Bolivia and Latin America

[mfwahl]

Chavez at two times during his presidency has sought and achieved the power to rule by decree. How freedom-loving is that?

I don't mean to defend him but the people voted no and he didn't have a violent takeover. Doesn't make him mr. stars n stripes but this guy comes from a military background and could do a lot worse. He's not as bad as some of the people our country has supported. I know that doesn't mean much and I dont want it to. There should be more freedoms over there, and if he wasn't all cheesed out like McHammer with this oil money he'd be done.

[jc4prez]

Chavez at two times during his presidency has sought and achieved the power to rule by decree. How freedom-loving is that?

 

How freedom loving is the US invasion of sovereign nations?

 

How freedom loving is the undying support to Israel?

 

The united states has no business over throwing other governments. I can't say I agree with everything either of these men (or any politicians) have done but the united states is in no way morally superior to anyone.

 

I feel for their situation.

[bjorn_skurj]

How freedom loving is the US invasion of sovereign nations?

 

How freedom loving is the undying support to Israel?

 

The united states has no business over throwing other governments. I can't say I agree with everything either of these men (or any politicians) have done but the united states is in no way morally superior to anyone.

 

I feel for their situation.

So, U.S. misdeeds excuse Chavez's?

[jc4prez]

So, U.S. misdeeds excuse Chavez's?

 

 

They do in that his misdeeds don't give them the right to help overthrow his government.

[Sunken mountain]

How freedom loving is the US invasion of sovereign nations?

 

How freedom loving is the undying support to Israel?

 

The united states has no business over throwing other governments. I can't say I agree with everything either of these men (or any politicians) have done but the united states is in no way morally superior to anyone.

 

I feel for their situation.

You must have a walk around,read some good books ,have a drink with your friends, and wait:"time is a great healer"

[bjorn_skurj]

They do in that his misdeeds don't give them the right to help overthrow his government.

I am not in favor of overthrowing the Chavez regime. To his credit, Chavez said he will step down when his term ends in 2013.

[bobbob1313]

How freedom loving is the US invasion of sovereign nations?

 

How freedom loving is the undying support to Israel?

 

The united states has no business over throwing other governments. I can't say I agree with everything either of these men (or any politicians) have done but the united states is in no way morally superior to anyone.

 

I feel for their situation.

 

Not very, though Saddam and the Taliban weren't very freedom loving.

 

I don't think support for Israel is freedom loving nor freedom hating.

 

And as bad as Bush is, Chavez is way worse. It's easy for you to criticize from where you are, but talk to people who's family's left when he took over and you'll see how well liked he is.

 

People romanticize these guys because they "stand up" to the US, but that alone doesn't make them admirable figures.

[Winston Legthigh]

The united states makes a lot of has no business over throwing other governments.

 

fixed it for you.

[jc4prez]

Not very, though Saddam and the Taliban weren't very freedom loving.

 

I don't think support for Israel is freedom loving nor freedom hating.

 

And as bad as Bush is, Chavez is way worse. It's easy for you to criticize from where you are, but talk to people who's family's left when he took over and you'll see how well liked he is.

 

People romanticize these guys because they "stand up" to the US, but that alone doesn't make them admirable figures.

 

 

I wouldn't call Irael's treatment of the palestine people to friendly. Is it not odd we have problems with Iran having nukes but its okay for Israel to?

 

 

The crimes commited by the US government are in no way comparable to anything Venezula has done.

 

You must have a walk around,read some good books ,have a drink with your friends, and wait:"time is a great healer"

 

Right.......................... I'm just going to pretend you didn't say that.

[bobbob1313]

the very fact that you are free to post stuff like this on an alt.country band's message board says a lot about the things you take for granted here.

[ikol]

Chavez is a great leader. He has the balls to stand up to his own people.

[jc4prez]

the very fact that you are free to post stuff like this on an alt.country band's message board says a lot about the things you take for granted here.

 

 

Who are you to tell me what I take for granted?

 

 

Just because I have the freedom to post that doesn't mean that the means the gave me that opportunity were just. Freedom born out of oppression and belligerence is evil.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

hahaha

 

Of course you wouldn't be fond of him/them if you had been wealthy. Its not too different from how most americans would/do refuse to change lifestyle in order to save our planet.

 

Sounds like the 70's around here...

[lost highway]

1. Wilco is not alt-country.

 

2. It's about time Bolivia got it's oil supply feeding into it's own wallet. That's how Mexico pulled itself up a notch in the first half of the 20th century.

 

3. One can not believe anecdotal evidence against Chavez sitting in a country that created a covert op to topple him.

 

4. Castro was the best thing to happen to Cuban politics (a surprisingly modest achievement that doesn't negate some nasty human rights issues).

[jc4prez]

.

 

4. Castro was the best thing to happen to Cuban politics (a surprisingly modest achievement that doesn't negate some nasty human rights issues).

 

 

Sure Cuba might not be that well off but image how they would be without the sanctions that have been held against them.v

[lost highway]

The sanctions began as a knee jerk reaction. The U.S. and cronies thought they could stop Cuba's nationalization with a slap on the wrist, keeping Cuba as their bitch. Didn't work. I hear they're still not on speaking terms, but some Obama guy said he was willing to call and say hello.

[jc4prez]

The sanctions began as a knee jerk reaction. The U.S. and cronies thought they could stop Cuba's nationalization with a slap on the wrist, keeping Cuba as their bitch. Didn't work. I hear they're still not on speaking terms, but some Obama guy said he was willing to call and say hello.

 

 

A slap on the wrist????? If a country is led by a dictator and the country is being starved of outside food, who do you think is going to eat?

 

Sanctions only hurt the people of a nation not their government. Those sanctions were created to starve the people to instigate dissent. Check out this section of Noam Chomsky's "Failed States": pages 112-113

 

That guy called Obama wants similar sanctions to be placed on Iran. In my book thats a human rights crime. And just because Obama wants to talk does not make his intentions pure.

[bobbob1313]

I'll agreebthat our national policy with regards to Cuba is pretty fucked up, but I also don't believe for a second that Castro would be helping his people without the santions. They are just a convenient excuse for him to throw his hands up and say 'look, I can't do anything.'

 

I'm not sureif you've heard, but there are quite a few Cuban refugees living in south florida. It's a lot easier to romanticize Castro if you don't see and hear, everday, the resentmet many of them have for him.

 

(not to mention my grandfather had to flee the country the night Castro took over.)

[lost highway]

(post edit: this is response to jc4prez)

 

Oooh this is getting good. You're smart, and that makes this so much more fun. This is a huge can of worms.

 

My response on Cuba would be: Castro as both the stubborn bastard that refused to compromise at the cost of his nation's poor and starving, he also was the stubborn bastard who refused to compromise, very much to the benefit of his nation's poor and starving. Every before and after comparison I've read on Castro's Cuba shows an improvement in education and quality of life overall (with the same obvious exceptions regarding intolerance towards religious peoples and homosexuals). The pain of the underfed in Cuba is just as much, if not moreso a product of the U.S.A.'s anti-communist mania, and bastard stubbornness as it is Castro.

 

On Obama/Iran: The difference here is nuclear weapons and outright aggression. We aren't going to sanction Iran for being nationalists, they've been up to that for a while. This brings us into the same ethical knot: Would Obama be at fault for sanctioning against an aggressive nation, or would the nations leader be at fault for not backing down? I would guess from your previous post you would fault them both and side with the poor who will bear the brunt of it all.

 

There was the Cuban Missile Crisis which brings a tidy symmetry to your comparison, but I can't help but feel Iran is a more dubious subject for paranoia than Cuba and Russia. That and Kennedy worked well with the U.N. to work things out with Russia more carefully than Bush has ever given the United Nations a sideways glance.

 

In any case, Obama's stance on being open to communication with hostile nations is founded on the most simple reasonability. The apparent 'controversiality' of it only shows what a dumb bunch of rock throwing boy scouts America has become.

[viatroy]

Kennedy and Kruschev together resolved the crisis, despite the hawkish provocations suggested by their advisors on both sides.

 

 

As far as Venezuela and Bolivia go, we don't like the fact that Chavez (hugely popular with all but the aristocratic class) has chosen to keep his country's oil profits in his own country to support their infrastructure, rather than banking it in NY. He's been a big supporter of other South American countries whose economies and popular democratic governments had been decimated by US and IMF policies. It started with the US backed coup in Argentina, because "we" wanted someone (Pinochet) who'd play the corporate game in favor of US corporations, regardless of the devastation to their own citizenry.

 

Naomi Klein does an excellent job of dissecting our interference in SA, and the native efforts to fight back against it.

[jc4prez]

I'll agreebthat our national policy with regards to Cuba is pretty fucked up, but I also don't believe for a second that Castro would be helping his people without the santions. They are just a convenient excuse for him to throw his hands up and say 'look, I can't do anything.'

 

I'm not sureif you've heard, but there are quite a few Cuban refugees living in south florida. It's a lot easier to romanticize Castro if you don't see and hear, everday, the resentmet many of them have for him.

 

(not to mention my grandfather had to flee the country the night Castro took over.)

 

 

There is no way to prove what Castro would or would not do.

 

I am well aware many Cubans are/were unhappy with the communist take over, I don't know what your grandfather was doing in Cuba (although i'd love to hear) but I know most cubans were not benefiting from cuba's economy pre-castro. Since their are no statistics available on the percentage of Cubans living below the poverty line or how their standing of living has improved or decreased in the past 60 years.

 

If I remember correctly cuba's economy was doing alright until the collapse of the soviet union which they are still recovering from.

[bobbob1313]

And from everything I'm hearing down here, the Castros are not dealing with the effects of this hurricane season. I've seen reports of the government confiscating cameras from people who were trying to take pictures of the destruction.

 

I'll take the flaws of our country over the inability to speak my mind in the simplest ways.

[bobbob1313]

There is no way to prove what Castro would or would not do.

 

I am well aware many Cubans are/were unhappy with the communist take over, I don't know what your grandfather was doing in Cuba (although i'd love to hear) but I know most cubans were not benefiting from cuba's economy pre-castro. Since their are no statistics available on the percentage of Cubans living below the poverty line or how their standing of living has improved or decreased in the past 60 years.

 

If I remember correctly cuba's economy was doing alright until the collapse of the soviet union which they are still recovering from.

 

My grandfather was Cuban, and he lived there his whole life, working as a singer. He had spoken out against Castro, and was forced to flee in the night. I'm really not willing to give Castro the benefit of the doubt, since I've seen first hand what people from before he took over and much more recently think of him.

 

I'll take the word of people who have lived in his country over Noam Chomsky's word.

[jc4prez]

(post edit: this is response to jc4prez)

 

On Obama/Iran: The difference here is nuclear weapons and outright aggression. We aren't going to sanction Iran for being nationalists, they've been up to that for a while. This brings us into the same ethical knot: Would Obama be at fault for sanctioning against an aggressive nation, or would the nations leader be at fault for not backing down? I would guess from your previous post you would fault them both and side with the poor who will bear the brunt of it all.

 

There was the Cuban Missile Crisis which brings a tidy symmetry to your comparison, but I can't help but feel Iran is a more dubious subject for paranoia than Cuba and Russia. That and Kennedy worked well with the U.N. to work things out with Russia more carefully than Bush has ever given the United Nations a sideways glance.

 

In any case, Obama's stance on being open to communication with hostile nations is founded on the most simple reasonability. The apparent 'controversiality' of it only shows what a dumb bunch of rock throwing boy scouts America has become.

 

 

You are right on my opinion on Iran, both are wrong. I do believe Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy if we do.

 

And you are so right. If there really is a "war on terror" and we are supposedly "vulnerable" we have no business making demands. And as I keep stating we have no business infringing on the sovereignty of other nations.

[bobbob1313]

Who are you to tell me what I take for granted?

 

 

Just because I have the freedom to post that doesn't mean that the means the gave me that opportunity were just. Freedom born out of oppression and belligerence is evil.

But it's better than a life in chains born from opression and belligerence.