this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.[/quote]
I said I was not going to comment on the political issues, mainly due to lack of time to do so. I'm not making excuses or justifying US's meddling in my region, I'm just correcting some inaccurate comments about South America's current socioeconomic situation. I'll insist, about South America, since Nicaragua is located in Central America.
I specifically stated that South America has experienced reductions in poverty, inequality (in some countries), unemployement and an overall improvement in social indicators (literacy rates, mortality rates, etc, etc). Furthermore, I stated that most South American countries are on track to achieve Millenium Development Goals, which are for the most part related to social aspects of the economy (poverty, mortality, gender gaps, etc)
Well, actually for our region this fact: "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" has been important, because it has helped our countries to improve living stantards for the underpriviledged. You think Brazil's accomplishments in social indicators would have been possible without the economic success the country has been enjoying since Fernando Henrique Cardozo's first term? Ten years ago only 30% of Brazil's population had been enrolled in high-school. We conducted a national survey in Brazil for a project I'm currently working for (hopefully we'll publish it by the end of the year); data shows that among youth (15-29 years old), enrollment rate has risen up to 70%.
Or, what about Chile since its return to democracy? In 1990, approx. 38% of the population was below the poverty line, whereas these days such percentage is 12%. Furthermore, extreme poverty is about to be eradicated. Of course 12% is one too many poor people, but you cannot deny Chile's extraordinary accomplishments. Indeed Chile is the only country in Latin America (besides Cuba) that has a single digit enfant mortality rate.
PS: I'm familiar with Europe's XX century'shistory. Besides, my grandad (Nonno) was a partigian, he fought in Sicily against the fascists/nazis
PS2: For a change I made a mess with the quoting, so I put my post in blue...
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
I said I was not going to comment on the political issues, mainly due to lack of time to do so. I'm not making excuses or justifying US's meddling in my region, I'm just correcting some inaccurate comments about South America's current socioeconomic situation. I'll insist, about South America, since Nicaragua is located in Central America.
I specifically stated that South America has experienced reductions in poverty, inequality (in some countries), unemployement and an overall improvement in social indicators (literacy rates, mortality rates, etc, etc). Furthermore, I stated that most South American countries are on track to achieve Millenium Development Goals, which are for the most part related to social aspects of the economy (poverty, mortality, gender gaps, etc)
Well, actually for our region this fact: "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" has been important, because it has helped our countries to improve living stantards for the underpriviledged. You think Brazil's accomplishments in social indicators would have been possible without the economic success the country has been enjoying since Fernando Henrique Cardozo's first term? Ten years ago only 30% of Brazil's population had been enrolled in high-school. We conducted a national survey in Brazil for a project I'm currently working for (hopefully we'll publish it by the end of the year); data shows that among youth (15-29 years old), enrollment rate has risen up to 70%.
Or, what about Chile since its return to democracy? In 1990, approx. 38% of the population was below the poverty line, whereas these days such percentage is 12%. Furthermore, extreme poverty is about to be eradicated. Of course 12% is one too many poor people, but you cannot deny Chile's extraordinary accomplishments. Indeed Chile is the only country in Latin America (besides Cuba) that has a single digit enfant mortality rate.
PS: I'm familiar with Europe's XX century'shistory. Besides, my grandad (Nonno) was a partigian, he fought in Sicily against the fascists/nazis
PS2: For a change I made a mess with the quoting, so I put my post in blue...
I'm not disputing your numbers, I never said they were incorrect. My point is the state of the region today in no way excuses past crimes. Or crimes that are being committed today. Such as the slaughter of hundreds of indigineous people in Peru, by US supported forces, about which Obama has been absolutely SILENT.
South American countries are client states for the United States. A country is democratic to the extent the people have meaningful participation in the decision making process...which in a capitalist regime is almost none. corporations rule capitalist countries, the US is a perfect example of that. Some are still resisting in South America, as in Colombia with FARC-which the US is spending billions to fight, has little to do with cocaine.
So when you get to choose between 2 US candidates, all is well. But when the will of the people is contrary to the will of the US, as was the case with Chavez, all measures must be taken to correct that problem. And the attempted coup in 2002, staged by US forces, with help from the media it controlled, is a perfect example of that.
South America is democratic to the extent tits counties elect pro-US capitalist presidents.
this thread has done a poor job of detailing US involvement.
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.
I said I was not going to comment on the political issues, mainly due to lack of time to do so. I'm not making excuses or justifying US's meddling in my region, I'm just correcting some inaccurate comments about South America's current socioeconomic situation. I'll insist, about South America, since Nicaragua is located in Central America.
I specifically stated that South America has experienced reductions in poverty, inequality (in some countries), unemployement and an overall improvement in social indicators (literacy rates, mortality rates, etc, etc). Furthermore, I stated that most South American countries are on track to achieve Millenium Development Goals, which are for the most part related to social aspects of the economy (poverty, mortality, gender gaps, etc)
Well, actually for our region this fact: "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" has been important, because it has helped our countries to improve living stantards for the underpriviledged. You think Brazil's accomplishments in social indicators would have been possible without the economic success the country has been enjoying since Fernando Henrique Cardozo's first term? Ten years ago only 30% of Brazil's population had been enrolled in high-school. We conducted a national survey in Brazil for a project I'm currently working for (hopefully we'll publish it by the end of the year); data shows that among youth (15-29 years old), enrollment rate has risen up to 70%.
Or, what about Chile since its return to democracy? In 1990, approx. 38% of the population was below the poverty line, whereas these days such percentage is 12%. Furthermore, extreme poverty is about to be eradicated. Of course 12% is one too many poor people, but you cannot deny Chile's extraordinary accomplishments. Indeed Chile is the only country in Latin America (besides Cuba) that has a single digit enfant mortality rate.
PS: I'm familiar with Europe's XX century'shistory. Besides, my grandad (Nonno) was a partigian, he fought in Sicily against the fascists/nazis
PS2: For a change I made a mess with the quoting, so I put my post in blue...
I'm not disputing your numbers, I never said they were incorrect. My point is the state of the region today in no way excuses past crimes. Or crimes that are being committed today. Such as the slaughter of hundreds of indigineous people in Peru, by US supported forces, about which Obama has been absolutely SILENT.
South American countries are client states for the United States. A country is democratic to the extent the people have meaningful participation in the decision making process...which in a capitalist regime is almost none. corporations rule capitalist countries, the US is a perfect example of that. Some are still resisting in South America, as in Colombia with FARC-which the US is spending billions to fight, has little to do with cocaine.
So when you get to choose between 2 US candidates, all is well. But when the will of the people is contrary to the will of the US, as was the case with Chavez, all measures must be taken to correct that problem. And the attempted coup in 2002, staged by US forces, with help from the media it controlled, is a perfect example of that.
South America is democratic to the extent tits counties elect pro-US capitalist presidents.
And my point had nothing to do with excusing past behaviour. Again, I was correcting someone that described our current economy as if it was stuck in the 80's.
OK, I guess we South Americans are like 300 million morons/puppets with no saying whatsoever in our fate. At least let us own our fuck-ups. It's not like we have brilliant politicians whose amazing ideas and plans are not put into action because of the US. You think our politicians' corruption is fault of the US too? You think that Carlos Menem was ellected twice in Argentina because the US wanted to? If only that were true, millions of Argentines could sleep much better at night.
However, I see we don't have much common ground, since I loathe FARC (as I loathe all violent organizations). They are nothing but a gang of assassing and drug dealers. I'm guessing you condone Ingrid Betancourt's kidnapping. Canyou tell me with a straight face that you support FARC? Have you ever talked to victims of such organization? Have you ever been to the areas of Colombia held hostage by them? I have, and trust me, it's not pretty, not at all. Are you OK with FARC holding hostages for over a decade? That doesn't mean I agree or support Pres. Uribe. However, believing that FARC is an answer for our problems is delusional to say the least.
About Chavez? Let's say I vividly remember the F16 flying over my building on both February, 4th 1992 and Novem ber, 27th 1992 (those are the dates of Chavez's failed coups d'etat). I used to live in Caracas back then...
Caterina!! great to see the rich spoiled Venezuelan back to set the record straight jk of course. excellent information thank you for posting.
as someone who has great knowledge about South America, how would you say America's overall involvement is in regards to south America? extremely negative? positive? very positive? etc..
you can obviously see the extreme bias towards many on this board that America has basically destroyed south America. i was wondering your expert opinion.
hope all is well with you, good to see you again!
Hi there, everything's fine down here in Buenos Aires, thank you . I have to congratulate you on Chicago. I went last October with my hubby and we were mesmerized, it is soooo beautiful!!! We stayed 5 days, but it was not enough at all. Furthermore, Reckcless Record (Wicker Park) is the best record store I've ever been to, I thought nothing could top Bleecker St. Records, but I was wrong.
I was answering in details your questions and either the system or my fingers made my very long post disappear; bummer!
Summarizing, back in the 70's there was US intervention here in South America (same goes for Central America, but I know little about it so I won't comment), but the Soviet Union was also a major player. All left wing guerillas, Montoneros, ERP, FAP, FAR (Argentina) MIR (Chile), Tupamaros (Uruguay) received funding and training by the URSS. So it's not as black&white or as simple as has been stated here. The Cold War was fought in our region and both countries are to blame.
On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was very responsive to HHRR organizations from Argentina and Chile. He sent a OAS special mission to investigate HHRR violations in both countries and he strongly condemned them.
Nowadays? Most local pundits, experts et al say that we're at a moment in time when little attention is paid to our region. Besides Spain, that was significant amounts of money invested, developed countries are focusing on China, India and Africa and in their less than optimal current situation. Of course, there's Chavez blaming the CIA even for dengue outbreaks in Venezuela, but outside Venezuela nobody takes him very seriously, at least in South America. Respected South American politicians are Lula (of course), Michelle Bachelet (Chile) and Tabaré Vazquez (Uruguay)
Hi there, everything's fine down here in Buenos Aires, thank you . I have to congratulate you on Chicago. I went last October with my hubby and we were mesmerized, it is soooo beautiful!!! We stayed 5 days, but it was not enough at all. Furthermore, Reckcless Record (Wicker Park) is the best record store I've ever been to, I thought nothing could top Bleecker St. Records, but I was wrong.
I have been to many places around the world as well as just about every major city in America and I can never get enough of Chicago. especially now, summertime in Chicago is the best. check out these pics I just took from a recent helicopter ride of the city. its just amazing.
I was answering in details your questions and either the system or my fingers made my very long post disappear; bummer!
Summarizing, back in the 70's there was US intervention here in South America (same goes for Central America, but I know little about it so I won't comment), but the Soviet Union was also a major player. All left wing guerillas, Montoneros, ERP, FAP, FAR (Argentina) MIR (Chile), Tupamaros (Uruguay) received funding and training by the URSS. So it's not as black&white or as simple as has been stated here. The Cold War was fought in our region and both countries are to blame.
On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was very responsive to HHRR organizations from Argentina and Chile. He sent a OAS special mission to investigate HHRR violations in both countries and he strongly condemned them.
Nowadays? Most local pundits, experts et al say that we're at a moment in time when little attention is paid to our region. Besides Spain, that was significant amounts of money invested, developed countries are focusing on China, India and Africa and in their less than optimal current situation. Of course, there's Chavez blaming the CIA even for dengue outbreaks in Venezuela, but outside Venezuela nobody takes him very seriously, at least in South America. Respected South American politicians are Lula (of course), Michelle Bachelet (Chile) and Tabaré Vazquez (Uruguay)
Hope all is well with you too...
Russia? yea right. you'll NEVER hear them mentioned here. even when I've posted evidence of them being 99% responsible for the weapons supplied during the Iran/Iraq war, its always the US who are to blame.
anywho, I'm glad you are around to put people in their place. I think one of the biggest things you've proved in your debating is the old cliche "ignorance is bliss". some things just never change.
And my point had nothing to do with excusing past behaviour. Again, I was correcting someone that described our current economy as if it was stuck in the 80's.
i understand that. you repeated them to me as if you were trying to make a point, i was unclear as to what it was. a misunderstanding.
OK, I guess we South Americans are like 300 million morons/puppets with no saying whatsoever in our fate. At least let us own our fuck-ups. It's not like we have brilliant politicians whose amazing ideas and plans are not put into action because of the US. You think our politicians' corruption is fault of the US too? You think that Carlos Menem was ellected twice in Argentina because the US wanted to? If only that were true, millions of Argentines could sleep much better at night.
US involvement has been going on for decades, is still going on. and i'm not saying they are responsible for everything that's ever happened or is happening in south america, but be sure, the United States has spent billions influencing policy in South America, and the current state of the region is due in large part to that legacy, which continues to this day.
I'm sure you've heard of the School of Americas, aka school of assassins. if not i strongly suggest you look into it. it will give you an idea of US attitude toward your entire region.
It interesting. Have you ever been to the states for any period of time? there is NOTHING in the media about south america. ever. its a media blackout, and that's been true for some time. americans have no idea what goes on down there. much like the recent massacre in Peru, not a word in the media and not word from Washington. That's deliberate.
However, I see we don't have much common ground, since I loathe FARC (as I loathe all violent organizations). They are nothing but a gang of assassing and drug dealers. I'm guessing you condone Ingrid Betancourt's kidnapping. Canyou tell me with a straight face that you support FARC? Have you ever talked to victims of such organization? Have you ever been to the areas of Colombia held hostage by them? I have, and trust me, it's not pretty, not at all. Are you OK with FARC holding hostages for over a decade? That doesn't mean I agree or support Pres. Uribe. However, believing that FARC is an answer for our problems is delusional to say the least.
I never said i supported FARC, not once.
About Chavez? Let's say I vividly remember the F16 flying over my building on both February, 4th 1992 and Novem ber, 27th 1992 (those are the dates of Chavez's failed coups d'etat). I used to live in Caracas back then...
[/quote]
chavez is an independent (of the US) socialist candidate. he is opposed for those reasons alone. i'm not saying he's perfect, no government or leader is. what's important is the people of venezuela want him to lead the country. that should be the end of it.
its interesting, chavez isn't even the worst president in south america, in terms of human rights abuses (not even close). i haven't heard one word about the president of Peru, or say Colombia from you or anyone, and both have far worse human rights records than Chavez. I had no idea US propaganda was so effective in your region, but it doesn't surprise me.
i understand that. you repeated them to me as if you were trying to make a point, i was unclear as to what it was. a misunderstanding
My first answer about the economy was to someone named FBsomething who portrayed very inaccurately the current state of South America's economy. Then, you (I'm confused. Do you have two nicknames: Kotov and Commy?) quoted my post and said that growth was not an appropriate measure of success. And then I provided social indicators. That's it.
US involvement has been going on for decades, is still going on. and i'm not saying they are responsible for everything that's ever happened or is happening in south america, but be sure, the United States has spent billions influencing policy in South America, and the current state of the region is due in large part to that legacy, which continues to this day. I'm sure you've heard of the School of Americas, aka school of assassins. if not i strongly suggest you look into it. it will give you an idea of US attitude toward your entire region
Don't need to patronize me. Yes, of course I've heard of the School of Americas. I'm fully aware of their doings, training programs, etc. However I stand by my previous statement, the ultimate responsibles for what has happened and happens in our countries are us, South Americans. I'm not diminishing or denying foreign intervention; but we have made "great" contributions to have the messy region that we have. Also, back in the 60's and 70's the former Soviet Union invested as much money as the US in South America.
It interesting. Have you ever been to the states for any period of time? there is NOTHING in the media about south america. ever. its a media blackout, and that's been true for some time. americans have no idea what goes on down there. much like the recent massacre in Peru, not a word in the media and not word from Washington. That's deliberate.
Yes I've been several times to the US and to various cities, in different periods of time. I was there last October, but forgive me for not conducting a media survey while I'm vacationing. About the conflict in Peru, it is terrible what happened. However, every single newspaper from Argentina and Chile that I've read says the toll death is 34 people: 24 cops and 10 indigenous...too many people dead, but nowhere near the hundreds.
Anyways, I read everyday several US newspapers and blogs, as well as Spaniard, Italian an British newspapers, and I have to say, that other than Spain, coverage of what happens in South America is very scarce.
Here: (Kotov Syndrome » 13 Jul 2009 19:19 )
"Some are still resisting in South America, as in Colombia with FARC"
What did you mean by this?
chavez is an independent (of the US) socialist candidate. he is opposed for those reasons alone. i'm not saying he's perfect, no government or leader is. what's important is the people of venezuela want him to lead the country. that should be the end of it.
its interesting, chavez isn't even the worst president in south america, in terms of human rights abuses (not even close). i haven't heard one word about the president of Peru, or say Colombia from you or anyone, and both have far worse human rights records than Chavez. I had no idea US propaganda was so effective in your region, but it doesn't surprise me.
Chavez is independent from the US? Now, that's funny. To whom do you think Chavez sells most of Venezuela's oil?
About HHRR, I clearly expressed I do not support Uribe's actions in Colombia, when talking about FARC, on a previous post. I did not comment on Peru because nobody asked me. You certainly did not. Why Peruvians elected again someone who bankrupted the country in the early 80's beats me. On the other hand, it's not like they had much to choose from, so I guess they went with the lesser evil (Alan García).
Moreover I think Michelle Bachelet, Tabare Vazquez, Lula and Cristina Kirchner HHRR records are far superior than Chavez's. I don't like Cristina's current goverment, but I admire his/her husband record on HHRR. The thing is that sensible leaders from South America (like Lula, Bachelet and Vazquez) that are making a difference in their respective countries do not get as much coverage as Huguito, simply because they are way less flamboyant and loud.
Yes, US propaganda is very effective. Haven't you seen how Lula, Tabaré Vazquez, Michelle Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner and Fernando Lugo are all extremely pro-US presidents :roll: We're all Manchurian citizens...
Don't need to patronize me. Yes, of course I've heard of the School of Americas. I'm fully aware of their doings, training programs, etc. However I stand by my previous statement, the ultimate responsibles for what has happened and happens in our countries are us, South Americans. I'm not diminishing or denying foreign intervention; but we have made "great" contributions to have the messy region that we have. Also, back in the 60's and 70's the former Soviet Union invested as much money as the US in South America.
Not true at all. Soviet interventionism peaked in the 50's. It could hardly compete with Europe, much less the United States. Moscow was far behind Washington, throughout the entire cold war, in every category that mattered.
The cold war an excuse to intervene all over the world. As was the case in Nicaragua, with the Sandanistas. The people of Nicaragua democratically elect the Sandanistas into power, and the CIA sends in the contras to attack their civilian population. The US cuts of arms to the country, forcing them to turn to the soviets, to defend themselves. Which then legitimized their entire operation- "see they were working with the soviets". forget the war on their civilians. now its drugs in colombia, terrorism in the middle east...always something.
Yes I've been several times to the US and to various cities, in different periods of time. I was there last October, but forgive me for not conducting a media survey while I'm vacationing. About the conflict in Peru, it is terrible what happened. However, every single newspaper from Argentina and Chile that I've read say the toll death is 34 people: 24 cops and 10 indigenous...too many people dead, but nowhere near the hundreds.
Anyways, I read everyday several US newspapers and blogs, as well as Spaniard, Italian an British newspapers, and I have to say, that other than Spain, coverage of what happens in South America is very scarce.
why it took you so long to agree with me is still a mystery.
Here: (Kotov Syndrome » 13 Jul 2009 19:19 )
"Some are still resisting in South America, as in Colombia with FARC"
What did you mean by this?
Resisting US imperialism. You called them drug dealers or something like that, and that may be true, but why its true is important.
Around 1990 the US suspended the Coffee agreement it had with Colombia, for some alleged violation of the free trade agreement. Coffee prices fell 40% in 2 months. And some programs like the food for peace deal is also flooding the market with US products, further undercutting prices. In many cases the farmers have no choice-coffee became worthless for a time, and coca production was the only other viable option.
The idea that a countries resources ought to benefit the people of that country is the issue. US imperialism is of the mind that your country's resources should benefit a few corporations, and there has been resistance to that idea. Some peaceful, some not so peaceful.
Chavez is independent from the US? Now, that's funny. To whom do you think Chavez sells most of Venezuela's oil?
About HHRR, I clearly expressed I do not support Uribe's actions in Colombia, when talking about FARC. I did not comment on Peru because nobody asked me. You certainly did not. Why Peruvians elected again someone who bankrupted the country in the early 80's beats me. On the other hand, it's not like they had much to choose from, so I guess they went with the lesser evil (Alan García).
You're making my point again. That's not a democracy. When you have a choice between 2 candidates that will more or less carry on with things as usual, that's not participation, that's no democracy. It like in the US, we can choose between 2 militant capitalists, and that's the extent of our participation.
As long as the candidate allows corporations access to their resources, all is well. IF they tend to be repressive to indiginous people, or anti union, or against left groups- all the better, and increases your chances of being elected.
Moreover I think Michelle Bachelet, Tabare Vazquez, Lula and Cristina Kirchner HHRR records are far superior than Chavez's. I don't like Cristina's current goverment, but I admire his/her husband record on HHRR violations. The thing is that sensible leaders from South America (like Lula, Bachelet and Vazquez) that are making a difference in their respective countries do not get as much coverage as Huguito, simply because they are way less flamboyant and loud.
Yes, US propaganda is very effective. Haven't you seen how Lula, Tabaré Vazquez, Michelle Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner and Fernando Lugo are all extremely pro-US presidents :roll: We're all Manchurian citizens...
Not true at all. Soviet interventionism peaked in the 50's. It could hardly compete with Europe, much less the United States. Moscow was far behind Washington, throughout the entire cold war, in every category that mattered. The cold war an excuse to intervene all over the world. As was the case in Nicaragua, with the Sandanistas. The people of Nicaragua democratically elect the Sandanistas into power, and the CIA sends in the contras to attack their civilian population. The US cuts of arms to the country, forcing them to turn to the soviets, to defend themselves. Which then legitimized their entire operation- "see they were working with the soviets". forget the war on their civilians. now its drugs in colombia, terrorism in the middle east...always something.
Do you realize that you are giving me as an example a country that's not even geographically located in South America? I'm not discussing Central America here. In South America , the Soviet Union's funding and training was very important for Argentine, Chilean and Uruguayan guerillas. Where do you think most of the money used to fund Montoneros, MIR and Tupamaros came from? Of course they used to kidnap people and rob banks, but when they went to Cuba or Angola for military training it was thanks to the Soviet Union generosity. This is no secret, everybody knows it. Plenty of former Montoneros, Tupamaros and MIRistas have acknowledged so in their autobiographies/ non-fiction books of the time.
why it took you so long to agree with me is still a mystery
Hmm, maybe because you never asked me my opinion about South America's coverage in the first world media. The difference is that I don't attribute the lack of coverage to an obscure plot, it is very reasonable to expect more in-depth coverage of South America in South American newspapers. Same goes for Germany, I don't expect Argentina's newspapers to be the ultimate source for Germany's local politics. Spain and Portugal are in a different situation, mainly because of their huge investments in South America and numerous ties to both countries. Likewise, in Miami -where there are large Venezuelan, Chilean and Argentine communities- there's more in-depth coverage of South America.
Resisting US imperialism. You called them drug dealers or something like that, and that may be true, but why its true is important. Around 1990 the US suspended the Coffee agreement it had with Colombia, for some alleged violation of the free trade agreement. Coffee prices fell 40% in 2 months. And some programs like the food for peace deal is also flooding the market with US products, further undercutting prices. In many cases the farmers have no choice-coffee became worthless for a time, and coca production was the only other viable option. The idea that a countries resources ought to benefit the people of that country is the issue. US imperialism is of the mind that your country's resources should benefit a few corporations, and there has been resistance to that idea. Some peaceful, some not so peaceful.
OK, you really have no idea what FARC is about these days, do you? Colombia's armed conflict is very complex. FARC might have been a valid organization 60 years ago, but for the past 30 years they've done nothing but harm to their own country. Their alliances with the Cartels happened way before 1990. I ask you again, have you ever been to the "zonas liberadas" of Colombia? Areas under FARC control? Have you? I've been and it's devastating, thousands of Colombians displaced from their birthtowns because FARC took control of them.
What about the Bojayá massacre? In 2002 FARC bombed a church and over 70 innocent people died. UN Human Rights Commission report singled out the FARC as the single culprit of the bombing. http://www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinfor ... bojaya.pdf (UN statement)
The kidnappings of Ingrid Betancourt and Clara Rojas were part of FARC's plot of resistance to US imperialism? Both women were held hostage for over five years (left wing candidates for Colombia's presidency). Most of the FARC hostages, hundreds of them, are being solely for money. Not for "political reasons", just for cash, plain and simple. There's people that's been captive for more than a decade.
says the indoctrinated south american
I'm indoctrinated because I don't agree with you? That's your super solid argument? Excuse me, but just because I don't adhere to your line of thought doesn't mean I'm "indoctrinated" or bewitched by US imperialism.
So, Chileans, Argentinians, Brazilians, Uruguayans are all indoctrinated because they won't vote for an anti-capitalistic candidate ? Hmmm, I have to say that especially Chileans are the biggest Kool-Aid drinkers since according to the last Adimark poll over 75% rate favorably Bachelet's government. What if most South Americans want to have governments like those prevailing in the European Union? Why don't you come down here and give us all the red pill so we wake up? The level of condescention is really amazing...
PS: I put my posts in blue, cause it won't let me embed more than 3 quotes, which I thought wasn't doing
Comments
Say Brazil has the 8th largest economy in the world-it has the resources to be 3rd, and today's "success" in no way excuses past US crimes.
The left has been persecuted for decades, as Dom Helderama put it, a priest,
"When I give food to the poor they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist."
The legacy of of the Contras alone should be enough put to rest any question of US invlovement being positive or not. The democratically elected Sandanistas (the people of Nicaragua VOTED them into power in elections considered fair by outside observers) were unacceptable to Washington. In the ten years of brutality that followed some 30,000 Nicaraguans were murdered, many tortured first. Washington gave the people of Nicaragua a choice. Vote for the US backed candidate or face torture and murder and brutality from the US Congress funded Contras.
And economic success is NO indicator of overall success. Hitler's Nazis achieved outstanding economic success in Germany, and as should be obvious, economic indicators and internal repression have nothing to do with each other. So as Caterina put it "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" means absolutely nothing in the context of the thread. I believe Mussolini also had great "performance in economic terms" in Italy. Means nothing.
Good indicators of success include poverty rates, number of hospitals, infant mortality rate, number of schools, legitimate choices on election day, things like that.
And maybe South America is seeing some progress in some of these categories, but it in no way excuses past crimes committed by the US government.[/quote]
I said I was not going to comment on the political issues, mainly due to lack of time to do so. I'm not making excuses or justifying US's meddling in my region, I'm just correcting some inaccurate comments about South America's current socioeconomic situation. I'll insist, about South America, since Nicaragua is located in Central America.
I specifically stated that South America has experienced reductions in poverty, inequality (in some countries), unemployement and an overall improvement in social indicators (literacy rates, mortality rates, etc, etc). Furthermore, I stated that most South American countries are on track to achieve Millenium Development Goals, which are for the most part related to social aspects of the economy (poverty, mortality, gender gaps, etc)
Well, actually for our region this fact: "South America, in particular, has had an outstanding performance in economic terms during the past five years (2003-2008)" has been important, because it has helped our countries to improve living stantards for the underpriviledged. You think Brazil's accomplishments in social indicators would have been possible without the economic success the country has been enjoying since Fernando Henrique Cardozo's first term? Ten years ago only 30% of Brazil's population had been enrolled in high-school. We conducted a national survey in Brazil for a project I'm currently working for (hopefully we'll publish it by the end of the year); data shows that among youth (15-29 years old), enrollment rate has risen up to 70%.
Or, what about Chile since its return to democracy? In 1990, approx. 38% of the population was below the poverty line, whereas these days such percentage is 12%. Furthermore, extreme poverty is about to be eradicated. Of course 12% is one too many poor people, but you cannot deny Chile's extraordinary accomplishments. Indeed Chile is the only country in Latin America (besides Cuba) that has a single digit enfant mortality rate.
PS: I'm familiar with Europe's XX century'shistory. Besides, my grandad (Nonno) was a partigian, he fought in Sicily against the fascists/nazis
PS2: For a change I made a mess with the quoting, so I put my post in blue...
I'm not disputing your numbers, I never said they were incorrect. My point is the state of the region today in no way excuses past crimes. Or crimes that are being committed today. Such as the slaughter of hundreds of indigineous people in Peru, by US supported forces, about which Obama has been absolutely SILENT.
South American countries are client states for the United States. A country is democratic to the extent the people have meaningful participation in the decision making process...which in a capitalist regime is almost none. corporations rule capitalist countries, the US is a perfect example of that. Some are still resisting in South America, as in Colombia with FARC-which the US is spending billions to fight, has little to do with cocaine.
So when you get to choose between 2 US candidates, all is well. But when the will of the people is contrary to the will of the US, as was the case with Chavez, all measures must be taken to correct that problem. And the attempted coup in 2002, staged by US forces, with help from the media it controlled, is a perfect example of that.
South America is democratic to the extent tits counties elect pro-US capitalist presidents.
And my point had nothing to do with excusing past behaviour. Again, I was correcting someone that described our current economy as if it was stuck in the 80's.
OK, I guess we South Americans are like 300 million morons/puppets with no saying whatsoever in our fate. At least let us own our fuck-ups. It's not like we have brilliant politicians whose amazing ideas and plans are not put into action because of the US. You think our politicians' corruption is fault of the US too? You think that Carlos Menem was ellected twice in Argentina because the US wanted to? If only that were true, millions of Argentines could sleep much better at night.
However, I see we don't have much common ground, since I loathe FARC (as I loathe all violent organizations). They are nothing but a gang of assassing and drug dealers. I'm guessing you condone Ingrid Betancourt's kidnapping. Canyou tell me with a straight face that you support FARC? Have you ever talked to victims of such organization? Have you ever been to the areas of Colombia held hostage by them? I have, and trust me, it's not pretty, not at all. Are you OK with FARC holding hostages for over a decade? That doesn't mean I agree or support Pres. Uribe. However, believing that FARC is an answer for our problems is delusional to say the least.
About Chavez? Let's say I vividly remember the F16 flying over my building on both February, 4th 1992 and Novem ber, 27th 1992 (those are the dates of Chavez's failed coups d'etat). I used to live in Caracas back then...
Hi there, everything's fine down here in Buenos Aires, thank you
I was answering in details your questions and either the system or my fingers made my very long post disappear; bummer!
Summarizing, back in the 70's there was US intervention here in South America (same goes for Central America, but I know little about it so I won't comment), but the Soviet Union was also a major player. All left wing guerillas, Montoneros, ERP, FAP, FAR (Argentina) MIR (Chile), Tupamaros (Uruguay) received funding and training by the URSS. So it's not as black&white or as simple as has been stated here. The Cold War was fought in our region and both countries are to blame.
On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was very responsive to HHRR organizations from Argentina and Chile. He sent a OAS special mission to investigate HHRR violations in both countries and he strongly condemned them.
Nowadays? Most local pundits, experts et al say that we're at a moment in time when little attention is paid to our region. Besides Spain, that was significant amounts of money invested, developed countries are focusing on China, India and Africa and in their less than optimal current situation. Of course, there's Chavez blaming the CIA even for dengue outbreaks in Venezuela, but outside Venezuela nobody takes him very seriously, at least in South America. Respected South American politicians are Lula (of course), Michelle Bachelet (Chile) and Tabaré Vazquez (Uruguay)
Hope all is well with you too...
I have been to many places around the world as well as just about every major city in America and I can never get enough of Chicago. especially now, summertime in Chicago is the best. check out these pics I just took from a recent helicopter ride of the city. its just amazing.
http://chicagophotoshop.com/index_new.php?catid=166
If you ever come back and need advice, do not hesitate to ask.
Russia? yea right. you'll NEVER hear them mentioned here. even when I've posted evidence of them being 99% responsible for the weapons supplied during the Iran/Iraq war, its always the US who are to blame.
anywho, I'm glad you are around to put people in their place. I think one of the biggest things you've proved in your debating is the old cliche "ignorance is bliss". some things just never change.
i understand that. you repeated them to me as if you were trying to make a point, i was unclear as to what it was. a misunderstanding.
US involvement has been going on for decades, is still going on. and i'm not saying they are responsible for everything that's ever happened or is happening in south america, but be sure, the United States has spent billions influencing policy in South America, and the current state of the region is due in large part to that legacy, which continues to this day.
I'm sure you've heard of the School of Americas, aka school of assassins. if not i strongly suggest you look into it. it will give you an idea of US attitude toward your entire region.
It interesting. Have you ever been to the states for any period of time? there is NOTHING in the media about south america. ever. its a media blackout, and that's been true for some time. americans have no idea what goes on down there. much like the recent massacre in Peru, not a word in the media and not word from Washington. That's deliberate.
I never said i supported FARC, not once. [/quote]
chavez is an independent (of the US) socialist candidate. he is opposed for those reasons alone. i'm not saying he's perfect, no government or leader is. what's important is the people of venezuela want him to lead the country. that should be the end of it.
its interesting, chavez isn't even the worst president in south america, in terms of human rights abuses (not even close). i haven't heard one word about the president of Peru, or say Colombia from you or anyone, and both have far worse human rights records than Chavez. I had no idea US propaganda was so effective in your region, but it doesn't surprise me.
i understand that. you repeated them to me as if you were trying to make a point, i was unclear as to what it was. a misunderstanding
My first answer about the economy was to someone named FBsomething who portrayed very inaccurately the current state of South America's economy. Then, you (I'm confused. Do you have two nicknames: Kotov and Commy?) quoted my post and said that growth was not an appropriate measure of success. And then I provided social indicators. That's it.
US involvement has been going on for decades, is still going on. and i'm not saying they are responsible for everything that's ever happened or is happening in south america, but be sure, the United States has spent billions influencing policy in South America, and the current state of the region is due in large part to that legacy, which continues to this day. I'm sure you've heard of the School of Americas, aka school of assassins. if not i strongly suggest you look into it. it will give you an idea of US attitude toward your entire region
Don't need to patronize me. Yes, of course I've heard of the School of Americas. I'm fully aware of their doings, training programs, etc. However I stand by my previous statement, the ultimate responsibles for what has happened and happens in our countries are us, South Americans. I'm not diminishing or denying foreign intervention; but we have made "great" contributions to have the messy region that we have. Also, back in the 60's and 70's the former Soviet Union invested as much money as the US in South America.
It interesting. Have you ever been to the states for any period of time? there is NOTHING in the media about south america. ever. its a media blackout, and that's been true for some time. americans have no idea what goes on down there. much like the recent massacre in Peru, not a word in the media and not word from Washington. That's deliberate.
Yes I've been several times to the US and to various cities, in different periods of time. I was there last October, but forgive me for not conducting a media survey while I'm vacationing. About the conflict in Peru, it is terrible what happened. However, every single newspaper from Argentina and Chile that I've read says the toll death is 34 people: 24 cops and 10 indigenous...too many people dead, but nowhere near the hundreds.
Anyways, I read everyday several US newspapers and blogs, as well as Spaniard, Italian an British newspapers, and I have to say, that other than Spain, coverage of what happens in South America is very scarce.
Not true at all. Soviet interventionism peaked in the 50's. It could hardly compete with Europe, much less the United States. Moscow was far behind Washington, throughout the entire cold war, in every category that mattered.
The cold war an excuse to intervene all over the world. As was the case in Nicaragua, with the Sandanistas. The people of Nicaragua democratically elect the Sandanistas into power, and the CIA sends in the contras to attack their civilian population. The US cuts of arms to the country, forcing them to turn to the soviets, to defend themselves. Which then legitimized their entire operation- "see they were working with the soviets". forget the war on their civilians. now its drugs in colombia, terrorism in the middle east...always something.
why it took you so long to agree with me is still a mystery.
Resisting US imperialism. You called them drug dealers or something like that, and that may be true, but why its true is important.
Around 1990 the US suspended the Coffee agreement it had with Colombia, for some alleged violation of the free trade agreement. Coffee prices fell 40% in 2 months. And some programs like the food for peace deal is also flooding the market with US products, further undercutting prices. In many cases the farmers have no choice-coffee became worthless for a time, and coca production was the only other viable option.
The idea that a countries resources ought to benefit the people of that country is the issue. US imperialism is of the mind that your country's resources should benefit a few corporations, and there has been resistance to that idea. Some peaceful, some not so peaceful.
You're making my point again. That's not a democracy. When you have a choice between 2 candidates that will more or less carry on with things as usual, that's not participation, that's no democracy. It like in the US, we can choose between 2 militant capitalists, and that's the extent of our participation.
As long as the candidate allows corporations access to their resources, all is well. IF they tend to be repressive to indiginous people, or anti union, or against left groups- all the better, and increases your chances of being elected. says the indoctrinated south american.
Do you realize that you are giving me as an example a country that's not even geographically located in South America? I'm not discussing Central America here. In South America , the Soviet Union's funding and training was very important for Argentine, Chilean and Uruguayan guerillas. Where do you think most of the money used to fund Montoneros, MIR and Tupamaros came from? Of course they used to kidnap people and rob banks, but when they went to Cuba or Angola for military training it was thanks to the Soviet Union generosity. This is no secret, everybody knows it. Plenty of former Montoneros, Tupamaros and MIRistas have acknowledged so in their autobiographies/ non-fiction books of the time.
Hmm, maybe because you never asked me my opinion about South America's coverage in the first world media. The difference is that I don't attribute the lack of coverage to an obscure plot, it is very reasonable to expect more in-depth coverage of South America in South American newspapers. Same goes for Germany, I don't expect Argentina's newspapers to be the ultimate source for Germany's local politics. Spain and Portugal are in a different situation, mainly because of their huge investments in South America and numerous ties to both countries. Likewise, in Miami -where there are large Venezuelan, Chilean and Argentine communities- there's more in-depth coverage of South America.