Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i think lula is doing as well as a latin american persident can do within the circumstances. he's made efforts to combat hunger for which i applaud him. as for bush, please expand, i don't know what you mean by "great". 2 things though, a) brazil wants to establish itself as an independent power in the region b) any latin american country that does not want to become a pariah needs to keep some sort of ties with the u.s. this obviously creates tension. but i don't see what you mean though...
well i love kirschner for prosecuting those murderous motherfuckers, and i don't care if he had to lift an amnesty to do it. purging the armed forces = good. removing corrupt judges = good. peronism is shit and thank god that that gangster menem withdrew from the election. kirschner is a lot more decent guy but if you realize in what kind of hellhole argentina was before him you'll see he's done a pretty good job.
and getting from under the IMF IS a nationalist issue because the IMF likes to go in & boss people around & remove any kind of sovereignty countries have. sort of if like your credit card companies came into your house and told you you have to reduce your children's meals from 3 to 1 a day so you can pay them. no sir, no! the IMF is a disgrace and they are HATED across the world.
oh this is fun. thanks for knowing about this shit, frankly it's a rare opportunity fo rme as well...
|
To be honest, poking fun being friend with Bush is just too easy of a target! Perhaps a little unfair, as their relationship is timid at best. However, its interesting to read some of the things that Lula has said about the United States that has basically gone unnoticed by most publications. I'm referencing the outstanding Foreign Affairs periodical for this, but Lula has been known to refer to America as an 'imperialistic empire', the usual spiel.
You bring up a fascinating topic about power in Latin America being channeled through having a good relationship with the United States. Its important, without a doubt. But I don't think its nearly as important as it was in the past. Just look at Hugo Chaves, probably the best example of this. He's made every attempt to agitate and mock the United States. Almost weekly! In doing so, he has legitimized Venezuela on the world stage, and made more friends than enemies. Evo Morales is running Bolivia into the ground, but he experiences immense popularity through out Latin America, not just with his indigenous core anymore. Chile has icy relations at best with America, but has seen the most sustainable growth in all of Latin America, even without dialog with America.
I think the United States has been burning its bridges with Latin America for the better part of the last twenty years, and its starting to show!
Make sure you know, I am no friend of the IMF or World Bank!! I only think Kirschner should be held accountable for his part in Argentina's decline. Granted it's not nearly as bad as it was, which he deserves credit for. But when it was happening, he was left out of any discussion. Just like similar IMF induced debacles in Africa, corruption at the national level contributes to the IMF's notoriously failed policies.
I rarely get to have these discussions as well! Imagine me brining up Venezuela's flailed labor and land reform policies in South Omaha bar. Ah. Even the Venezuelan ex pats here could give a shit less.