NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/29/Bolivia.ap/index.html
Sure, read just this:

"We are winning the green battle: The coca leaf is beating the North American dollar," said Morales, who leaves Friday for Cuba, the first stop in a world tour before his inauguration on January 22. and you can justify crying that he's a narcotrafficker and "America's nightmare". Read a bit further, and he doesn't seem so crazy. Except he's going to Cuba. BAD MAN!!!!:eek: [/jk]

Morales also won applause the night before with a strikingly different message to Bolivia's business leaders, promising that his government will create a climate favorable for investment and jobs and will not "expropriate or confiscate any assets."

"He promised more than we asked for," said a surprised Gabriel Dabdoud, president of the powerful chamber of commerce.

On drug trafficking:

While Bolivia is the third largest U.S. supplier of cocaine after Colombia and Peru, the plant is also used for ancestral religious ceremonies and medicine, and Andeans for centuries have chewed it to fight fatigue. Morales' goal is to crack down on drug trafficking while promoting legal markets for coca leaf.

A Morales aide said this week that he also plans to reject U.S. economic and military aid, worth US$91 million (euro77 million) this year, if the United States continues to insist on coca eradication as a condition for the money.

So? Why the dire predictions of doom? Why the immediate assumption that Morales is a commie bent on nationalising everything and declaring an unofficial war on the US?

He's a madman and he's going to eat your children. Run.

Who cares what Bolivia thinks? Iran has a true crazy as a leader and is more dangerous by far.

Oh, this article (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13491173.htm) got my blood boiling, though it is of course an opinion piece, and should be afforded little attention, one particular argument (after all the hating on Morales) jumped out at me. Get this:

Morales will fail, of course, just the way Perón, Velasco Alvarado and the Sandinistas failed, and as Chávez, Castro and the rest of the indefatigable revolutionary mob, to the left and right of the ideological spectrum, will fail. The revolutionaries always wind up in a major disaster because the political premise from which they start is wrong.

If anything was learned and confirmed countless times throughout the 20th century, it was that development, general prosperity and social harmony are consequences of juridical security, the market, freedom to produce or consume, education and investments and international cooperation.

The effective interaction of those factors over a long period -- 15 to 30 years -- under a reasonable rule of law, establishes a propitious climate for the creation of enterprises capable of generating profits, safeguarding savings, making investments and multiplying ad infinitum the cycle of development.

That, with some variants, is the economic history of Spain, Ireland, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and the rest of the countries that have managed to leap into prosperity, substantially reducing their levels of poverty.

Except that those examples have nothing to do with the climate of abuses, violence and arbitrariness that characterizes revolutionary governments, which are stubbornly insistent on finding a shortcut to a success that exists only in the fevered machinations of their ideological fantasies.

My god man, take Chile off that damn list...because what is more revolutionary than a bloody military coup? And how does that have nothing to do with abuses, violence and blah blah blah? JACKASS!

Sorry. That just annoyed the hell out of me.[/rant]

So? Why the dire predictions of doom? Why the immediate assumption that Morales is a commie bent on nationalising everything and declaring an unofficial war on the US?

Eh?

Because we've all seen this play before, and therefore know how it ends.

Eh?

Because we've all seen this play before, and therefore know how it ends.
Uh-huh..........
.......
.....
...
.

It is simple, for Americans the most convenient state of affairs in South America, is rule by fascist dictatorships. They spent a lot of time and money ensuring this was the case. Having local people electing socialist leaders always annoys them.

Uh-huh..........
.......
.....
...
.

Sure, he'll promise to eliminate poverty, fail, and end up nationalizing everything to pay for it all.

Then when the country is poorer than ever, he'll blame it all on the US to distract from the fact that his ideas were doomed to failure in the first place.

These guys are all loons anyways. Look at chavez. Leader of one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, and what does he do? Starts subsidizing oil for the richest. Way to fuck your own people over there big guy.

It's only a matter of time before it gets all shitty.

My god man, take Chile off that damn list...because what is more revolutionary than a bloody military coup? And how does that have nothing to do with abuses, violence and blah blah blah? JACKASS!

Sorry. That just annoyed the hell out of me.[/rant]
That, with some variants, is the economic history of Spain, Ireland, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea and the rest of the countries that have managed to leap into prosperity, substantially reducing their levels of poverty.I wouldn't expect to have to quibble over this one - Spain under the openly Fascist dictatorship of Franco was an extremely Draconian period of oppression for the people of Spain. Not a model society by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, he'll promise to eliminate poverty, fail, and end up nationalizing everything to pay for it all.

Then when the country is poorer than ever, he'll blame it all on the US to distract from the fact that his ideas were doomed to failure in the first place.

These guys are all loons anyways. Look at chavez. Leader of one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, and what does he do? Starts subsidizing oil for the richest. Way to fuck your own people over there big guy.

It's only a matter of time before it gets all shitty.
These guys...meaning anyone who isn't a right winger? Or what? And what politician actually makes good on his or her election promises? It just seems a disproportionate amount of negativity is directed towards anyone who says they care about poverty...why is that? No, I'm not going to look at Chavez. Or Fidel. Because Bolivia is not Venezuela, is not Cuba, and Morales is neither of these men.

I wouldn't expect to have to quibble over this one - Spain under the openly Fascist dictatorship of Franco was an extremely Draconian period of oppression for the people of Spain. Not a model society by any stretch of the imagination.
Uh-huh...and the only reason I didn't mention it is because so many people tend to think that the Spanish civil war falls into the category of 'distant past', and ignore it entirely.

Well, maybe he won't screw it up. As long as he doesn't try to nationalize industry and/or screw over his people like Chavez, he might turn out alright. I'd honestly be rather approving of him if he can redivert the coca production to real uses rather than drugs.

He should really stay away from socialism...that's got a track record in South America and is nothing more than a fast track to dictatorship and/or economic collapse.

He should really stay away from socialism...that's got a track record in South America and is nothing more than a fast track to dictatorship and/or economic collapse.
It's got a history in Latin America because the US directly and indirectly helped to overthrow anyone who seemed the slightest bit socialist...not because socialism inevitably leads to dictatorships. And economic collapse? Really? Which socialist Latin American country are you thinking of here?

He should really stay away from socialism...that's got a track record in South America and is nothing more than a fast track to dictatorship and/or economic collapse.
Only because historically, socialism has automatically resulted in US intervention.

Well, maybe he won't screw it up. As long as he doesn't try to nationalize industry and/or screw over his people like Chavez, he might turn out alright. I'd honestly be rather approving of him if he can redivert the coca production to real uses rather than drugs.

He should really stay away from socialism...that's got a track record in South America and is nothing more than a fast track to dictatorship and/or economic collapse.
Not to quibble, but quietly paying off neighbouring countries to engage each other in perpetual conflict is also a fast track to (fostering) economic collapse in South and Central American countries, one that has a protracted and varied track record, indeed. And we'll simply choose not to name names rather than quibble over who instigated what, when, why, for how much and for how long, shall we?

Only because historically, socialism has automatically resulted in US intervention.

True, but economic collapse also occured at the same time, which provided the spark for our "interventions".

Not to quibble, but quietly paying off neighbouring countries to engage each other in perpetual conflict is also a fast track to (fostering) economic collapse in South and Central American countries, one that has a protracted and varied track record, indeed. And we'll simply choose not to name names rather than quibble over who instigated what, when, why, for how much and for how long, shall we?

True, but these people also brought their own problems when they tried to nationalize, and writing off their debt didn't help either. They tried to reshape their economy overnight, which pretty much guarantees disaster. Hyperinflation makes the CIA's dollars look even more attractive...

True, but economic collapse also occured at the same time, which provided the spark for our "interventions".
:rolleyes:

Please.

True, but economic collapse also occured at the same time, which provided the spark for our "interventions".
Rather than spend the time to dispute this, country by country...why don't you name some countries, and we'll just start from there? Because you'll find that 'economic collapse' is a very misleading term...more propoganda than anything when it wasn't directly related to economic intervention.

True, but these people also brought their own problems when they tried to nationalize, and writing off their debt didn't help either. They tried to reshape their economy overnight, which pretty much guarantees disaster. Hyperinflation makes the CIA's dollars look even more attractive...
See, the problem here is that you are making it seem as though the political leaders that were removed and replaced with dictators were incredibly radical. Which is hardly the case. The majority were 'soft socialists'. And US involvement in these countries did not magically begin just preceeding the various coups. It was pervasive, and long-term, beginning around 1890. Edit: actually, I guess you could go back to the war with Mexico...and I'm forgetting about Nicaragua in 1855 when William Walker took over the country. So let's say that this intervention began quite a few decades early than 1890.

I'll wait 5 years before making any concrete judgements on him.

I'll wait 5 years before making any concrete judgements on him.
Which sounds like the most reasonable stance to take. I don't care what a politician calls him or herself. It's what they do that tell you what they stand for.

Not a nibble Vetalia? Which country are you thinking of? (I'm only prodding because it's close to bedtime, and I don't want you to think I've run off if you end up making a list for me:))

Edit: oops, I see you're logged off. Well...maybe next time (awww...I was all ready to flex my Latin American history muscles:()

Which sounds like the most reasonable stance to take. I don't care what a politician calls him or herself. It's what they do that tell you what they stand for.
Not to quibble, but all too often, it's what they're permitted to do, given the constraints facing them, that tell us what they stand for.

Rather than spend the time to dispute this, country by country...why don't you name some countries, and we'll just start from there? Because you'll find that 'economic collapse' is a very misleading term...more propoganda than anything when it wasn't directly related to economic intervention.

Chile: Hyperinflation occured after debt was cancelled and caused economic depression. Removed Allende and replaced him with Pinochet, who simply made things worse.

Argentina: Economic collapse caused by piling up of debt associated with socialist (that "dirty" word) programs in 1970's; military replaced Peron's wife with a junta but did nothing to improve the economy. (Operation Condor)

Nicaragua: Economic weakness caused by downturns in cash-crop prices. Sandanistas overthrew government, economic situation worsened by coup. The US then intervened, leading to the Contra War that threw the nation in to a depression for much of the 1980's and 1990's.

A timeline of interventions (I'm looking primarily at the Cold-War era) show that economic weakness almost always preceded intervention. Not coincidentally, this weakness also threatened American interests in the region.

Generally, it can be summed up as:

Socialists take power, attempt to change country too quickly. Economy collapses, US installs puppet who worsens situation.

Economy weakened, socialists take power. Economy worsened by the coup, but still functioning. US assets threatened, we intervene and make situations worse.

Not to quibble, but all too often, it's what they're permitted to do, given the constraints facing them, that tell us what they stand for.
I'm starting to hate the word quibble.

Okay...that's a good point. They may stand for something, but be thwarted in their attempts to achieve their goals...or whatever. But still...it's silly to make dire predictions, or wonderfuly glowy, lovey dubby predictions either. Because you're right...it's more than what a leader wants...its the resources they have, and the obstacles they must face as well. Bleh. Friggin' politics.

Not a nibble Vetalia? Which country are you thinking of? (I'm only prodding because it's close to bedtime, and I don't want you to think I've run off if you end up making a list for me:))
Edit: oops, I see you're logged off. Well...maybe next time (awww...I was all ready to flex my Latin American history muscles:()

No, I'm here. And trust me, I don't support the US's intervention down there. They made bad situations worse.

No, I'm here. And trust me, I don't support the US's intervention down there. Do you oppose the Extradition of CIA agents(and other US officials) involved with the Torture or Murder of LatinAmerican Leaders?

Do you support the extradition of CIA agents and other US officials on Murder charges?
Hmmm. Tricky.

dp

No, I'm here. And trust me, I don't support the US's intervention down there. They made bad situations worse.
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH! I lost my friggin' essay of a reply to your above post...bleh. But I somewhat agree with your analysis, because it goes beyond socialism=justifiable intervention. In many cases, economic depression was directly worsened by US interference (blockades, etc) as it fostered the most resentment, and created the best environment for the coups that followed. While I wouldn't mind debating a few finer points...that's going to take time I don't have...and I'm glad to see you aren't buying the various 'economic miracles' claimed after dictators took power. Grrr...a topic that finally interests me...well, I'll see you around in the next couple of days perhaps and we can pick it back up!

Hmmm. Tricky.I am here to ask the tough questions.

Thats what I do..

life is a bioch... and so am I

I am not on the miss congeniality competition :D
I will remember that.

Be seeing you.

I will remember that.

Be seeing you.wont you -at-least- try to answer the Question?

Question:
Do you oppose the Extradition of CIA agents involved with the Torture or Murder of LatinAmerican Leaders?

Of course.

Of course.I changed the Words "Support<< Oppose"...

So I assume You do not oppose the the Extradition of the agents in question.

BTW I do not oppose their indictement either.

I'm not sure what I think of this.

It's a very cautious line to take, one that runs the risk of eroding his non-cocoa base, which is already unsure of him. He was elected on the basis of class, and to inform the business class that he will leave them alone holds some obvious obstacles to actually reforming the system.

On the other hand, he already is going to have the US angry at him for breaking the consensus on cocaine, and if he can get business sympathetic to him his rule may be more stable and the economy less vulnerable to US-sponsored strangulation.

On the other hand, he already is going to have the US angry at him for breaking the consensus on cocaine, and if he can get business sympathetic to him his rule may be more stable and the economy less vulnerable to US-sponsored strangulation.If the US tries to "sponsor" economic strangulation.. there is not much the Bolivian businessmen can do to help Morales..

The only men able to help him.. are the Presidents of the other Latin American countries... and the voters.

they will either bow to Washington.. like they have always done.. or they will stand up and allow for solidarity.

The odds are against Morales... But they have always been.. he is used to play on the fourth quarter down by 20.. yet so far he has made it tru.. against all odds.

Viva el Presidente Indio!

If the US tries to "sponsor" economic strangulation.. there is not much the Bolivian businessmen can do to help Morales..

To the contrary. They may be essential to building an independent Bolivian economy, at least until a socialist line of development can be safely pursued.

Latin America must build a capitalist economy capable of acting without Northern capital before it will be able to undergo serious reform; regional integration and cooperation may end up essential to such development. Kirchner and Lagos both seem to be emphasizing this independence element more than any social programs, unlike Chávez or Lula, but all of them seem to understand this, and are acting accordingly.

For instance: Argentina Sells Bonds to Venezuela for Second Time in a Week (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=a3CacRGtIoUw&refer=news_index)

Latin America must build a capitalist economy capable of acting without Northern capital before it will be able to undergo serious reform; regional integration and cooperation may end up essential to such development.what serious reform are we talking about?

what serious reform are we talking about?

Socialism. Or even left-wing social democracy of the Swedish type. A sufficient welfare state simply cannot be maintained at the economic levels of the relevant countries, and the socialist method of development (as opposed to First World socialism) is so opposed to the current global economic system that it is likely unacheivable.

These guys...meaning anyone who isn't a right winger? Or what? And what politician actually makes good on his or her election promises? It just seems a disproportionate amount of negativity is directed towards anyone who says they care about poverty...why is that? No, I'm not going to look at Chavez. Or Fidel. Because Bolivia is not Venezuela, is not Cuba, and Morales is neither of these men.

These guys meaning people who promise to end poverty in essentially desitute countries with command economies and extensive social programmes.

It just can't work. Bolivia has no money to fix poverty with. It would have to make some first. Which it won't.

Inevitably, Bolivia will end up getting a dose of shock therapy from the IMF. It really has nothing to do with the US. Though doubtless the US will be blamed.

Who cares what Bolivia thinks? Iran has a true crazy as a leader and is more dangerous by far.

Interesting, the current president of Iran claims to have seen light around a high profile cleric, claiming that he could be the returning Imahm that the Shi'ia believe will return.

The other side, in the US, GWB claims that he speaks to God.

Both are nuts, and both need to be removed, either democratically or via a 'coalition of the willing'.

Maybe the US would finally get a true democracy - spooky!