Cuba and Castro...

[HonkyTonk]

TQ, I have to admit your first paragraph seems out of character for you.

Debating religion and politics on the Board seems to always bring out the worst in us and I've yet to see it change anybody's mind.

[tranquilizar]

LA, Tonk,

Lighten up! If you get me mad, I'm gonna get you between the eyes with my chewing tobacco.

LA's post on March 26 @9:49AM showed more passion than a Colombiana in bed the second day of her period after 4 months's separation from her husband. My "first paragraph" was said in humor because of the conviction I saw in LA's post. I apologize if it offended you.

Actually, I admire LA because he has taken a strong stand against the recent influx of "macho men" to this board. Instead of trying to reason with these Neanderthals, I should have called them what they were and told them to stay away from our families in South America.

Back to politics: What is really scary is that the populist movement of Castro has spread to Venezuela and now Mexico. The mayor of Mexico City is a strong contender for President in 2006. The Latin American equivalent of CNN is preparing to begin broadcast this year from Venezuela (Chavez is a real champion of free speech, NOT!)

[Lostagain]

Tq., I am a pasionate person in many ways. Just ask my wife. Maybe that's why she (way too young) stays with me( way too old). [img]tongue.gif[/img] As for the facts I stated in my 3/26 @9:49am post, I stand by them 100%. The pasion with which it was stated is, I suppose, in the eye of the reader. Quite frankly, I was really saving my passion for plans for Saturday night. You ought to see me when I really get worked up about an issue.

As for your comment about the populist movement moving to other countries L.Am., your are, in my opinion, absolutely right, only I would have added Argentina to the list. There is a growing popular reaction against uncontrolled capitalism and its affect on the poor. Though Hugo Chavez makes me nervous, we have to accept the fact that he was elected in what all the credible international observers said was a free and fair election. To attempt to throw him out because the neo-cons in Washington don't like him or his politics is the height of hypocracy. If GW cares so much about democracy, then he is just going to have to come to grips with the fact that not everyone wants to elect a government in the image of Karl Rove's dream.

The world won't come to an end if governments in L.Am. move to the left and start feeding and educating their people while putting some limits on the boundless greed of multi-national companies and lending institutions. Remember, its their countries and they have the right to choose any leaders they want, even if some in our country don't like their choices. Better they do it by election than by the nearly endless civil wars that have afflicted Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

I have Italian buddys in Brazil and they confirm that a lot guys from Italy, Germany and Belgium and Canada go to Cuba and they say they are surprised there are not more Gringos. But Cuban women have a serious temper. We can´t find any agencies in Cuba.

[murpho]

LA, while I have much fear and loathing for political institutions in general. The embedded dicotomy in your last statement confuses me. You said

"Remember, its their countries and they have the right to choose any leaders they want, even if some in our country don't like their choices. Better they do it by election than by the nearly endless civil wars that have afflicted Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua."

And you were refering to aaaaaaaa......Cuba? What choice in government do Cubans have? and the governments you listed fought civil wars to get rid of the Samosa's and Sandinista's(Castro's) so all of the countries in your list now have free goverments that they chose..... except of course for Cuba. And shovel the "Keeping the Multi-National Corporations out" crap into the dumpster where it belongs. Castro is the MNC in Cuba, check out Forbes list, he may deny it but he doesn't live like the average cuban. The country was a mess when it was getting billions from the soviets and killing Angolans with its exported revolutions and 90,000 storm troopers. I also fail to see how a "populist" Chavez in Venezuala ordering 100,000 AK-47's and building 7.62mm ammo plant is heart warming anywhere. A thug is a thug and selling it as populist politics is way to 70's to match reality. Castro is the problem that keeps Cuba in the dark ages. But he will die, someday soon, and things will change for the better. I don't thing the U.S. Government is capable of screwing up Cubas as bad as it is (went there twice on fishing trips in the early 90's) GW can't even fight a war for oil, win it and keep gas under 2 bucks a gallon (assuming its not in his best interest...hmmm...we may have been duped)anyway the only sure thing I know is absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And its not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Mahalo
Fear and Loathing in Missouri

[tranquilizar]

LA,
My problem with Fidel, Chavez, Lopez-Obrador (mayor of Mexico City), etc. is that they use the message of populism to garner support of the masses but their economic policies destroy their economies. Chavez is the exception to this because the vast Venezuelan oil reserves generate profits to support his populism while destroying free enterprise, the opposition in his country. U.S. policy has failed our Latin American brothers so the US is used by these charismatic populists to create an anti-US nationalistic frenzy.

[Lostagain]

Yeah, I have the same problem w/ GW. He's used a form of populism to garner support too. And he's destroying our economy with massive creditcard spending and wars that go nowhere. Now he's on a crusade to spread his form of "democracy" provided no one he doesn't like gets elected.

Yes populists can be dangerous. Remember that friendly guy Juan Peron. There was another one in Germany too but he committed suicide after his little adventure in world conquest.

[murpho]

LA and TQ, I think your both dead on with your observations. Although I'm not sure U.S. Policy toward latin america has failed as much as we don't really know what they were intended to do. In general policies designed to enrich the rich are very successful. U.S. policy regarding latin america has always been so scattergun, self serving and corporate oriented while treating them as second class parterners it's little wonder why most of them don't care for us to much. Being a business man I just don't understand the logic in it all. I don't know if its racist or elitist but it just seems if we had spent as much time/money developing relations with our hemisphere with its natural resources (women included) into a European Union style economic bloc we'd be much better served than even our global sphere of influence attempts.

[tranquilizar]

LA, No, I do not agree with GW on everything. Although we are of different color (red & blue) we are in agreement on the majority of subjects. I actually deleted Hitler and Peron from my previous post on this thread because I felt that it was inflamatory.

It appears that murpho agrees also. Does this mean that we are not really red and blue but actually lavender?

[Lostagain]

The media loves to oversimplify us into red and blue because it fits their world of black and white 30 second sound bites. We are all more complicated than that. I think they think, and sadly to some extent they are right, that the American people are incapable in considering complex issues -- that they want everything packaged into a good vs. evil box. Remember in the Kerry campaign, he was roundly criticized by media pundits for trying to "nuance" everything.

Issues are complicated. Economies are complicated. Even sorting out the truth from propaganda becomes a formidable task. We have to come to grips with the fact that there are no solutions to problems because the problems are moving targets that can never be really defined. None of the "ism," be it capitalism, socialism, etc. is the answer. It's always something in between.

With L.Am. there has always been, since before the Monroe doctrine, a dominate school of thought that it is our back yard and we can do what ever suits our momentary interests there. It has been a relationship between the bully and the bullied. Perhaps it's time to let them be with what ever government they choose.