuses America of being? Independant governments ruled by independant people ought to be treated that way, no?

I have no problem with that. Although his desire is to become the US's worst nightmare. That is when it becomes America's problem.

Yet another reason not to attack the supply, but the demand of the drugs trade.
If someone can actually win on a platform of making growing coca legal, then obviously there is a market for the crop. It's not really fair to take that lucrative business away from poor people in order to stop rich people from fucking themselves up.

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?

The last thing the US needs is another socialist revival in South America...although today, the threat isn't the same as it was during the Cold War.

The last thing the US needs is another socialist revival in South America...although today, the threat isn't the same as it was during the Cold War.
I just find that most of the time when Chavez et al do something that embarasses the States, it's because the US got involved in the first place.

Why not go along the line of "Let the Doggy have its bone", and let them yell? If the US Government kept its hands out of South America a little bit more, such anti-American movements might lose a lot of steam, and you save money and a lot of headaches.

I have no problem with that. Although his desire is to become the US's worst nightmare. That is when it becomes America's problem.
ya but america got plenty of problems already

I just find that most of the time when Chavez et al do something that embarasses the States, it's because the US got involved in the first place.

Why not go along the line of "Let the Doggy have its bone", and let them yell? If the US Government kept its hands out of South America a little bit more, such anti-American movements might lose a lot of steam, and you save money and a lot of headaches.
exactly

Why not go along the line of "Let the Doggy have its bone", and let them yell? If the US Government kept its hands out of South America a little bit more, such anti-American movements might lose a lot of steam, and you save money and a lot of headaches.

Maybe because there's always somebody like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter inside the government? Not enough influence to make invasion a policy, but enough to make sure that they can't leave them alone.

The last thing South America needs is another socialist revival. That goes for everywhere in the universe.

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?

Yes. I barely sleep at night! :eek:

(J/k)

The last thing South America needs is another socialist revival. That goes for everywhere in the universe.

Amen!

It seems as though his "desire" is to make things better for bolivia's poor.

As a consequence of what this will entail, he will be a 'nightmare' to certain US interests.

Congratulations to bolivia for electing a president with the interests of the massive number of poor at heart.

The last thing South America needs is another socialist revival. That goes for everywhere in the universe.
If people choose it by their own free will...none of your business really.

Unless you just hate Socialism, and all the other stuff about sovereignty, individualism and so on was just a facade.

The last thing South America needs is another socialist revival. That goes for everywhere in the universe.


Especially after socialism ruined northern europe, making those countries the "worst place in the world to live" for years in a row.

Sweden is not a socialist country. At all.

Sweden is not a socialist country. At all.
Disraeliland might disagree (in a way)...but Grenada was being sarcastic.

Fact of the matter is that Democratic Socialism has for a long time been the system of choice for many countries. Recently, problems have appeared with that system - and for some time to come the free market may provide some good answers to fix them.

Nonetheless, the fundamental principles of creating a society in which the produce is shared, in which a democratic society is guaranteed by weakening the social divide that inevitably ensues in free Capitalism, such a system cannot be such a bad idea.
It's all a matter of how you go about doing it.

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?
they lost a war over a stamp depicting a part of their country in anothers. and lost. and lost the said land too.

The problem with "social democracy" is that it is proving to be economically unsustainable. 12% unemployment in some European nations, and that is the same percentage of Germans who feel optimistic about the future. Socialism reduces class inequality, true, but by making everyone poorer. It is an economic system based on envy. And before you go on about how I'm forcing to do whatever, know that what you do is your business, and it effects me very little. I'm just saying capitalism has done alright by us, maybe you should give it a shot.

If people choose it by their own free will...none of your business really.

Unless you just hate Socialism, and all the other stuff about sovereignty, individualism and so on was just a facade.

Irrelevant objection. Whether or not it is their right to choose statist idiocy (and they do have that right) has no bearing on whether or not it is a good choice (and it certainly isn't)

Nonetheless, the fundamental principles of creating a society in which the produce is shared, in which a democratic society is guaranteed by weakening the social divide that inevitably ensues in free Capitalism, such a system cannot be such a bad idea.


"if some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor,"

Of course, the free market is a system in which produce is shared, only it is a voluntary system with incentives to produce.


Sweden is not a socialist country. At all.

True, Sweden still has a market economy, it is only that the government has more of its hand in the cookie jar than the governments of the US, or Australia.

Irrelevant objection. Whether or not it is their right to choose statist idiocy (and they do have that right) has no bearing on whether or not it is a good choice (and it certainly isn't)
I might agree with you on the quality of their choice...but I don't think either of us is in a position to judge the Bolivian people and their free will.

Of course, the free market is a system in which produce is shared, only it is a voluntary system with incentives to produce.
People are not all of equal skill, nor are they born into equal economic circumstances. You would be the first to admit that.
Therefore, people will end up with different amounts of money, with different wealth, and ultimately different social standings.
If you let this process go free, you will end up with more and more inequity, and essentially eliminate the equality that all of us ultimately aim to achieve (You: Equality of Rights, Socialists: Equality of Outcome, Me: Equality of Opportunity).
Capitalism has a tendency to counteract democracy as we know it, and there has yet to be a society in which free Capitalism has been used in conjunction with actual democratic freedom. Every capitalist society has created some sort of ruling class, which ends up mistreating the "lower classes", not because the lower classes choose it to be that way, but because they personally don't get an alternative.

Therefore, people will end up with different amounts of money, with different wealth, and ultimately different social standings.
If you let this process go free, you will end up with more and more inequity, and essentially eliminate the equality that all of us ultimately aim to achieve

Slippery slopes?

You: Equality of Rights

I don't see how free market capitalism would produce inequality of rights. I can certainly see how government intervention onbehalf of firms, and certain producers will produce those inequalities, but at that point we will have gone beyond the free market.


Capitalism has a tendency to counteract democracy as we know it, and there has yet to be a society in which free Capitalism has been used in conjunction with actual democratic freedom.

Capitalism and democracy correlate, in terms of respect for the importance of individual liberties. Also, democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end, that end is liberty. The reason free capitalism cannot work with democracy is that democracy will always be used to loot people, as though theft is legitimate if many people ask someone else to do it, but illigitmate is one does it himself.

So, what's wrong with opposing US policies and wanting to share more of the earnings generated by the largest reserves of natural gas in the hemisphere with the indigineous people of Bolivia?

It's funny that so much is made of he saying he would be "Washington's nightmare" but not when he says that he would "work democratically to change things, based on elections and on the conscience of the people," or "in this millennium, it's not a matter of raising arms to defeat capitalism, so inhumane and savage."

Of course, that doesn't matter, only bowing down to the desires of the USA is what makes a country democratic.

Oh, yeah, and you still have to deal with Mexico taking a turn to the left next year, and Chávez winning another election. And Bachelet looks strong to win in Chile next month. That's be another Latinoamerican country turning to the left.

Oh, these dangerous populists, these demagogues! Getting elected, and giving the people what they want. How frightening. Clearly, this threat must be stopped. We do not want these populations to get dangerous, subversive ideals into their heads. They must be taught the right message, that of proper obedience to the master, and proper belief in the virtues of capitalism, the market, globalization, whatever names we come up with to justify their oppression and exploitation.

Never must the rich white men in Washington let a poor indigenous man take power in a poor indigenous nation. That would be surrender, capitulation, to Communists and leftists and radicals and who knows what else.

Slippery slopes?
It requires vigilance to stay away from those slopes, and keep things moderate.
Socialists want to take it too far down one side, you want to take it too far down the other.
Or in other words...if you're in a glasshouse, you shouldn't be throwing slippery slope arguments.

I don't see how free market capitalism would produce inequality of rights.
By corrupting the democratic system. There is absolutely nothing that will stop "rich people" from turning the place into a corporate orgy.
And we have seen in the past (19th century Europe primarily) - the idea of income-contingent suffrage is bound to come up.

I can certainly see how government intervention onbehalf of firms, and certain producers will produce those inequalities, but at that point we will have gone beyond the free market.
It is a direct consequence. You yourself say that Politicians are potentially bad people, and that we ultimately have to assume the worst. In a world of extreme social inequities, politicians will be:
a) Rich. It takes a certain amount of education etc to become a politician, and beggars don't have access to that.
b) Trying to become richer. It's the fundamental drive that drives everyone, but particularly the kid who grew up with a distinct feeling of money being everything, facilitated by a system that promotes exactly that view of life.
c) Directly involved with big business. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich.

There is nothing that poor people (unsuccessful people...unworthy people?) have to offer except their vote - and a coherent ruling class of successful, worthy politicans will not hesitate to exclude that as well.

And the alternative would be a Socialist firebrand from the Lower Classes essentially starting a civil war.

The reason free capitalism cannot work with democracy is that democracy will always be used to loot people, as though theft is legitimate if many people ask someone else to do it, but illigitmate is one does it himself.
Legitimate is what exists by the will of the people. Perhaps one could call that Utilitarian...I'd prefer to call it realistic.
As Winston Churchill said (may he forever burn in hell): "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Of course you're free to disagree, and if you want, you can try and start a political party and try and convince people to think your way...but you can't expect the probably 99.99% of people who consider taxation to be okay and the probably 75% (I'm making these numbers up) of people who think that Transfer Payments are okay, to go unhappy simply because you have some sort of moral grudge with these things.

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine. Well isn't this guy just special... Care to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html
It doesn't sound all bad. At least he was also talking about selling Bolivia's gas reserves at higher prices in order to develop the country's infrastructure.

Coca is soon going to be a bad memory anyway. As I have said before on here, I have it on good authority that scientists are close to developing a variant of Wheat Rust into a 100% effective biological herbicide which is coca-specific. :)

...scientists are close to developing a variant of Wheat Rust into a 100% effective biological herbicide which is coca-specific. :)
Yay, let's destroy poor people's income because rich people can't control themselves! :rolleyes:

I have no problem with that. Although his desire is to become the US's worst nightmare. That is when it becomes America's problem.

Not until he actually does something. This whole thing just sounds like posturing to gain a few more votes

Legitimate is what exists by the will of the people. Perhaps one could call that Utilitarian...I'd prefer to call it realistic.

Reductio ad Hitlerum seems tempting here, seeing as how he held a plurality in the Reichstag before entering orifice.

The point is that mob violence (which is what pure democracy boils down to) is not realistic, nor is it legitimate.


the idea of income-contingent suffrage is bound to come up.

I don't know about that, but extending suffrage to only those who pay taxes is interesting.

Reductio ad Hitlerum seems tempting here, seeing as how he held a plurality in the Reichstag before entering orifice.
Orifice? :D

You can of course argue about that (and Germany for example has laws against a party like the NSDAP once again being a choice), but you'd have to remember that it is not pure democracy, but the parliamentary republican system that made Hitler Chancellor.

Do you agree that if the Germans want a return to National Socialism, with all therein, then it is legitimate? that is what you were arguing before.

As to what put Hitler in office, in a parliamentary system, it is he who can command a majority that should lead, if not, the one closest. No one disputes that it was Hitler.

The point is that democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.

The point is that democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.


very well said....

Do you agree that if the Germans want a return to National Socialism, with all therein, then it is legitimate?
As you said, it may not be the right choice IMHO, but ultimately, the only thing wrong with Nazism on this level is that democracy would be abandoned, and that it would otherwise result in infringements on people that are a lot worse than for example taxation.
I'd personally resist in any way I can, and you are free to do the same with taxation...but at a very fundamental level, if a population chooses something in a democratic process, there is nothing directly wrong with it.

The point is that democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.
I'd agree, but as we've seen before, I don't see taxation as an infringement of an essential liberty, nor do I see regulations intended to for example preserve the environment as an infringement of essential liberties.

It comes down to this: You are free to do as you wish, as long as it doesn't hurt others, or otherwise threatens the community. The decision as to what exactly that second point means is ultimately down to the people, who are best asked using the democratic method.
You'll find that I am quite ready to infringe upon some liberties in order to preserve others.

You'll find that I am quite ready to infringe upon some liberties in order to preserve others.

That is precisely the problem, what you set up sounds OK in theory, but in reality, we lose the liberty, and don't get the protection.

Hey, don't forget the guy idolizes Che "Trials are a bourgeouis excess" Guevera.

I say let Latin America go on it's mad little tangent, forcing their collective economies into stagnation and extended poverty. Then we'll see who they vote for.

And anyways, the WTO hammered out a farm subsidy reduction deal today, I'd say that's far more imporant to the increasing liberalization of global markets than some socialist loony winning the presidency in a shitty little coca republic.

That is precisely the problem, what you set up sounds OK in theory, but in reality, we lose the liberty, and don't get the protection.

Just like, say, restricting democracy to preserve "liberty."

That is precisely the problem, what you set up sounds OK in theory, but in reality, we lose the liberty, and don't get the protection.
It's a matter of improving it. I just don't see the reason why in principle it shouldn't work.

Ideology is a dangerous thing either way. No pure ideology will ever be implemented - the best anyone could ever hope for is something in the middle.
So it is better sometimes not to prescribe to one single system of beliefs and defend them come what may, but perhaps to pick and choose, and try and build a system of real-life, attainable goals that you personally can hope to achieve to make the world a better place.

Abandoning taxation, or regulation is nice to argue about sometimes, but trying for it in real life is a waste of energy.

I'd suspect it's the alcohol talking, but I increasingly feel pissed at Latin America.

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine. Well isn't this guy just special... Care to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html

Jesus Christ, yet another clueless yank without a fucking clue; he wants to allow production of coka BUT disallow the production of cocaine, there is a BIG difference between it.

Saying, "lets ban coka because is the material for cocaine" is the equivilant of saying, "lets ban petrol because people can make petrol bombs!"

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine. Well isn't this guy just special... Care to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html

So you're scared of seeing another socialist president in South America just because you're a conservative? Geez, get use to it. :rolleyes:

The problem with "social democracy" is that it is proving to be economically unsustainable. 12% unemployment in some European nations, and that is the same percentage of Germans who feel optimistic about the future. .

This may be the 'problem' with some SD countries. In New Zealand, a nominally SD country, unemployment is actually the lowest in the OECD (and perhaps the world) at just over 3%. But of course this does not mean its nor "economically stable" just food for thought...

This may be the 'problem' with some SD countries. In New Zealand, a nominally SD country, unemployment is actually the lowest in the OECD (and perhaps the world) at just over 3%. But of course this does not mean its nor "economically stable" just food for thought...

Meh, depends on how you define Social Democrat; the simple fact is, NZ has lower wages than many other social democratic countries, we don't have the over the top penalty rates Australia have, simply for having people working on Saturday/Sunday and working more than 40 hours per week - infact, its not all that uncommon to have people in New Zealand being paid $10 per hour and working 50 hour weeks.

If any penalty rates are paid my New Zealand employers, its because they choose to, because there is no legislation that demands that employers must pay a certain rate of penalties - hence the reason I can't work out why one would move production to Australia, which is substaintially more expensive to do business in.

What NZ has is a centre left government with some reality in the economic and finance; the realisation of keeping the budget in surplus, realising who provides the jobs, and keeping the interference in the economy at the absolute minimum.

Just look at up the Hertiage Foundation on Economic Freedom as to where New Zealand sits - it is certainly higher than the US or Australia.

...
Saying, "lets ban coka because is the material for cocaine" is the equivilant of saying, "lets ban petrol because people can make petrol bombs!"
Isn't coka part of what coca-cola is made of? It certainly used to be.

Btw, I believe that latin america generally sees cocaine as a USian problem, not their own. Given the 'personal responsibility' rhetoric, that seems a valid point.

That wheat rust thingy is being used already, affecting other crops as well, such as maize. The people loosing their maize crop, thus unable to feed their children don't approve. Hence, they are not particularly symphathetic with that particular aspect of USian foreign policy. Ungrateful bastards.

Oh, these dangerous populists, these demagogues! Getting elected, and giving the people what they want. How frightening. Clearly, this threat must be stopped. We do not want these populations to get dangerous, subversive ideals into their heads. They must be taught the right message, that of proper obedience to the master, and proper belief in the virtues of capitalism, the market, globalization, whatever names we come up with to justify their oppression and exploitation.

Never must the rich white men in Washington let a poor indigenous man take power in a poor indigenous nation. That would be surrender, capitulation, to Communists and leftists and radicals and who knows what else.

Jesus christ it is this view that is fuelling indigenous discontent, while i suspect your posting is written to enrage i find your ignorance, real or otherwise, and prejudice anger inducing, i for one is glad that Morales will sweep the white elite from power and hope that Venezulean support (so crucial should Morales gain power) will ensure that the white domination of wealth in Boliva is damaged beyond repair.
VIVA MORALES

Yet another reason not to attack the supply, but the demand of the drugs trade.
If someone can actually win on a platform of making growing coca legal, then obviously there is a market for the crop. It's not really fair to take that lucrative business away from poor people in order to stop rich people from fucking themselves up.

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?

I must say this idea that Morales will flood the US with cocaine is rather funny, especially in light of the sheer massive demand that the US and Europe has for cocaine, is not the drugs trade a symptom of the Supply and Demand of the capitalist globe, even if Morales died tomorrow this will still not stem the desire for Cocaine (despite the fact he is not advocating Cocaine production)...we do not stop people drinking and smoking, or voting for stupid politicians all of which are potentially bad for your health...

The last thing South America needs is another socialist revival. That goes for everywhere in the universe.

*Confused*
What's so bad about socialism? :confused:

*Confused*
What's so bad about socialism? :confused:
Red is the chosen colour of socialism. Can you think of anything else associated with the colour red? Blood perhaps? Fire? The devil? Socialism is evil, can you not see? Only true blue capitalism stands in the way of this infernal menace..

Red is the chosen colour of socialism. Can you think of anything else associated with the colour red? Blood perhaps? Fire? The devil? Socialism is evil, can you not see? Only true blue capitalism stands in the way of this infernal menace..

Sorry, i'm not supersticious :p
Did you know that people are mostly tempted by red colors? There's a study about that out there somewhere.

The fact is, pure capitalism is Evil
Pure socialism is Evil
Pure communism is Evil
...

You need a middleground between them, and saying one is Evil & the other is not is atleast very naive in my eyes.

...
The fact is, pure capitalism is Evil
Pure socialism is Evil
Pure communism is Evil
...
...

...purity is evil???

...purity is evil???
Yes. Pure evil.

Red is the chosen colour of socialism. Can you think of anything else associated with the colour red? Blood perhaps? Fire? The devil? Socialism is evil, can you not see? Only true blue capitalism stands in the way of this infernal menace..

I think red is a lucky and auspicious colour in Chinese culture, some would say red-white and blue is the new colour of evil....

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. ...
Does he intend to uphold the recent SA trend of providing cheap oil for the USian cold?

Red is the chosen colour of socialism. Can you think of anything else associated with the colour red? Blood perhaps? Fire? The devil? ..........
...red states?

I think red is a lucky and auspicious colour in Chinese culture, some would say red-white and blue is the new colour of evil....
puh-lease! Jesus was an American!

puh-lease! Jesus was an American!

does that mean the disciples were all from Kansas?

I just don't see the reason why in principle it shouldn't work.

I once knew a mad scientist who said that. We could only find his driver's licence, and a scrap of his trousers.

Just like, say, restricting democracy to preserve "liberty."

You'd prefer a society based on mob violence rather than individual liberty?

does that mean the disciples were all from Kansas?
Maybe..

You'd prefer a society based on mob violence rather than individual liberty?

Are you suggesting that Evo Morales represents the mob?? i prefer to see him as an indigenous activist looking to re-assert the rule of the majority over a country dominated by a 'White' elite since the end of the colonial era.

I think red is a lucky and auspicious colour in Chinese culture, some would say red-white and blue is the new colour of evil....

*Nods in agreement*
Every country that has nukes is EVIL! EVIL I TELL YOU!
*scoddles of in a fit of mad laughter*

I once knew a mad scientist who said that. We could only find his driver's licence, and a scrap of his trousers.
And yet, a hundred years from now, his research will be the key to the cure for cancer...;)

So, Bushmen, how come you care about what other countries ELECT for leaders? I thought you were all for that...

Jesus, the hubris does not ever end.

America's so called nightmare is partly a by product of american policies towards South America in general, Morales will not be the last elected leader wtih whom the US has/will have a problem...VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

America's so called nightmare is partly a by product of american policies towards South America in general, Morales will not be the last elected leader wtih whom the US has/will have a problem...VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Amen comrade! :)

Yet another reason not to attack the supply, but the demand of the drugs trade.
If someone can actually win on a platform of making growing coca legal, then obviously there is a market for the crop. It's not really fair to take that lucrative business away from poor people in order to stop rich people from fucking themselves up.

As for the nightmare thing...are you really that scared of Bolivia?

That's something that people don't seem to understand about the "war on drugs". We're trying to stop the supply, when we should be working on the demand.

You can put a drug dealer or cocaine field out of business - and there's always another one to take its place.

Plenty of customers.

In all the time the "war on drugs" has been in effect, the street price of cocaine has NEVER gone up - that is, the supply has NEVER been restricted enough to cause prices to rise in any significant way for any significant period of time.

Besides, the US now has plenty of people cooking meth - in the United States. Some extra cocaine from South America isn't going to make a difference.

I think that a lot of the recent wave of "socialist" politicians make their constituency delirious by saying "fuck America" and "screw the IMF". It doesn't really hurt the US for them to say and do these things - in the end, when their local rich flee with their assets, and the foreign investment dries up, they can have fun discussing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how the US is going to invade them - while they're sitting unemployed for years.

Keeps the attention of the locals off of the real problems.

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do ...?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html
...are you really that scared of Bolivia?looks like Marrakech is shiting in his pants ... shitting scared..

Whre is Pat Robertson when he needs him ??? :D :D :p :D

Especially after socialism ruined northern europe, making those countries the "worst place in the world to live" for years in a row.Damn you...

you just destroyed my Sarcasm-0-meter ..the reading went bananas... and exploded :D

I think that a lot of the recent wave of "socialist" politicians make their constituency delirious by saying "fuck America" and "screw the IMF". It doesn't really hurt the US for them to say and do these things - in the end, when their local rich flee with their assets, and the foreign investment dries up, they can have fun discussing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how the US is going to invade them - while they're sitting unemployed for years.

I'm not sure that depending on foreign investment looking for the cheapest place to manufacture crap or local rich who hoard wealth instead of generating and distributing it is a necessarily good thing.

The US didn't become a powerful nation by allowing unrestricted foreign inversion tied to markets over which it had no control, much less with conditions imposed by foreign governments. It did it by making it possible for its agricultures and manufacturers to access internal markets.

Bolivia has had a very liberal economy for the last 20 years, heeding the advise of the IMF and following neoliberal economy ideals, allowing foreign capital to invest freely, and it hasn't worked at all. Time to make modifications.

And the posturing, well, that's posturing. Countries that don't have a big stick can't afford to speak softly.

Do you agree that if the Germans want a return to National Socialism, with all therein, then it is legitimate? that is what you were arguing before.If most of the people wants that... it is 100% Legitimate..

All they need to do is
#1 stay Democratic.
#2 Do not invade other Countries
#3 respect human rights.

as long as they respect the 3 rules... i have no intention of interfering with their democratically elected Gov...

I'm not sure that depending on foreign investment looking for the cheapest place to manufacture crap or local rich who hoard wealth instead of generating and distributing it is a necessarily good thing.

The US didn't become a powerful nation by allowing unrestricted foreign inversion tied to markets over which it had no control, much less with conditions imposed by foreign governments. It did it by making it possible for its agricultures and manufacturers to access internal markets.

Bolivia has had a very liberal economy for the last 20 years, heeding the advise of the IMF and following neoliberal economy ideals, allowing foreign capital to invest freely, and it hasn't worked at all. Time to make modifications.

And the posturing, well, that's posturing. Countries that don't have a big stick can't afford to speak softly.


That's really worked wonders for Cuba.

The point is that democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.The point of South American democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.. The US liberty to get unlimited access to SA resources and advantageous prices

...ever heard of not-so-fair trade policies... it easier when you installed your puppets presidents

does that mean the disciples were all from Kansas?no they were from Texas... from around Bush ranch...
Waco and Crawford :D :D ;) :D

The point of South American democracy is only worthwhile when it preserves liberty.. The US liberty to get unlimited access to SA resources and advantageous prices

...ever heard of not-so-fair trade policies... it easier when you installed your puppets presidents

Well, you can have people deprive themselves of liberty without any interference from the US - people and countries have done it to themselves before without the US being involved.

I think that Venezuela is a case in point - we're not doing anything, and they're voting Chavez for life, and voting themselves the treasury.

Sure, they're voting for it. The last election was free and fair, and 30 percent of the electorate voted (Chavez's figures). That leaves 70 percent of the people holding their breath.

Love the liberty of 30 percent of the population ripping down the current social order and remaking the country in their own image - to hell with the majority of the population.

He's another joke who's going to screw up the country and drown it in corruption..."socialist" in South America seems to be a euphemism for corruption and incompetence and dictatorship rather than any kind of socialism.
Really? Because corruption abounded during the years of the dictatorships too. It isn't confined to a particular ideology. And so far, the socialists in South America have been pretty damn moderate...Lagos, Lula, and so on. Chavez is hardly the exemplar for socialism in the region.

Really? Because corruption abounded during the years of the dictatorships too. It isn't confined to a particular ideology. And so far, the socialists in South America have been pretty damn moderate...Lagos, Lula, and so on. Chavez is hardly the exemplar for socialism in the region.

Corruption abounds, period, everywhere.

I think the only thing I object to in this thread is Ocean's implication that somehow, if the US isn't involved, it's automatically free, full of liberty, and great.

It's my job to remove the rose-colored glasses. Whenever someone says, "I'm here to liberate you!" it makes me think they're full of shit. If I was a native Venezuelan, I would think that Chavez is about to screw us hard.

I find it really surprising that the "people" that supported "liberating" Iraq also support coups in South America when the leader doesn't fit their tastes - even if they aren't invading countries, are elected and aren't inflicting on human rights. I hope you all get reincarnated in some country that suffers a foreign-helped coup, so you can have a taste of what seeing family members disappear with the help of the USA feels like. Brazil suffered a coup once, and I swear to all the gods that Bush will die if he dares to try to stage one here again. You have NO RIGHT to stage coups in other countries. PERIOD. Quit the hubris, shut the fuck up and learn once and for all that you're not better than anyone else. The fact that you even CONCEIVE of staging coups in here is proof that you're not people. Would you like it if it were YOUR family members getting tortured under Pinochet? If it were YOU getting tortured during Médici? If you would, then you can keep supporting coups. If you wouldn't, you can't unless you're a hypocrite that shouldn't even exist. Now sit down and watch while the actual people of South America chooses leaders that do NOT agree with the idiotic Right and WILL NOT BEND OVER TO YOUR INTERESTS. I also would love to see the US Government couped out in a leftist revolution, but I know you CHILDREN would throw a hissy fit if any government ever supported such an idea. For that matter, I myself would not support such a coup, because, unlike you non-people, I believe in freedom of choice. YOUR government is inflicting upon civil rights. YOUR government is invading other countries unprovoked. YOUR government was not elected by a majority in its first term. Gee, what do you know, maybe we can coup it out, too. Then get people to rape your mother, torture your father and sodomize you just like the dictatorships here did. Would you like that, coup-supporters?

As I have said before on here, I have it on good authority that scientists are close to developing a variant of Wheat Rust into a 100% effective biological herbicide which is coca-specific. :)America's so called nightmare is partly a by product of american policies...Bingo!

Morales started his "Indian Revolution" because the Indian peasant had their lands sprayed with a DEA ...with destroyed all other products.. Livestock went sick... made villagers sick...cancer and other stuff..

And most of the sprayed Land was useless for new productions...

So the poorest peasants or the Continent went to "war" Against the DEA and the accomplice Bolivian Gov...

The end result is The First ever Indian President.. (this is comparable to Nelson Mandela in South-Africa) a minority White/mestizo Governing Class.. losing their oligarchic power to the (lower caste) Indian peasants.

and first ever Bolivian election where is elected directly by the people... Never before they had someone elected directly by the People.. (It was always Congress.. behind closed door "party dealings")
Thank you DEA.

...Hey Sinuhue...

Know any First-Nations people? Tell them the news...

Yesterday a First-Nation President was elected... history was made

Well it's nice to know last nights dream about a strange little socialist latin man didn't have any sexual connotations. I was beginning to worry.

It's my job to remove the rose-colored glasses. Whenever someone says, "I'm here to liberate you!" it makes me think they're full of shit.
Hey! That's exactly what Bush said to Iraq!

I'm signing up to be the US Ambassador to Bolivia. lol

Hey! That's exactly what Bush said to Iraq!

And that's exactly what's happening in Iraq. Those people turned out in droves to elect their new government -- democracy at its finest. Good for Iraq! Way to go, Iraqis!

And even if the Sunnis hate that we're there, at least they picked up their enthusiasm level a notch and showed up to vote. I don't care if they voted against America... I just care that they voted.

Now if they can just count the votes right.

Hey Sinuhue...

Know any First-Nations people? Tell them the news...

Yesterday a First-Nation President was elected... history was made
I wonder...can anyone championing the poor or the indigenous...can anyone wanting to narrow the gap between rich and poor...can they ever be labeled as anything but 'socialist/communist/badfortheUS"?

Coca is an important part of indigenous culture both in Bolivia and Peru. Not as cocaine...the coca leaves are chewed to deal with the high altitudes, to deal with having to work like dogs with little food...it's the poor man's coffee. It has spiritual and cultural significance. It is more than just a 'drug crop'...though I'm not trying to say that people aren't growing it for that reason too. But just as poor farmers in Afghanistan were encouraged, and sometimes forced to grow poppies, the coca crop in Bolivia is an important, and often ONLY source of income for some people. Don't just burn the crops and leave them to start over...doing the same thing. Help them diversify, and support themselves in other ways...and allow the indigenous people to use the plant with respect.

It says something when a country that is about 80% indigenous is only now, in 2005, represented by one of their own. Morales will be under enormous pressure to make everything 'better'...and can only fail to meet these incredibly high expectations. This will be used against him, to show why 'socialists' are 'bad'. But if he is able, even a little, to improve the lives of the majority of Bolivians, it should be seen as a success, even if you don't agree with his politics.

Hey! That's exactly what Bush said to Iraq!
I don't mind invading a country to bring its government down, or destroy its military, or wreck its civilian infrastructure.

I don't think that nationbuilding is something that you can promise will always go well - half the time, it's not going to go well, despite the best intentions.

When someone like Chavez gets elected, and makes the kinds of promises he does, and tempers his speeches with absolute paranoia, I figure that regardless of his politics, he's about to screw them without mercy.

I wonder...can anyone championing the poor or the indigenous...can anyone wanting to narrow the gap between rich and poor...can they ever be labeled as anything but 'socialist/communist/badfortheUS"?
Actually, that's what he labels himself.

I think that a lot of the recent wave of "socialist" politicians make their constituency delirious by saying "fuck America" and "screw the IMF". It doesn't really hurt the US for them to say and do these things - in the end, when their local rich flee with their assets, and the foreign investment dries up, they can have fun discussing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about how the US is going to invade them - while they're sitting unemployed for years.

Keeps the attention of the locals off of the real problems.
Why are you assuming that Morales is going to go off the deep end like Chavez? Though I don't discount all of his madcap theories about US involvement in the attempted coup...

'Fuck the US' and 'screw the IMF' has more to do with ideologies than specific hatreds. They are symbols of a economic and political system. And politicans have always used symbols. Rejecting the IMF is about rejecting neoliberal policies that encourage things like cash crops over staple crops...slashing social spending in favour of corporate welfare. These countries have been trying the shock-therapy prescribed to them by Western bigwigs...and things have not been improving all that much for the average person. The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for different results. During the dictatorships, the economic policies in South America were fairly similar. People feel that those policies are not delivering what they promised too. Time for a change. Now things are shifting in South America towards a more moderate socialism...yes, moderate...because other than Chavez, so far the 'socialist' presidents elected in South America have been very watered down socialists. More like Canadian 'socialists'...which are really anything but. If these policies don't work, people may swing towards more radical socialism, or back to the neoliberal policies. Who's to say? Politics cycle, just like fashion trends...but underneath it all is a desire for improvement.

When someone like Chavez gets elected, and makes the kinds of promises he does, and tempers his speeches with absolute paranoia, I figure that regardless of his politics, he's about to screw them without mercy.
Like Fujimori did in Peru? No one talked about 'removing him'. Why is it just the left-leaners getting the negative attention? When the screwing is being done according to WTO and IMF sanctioned trade-liberalisation, it's okay...even if the results are as disasterous...but the second 'socialist' is muttered, everyone seems to revert to a Cold War mentality. Why Kimchi? WHY!!!???

Just another joke of an election in which the left in the US will again support genocide, Drug abuse and racial intolerance.

Whatever. Ignore them and let them drive their nation into a shithole.

I don't mind invading a country to bring its government down, or destroy its military, or wreck its civilian infrastructure.
So, you're for people getting screwed, just as long as it is your government doing the screwing. Is that right?

At least Morales would be wrecking his own country.

When someone like Chavez gets elected, and makes the kinds of promises he does, and tempers his speeches with absolute paranoia, I figure that regardless of his politics, he's about to screw them without mercy.
It's not like Bush invokes 9/11 and terrorism every other sentence or promises security and being greeted as liberators.

Yup, people get screwed alright.

Why are you assuming that Morales is going to go off the deep end like Chavez?

Largely because he's singing the same song.

'Fuck the US' and 'screw the IMF' has more to do with ideologies than specific hatreds.
I always thought it was pure political fodder pushed by cynical politicians on an ignorant audience. Much like the rants by the Liberal Party in Canada about the US - let's rant about the US and how evil it is, instead of addressing real Canadian issues. Plays much better.

Chavez loves to say that there is a US carrier task force just off shore, about to invade. Since he's been in office, no US carrier task force has been anywhere near Venezuela. Not once. Love that cynical manipulation of people's emotions.

Actually, that's what he labels himself.
Socialist != bad for the US...as though socialism is a form of terrorism focused on harming the US. That's what I mean...how is this 'bad for the US'? Why is this man "America's nightmare"?

"I am the candidate of those despised in Bolivian history, the candidate of the most disdained, discriminated against," he said.

But unlike Bolivar and Guevara, he said he would "work democratically to change things, based on elections and on the conscience of the people."

"In this millennium, it's not a matter of raising arms to defeat capitalism, so inhumane and savage," he said.

Just another joke of an election in which the left in the US will again support genocide, Drug abuse and racial intolerance.

Whatever. Ignore them and let them drive their nation into a shithole.
? Genocide? Please explain. Drug abuse and racial intolerance? What are you talking about?

So, you're for people getting screwed, just as long as it is your government doing the screwing. Is that right?

At least Morales would be wrecking his own country.

We have no interest in invading Bolivia, or Venezuela for that matter.

No, I'm not for screwing, I just figure that the moment I hear grandiose promises about "the dawn of a new age" or "the bright shining bastion of democracy" or "the end to cruel capitalism" that someone is about to take a turn in the barrel.

Largely because he's singing the same song.


I always thought it was pure political fodder pushed by cynical politicians on an ignorant audience. Much like the rants by the Liberal Party in Canada about the US - let's rant about the US and how evil it is, instead of addressing real Canadian issues. Plays much better. Hmmm...I must miss those 'Liberal rants about the US'. I usually just hear that kind of talk in the coffee shops...not on the floors of Parliament.

Chavez loves to say that there is a US carrier task force just off shore, about to invade. Since he's been in office, no US carrier task force has been anywhere near Venezuela. Not once. Love that cynical manipulation of people's emotions.Given the history of US intervention in Latin America, it's a valid string to play. It's just as hackneyed as making people fear that any second they will be attacked by terrorists (or communists, a few decades past). Politicians, right and left, use a 'common enemy'...even a nebulous one, in order to create a sort of cohesion among the population, and too keep them from becoming too divided on domestic issues.

? Genocide? Please explain. Drug abuse and racial intolerance? What are you talking about?

Everyone knows that socialists are all genocidal racists who are constantly high on drugs. Most of them are also baby eating devil worshippers.:rolleyes:

Hmmm...I must miss those 'Liberal rants about the US'. I usually just hear that kind of talk in the coffee shops...not on the floors of Parliament.


It was an issue last week. The US Ambassador to Canada mentioned that it should stop, and Paul Martin made a big show of making sure that he won't shut up about the US during the campaign.

After all, I guess it's far more important for the Liberal Party to bash the US than to talk about anything substantive related to Canada. Canadian election, right?

We have no interest in invading Bolivia, or Venezuela for that matter.

No, I'm not for screwing, I just figure that the moment I hear grandiose promises about "the dawn of a new age" or "the bright shining bastion of democracy" or "the end to cruel capitalism" that someone is about to take a turn in the barrel.Every politician uses rousing speeches. It's part of what they do. Every politician makes promises they can't keep. And every citizen knows this...but we always hope anyway. At least he is making a commitment to democracy and not violent revolution. And heaven knows, Bolivia needs to change, somehow.

It was an issue last week. The US Ambassador to Canada mentioned that it should stop, and Paul Martin made a big show of making sure that he won't shut up about the US during the campaign.

After all, I guess it's far more important for the Liberal Party to bash the US than to talk about anything substantive related to Canada. Canadian election, right? That might hold some water if all they were doing was bashing the US. That is hardly the case.

Especially after socialism ruined northern europe, making those countries the "worst place in the world to live" for years in a row.
Was that an inherent flaw of socialism, though, or the fact that America spent fifty years systematically bankrupting the USSR with hideously expensive "who can piss the highest" contests like the space race and escalating military budgets? You could probably find exponents for both cases, but most of Eastern Europe would probably be in much better shape if every scrap of the soviet budget hadn't been ploughed into nukes, military hardware and ridiculous crap rather than (say) setting up a viable social infrastructure.

Every politician uses rousing speeches. It's part of what they do. Every politician makes promises they can't keep. And every citizen knows this...but we always hope anyway. At least he is making a commitment to democracy and not violent revolution. And heaven knows, Bolivia needs to change, somehow.
One might argue that most poor nations can't get any worse, but I remember Cambodia, and the promises that they would "start over".

Chavez loves to say that there is a US carrier task force just off shore, about to invade. Since he's been in office, no US carrier task force has been anywhere near Venezuela. Not once. Love that cynical manipulation of people's emotions.
Cynical manipulation of people's emotions is what politicians do. For all your talk of liberty you don't seem to respect peoples right to choose there own ruler. Is it the policies you dislike? Or the fact they were just fed what they wanted to hear and voted accordingly.. c'mon.. there's still hope.. if they get they're economy sorted then maybe.. just maybe.. they can vote for the leader they dislike the least or the least incompetent like the rest of us, eh? Perhaps they'll forget about hope, forget about a stable future and pray they voted for the one who does the least damage..

One might argue that most poor nations can't get any worse, but I remember Cambodia, and the promises that they would "start over".
There you go...the assumption that any socialist policies are inherently 'worse'. Bolivia is not Venezuela, is not Cambodia, is not Russia is not...etc. Each country needs to try their own way. Neoliberalism has been an unmitigated disaster in Bolivia. So it's time for something new. Whether it crashes and burns, or succeeds...how is that the US's business?

I still, to this day, don't understand why America pretends to be scared of South American Socialist governments? As if, Cuba, Venezuela, and now Bolivia might attack America, with what? All the armaments they have at the moment are decaying American weapons. America just doesn't like giving up its hold in that region, that's basically it. Every time a charismatic leader pops up in Latin America (or anywhere else for that matter); America always has a problem with them. Yes, President Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga's political agenda (legalising coca) might be wrong in America, but so what? He doesn't care what Americans want, he cares what Bolivians want, and if he is in the lead right now, he sure did his homework right. Second, it's Amazing non Indians held power in Bolivia for this long and they were backed by Bolivian business elites it says (I bet they are also non Indians). It’s funny, native Bolivians are about to get their first taste of freedom and there’s America (government of course) shaking its head with disappointment saying, “Well, I still don’t like it.”

Actually, I am quite happy with the current USian level of involvement. I am speaking in a relative manner, of course.

So far, in this election, the USA has limited itself to biased media articles (it was kinda funnycool how they conflated drugs, communism and nightmares in this one) and international observers.

I can guarantee the populations of Chile, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and probably evry other nation in Latin America are happy with this.

Think about it. Less than thirty years ago, the US was sending people to kill leftists and their leaders. Now they just have the newspapers write demeaning articles.

I hope the USA maintains this trend of decreasing paternalist, and often oppressive, involvement; and eventually begin to deal with Latin America on more multilateral terms.

I hope the USA maintains this trend of decreasing paternalist, and often oppressive, involvement; and eventually begin to deal with Latin America on more multilateral terms.
Agreed. This kind of 'intervention' is tolerable, and much easier on people's lives.

One might argue that most poor nations can't get any worse, but I remember Cambodia, and the promises that they would "start over".

No one can ever argue that poor nations can't get any worse but Morales is a democratically elected leader, does that not count for something?

No one can ever argue that poor nations can't get any worse but Morales is a democratically elected leader, does that not count for something?
Hopefully it does now...it didn't count for much for Allende or Arbenz. As was mentioned before, at least the level of interference in Latin America these days is nowhere near what it used to be.

Hopefully it does now...it didn't count for much for Allende or Arbenz. As was mentioned before, at least the level of interference in Latin America these days is nowhere near what it used to be.
Presumably because Bush is unable to pronounce the names of most of the countries down there correctly, let alone the politicians:
"If'n I can't says it, we ain't invading."

Presumably because Bush is unable to pronounce the names of most of the countries down there correctly, let alone the politicians:
"If'n I can't says it, we ain't invading."

One of my favourite quotes is from Reagan when he had just returned from a trip through South America:
"You'd be surprised, they're actually separate countries down there!"

Thanks, Gipper.

One of my favourite quotes is from Reagan when he had just returned from a trip through South America:
"You'd be surprised, they're actually separate countries down there!"

Thanks, Gipper.
There was a nice quote from Quayle after he went on a visiting tour down there about wishing that he spoke a little latin so he could speak to these people in their own language.
Dearie me.

I hope that if he becomes president, he does not find away to abolish all
diffrent political partys but his own, does not become dictator for life,
like Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez wants to do.

I hope that if he becomes president, he does not find away to abolish all
diffrent political partys but his own, does not become dictator for life,
like Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez wants to do.I can tell... you know absolutely nothing about Bolivian or Venezuelan Politics..

get a clue.

Jesus christ it is this view that is fuelling indigenous discontent, while i suspect your posting is written to enrage i find your ignorance, real or otherwise, and prejudice anger inducing, i for one is glad that Morales will sweep the white elite from power and hope that Venezulean support (so crucial should Morales gain power) will ensure that the white domination of wealth in Boliva is damaged beyond repair.
VIVA MORALES

We agree. I was being sarcastic, because I am tired of the fear and paranoia of so many in the US about people they think should be servile proving that they are capable of independent thought.

The people of Latin America were never supposed to use the electoral forms they were granted to actually change things. That is the meaning of "democracy," as it is too often used; "democracy" is the people voting for the policies the rulers want, and if ever the people reject them, they are "threatening democracy," "endangering liberty," "spreading disorder," etc.

It is an old line.

A few points are being made about a decline of US intervention in Latin America. One major reason for this is the development of the global rule of capital over the past few decades, which manages to do the job just as or even more effectively, and with far less mess. The trouble with this (for the powerful) is that popular movements cannot be kept in check as easily, as the US planners are swiftly learning.

A few points are being made about a decline of US intervention in Latin America. One chief reason for this is the development of the global rule of capital over the past few decades, which manages to do the job just as or even more effectively, and with far less mess. The trouble with this (for the powerful) is that popular movements cannot be kept in check as easily, as the US planners are swiftly learning.
Which is why many people...especially those that have already lived through dictatorships supported by the US...do not discount the possibility that direct intervention may once again become popular US foreign policy. It's why Chavez isn't seen as a total raving nutcase by most Latin Americans.

I wish that I were a socialist president of a South American country. :(

Which is why many people...especially those that have already lived through dictatorships supported by the US...do not discount the possibility that direct intervention may once again become popular US foreign policy. It's why Chavez isn't seen as a total raving nutcase by most Latin Americans.

I think they are incapable of any such thing at the moment, especially with the resources and manpower invested in subduing Iraq and the extensive popular opposition such intervention is likely to bring, but it is something that should be watched for.

Which is why many people...especially those that have already lived through dictatorships supported by the US...do not discount the possibility that direct intervention may once again become popular US foreign policy. It's why Chavez isn't seen as a total raving nutcase by most Latin Americans.

I suspect that this is why a lot of the current leftist movements in Latin America are portraying themselves as moderates. There is a constant feeling of treading on eggshells. On the one hand, stark social realities demand a more progressive solution to social problems, while at the same time, any openly socialist movement in Latin America that portrays itself as such will feel as if it is making itself a target of US backed paramilitary groups.

Whether or not this sentiment of being threatened by US backed forces is valid or is mere paranoia is not what's important. The fact is that many leftists in latin America will feel and act like it is a valid fear; this is due to the history of USian intervention in Latin America.

I suspect that this is why a lot of the current leftist movements in Latin America are portraying themselves as moderates. There is a constant feeling of treading on eggshells. On the one hand, stark social realities demand a more progressive solution to social problems, while at the same time, any openly socialist movement in Latin America that portrays itself as such will feel as if it is making itself a target of US backed paramilitary groups.

Whether or not this sentiment of being threatened by US backed forces is valid or is mere paranoia is not what's important. The fact is that many leftists in latin America will feel and act like it is a valid fear; this is due to the history of USian intervention in Latin America.

True. It is clear that even people like Chávez are acting very carefully, not engaging in mass nationalization and staying away from the redistribution of wealth.

They have learned lessons from the past; all the major successful leftist leaders in Latin America today have distanced themselves from the old leftist guerilla movements, with the exception of Castro, for obvious reasons. None are moving forward as quickly as Allende did in the early 1970s.

The Roosevelt comparison is often brought up, but I would say the similarity is stretched, even if the actual policy is similar; ultimately Roosevelt was a reformist, interested in regulating a few of the abuses of capitalism, and I have little doubt that if they stay in office for long enough, Chávez and his like will go considerably further.

I think they are incapable of any such thing at the moment, especially with the resources and manpower invested in subduing Iraq and the extensive popular opposition such intervention is likely to bring, but it is something that should be watched for.
Oh, I don't think it's a particularly pressing threat right now either. But that's not to say it couldn't become one. So yes, a little paranoia is healthy. A lot...well...not so much.

True. It is clear that even people like Chávez are acting very carefully, not engaging in mass nationalization and staying away from the redistribution of wealth.

They have learned lessons from the past; all the major successful leftist leaders in Latin America today have distanced themselves from the old leftist guerilla movements, with the exception of Castro, for obvious reasons. None are moving forward as quickly as Allende did in the early 1970s.

The Roosevelt comparison is often brought up, but I would say the similarity is stretched, even if the actual policy is similar; ultimately Roosevelt was a reformist, interested in regulating a few of the abuses of capitalism, and I have little doubt that if they stay in office for long enough, Chávez and his like will go considerably further.
Well, considering that Chavez is considered extremely radical tells you something in and of itself. Even Lula in Brazil came in with high hopes, and big promises, but found himself stymied by IMF agreements he couldn't wiggle out of, and debt that prevented him from being too ambitious. The moderate approach is really the most pragmatic one, both in terms of actually fulfilling promises, but also in avoiding the kind of attention the 'radical' Chavez is getting. But it can not be denied that South America is leaning more left with each new election...

Well, considering that Chavez is considered extremely radical tells you something in and of itself. Even Lula in Brazil came in with high hopes, and big promises, but found himself stymied by IMF agreements he couldn't wiggle out of, and debt that prevented him from being too ambitious. The moderate approach is really the most pragmatic one, both in terms of actually fulfilling promises, but also in avoiding the kind of attention the 'radical' Chavez is getting. But it can not be denied that South America is leaning more left with each new election...

Chavez is a democratically elected president that respects human rights and they call him radical. Pervez Musharraf is a corrupt quasi-dictator that doesn't and they call him an ally. By the way, South America IS leaning more left with each new election, and there's NOTHING you can do about that. On your faces, repubs.

I must say this idea that Morales will flood the US with cocaine is rather funny, especially in light of the sheer massive demand that the US and Europe has for cocaine, is not the drugs trade a symptom of the Supply and Demand of the capitalist globe, even if Morales died tomorrow this will still not stem the desire for Cocaine (despite the fact he is not advocating Cocaine production)...we do not stop people drinking and smoking, or voting for stupid politicians all of which are potentially bad for your health...

Well, the fact is, people in the west make the choice to consume concaine, all these countries in South America are doing is what any freemarket does, meets a demand for a product - people want heroine, farmers in Afghanistan know they can get good cash for a crop of poppies, so they grow that instead of wheat, the money they make, they buy food.

If you want to stop the consumpt of cocain and other drugs, stop the demand? a no one supplies something if there isn't demand in the first place!

If you want to stop the consumpt of cocain and other drugs, stop the demand? a no one supplies something if there isn't demand in the first place!


Well I don't think your going to stop the demand anywhere. As long as human's are around. Well there is one solution that is just not that popular with the mainstream. Legalize these drugs. Therefore large corporations can get the profits rather than some peasant afghani or Bolivian farmers. Seriously though if it is legalized that would drop the price. But the social consequences maybe to high for this.

Legalize these drugs.
Indeed.

The farmers who grow the Coca aren't criminals. They're simple people. They know the people that buy the stuff from them are criminals, and yet they have no choice.

Give them the choice to sell their Coca to trustworthy and honourable people, and they will do that.

It doesn't sound all bad. At least he was also talking about selling Bolivia's gas reserves at higher prices in order to develop the country's infrastructure.

That's a good thing. However his comments have got me wondering what he's about.


Coca is soon going to be a bad memory anyway. As I have said before on here, I have it on good authority that scientists are close to developing a variant of Wheat Rust into a 100% effective biological herbicide which is coca-specific. :)
No kidding, about time. So we just need to violate someones airspace once to plant this mutant rust? Maybe we can fit the predator with it.

Indeed.

The farmers who grow the Coca aren't criminals. They're simple people. They know the people that buy the stuff from them are criminals, and yet they have no choice.

Give them the choice to sell their Coca to trustworthy and honourable people, and they will do that.

Moreover, as has been pointed out upthread, most don't sell to criminals to begin with. I don't know about other countries, but in Bolivia most people (i.e. small subsistence farmers) really produce coca just like any other crop for harmless, domestic uses. You can see those big plastic sacks full of coca leaves on every market and everybody buys it, to chew (like tobacco) to deaden hunger, exhaustion etc., as medicine, or just as tea. Hell, we had coca tea all the time when we were there because it's supposed to prevent altitude sickness.

So, like somebody else said above (sorry I forgot who it was, I just read through the whole thread and it got a bit much for after 4 a.m.), it really is like outlawing and destroying another country's petrol supplies just because somebody could use it to make petrol bombs my country wants to buy.

Ah, okay, I'm falling asleep typing, just wanted to add that I've been avoiding this thread out of concern for my sanity - but I'm really happy to find lots of very, very articulate arguments (i.e. not like this :rolleyes:). And thanks to everybody who pointed out that the glorious capitalism of the IMF didn't exactly work too well.

Well I don't think your going to stop the demand anywhere. As long as human's are around. Well there is one solution that is just not that popular with the mainstream. Legalize these drugs. Therefore large corporations can get the profits rather than some peasant afghani or Bolivian farmers. Seriously though if it is legalized that would drop the price. But the social consequences maybe to high for this.

Same, thats what I say, legalise it, tax it like all other goods do - GST, and those growing it pay a company tax.

Those who want to take drugs, will take drugs REGARDLESS of the legal standing of it - if someone wants to shoot up some heroine, they'll do it regardless of the legal or social consequences.

The best we can do is give students at school the straight information on it - not hyped up bullshit, because kids KNOW when they're being lied to.

Give them the actual cosequences, and let them make the decision because ultimately, like I said, if a teenager wishes to smoke dope, they'll do it regardless of the legal consequences, be it illegal or legal.

As to whether there would be an increase in consumption? Highly unlikely, most people who don't do drugs, don't do it because of the addictive nature and the impact it would have on their work performance, and thus, choose not to take them.

What you might see, however, is a more honest assessment on how many people actually consume drugs.

Well, the fact is, people in the west make the choice to consume concaine, all these countries in South America are doing is what any freemarket does, meets a demand for a product - people want heroine, farmers in Afghanistan know they can get good cash for a crop of poppies, so they grow that instead of wheat, the money they make, they buy food.

If you want to stop the consumpt of cocain and other drugs, stop the demand? a no one supplies something if there isn't demand in the first place!
Exactly, supply and demand, this cannot be stopped no matter how many coca farms they burn, i am not going as far as to say legalize it however the present state of prohibition is patently not working.

I'm sure his motivation for ending the destruction of the cocaine crop is entirely due to his desire to free his people from the evil US...not the fact that their cocaine crop would probably be worth more than God to the Peruvian government and himself.

He's another joke who's going to screw up the country and drown it in corruption..."socialist" in South America seems to be a euphemism for corruption and incompetence and dictatorship rather than any kind of socialism.
Sort of like 'democratic', 'leftist', 'right-wing', 'fascist', 'contra'. You can't honestly say that "socialists" own or even dominate "corruption and incompetence and dictatorship". At best its a tie down there. Now up here in gringo-land, the euphemism is 'Republican.'

Chavez is a democratically elected president that respects human rights and they call him radical. Pervez Musharraf is a corrupt quasi-dictator that doesn't and they call him an ally. By the way, South America IS leaning more left with each new election, and there's NOTHING you can do about that. On your faces, repubs.
Tu no me conoces. Don't rail against me...I'm not the one who thinks left leaning is a bad thing.

Just what you need. Leftist commie South Americans selling drugs ...

Who cares if he grows cocaine? Who cares if he's socialist? He can't force anyone to buy his product, although many will do so by choice. He can't make the US socialist, so what's the big deal?

Just what you need. Leftist commie South Americans selling drugs ...
Yeah. That must be so much worse than right-wing paramilitary groups selling drugs to finance their para-legal activities.

Quit making baseless assumptions people. Morales has never said he's going to start up a national cocaine industry. As an Aymara, he understands the cultural connection the majority of Bolivians have to coca...not cocaine, coca. Burning the fields and putting people out of work is not the answer. That does not automatically translate to: "Bolivia's main export is going to be cocaine under Morales."

It doesn't sound all bad. At least he was also talking about selling Bolivia's gas reserves at higher prices in order to develop the country's infrastructure.

Coca is soon going to be a bad memory anyway. As I have said before on here, I have it on good authority that scientists are close to developing a variant of Wheat Rust into a 100% effective biological herbicide which is coca-specific. :)
Great! It will be replaced by deadlier, more addictive, and more toxic methamphetamine. Good job anti-drug folks! You're going to make more people addicted and raise the annual death toll from stimulant abuse.

Yay, let's destroy poor people's income because rich people can't control themselves! :rolleyes:
Let's all buy lots of drugs so we can support poor people? Yeah, riiiight! Sheesh!

Great! It will be replaced by deadlier, more addictive, and more toxic methamphetamine. Good job anti-drug folks! You're going to make more people addicted and raise the annual death toll from stimulant abuse.

I said it before and i will say it again...SUPPLY AND DEMAND

I said it before and i will say it again...SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Yep. The demand for something that will keep you awake, alert, excited, and happy won't go away. It will just be filled by a substance that keeps you awake way too long and is much more toxic to your body's chemistry.

You anti-coke people think that crackheads are bad? They're nothing compared to methamphetamine addicts. Wait until you have speed freaks staying awake until they have a psychotic break, then trying to mug you for some spare cash.

Its nice to see that the Bolivarian revolution is spreading...

...until the CIA (Capitalist Imperialist @$$holes) decide to start taking out democratically elected Presidents like they did to Allende 30 years ago because a democratically elected President is less of a threat to democracy than a dictator. Of course, by democracy they mean capitalism and a neocolonial empire.

Lets face it: there is not a lot that the US can do that doesn't, at the very least, violate ideals of democracy or international law. Plus with the ongoing quagmire in Iraq, you seem to be a bit "distracted" and the global community is watching you like a hawk.

Great! It will be replaced by deadlier, more addictive, and more toxic methamphetamine. Good job anti-drug folks! You're going to make more people addicted and raise the annual death toll from stimulant abuse.
Ha! You'd best be glad I'm not in charge! If it were up to me, anyone caught using drugs ( making an exception for marijuana ) would be summarily shot. Survivors would be shot again.

Ha! You'd best be glad I'm not in charge! If it were up to me, anyone caught using drugs ( making an exception for marijuana ) would be summarily shot. Survivors would be shot again.
Alcohol too? How about valium, prozac, and ritalin?

Its nice to see that the Bolivarian revolution is spreading...

...until the CIA (Capitalist Imperialist @$$holes) decide to start taking out democratically elected Presidents like they did to Allende 30 years ago because a democratically elected President is less of a threat to democracy than a dictator. Of course, by democracy they mean capitalism and a neocolonial empire.

Lets face it: there is not a lot that the US can do that doesn't, at the very least, violate ideals of democracy or international law. Plus with the ongoing quagmire in Iraq, you seem to be a bit "distracted" and the global community is watching you like a hawk.
Oooooooo! I'm really, like ... you know, scared and shit! :p

Alcohol too? How about valium, prozac, and ritalin?
Get serious, DC. :p

You anti-coke people think that crackheads are bad? They're nothing compared to methamphetamine addicts. Wait until you have speed freaks staying awake until they have a psychotic break, then trying to mug you for some spare cash.
Ay...no doubt. My brother was on meth for four years...I can't count the number of times I thought he was going to kill himself. And he wasn't a harsh user...he had enough money from working a few nights a week at a gas station that he didn't need to rob anyone...but even he admits he would have. Methheads freak me the fuck out...and meth is becoming a HUGE problem in small rural areas...much easier to get than coke, heroine, and sometimes even pot. So you have small town boys and girls in sleepy little bedroom communities, sketching out for days, and then running off to the cities to become prostitutes or street kids.

Alcohol too? How about valium, prozac, and ritalin?
Oh no...those are nice, LEGAL drugs.

Get serious, DC. :p
Well why not? Valium withdrawl can be fatal. Alcohol is addictive, produces long term health problems, and gives people retarded babies. Ritalin is becoming a drug of abuse because of it's structural similarity to amphetamine. Prozac and other antidepressants have been linked to psychotic behavior and suicidal ideation.

Those seem like pretty serious consequences to me.

Get serious, DC. :p
You get serious. Shooting drug users? Well, I hope you're prepared to kill senior citizens, retired vets, school teachers, teenagers and children...etc etc...

Ay...no doubt. My brother was on meth for four years...I can't count the number of times I thought he was going to kill himself. And he wasn't a harsh user...he had enough money from working a few nights a week at a gas station that he didn't need to rob anyone...but even he admits he would have. Methheads freak me the fuck out...and meth is becoming a HUGE problem in small rural areas...much easier to get than coke, heroine, and sometimes even pot. So you have small town boys and girls in sleepy little bedroom communities, sketching out for days, and then running off to the cities to become prostitutes or street kids.
I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the country where cocaine is available and fairly inexpensive. We've only got crackheads who either beg for money or work as prostitutes. No meth psychos going on a rampage for days at a time, hallucinating, having delusions, and robbing people for money.

Well why not? Valium withdrawl can be fatal. Alcohol is addictive, produces long term health problems, and gives people retarded babies. Ritalin is becoming a drug of abuse because of it's structural similarity to amphetamine. Prozac and other antidepressants have been linked to psychotic behavior and suicidal ideation.

Those seem like pretty serious consequences to me.
Don't forget gas huffing. Even if all drugs were made unavailable, people would still be sniffing PAM in plastic bags, and cooking up weird shit with common household items...like citric acid, ammonia,lighter fluid...and cold remedies.

I'm sure his motivation for ending the destruction of the cocaine crop is entirely due to his desire to free his people from the evil US...not the fact that their cocaine crop would probably be worth more than God to the Peruvian government and himself.

He's another joke who's going to screw up the country and drown it in corruption..."socialist" in South America seems to be a euphemism for corruption and incompetence and dictatorship rather than any kind of socialism.

Of course South American Socialist countries are corrupt. I can't think of a single socialist country that is free of corruption.

The bigger a government is the more likely it is to corrupt. That is why government must be limited in size and power.

Actually, I am quite happy with the current USian level of involvement. I am speaking in a relative manner, of course.

So far, in this election, the USA has limited itself to biased media articles (it was kinda funnycool how they conflated drugs, communism and nightmares in this one) and international observers.

I can guarantee the populations of Chile, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and probably evry other nation in Latin America are happy with this.

Think about it. Less than thirty years ago, the US was sending people to kill leftists and their leaders. Now they just have the newspapers write demeaning articles.

I hope the USA maintains this trend of decreasing paternalist, and often oppressive, involvement; and eventually begin to deal with Latin America on more multilateral terms.


My point exactly.

While I could care less about how "left leaning" some of these new governors claim to be, I don't believe for a minute that they will achieve anything close to working socialism - not that what they're working with now works for them either.

And they won't fail for lack of trying, and they won't fail because of US interference, and they won't fail for lack of assistance from the US.

They'll fail because certain fundamentals are missing from their societies. Inequities are already too great. Education is far too lacking (despite Chavez's claims of achieving 100 percent literacy in a single year).

What I wish would stop is their incessant chant that somehow, the US will be invading them, or trying to assassinate their dear leader.

I wonder how long they'll be able to make those outrageous claims. A few years of us never showing up, and their dear leader will begin to sound like an ass.

Of course South American Socialist countries are corrupt. I can't think of a single socialist country that is free of corruption. Wow, they sure got corrupt quick...considering that most of South America has been extremely capitalistic for the past century...with slightly left leaning governments being voted in only in the past 10 years at the most. Hmmm...wait...did they inherit some corruption from the previous governments? Pinochet was a socialist...he must have been, to steal all that money...and Fujimori must have been a closet socialist...:rolleyes:

The bigger a government is the more likely it is to corrupt. That is why government must be limited in size and power.
So then you aren't just talking about socialism...because in the years of the dictatorships, when uber-capitalism was the soup de jour, the governments literally had the power of life, death and torture over its people...

Christ...socialism is not automatically evil...take a look at the history of Latin America and see under what kind of economic and political policies the majority of people lost their lives. It WASN'T UNDER SOCIALISM.

My point exactly.

While I could care less about how "left leaning" some of these new governors claim to be, I don't believe for a minute that they will achieve anything close to working socialism - not that what they're working with now works for them either.

And they won't fail for lack of trying, and they won't fail because of US interference, and they won't fail for lack of assistance from the US.

They'll fail because certain fundamentals are missing from their societies. Inequities are already too great. Education is far too lacking (despite Chavez's claims of achieving 100 percent literacy in a single year). Yes, but total socialism is not actually the goal of most of the nations in South America. Even 'big bad socialist' Morales (hardly a friggin' socialist...I'm sorry, that term has become a ridiculously broad brush to paint anyone slightly left with) has stated he will not be nationalising industries (http://diario.elmercurio.com/2005/12/20/_portada/_portada/noticias/B153F275-FA01-49FA-908A-77791AA17F88.htm?id={B153F275-FA01-49FA-908A-77791AA17F88}), either through expropriation or confiscation. SOCIAL PROGRAMS != SOCIALISM. And social programs are what these nations are trying to focus on...getting them back up to pre-neoliberal-IMF-shock-therapy levels...or creating them for the first time (as many nations have absolutely NO safety nets for people, and never have). So, really, they want a system somewhat like we have...where there might be unemployment insurance, or emergency services for people in crisis. Hardly revolutionary.

What saddens me is that the ideal that 'the majority of a nation should not be living in poverty' is seen as dangerous and radical by so many.

What I wish would stop is their incessant chant that somehow, the US will be invading them, or trying to assassinate their dear leader.Recent lessons are hard to forget. With the history of US direct intervention in the region, surely you can understand the paranoia...and the way that politicians can manipulate that paranoia? Like all politicians do?

I wonder how long they'll be able to make those outrageous claims. A few years of us never showing up, and their dear leader will begin to sound like an ass.It's going to take more than a couple of years for people to really believe the US isn't going to interfere. Most of us thought you were done with direct interventions, but Iraq reminded us that this isn't so. Yes, yes, you have your reasons for that...but who is to say you won't 'have your reasons' in Latin America one day? It's not like terrorism is absent from the South and Central America...just look at Colombia. Maybe we're being too paranoid? Only a few decades will tell.

By the way, we aren't talking about Chavez...you can stop making it sound like Morales and other semi-socialist presidents do nothing but claim the US is about to invade.

I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the country where cocaine is available and fairly inexpensive. We've only got crackheads who either beg for money or work as prostitutes. No meth psychos going on a rampage for days at a time, hallucinating, having delusions, and robbing people for money.

Any addiction can lead to robbing people for money. Even an addiction to food. Meth-heads will kill you 'cause they think you're a giant bug! A non-trivial difference...

You get serious. Shooting drug users? Well, I hope you're prepared to kill senior citizens, retired vets, school teachers, teenagers and children...etc etc...
Specious argument. You know very well I was speaking of illegal drugs. Knock it off. :p

Specious argument. You know very well I was speaking of illegal drugs. Knock it off. :p
So was I. So I repeat:

You get serious. Shooting drug users? Well, I hope you're prepared to kill senior citizens, retired vets, school teachers, teenagers and children...etc etc...
What...you don't think there are people in these groups doing illegal drugs? Are you serious? And I'm talking meth, coke, heroin, PCP, etc...not just pot.

Specious argument. You know very well I was speaking of illegal drugs. Knock it off. :p

So if they legalize crack, heroin, and our old friend crystal-meth, that would be fine?

The legal/illegal dichotomy is arbitrary. So saying you were talking about 'legal' drugs isn't altogether non-specious.

So if they legalize crack, heroin, and our old friend crystal-meth, that would be fine?

The legal/illegal dichotomy is arbitrary. So saying you were talking about 'legal' drugs isn't altogether non-specious.

Do you play Traveller? You Zhodani sympathizer, you!

So if they legalize crack, heroin, and our old friend crystal-meth, that would be fine?
Possibly not, but it would at least be an improvement on the cuirrent situation

Any addiction can lead to robbing people for money. Even an addiction to food. Meth-heads will kill you 'cause they think you're a giant bug! A non-trivial difference...
So what if I'm a giant bug! It's no reason to kill me. Meth makes people racist?

Meth makes people racist?
No, no. It makes people rapists not racists...

No, no. It makes people rapists not racists...
Just so long as they don't come after my Giant Bug brothers and sisters. Bug Power!

Do you play Traveller? You Zhodani sympathizer, you!
I know what your thinking: That guy must be on the 'terrorist watch list.' Given how much I hate prostate exams, I think I'll avoid air travel till King George is removed from office.:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So what if I'm a giant bug! It's no reason to kill me. Meth makes people racist?
I'd say specist, actually. A lot of people have an irrational fear of insects. Meth doesn't make people terribly rational.

Some people have an irrational fear of black people. A lot of those cook meth. So maybe meth does make people racist. :eek::thoughtful look:

Just so long as they don't come after my Giant Bug brothers and sisters. Bug Power!
Oh my sweet holy effing Jeebus(OMSHFJ), Its the Dreaded-Oversized-Arthropod-Rape-Thread. I saw this once on alt.sex.EEEE-YUUUCK!!!!

The USA will not intervene in Bolivian politics if coca, or even cocaine, becomes fully legal. Except to protect any USian interests invested in cocaine.

It's the natural gas companies that will be watched closely. If Morales nationalises these, he will suffer an internal coup,or be forced to deal with right-wing guerillas.

It is my firm belief that the USA will be backing any attempt to remove Morales from power if he nationalises the gas industry.

It is my firm belief that the USA will be backing any attempt to remove Morales from power if he nationalises the gas industry.
Reading what he's said on the subject, he seems to say there will be no expropriation or confiscation, but that the way Bolivia will exploit its resources will change (http://diario.elmercurio.com/2005/12/20/_portada/_portada/noticias/B153F275-FA01-49FA-908A-77791AA17F88.htm?id={B153F275-FA01-49FA-908A-77791AA17F88}) somewhat.
El líder cocalero dijo que no expropiará bienes a las petroleras y que mantendrá las reglas a Argentina en el tema del gas.

Evo Morales, quien de confirmarse los conteos rápidos, sería el primer indígena en asumir la presidencia en los 180 años de historia republicana de Bolivia, ratificó ayer que su gobierno "no confiscará ni expropiará" los bienes de las petroleras y que recuperará la propiedad de los hidrocarburos para los bolivianos.

"Eso que decía la ley de que el titular adquiere la propiedad en boca de pozo, se terminó. Dentro del suelo, fuera del suelo ese recurso es del pueblo", dijo, al tiempo de señalar que Bolivia "necesita socios, no patrones".

Tu no me conoces. Don't rail against me...I'm not the one who thinks left leaning is a bad thing.

My apologies, I didn't mean specifically you, but I admit that I made a poor effort of making that point in my post. By the way, I'm Brazilian, which means that the right way to say it would be "Você não me conhece." - Portuguese. Anyways, sorry, I was just using your post to rub in the faces of the pro-coup cons here.

Let's all buy lots of drugs so we can support poor people? Yeah, riiiight! Sheesh!

Yes, and invading a sovereign country's airspace and killing ALL OTHER crops along with some people to prevent cocaine from being sold would be sort of like ripping off your mother's uterus to prevent people like you from being born: Effective, but wrong.

My apologies, I didn't mean specifically you, but I admit that I made a poor effort of making that point in my post. By the way, I'm Brazilian, which means that the right way to say it would be "Você não me conhece." - Portuguese. Anyways, sorry, I was just using your post to rub in the faces of the pro-coup cons here.
Okay. Sounds good. I've made this mistake as well...agreeing with someone's post and backing it up by ranting...and having the person I quoted thinking I totally misunderstood them:)

I used Spanish, figuring I had a pretty good chance of being right:)

By the way, I'm Brazilian, which means that the right way to say it would be "Você não me conhece." So what are they saying in the streets of Brazil about Morales and Chavez?

Okay. Sounds good. I've made this mistake as well...agreeing with someone's post and backing it up by ranting...and having the person I quoted thinking I totally misunderstood them:)

I used Spanish, figuring I had a pretty good chance of being right:)

It's okay. Anyways, let's get back to the humiliating-our-opponents-for-their-utter-stupidity business. :)

So what are they saying in the streets of Brazil about Morales and Chavez?

We're too busy with our own internal issues. The Brazilian Left supports Chavez and more than likely supports Morales, as long as they don't violate human rights. Simple as that.

Ha! You'd best be glad I'm not in charge! If it were up to me, anyone caught using drugs ( making an exception for marijuana ) would be summarily shot. Survivors would be shot again.


hehe, you can tell your old school. I think you and I were probably brought up in the same type of enviroment..;)

hehe, you can tell your old school. I think you and I were probably brought up in the same type of enviroment..;)

Awww, poor things...

I think the only thing I object to in this thread is Ocean's implication that somehow, if the US isn't involved, it's automatically free, full of liberty, and great.

It's my job to remove the rose-colored glasses. Whenever someone says, "I'm here to liberate you!" it makes me think they're full of shit. If I was a native Venezuelan, I would think that Chavez is about to screw us hard.You can object all you want... but you cannot vote on the Venezuelan or Bolivian elections...

The People that matters has voted.

________________________________

22 minutes ago

LA PAZ (AFP) - Evo Morales has been ratified as the next president of Bolivia, with 54 percent of votes cast, the National Election Court announced.

Election officials said all ballots had been counted and that with a majority of votes in his column, Morales becomes president-elect without throwing the election into the Congress.

The indigenous leader of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) is to be inaugurated on January 22.

His party garnered 64 deputies and 12 senators, giving him control of the Congress.

Former president and rightist Podemos candidate Jorge Quiroga took 29 percent of the vote along with 44 deputies and 13 senators.
______________________________________

the Bolivian people has spoken... Get over it Sierra.
Your so called "nightmare" has become reality :D

Ha! You'd best be glad I'm not in charge! If it were up to me, anyone caught using drugs ( making an exception for marijuana ) would be summarily shot. Survivors would be shot again.

Yeah! then let's move on the homosexuals! let's hang attempted suicides and smash people into a wall at 70 mph for not wearing a seatbelt! Let's kill people for what they do to themselves!

What an utterly twattish opinion. I hope you haven't drunk any alcohol recently, or there'd be plenty of fascists the next stage along from you who'd have you strung up for that.

Another Socialist winning in a S American nation. So what do we do with a possible future leader that promises to become America's nightmare by growing cocaine. Well isn't this guy just special... Care to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/18/bolivia.election.ap.ap/index.html

My own nightmares hardly have anything to do with bolivians growing cocaine. Now if that president promised to release a terrifying black horse with large fangs, big white horns and a blood-red mane that chases people into a tower where one is forced to climb a seemingly never-ending spiral staircase, that would be something..

My own nightmares hardly have anything to do with bolivians growing cocaine. Now if that president promised to release a terrifying black horse with large fangs, big white horns and a blood-red mane that chases people into a tower where one is forced to climb a seemingly never-ending spiral staircase, that would be something..Mine is a terrifying Flying Monster with large fangs, big white horns and a blood-red mane that chases people into an island-fortress where one is forced to drink menstrual fluids.. and where the walls are filled with horrorific deformed pictures of my family and friends...