Bolivia and Latin America

[jc4prez]

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.

 

 

I in no way mean any disrespect but wasn't your grandfathers livelihood at stake? He had a lot to loose from communism, where as the many of the poor (not to say your grandfather was or wasn't) weren't benifitng from the cuban economy (centered around tourism).

[bobbob1313]

I in no way mean any disrespect but wasn't your grandfathers livelihood at stake? He had a lot to loose from communism, where as the many of the poor (not to say your grandfather was or wasn't) weren't benifitng from the cuban economy (centered around tourism).

 

It's not just him that disliked Castro. Most of the refugees that come here do, that is what you are missing. In principle, Castro might've helped the poor, but that is not the reality from the people who left.

[jc4prez]

It's not just him that disliked Castro. Most of the refugees that come here do, that is what you are missing. In principle, Castro might've helped the poor, but that is not the reality from the people who left.

 

 

I was just pointing to the reasoning for the initial abandonment of Cuba. As I've said before I can't argue standard of living today. I also don't know the reasoning for said refugees leaving.

 

Many living in poverty would want to come to the united states seeing that we live the high life. The fact that we live this way though is wrong (when so many others suffer), so the fact that people gravitate to the united states has a better standard of living doesn't make that standard good. Therefore it isn't a good standard to judge what a good "standard of living" is.

[Sunken mountain]

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.

Work,his grandfather and mine and a lot of people from Spain are WORKING (if you know what that means:you work and someone pays to you for do something,that

[pillowy star]

I have lived in Santa Cruz/Bolivia from 1979 until 1981, and I think saw 4 different governments coming and going during that time, including military strikes and stuff. The country was in a total mess being governed by e.g. Lydia Geiler (communist) until General Hugo Banzer took over again. What started as him using the army to regain power again, ended up in him being officially elected as President later.

 

I'm observing these new developments with worry, seeing as I've experienced that this country can't seem to function unless it has a strong leader that unifies rather than separating - and as much as I appreciate & understand Moarles' honorable motives.......he's going to fail.

 

The region around Santa Cruz is the richest due to cocaine (yeah let's face it, Bolivia is one of the biggest suppliers for the US, if you don't believe me, ask me for the huge trucks I saw every night loading/unloading tons of bags that looked like flour bags - only the stuff in them wasn't exactly flour ) and gas. They now attempt to become independent, seeing as Morales obviously wants to gain control over the country's natural resources, which secured so far a rather exclusive life for Santa Cruz as well as most obtainable stability for the rest of the country. Seeing as the Banzer family & relatives still live around Santa Cruz and probably still have secret control over army, troops and the likes, this isn't going to end up peacefully.

 

So what is better for a country - being totally independent from the US, having your government rule over worthless land (whilst the richest parts of it have been detached in a military action because otherwise they would have had to fear being dispossessed)......................or leave things as they were the past decades, aka some parts of the country being rich but at least sharing some of their wealth and keeping the US calm with delivering what they wanted to have delivered - which at least provided a bit of stability for everyone rather than ending up in a civil war in the country plus having the US against you?

 

Discuss.

[Sunken mountain]

Well said,Dunja dear.I

[bjorn_skurj]

The U.S. has really, really done Latin America dirty over the past 100-plus years or so. Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala leap to mind immediately. This is why I don't get upset over illegal immigration - it is the least we in America can do to let people from these countries come in and do our shit-work. I would love to see some sort of restructuring of the relationships between us and our neighbors to the south based on fairness and mutual cooperation and respect. The Cuba embargo still may work - let's give it another 20 years or so!

[sweetheart-mine]

The U.S. has really, really done Latin America dirty over the past 100-plus years or so. Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala leap to mind immediately. This is why I don't get upset over illegal immigration - it is the least we in America can do to let people from these countries come in and do our shit-work. I would love to see some sort of restructuring of the relationships between us and our neighbors to the south based on fairness and mutual cooperation and respect. The Cuba embargo still may work - let's give it another 20 years or so!

 

excellent points, bjorn. you are one great antidote to lou dobbs.

[jc4prez]

I have lived in Santa Cruz/Bolivia from 1979 until 1981, and I think saw 4 different governments coming and going during that time, including military strikes and stuff. The country was in a total mess being governed by e.g. Lydia Geiler (communist) until General Hugo Banzer took over again. What started as him using the army to regain power again, ended up in him being officially elected as President later.

 

I'm observing these new developments with worry, seeing as I've experienced that this country can't seem to function unless it has a strong leader that unifies rather than separating - and as much as I appreciate & understand Moarles' honorable motives.......he's going to fail.

 

The region around Santa Cruz is the richest due to cocaine (yeah let's face it, Bolivia is one of the biggest suppliers for the US, if you don't believe me, ask me for the huge trucks I saw every night loading/unloading tons of bags that looked like flour bags - only the stuff in them wasn't exactly flour ) and gas. They now attempt to become independent, seeing as Morales obviously wants to gain control over the country's natural resources, which secured so far a rather exclusive life for Santa Cruz as well as most obtainable stability for the rest of the country. Seeing as the Banzer family & relatives still live around Santa Cruz and probably still have secret control over army, troops and the likes, this isn't going to end up peacefully.

 

So what is better for a country - being totally independent from the US, having your government rule over worthless land (whilst the richest parts of it have been detached in a military action because otherwise they would have had to fear being dispossessed)......................or leave things as they were the past decades, aka some parts of the country being rich but at least sharing some of their wealth and keeping the US calm with delivering what they wanted to have delivered - which at least provided a bit of stability for everyone rather than ending up in a civil war in the country plus having the US against you?

 

Discuss.

Wow really cool that you lived there, id love to hear more about it.

 

So you do agree he has honorable motives.

 

Who then is at fault here? To me it looks like the people of Santa Cruz who want all or nothing. The stability of trade with the united states isn't important, if you hadn't seen Evo was in Iran last week, there are other people to trade with.

 

 

If the war is just is it not worth fighting? Unlike Sunken Mountain I don't think these things "work themselves out". In terms of resources to population, many latin american countries have no need for the poverty they live in. The just thing is for the united states or other countries to HELP leaders like Evo Morales not try to rip down their government.

 

 

And thats why i started this thread. You have leaders trying to help their people and the united states government tries to subvert them. As bjorn said look at the rest of latin america, we aren't helping.

 

 

Thats why i was excited to see Motales and Chavez stand up to Uncle Sam

[bobbob1313]

I just think it is funny that people that actually lived with these guys rule have a very different opinionnof them than do random people in America.

[lost highway]

I would argue that there is a rich variety of opinions regarding Latin American foreign policy coming from any U.S. citizen informed enough to care. If I gather anything from Pillowy Star's experience it is that there is no simple answer, neither a for it or against it, simple and clean enough to account for many of the latin American countries difficult positions.

 

To the best of my knowledge, Bolivia doesn't have land that is inherently worthless. There seems to be some useful resource there and they are now trying to manage it in a way that can get a government off the ground. Really in regards to all of this, the first crooks and criminals that made these countries poor were Spain and Portugal. After they raped and pillaged and revolutions occurred, independent nations were born and the U.S. had someone to pick on/ make money from. Historically every country is unstable and subject to pretty nasty top down governments during their post revolutionary periods. What makes people like Castro, Morales and Chavez so fascinating is their combination of patriotism, tenacity, power hunger and I believe an authentic (and often flawed) interest on what is best for their country.

 

Either way they don't need a U.S. puppet. And any time one of our puppets has gotten kicked to the curb down their the U.S. media has smeared the popular successor.

[Hixter]

(CNN) -- The Venezuelan government has expelled two Human Rights Watch staffers and ordered them not to return, the group said Friday.

 

The men were kicked out of Venezuela on Thursday night, hours after issuing a report in the capital of Caracas that asserted that the 10-year rule of President Hugo Chavez has weakened democratic institutions in the country.

 

Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, and Americas deputy director Daniel Wilkinson were confronted at their hotel and given a letter accusing them of anti-state activities, the organization said Friday.

 

"Their cell phones were confiscated, and their requests to be allowed to contact their embassies were denied," the group said in a written statement. "They were put into cars, taken to the airport and put on a plane to S