Brazzil

"the offing of the elected president of Honduras"

"Offing?" He seems quite alive to me

This entire article is very confusing to the readers. It gives an impression that the original article in "The Economist" was summarized and translated into Portuguese and published in another magazine "Principio" by Mr.Pedro de Oliveira. The only addition to that article is:

It would be the case now to ask the English editors if it is not exactly the United States - with the redeployment of the Fourth Fleet, with bases in Colombia, and the offing of the elected president of Honduras (where other bases could be installed) - the party most interested in destabilizing democratic and popular governments at quantity and quality levels never seen before in the history of Latin America.

Then we see Ms.Tereza Braga translating the original material with this addition back to English and publishing it in this magazine. This addendum erroeneuosly reports the demise of the "elected president of Honduras"!!

What an informative article.

Here is the link to the original article and another of interest.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14214011

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14229460

Thanks for the links, Guest. Both Ricardo and Augustus should read them and especially the comments made by the Brasilians!!! I especially liked the comments made by "Clarissa 1982"!!

BTW, I don't intend commenting in "The Economist" over the article.

I think that this magazine "Principio" is published by the Philosophy department of the Federal University of RN and I am not sure about the circulation figures.

Yes, I read “The Economist” August 15th – 21st, 2009 issue and the various articles about Brazil.

It seems to me that “The Economist” is finally catching up to my articles that were published on Brazzil magazine in the last few years.

Maybe someone at “The Economist” read my comments on the comments section of the following article that were published about 2 weeks before “The Economist” published their information.

The Economist also published on that issue an article about Brazil and China “The dragon in the backyard” – and they start that article: “Latin America is tilting towards China, Iran and the global “south” – and away from the United States.”

If the people at The Economist had been reading my articles published on Brazzil magazine and my posting on the Elite Trader Economics Forum then they would have realized that many years ago.

The article also mentioned the $ 10 billion dollars that China is lending to Petrobras. If The Economist had been reading my articles about China investing in Brazil, and the article about the nationalization of Petrobras, then they would know why China is following that strategy.

The Economist also mentioned on that article the Monroe Doctrine and they still are ignorant of the “Andrada Doctrine.”

You can read what I had posted on many of these subjects 2 weeks before the “The Economist” published their articles about Brazil at:

“Having Learned from US Mistakes China Goes Soft to Win Brazil and LatAm's Hearts” - Thursday, 30 July 2009

http://www.brazzil.com/compone...earts.html


Any way, it seems to me that Brazzil magazine has been years ahead of “The Economist” in many of these issues.

Basically, there was nothing new on this “The Economist” article that I had not already mentioned on my articles that were published on Brazzil magazine over the years.

.

a few not well published facts :

- Colombia politicians are going to decide shortly if their President can/could have a THIRD TERM ! Somewhat curious because for now the actual President at his second term, has apparently not asked anything....officially ! Time will tell in the not so distant future !

- Chavez the cheater and the clown has also already agreed that russian base(s?) will be built in his country !

As to Robbing Hook actual decision to not look for a third term : well, he may change his mind until about May/June 2010 !
Thus taking his word for granted is somewhat ridiculous...until proven otherwise ! I am not saying he will or will not be candidate for a third term. But I wont bet the he will not !

Latam countries are always full of surprises. Such as Argentina pimp Kirchner who then had his bimbo elected !
Highly unlikely that the great looking Cecilia will ever replace Sarko. This happens only in strange mentalities countries.
We already had seen it previously also in Argentina with Peron and Evita !!!!!

Eventually China will also oblige one or more Latam countries to accept their military bases...against more financing and imports from them ! After all they too will want to protect their supply of agricultural and hard but cheap commodities !

Just like Joao I wont comment.


But as I stated more than once in the past, Lula was just at the right place at the right time.....RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM !

By the way so is Ohhhhhhlala (Obama) !

Facts are that had you put a monkey as President of Brazil or the USA, the economic recovery will have taken place anyway !
Hilary or McCain, had they been elected, would have done no different whatever different strategy they had in mind !
100 times more easy to be elected after an abyss than at the top as Bush was initially elected !
I cant repeat enough that a monkey would have done just as good as Robbing Hook or Ohhhhhlala !
But no doubt both will make sure it was their strategy that made the ensuing economic recovery and no doubt they will get ALL the applauses from blinded people who happen to be the vast majority of all societies !

After the winter come spring then summer then autumn and then....winter again !
And we humans act no differently ! Just put a monkey at the helm of a country in a freezing winter, spring & summer & autumn will still follow !

Hey hey !

The Economist also mentioned on that article the Monroe Doctrine and they still are ignorant of the “Andrada Doctrine.”

That is a very good comment, Ricardo.Hats off to you.

Any way, it seems to me that Brazzil magazine has been years ahead of “The Economist” in many of these issues.

Yes, though this Magazine was founded only in 1989 and still is trying to understand Brasil! If you could write an article about "Andrada Doctrine", it would make a great reading. I am not a historian, but I know a bit about this doctrine. I am sure this article will help the rest of the world to understand our "traditional" diplomacy a bit better. After all, Brasil is not just the land of Soccer and Carnival!!!

Reply to Joao da Silva

This is a very timely subject to remind of all of us of the “Andrada Doctrine” since we are supposed to commemorate the anniversary of Brazil’s independence on September 7.

I wrote about the “Andrada Doctrine” and you can read it on Part II of my 2-part article: “Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas.”

Quoting from that article: “The Andrada Doctrine

In May 30, 1822, Brazil through the “Andrada Doctrine” became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere. Here is the actual history of Brazilian leadership in the Americas….”

You can read the rest of the article on the above web link that I mentioned.


*****


As the author of the above article said: “Recently, capitalism 'bible' The Economist, published in London since September 1843…”

I am not surprised that The Economist still is ignorant of the “Andrada Doctrine” – First they could read information about the “Monroe Doctrine” because of their common language “English.” And we could not expect them to be literate in “Portuguese” the language of the “Andrada Doctrine.”

Second, when Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva established on May 30, 1822, Brazil through the “Andrada Doctrine” became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere.

One fact that still is foreign to most people today is that in the world of 1822, Brazil was a much more important country in the Americas than the United States.

The United States at that time still was just a toddler taking their first steps – and a country that had adopted a recent and a new form of government after its independence from England in 1776.

But in 1822, Brazil already had been for many years the center of the Portuguese Empire and the King of Portugal had been living in Brazil with its court since 1808 – and he had been running his show from Brazil.

When Prince Dom Pedro asked José Bonifácio to be his Prime Minister in 1822, the Prince Regent was aware that he could not find a more qualified person for that job in Brazil. José Bonifácio told the Prince Regent that he would accept the position only when allowed to impose his unlimited authority.

Dom Pedro did not hesitate. He armed José Bonifácio with the highest level of authority possible. The investiture of José Bonifácio carried with it the most extensive powers that any minister had in the history of the imperial or republican Brazil – then José Bonifácio became the Prime Minister in January 17, 1822.

And even before Jose Bonifacio had designed and implemented the plan for Brazilian independence (September 7, 1822) he became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues for our continent.


*****


In South America we don’t care about the Monroe Doctrine, it does not mean a thing for Brazilians for example, and you should read the following articles to educate yourself about South America and foreign policy:

1) Brazzil Magazine - February 2005
“Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas – Part I”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/1360/49/


2) Brazzil Magazine - February 2005
“Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas – Part II”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/1425/49/


After you read these 2 articles you will understand that the Monroe Doctrine means something only to Americans and the USA. But it means nothing to the countries of South America, including Brazil.

.

oh god, this boggles the mind...exactly part of the problem of people stigmatising the usa.

what has the usa done to south america in the last 23 years ? except for bush jumping the gun and recognising the failed coup against chavez, the answer is.......nothing

they didnt have anything to do with hondorus and as a matter of fact obama is catching holly hell at home from concervitives for not jumping in and supporting the coup, and holly hell from chavez and castro for not militarily invading hondoras and putting zelaya back...cant win either way so f**k everybody

the usa hasnt really had a policy in south america in this time, they do a hell of a lot of business...but trying to infiltrate or manipulate countries or stand up to anyone in south america, there is nothing to look at...

the fleet ? my god, coke has a free highway to get to the states . the usa has a right to invest in trying to police these free highways.i personaly think the war on drugs is ridicuals, but, if people arnt going to face the reality of it , something has to be done to try to stem the coke that is making thugs into some of the wealthiest people anywhere.and seriously affecting the south american dynamic , including brazil...there are a huge amount of coke busts going on all the time, the drug is in brazil and causing a lot of hell

again ,no mention of how chavez and correa and who knows who else in their circle, are deeply involved with farc and all the instability to that region that they bring.and all the money they make off the coke...

and if these people are blatently supporting farc and letting them hide out in their boundreis, colombia has every right to invite the usa in to help them.the hypocricy and implicating the usa as a destabalising factor instead of mentioning the farc and its bs , is mind boggling...absolutly mind boggling

Colombia....Colombia !

Brilliant comments. BUT.....BUT.... you mentioned:

Highly unlikely that the great looking Cecilia will ever replace Sarko.

Who is this Cecilia? Has Sarko again changed his wife???

Your buddy Sarko is coming to Brasil. Read the following link:

http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/nacional,franca-quer-parceria-nas-areas-nuclear-e-espacial,430389,0.htm

Hope he brings his new wife.

Asp: again ,no mention of how chavez and correa and who knows who else in their circle, are deeply involved with farc and all the instability to that region that they bring.and all the money they make off the coke...


*****


Ricardo: Because they are irrelevant, and very old news.


*****


Asp: what has the usa done to south america in the last 23 years?


*****


Ricardo: Ignore it.

That is why South American countries started looking for new markets around the world.

And now, that the US lost most of its influence in South America, the US want to recover that influence by showing military force.

But the South Americans are not buying it, and they know that the days of the US as a superpower for all practical purposes is over.

In the meantime we all are going to watch the United States die a slow death in Afghanistan – the burial ground to former superpowers.

.

Oops

http://www.estadao.com.br/noti...0389,0.htm

In a Nutshell:

Afghanistan is the final “Aquiles heal” of the United States.

.

“França quer parceria nas áreas nuclear e espacial com Brasil”
http://www.estadao.com.br/noti...0389,0.htm


*****


Ricardo: I mentioned that strategy in one of my articles many years ago, and some people laughed about that prospect.

I believe was in one of the articles that I wrote about Brazil and nuclear weapons.

I am 100 percent in favor of such partnership.

Brazil is in the process of closing a major deal with France regarding the purchase of French technology.

.

A very interesting point Ricardo made by making the following comment:

Asp: what has the usa done to south america in the last 23 years?


Ricardo: Ignore it.

That is why South American countries started looking for new markets around the world.

As you are an American who lives here and appreciates both cultures and politics, I suggest you read a bit about "Andrada Doctrine", as suggested by Ricardo.

As for Ricardo´s statement:

In the meantime we all are going to watch the United States die a slow death in Afghanistan – the burial ground to former superpowers.

Though I wouldn't go to the extent of calling Afghanistan as the "Aquiles heel" of the U.S., my prediction is that it is going to be the "Vietnam II". The Brits couldn't tame it nor the Russians, if you recall the history.

IMHO, BHO is doing in Afghanistan exactly what LBJ did in 1964 in Vietnam. Our distinguished fellow blogger Forrest would vouch for it.

chc, i'm not sure the economic recovery in the us is for real. all 'rational' indicators point to current 'green shoots' being the result of massive govt. spending. i'm not sure how long this can be sustained.

today the us situation is a cross between the ussr in the late 1980s' right below it's collapse & japan in 1990 after it's equity & re bubbles burst.

ussr = military component; japan = economic component.

I am 100 percent in favor of such partnership.

Brazil is in the process of closing a major deal with France regarding the purchase of French technology.

I am against. I don't think that you remember what the French did during the Falklands war and Gulf War I. I just don't trust the French, especially their current "Headman". BTW, IMHO, the French are more racists than the Anglos. Have you forgotten their role in Algeria, Vietnam, etc;?

Now I understand what Gen.Paiva meant when he talked about the "European Metropolis".

"I am against. I don't think that you remember what the French did during the Falklands war and Gulf War I. I just don't trust the French, especially their current "Headman". BTW, IMHO, the French are more racists than the Anglos. Have you forgotten their role in Algeria, Vietnam, etc;?"

I agree with you 100%, I do not trust them either. Unfortunately, some people seems to forget or have short memories.

If you have no idea what I and João are refering to do your own research and while you are doing it do not stop with Algeria and Vietnam, look at the Caribbean, South America, South Pacific, South East Asia, Africa and France. There is a common thread which runs through all of there places in regards to the french and their policies. These words, "Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité" are only meant for a few, and Brazilians are not included.

There is a common thread which runs through all of these places in regards to the french and their policies. These words, "Liberté, Égalité, and Fraternité" are only meant for a few, and Brazilians are not included.

in this 23 year period, south america did enormous business with the usa, including hugo...with unprecedented growth

im talking about destabalising the area... your flipant answer only agrees with me.

i cant beleive how ignorant you choose to be about the damage happening in your country because of the real destabalising factors.i live here, i see it... you dont.your blindness weakons your points enormously....

afghanastan ? that really depends on the afghan people, if they let the talaban mingle with them and dont do their part to keep them and sharia law out, the talaban will not be defeated. if they play games and be false and hide them and do their bidding, they will get them back

look what they do in pakistan. the talaban are true scum. people who actualy consider sharia law, deserve it

jose roberto barbosa, king of cocaine traficing in the north /north east, manaus, sao luis,belem de para, busted. the route of his cocaine is armed guerelas from colombia through venezuela....

that sure wouldnt be the paramilitaries or the group of abadeos...its obvious where it came from...this aint just a little run, this was the king of cocaine dealing in the north north east, with a gigantic cronic hemmoriging comming in from venezuela from colombian revolutionaries...

now lets see, this goes along with proven reports of the gigantic sao paulo gang the pcc doing business for arms and drugs with the colombian revolutionary farc, and, fernando beira mar caught directly with this group as well a recent report that two of his leutenants were noted still doing business with the farc....

bust after bust after bust in brazil for cocaine...brazil has become the route for cocaine to europe...and is ransacking the country. crack cocaine is at epidemic preportions where i live...this aint yesterday , this is today

what in the godamn hell does it take to get through to south americans like you , that this is truly the destabalisation of south america. yet people like you and other south americans throw out the ridiculas speculation that the usa is a destabalising factor coming in to steal your recources...!!?? recources its going to negogiete for , just like china, iran, russia , india ,europe etc ,not steal...

the fact that south american countries wont band together to do what it really takes to stem this cancer , it really speaks volumes about the real problems in south america

and you just think its irrevelant....your opinions are becoming irrelavent to me with your logic....

and , hey, its fine with me if brazil administration officials dont want to get involved with teaming with colombia to really try to stem this problem. i dont look for that, or hold it against brazil...

but its the brazilian people who are suffering because of this ( of course some are profiting )...

and you cant bulls**t me about the usa coming in just to try to prepare to invade someone for recources...go bulls**t someone else, but you cant bulls**t me with that crap

like i said, your answers are unaceptable to me, and to the people suffering under the madness of the cocaine glut in brazil

I agree with you 100%, I do not trust them either. Unfortunately, some people seems to forget or have short memories.

What is so ironic about the whole issue is that we were discussing about the "Andrada Doctrine" and Ricardo wrote a couple of interesting things:

This is a very timely subject to remind of all of us of the “Andrada Doctrine” since we are supposed to commemorate the anniversary of Brazil’s independence on September 7.

Absolutely correct. September 7th is an important day for Brasil, though the younger generation of Brasilians consider it just like any other holiday without fully understanding the significance of the day.

Second, when Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva established on May 30, 1822, Brazil through the “Andrada Doctrine” became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere.

Note this:defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere.

The ironic thing is Sarko is going to participate in the Independence Day (parades included) in Brasilia tomorrow and sign the defense agreement which includes Submarines as well as Fighter jets. ie. Naval & Air Defense entrusted to the French!!!! Poor Andrada must be rolling in his grave.

Shortly we will have French defense equipment. Chavez will have Russian hardware. Columbia has signed a defense agreement with the U.S. and it is almost certain that Uribe will be elected and re-elected again. No wonder Augustus wrote a timely article about "Polarization Of Latin America". Would love to hear his views on the latest development.

Joao da Silva: Though I wouldn't go to the extent of calling Afghanistan as the "Aquiles heel" of the U.S., my prediction is that it is going to be the "Vietnam II". The Brits couldn't tame it nor the Russians, if you recall the history.


*****


Ricardo: The United States never learns any lessons from history.

They are as thick as they come.

The French as glad when they found a sucker to transfer the mess in Vietnam = United States.

Only a very foolish country would expand a war in Afghanistan, after what they did to the Soviet Union in the 1980’s.

Again the sucker is = United States.

I thought that Barack Obama was smarter than that.

But since he became president of the United States in January 2009 he doubled the number of soldiers in Afghanistan. And that has been the biggest mistake he has made since becoming president of the United States.

Only a FOOL would expand that war.


*****


Joao da Silva: I am against. I don't think that you remember what the French did during the Falklands war and Gulf War I. I just don't trust the French, especially their current "Headman". BTW, IMHO, the French are more racists than the Anglos. Have you forgotten their role in Algeria, Vietnam, etc?


*****


Ricardo: Sorry about my ignorance, I know the world history regarding the French involvement in Algeria, and also in Vietnam, but I don’t recall anything regarding the French involvement on the Falklands war and also the Gulf War I.

The Falklands war I remember as a war between England and Argentina, and the Gulf War I – I remember that there were too many countries involved on that war.


*****


Joao da Silva: If you have no idea what I and João are refering to do your own research and while you are doing it do not stop with Algeria and Vietnam, look at the Caribbean, South America, South Pacific, South East Asia, Africa and France. There is a common thread which runs through all of there places in regards to the french and their policies.


*****


Ricardo: I never suggested anywhere in my writings, that Brazil should become a colony of France.

All I hope for is that Brazil can get from France all kinds of advanced know how regarding nuclear technology.

.

The French was glad when they found a sucker for them to transfer the mess in Vietnam = United States.

I agree 100% with everything you wrote in this thread.

It is funny that R. Amaral said Brasil was more important than U.S in 1822 (it made me laugh
And he did not explained why, instead he made a foal of himself by saying U.S. was already independent From England, and Brasil stil a colony of Portugal... Holy Molly...LOL...
You don't have to be a historian to see this crapy argumentation. U.S. independent, with the likes of B. Franklyn, Whashington, and so on... and a constitution?!?!?!?!
LOL!!!!!!!

With the exception of two brief moments in Brazil’s 187 years history (the periods 1864-1870 and 1943-1945), when its armed forces formally participated in international conflicts (the War of the Triple Alliance, Word War II), the nation’s Foreign Office (Itamaraty) has consistently and successfully conducted an entirely neutral Foreign Policy, thereby avoiding the formation of significant (foreign financed) domestic opponents, and the emergence of political enemies and economic adversaries in the International arena.

With the exception of major terrorist attacks (9/11) or military invasions (Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979) when the Brazilian government joined the overwhelming majority of nations in common protest, the nation’s foreign office has been effective in its efforts to maintain its traditional Neutral posture thereby escaping antagonistic reactions from potential rivals which might have otherwise financed homegrown revolutionary movements as well as declared enemies or military alliances which might have engaged in activities against its national interests.

As such, Brazil was able to attain its rather unique current status of mediator, peace keeper, trade partner with various groups of nations, some of which stand in direct military, political or economic position to one another. Respected equally in Washington, Havana, London or Caracas the “ideal position” enjoyed by Brasilia might be considered the envy of the community of nations.

Yet, given the existing increased level of global involvement, such as its active role in G-20 meetings, special invitations to attend G-8 summits, direct involvement in new international forums (IBSA and BRIC), leading and founder responsibilities within regional groups (Mercosur and Unasur), not to mention its ardent pursuit to secure a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, I fully agree the one of the main arguments made by the Economist whereby the days of convenient Brazilian neutrality are numbered.

Their critics argue that Brazil should seek to integrate South America on the basis of rules, rather than political sympathy, and that by proclaiming regional leadership it risks becoming the target of regional grievance

Because all principal countries have historically found themselves at certain critical moments/positions, when they were compelled to take sides regarding general as well as specific issues, in order for Brazil to remain a responsible and widely respected nation its government can no longer afford attempting to “stay in the middle” and please very faction.

Since Brazil intends to join the party where the “Big Boys hang”, it can no longer “have the cake and also eat it”…

How would Brazilians (or... say, Swedish or Bulgarians) REACT in the event they were to notice the existence of a Foreign Resident or Nationalized Citizen who consistently and passionately engaged in VIRULENT anti-Brazilian (or... say, anti-Swedish or anti-Bulgarian) comments and/or editorials throughout the internet?

Likewise, in case I were a foreign resident in Brazil (or Sweden / Bulgaria) and felt so STRONGLY about my host country, I suspect that I might feel terribly uncomfortable maintaining my foreign resident - GUEST - status whereas taking every opportunity to publicly attack my HOSTS...

What about you, JOAO?

Larissa: It is funny that R. Amaral said Brasil was more important than U.S in 1822 (it made me laugh and he did not explained why, instead he made a foal of himself by saying U.S. was already independent From England, and Brasil stil a colony of Portugal... Holy Molly...LOL...

You don't have to be a historian to see this crapy argumentation. U.S. independent, with the likes of B. Franklyn, Whashington, and so on... and a constitution?!?!?!?!
LOL!!!!!!!


*****


Ricardo: I can tell by your posting that you have a 4th grade level education. I made you laugh because your reading comprehension is at the 4th grade level. And you did not even was able to grasp that I gave the explanation on my posting - the explanation that was away above your 4th grade level intellectual and reading comprehension.

If there’s anything laughable here is your statement: “You don't have to be a historian to see this crapy argumentation. U.S. independent, with the likes of B. Franklyn, Whashington, and so on... and a constitution?!?!?!?!
LOL!!!!!!!”

That shows your complete ignorance about Brazilian history and the history regarding the people involved on the Brazilian independence from Portugal.

I bet that on your little ignorant world you believe that the United States was already a major world power around 1822, and that the US territory was about the same size of the United States that we have today.

I wonder if you even have any idea of know how many states they had in the US at that time?

By the way, today is a good day for you to start learning about Brazilian independence and about JBAS and his brothers.

You figure out why today is a very special day for Brazil?

.

Augustus: Wondering about appropriate conduct… JOAO???

How would Brazilians (or... say, Swedish or Bulgarians) REACT in the event they were to notice the existence of a Foreign Resident or Nationalized Citizen who consistently and passionately engaged in VIRULENT anti-Brazilian (or... say, anti-Swedish or anti-Bulgarian) comments and/or editorials throughout the internet?


*****


Ricardo: I talk to other members of this forum and they refer to you as that pompous, neurotic BS artist.

Then I realized that many more members that are participating on the discussions of this forum and are reading your postings must have that same impression of you and of your postings.

And now you are trying to intimidate me with your cheap brand of censorship.

You can write all the garbage that you want about Chavez, South America, and so on here on Brazzil magazine…and I will defend your right to express your opinion, because I believe in freedom of expression and the press.

Your Dick Cheney brand of censorship does not cut here in the United States.

By the way, your idol Dick Cheney belongs in jail.

.

What about you, JOAO?

I´d "feel terribly uncomfortable" too, but there again it proves that "Freedom of Speech" exists in my host country and I am allowed to express my like or dislike for my hosts freely without being penalized. Your question reminds me of an "incident" years ago when the Brasilian correspondent for NY Times was almost expelled from our country because of an article he wrote and you must remember it.

A Correction:

when the Brasilian correspondent for NY Times was almost expelled from our country because of an article he wrote and you must remember it.

It should read "when a Brasil based American correspondent for NY Times..........

Freedom of speech is the quintessential right/benefit accorded to every national and resident of most Western societies. In fact, I can scarcely identify any other privilege accorded by nations belonging to our enlightened Western World which might be considered more fundamentally important.

Yet, based on strong convictions regarding personal etiquette and courtesy, which I may have failed to presume being extended to any fellow Brazilians residing in (and/or holding the citizenship of) of any foreign (host) country – especially those belonging to the same social class. Clearly I was mistaken, and you do not uphold the principles whereby a gentleman would feel compelled to demonstrate basic rules of respect, gratitude and polite discourse while visiting a gracious host.

Clearly the following statement made by Mr. Amaral is thoroughly accurate:

You can write all the garbage that you want about Chavez, South America, and so on here on Brazzil magazine…and I will defend your right to express your opinion, because I believe in freedom of expression and the press.

Nevertheless, the rectitude of your assertion omits a CRUCIAL detail: I DO NOT (and would never) RESIDE IN ANY OF THE NATIONS I STRONGLY OPPOSE! If I were to have the misfortune to reside in Caracas, Havana, Teheran, Pyongyang, or Minks, not only I would not have DARED making virulent proclamations against my hosts (fearing for the inevitable consequences), but would also have naturally considered as rather inappropriate to insult my hosts while sitting at their table…

Regarding Mr. Ricardo Amaral’s closing words:

Your Dick Cheney brand of censorship does not cut here in the United States.
By the way, your idol Dick Cheney belongs in jail.

Although troubled with the possibility of disappointing you, milord, I daresay that neither has Mr. Cheney ever been my idol, nor has he ever earned my respect, for I concur with the view where many of his acts should be duly investigated, and where required persecuted.

Yet, always there is a caveat vis-à-vis my condemnation of this reproachable former Republican official: the limits imposed by the noble Western principles regarding “Human Rights” and the “Geneva Convention” should NEVER be considered applicable to animalistic foreign combatants engaged in heinous terrorist acts against any Western Nation (which includes Brazil). In my modest opinion, NO gesture, NO policy or NO method of “inquiry” should ever be considered illegal (and automatically not apply), for the creatures involved in any such deeds; for they have automatically renounced their very Humanity upon enrollment!

P.S.(JOAO) - the noted incident involving tne NY TIMES reporter should NEVER have been an issue requiring legal matters, for the gentleman had clearly the right to freely express his views in Brazil. RATHER, the issue is entirely identical to my objection to Mr. Amaral's anti-american statements WHILE still residing in the United States...

"I never suggested anywhere in my writings, that Brazil should become a colony of France."

I was the person who wrote the statement below, not João. I did not realize when I was writing it that France could be a colony of France that is why I did not add the capitalized sentence; thus, for you only, it should have been written as it now appears below. Please continue to do your research.

"If you have no idea what I and João are referring to do your own research and while you are doing it do not stop with Algeria and Vietnam, look at the Caribbean, South America, South Pacific, South East Asia, Africa and France. There is a common thread which runs through all of there places in regards to the french and their policies," AND I DO NOT MEAN COLONIALISM.

In connection with Freedom of Speech:
""Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" (Patrick Henry 1736-1779)
As for the statement made regarding the views of other bloggers:

Then I realized that many more members that are participating on the discussions of this forum and are reading your postings must have that same impression of you and of your postings.

"The important thing is not what they think of me, but what I think of them" (Queen Victoria 1819-1901)

It appears that we were typing the reply to Augustus´s question addressed to me and by coincidence, we were talking about "Freedom of Speech". Except that you pushed the "Add Comment" button a few minutes or hours before I did. I got to see the subsequent exchange of comments between him and you. Though I was not too amused by your reference to Dick Cheney as his "idol" as well as calling him as "pompous" (Augustus has never been a fan of Dick Cheney, as far as I know and just because he writes "Queen´s English shouldn't classify him as "pompous"), I am quite heartened by the fact that you both cherish the "Freedom of Speech".

So my question to you both: Why have you not said a word about the court obtained injunction by Ricardo´s "friend" imposing censorship on a major national newspaper.

It is all very nice for both of you to sit in your homes on the East Coast of the U.S. and talk about the "Freedom of Speech", without bothering to know the reality in your homeland.

I suggest both of you read the Brasilian on-line Newspapers, instead of getting your info from Businessweek, WSJ, Economist, Bloomberg, Le Monde, etc;

"Chuchuzinho, minha uva meu vinho"
I am a 4th grader how did you guess that? Are you a psychic?
You know, I came here a month ago and saw you defending Sarney, and Lulu...with all the corruption, just because he is your friend. Now you say the Economist wrote the piece on Brasil after reading your articles, and I was like then, you say that Brasil was more important than U.S., and I was like, waiting to read why, a good explanation. When you wrote, "Brasil was stil a colony", it got me. Forty something years separate U.S. and Brasil independence, a country can achieve a lot in four decades. I am not saying Brasil was not important at that time, you just failed to write with more detail why Brasil was "MORE" important than the U.S. in 1822 while still being a colony of Portugal -before September 7th- and the U.S. enjoying independence for forty-something years. You see "chuchu", I actually wanted to learn Brasilian history from you. And a small fact, The U.S. was the first country in the world to recognize Brasilian independence.
I also got irritated by your nacionalistic venon, which by the way, is becoming quite conmom in Brasil these days. U.S. has flaws,-every forth grader knows that- and it is ok to talk about it, but the tone of your writing is harsh.

And your friend Sarney is still there because Lulu helped him. Some journalists in Brasil think it is due to a secret meeting between him and Dilma. There is some serious sh*# going on there. Sarney knows a lot about Petrobras. The CPI of Petrobras did not happen. Or I should say the Rape of Petrobras.
That is all I wanted to say,
The end!

P.S. from a fourth grader that still loves Brasil and it's people

you have to understand, amoral lives in joisey,and , participates in the eilite trader...two places that foster a lot of idiots...

when amoral gets tied up, he flusters and reverts to the most petty kind of insulting flipantinsm , which is what joisey and the elite trader has in abundance (he has been called monkey and told to eat a banana over there, no wonder he is seething with venom underneath at america)..and,i dont consider him a nationalist at all, i consider him a false nationalist...

he is in a state of total denial about what is really going on in brazil now...

i can only laugh when a false nationalist holds hands with the red flaggers to come up with their clicheid version of what the united states is

here is some of the drek :
the united states is going down totaly ,

colombia is giving up its soverenty by letting usa military come down to its bases...

it doesnt matter how much proof you bring to the table about how destabalising farc in colaboration with chavez and correa and who knows else , it is irrelevant, the united states is out to get everyone and their recources in south america

its irrelevent when it is proven that the pcc, fernando beira mar and now the north / north west king of cocaine are all proven to be doing business with farc or another marxist group from colombia going through venezuela

afhanistan will be the achiles heel of the usa ( how can anyone compare it to viet nam, when there is no draft and americans know al queda hit us under the talaban umbrella , two differant situations, they forgot we lost viet nam because the amerian people tired of the war)

the usa dropped the atom bomb on japan out of racism and to test the power of the bomb...

i mean, what is amazing is the thinking even isnt original, its the same bs cliches that certain thinkers in south america circulate indulge in to not look in the mirror and find out what is really tying up south america...i mean inner corruption wouldnt be on the table at all right ( yeah, i know , the usa has the worst of them all,no argument here on that one)

i would never implicat all south americans especialy brazilians of thinking this way. i have read just recently very inteligent analasys of what the real problems in the area are by generals who really know and other thinkers who dont regergatate cliches...

brazil is a great country, no one has to put the usa down to build up brazil. only people insecure about their positions have to portray the usa as some huge ominous bully in the area only interested in invading militarily and stealing everyones recources

Historical Prelude:
Because Portugal was a firm ally of the United Kingdom, when Napoleon Bonaparte launched the French invasion from the occupied Spanish territory in 1807, Prince Regent Joao (future King Joao VI), who governed since 1792 on behalf of his mother, Queen Maria I, ordered the transfer of the Portuguese royal court to Brazil before he could be deposed by the invading French army.

Plausible Historical Significance for Brazil for the period 1808-1821:
As a result, in 1808, Rio de Janeiro became the center of the entire Portuguese “empire” by virtue of Brazil being elevated to the rank of Kingdom, and united as a single State by the title of The United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves – although the law formalizing such an union (and Status) was only issued in December 1815.

In this connection, it should be further noted that because the capital of this newly formed extensive Kingdom (which spread across Europe, Africa and South America) was located in Rio de Janeiro, where the government along with the Royal Court resided, one could correctly state that, for a brief period of thirteen (13) years – from 1808 through 1821 – Brazil was indeed far more important, and powerful than the recently independent United States of America, which was then considered an anomaly by virtue of being the first Republic “experiment” (based on Roman ideals) of time under consideration.

On the other hand, when the Brazilian regent Peter, the son of John VI, declared the Brazilian independence on September 7, 1822, as a consequence of the Liberal Revolution of 1820 in Portugal thereby becoming Emperor Pedro I of Brazil. As such, by virtue of a sheer “proclamation” of a Portuguese Prince, the world witnessed the END of the above referenced Union, which then became simply the United Kingdom of Portugal.

Possible (alternative) Analysis of Mr. Amaral’s comparison (Brazil vs. USA during the British Regency Era (1800-1821)
Consequently, when discussing Mr. Amaral’s statement comparing Brazil and Portugal in 1822, namely…

One fact that still is foreign to most people today is that in the world of 1822, Brazil was a much more important country in the Americas than the United States

… It should be considered that, such & proclamation WOULD HAVE BEEN fairly accurate, in the event Mr. Ricardo Amaral had mentioned the year 1821, in its stead,

Furthermore – commenting now as an American citizen - as much as I love and praise the founding fathers of my adopted country as well as its Constitution, it must be recognized that, neither these great men nor this magnificent document was not yet admired, respected and well known world wide during the time under consideration, when Brazil happen to have been at the forefront of the Portuguese Empire (“by virtue of mere a historical accident triggered by British pressured upon the Portuguese monarchy).


P.S. Portugal recognized Brazil's sovereignty in 1825

WHERE IT WAS MENTIONED:
Consequently, when discussing Mr. Amaral’s statement comparing Brazil and Portugal in 1822, namely…
IT SHOULD HAVE READ:
Consequently, when discussing Mr. Amaral’s statement comparing Brazil and THE UNITED STATES in 1822, namely…

that never was a bone of contention on my part.larissa made a good point that the usa government that is in tact today, started then.does it matter that the world was aware of the american constiturion or not? it worked for the united states.


these arguments of who was more powerful or significant back then dont have any meaning for me one way or the other...

santos demont invented flying as we know it today , taking off from a run way and landing...i dont have any possesive "america is superiour to anyone and everyone always since before christ was born"

i have no desire to deny brazil of its rich history and belittle it...it is what it is, and the usa is what it is...

i dont have any desire to take everything r amoral sais and scrutinise it into the ground.i am not his forum enemy. but, i do react to things i see as the truth versus cliche portrayals of the usa, especialy dynamics that are happening right now , and , daily reports and daily life experiances i have in brazil

one thing i want to make clear. i dont wake up everyday angry and afraid of neo marxist activity in south america and paranoid about anti american sentiments in south america.

it does concern me and i feel sorry for the people in south america who indulge in this kind of cliche filled bash america bantor because they will only be clouding themselves from the truth in the area and are setting themselves up for disapointments and failures.

and it is blatent hypocracy...and for sure i see a lot of american hypocracy also...it goes both ways

so ,i dont care if people want to play the chess game in south america they choose to.plenty of people on here from amoral, ch c, joao, costa, forrest, bo, joao etc etc have made statements about the usa or brazil that i just dont get involved with.

but, i am happy to point out things i have been following if it is something that i see reported and verified on a day to day basis, and cut through bs that descends to cliches

predictions and guesses what will happen are something else. i beleive anything is posible, and , what i really say is ,lets just see what will happen...

so ,i dont care if people want to play the chess game in south america they choose to.plenty of people on here from amoral, ch c, joao, costa, forrest, bo, joao etc etc have made statements about the usa or brazil that i just dont get involved with.

Now that you have dragged my name into this discussion, I have just one thing to say: You are playing "Coitadinho" that does not befit your nature!! Just because I said Afghanistan is going to be Vietnam II, you seem to be upset. Just because Ricardo said the Americans are always taken for a sucker ride by the French, you seemed to get more upset. Of course, Ricardo doesn't seem to realize that we are also going to be taken for suckers by Sarko & Co. Remember, you are living here and pay taxes regularly and it is your god-dammed right to exercise your "Freedom of speech" regardless of whether you are an American or a Mongolian. That way, you will be contributing to the Brasilian democracy and freedom of speech. I also want to remind you that Brasil is also a "melting pot" like yours and a country of immigrants.

Should I perhaps have mentioned "Overreaction" in its stead????
While I'm aware of the increased "tension" between you and Mr. Amaral, your emotional response to the latest string of comments appear to have taken away part of your customary good nature and common sense. Although you have not even mentioned my name, because your latest entry implies a certain sense of being “cornered” by the other bloggers, I hope you will soon realize that most of us in Brazzil.com (certainly JOAO and I) have always had a great deal of respect and admiration for you.

As for my last entry regarding Ricardo Amaral’s 1822 comment (or my 1821 reference), I would like to reiterate that I was simply making a historical remark and had no intention to make an issue and trigger further contention… At any rate, those who know me well are fully aware that, in some way, sometimes I hide within in an “ethereal world” which exists in the “past”. Consequently, rest assured that any difference that may have existed between Brazil and the US during the time under consideration is completely irrelevant for me, since neither could possibly THEN approach the power, the might and the glory of the British Empire eight ( years before Victoria ascended to the throne.

Part 1 of 2


I am sorry if I insulted you, but sometimes I forget that many readers don’t know as much as I learned along the way regarding Brazilian history around the time of the independence of Brazil. I had to do a lot of research when I was writing the biography of Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva, and I had to read a ton of material that also included the French Revolution and its main characters.

Regarding the “US Constitution and Bill of Rights” – in my opinion it is one of the greatest documents ever create by man.

But we know that from our perspective from 2009 looking back to the time when the founding fathers framed that document in 1787.

But it took a few years for the ratification process to take place by the various states that made the United States at that time. The closeness and bitterness of the struggle over ratification and the conferring of additional powers on the central government can scarcely be exaggerated. In some states, ratification was effected only after a bitter struggle in the state convention itself. In every state, the federalists proved more united, and only they coordinated action between different states, as the Anti-federalists were localistic and did not attempt to reach out to other states.

The ratification of the US Constitution had a close call, and it took a few decades for many people to accept this new document and stop being suspicious about it.

France financed the US independence war against the British. Without that French financial help we would have had the independence of the United States in 1776.

That French financial help to the United States in the early 1770’s did placed France in a very delicate financial position by the late 1780’s – and that major French financial crisis snowballed into one of the problems that exploded into the French Revolution in 1789.

As Napoleon Bonaparte is fighting his wars in Europe is needs some extra cash, and he is forced to sell for a song the Louisiana territory to the United States.

In 1812 the US government bought the Louisiana territory from France – and that was a very large piece of land, but it was a land where most of the population were made up of native American Indians.

By 1821 the United States had added 6 more states for a total of 24 – but these 24 states still accounted for less than 1/3 of the territory that we have today in the United States.

You can see the ratification process by the states at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._statehood


As you can see the 13 original provinces finished the ratification process by 1790, and at that time they had the first census of the United States – and George Washington got very disappointed because the first census had shown that there were only 3.9 million people living in the 13 original states.

By 1810 the United States had grown by 4 new states and the United States population still around 5 million people – and the United States still a relatively small country.

You can read about the framing of the US Constitution at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...nstitution


***


By 1810 Brazil and the United States have about the same population of around 5 million people. Brazil in 1810 was about the same size of Brazil in 2009. But the United States still was just a small country comprised of 17 states.

Most people who lived up to the early 1800’s spent their entire lives never traveling farther than a 20 mile radius from the place where they were born. In other words, most people lived in a small and limited world – and over 90 percent of the population was illiterate or semi-literate.

Basically in the world of 1810 – the United States was just a new experiment with a new form of government – a republic – that was far away from the countries of the first world of that time – meaning Europe.

Europe was the center of culture and new technology at that time – and France had been the major superpower for many decades.

.

Part 2 of 2


The British became the new major superpower only after the Duke of Wellington beat Napoleon Bonaparte in Waterloo in 1815.

When the British lost its American colonies that happened before the British became the major superpower in the world, and the British were able to keep that status for 100 years from 1815 to 1917 when WW I started and the British Empire declined very quickly.

Portugal had been a close ally of England for a few centuries – and Portugal was the training ground for the Duke of Wellington and the English army during the period of 1807 to 1812 when the French armies invaded Portugal 3 times and they were defeated all 3 times by the British and their Portuguese allies.

From 1808 to 1821 the Portuguese Royal Family with most of the Portuguese Court were living in Brazil. During that period all the affairs of the Portuguese Empire were being managed from Brazil – The King of Portugal was running the affairs of a well-known European country from Brazil.

Portugal was in the middle of the change of the guard in Europe from the French to the British. Portugal was not just another little country in Europe – Portugal is were the French armies were getting their ass kicked by the Duke of Wellington and other outstanding British generals.

And Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva was participating on all these battles under the command of the Duke of Wellington – and they were able to beat 3 different French armies that attacked Portugal during that 5 year period of time.

The Duke of Wellington was one of the best generals in world history, and a few weeks ago was reading an article that said that because the Duke of Wellington was the main general in Waterloo that gave the British a 70 percent advantage of the British beating Napoleons army. But if any other British were in charge on that day that 70 percent advantage would have gone to the French and Napoleon Bonaparte that also was an exceptional general.

The British beat Napoleon Bonaparte in Waterloo because they were under the command of the Duke of Wellington – otherwise Napoleon would have been the winner on that day. The Duke of Wellington made all the difference for that British victory.


*****


Larissa I hope you have a better understanding now why Brazil was more important than the United States in the world of the early 1800’s.

The two major superpowers in the world of the time – the French and the British – were fighting each other inside Portugal. The Portuguese army is fighting under the command of the British generals including the Duke of Wellington, and in the other side we had various well know French generals that were getting their ass kicked by the British and Portuguese armies.

Since you are learning all these facts for the first time then let me be more precise about these facts regarding Portugal. Portugal had been ruled by Queen Maria I (1777 – 1816), and her son Joao VI (1816 – 1826) was crowned King of Portugal in Rio de Janeiro in 1816 after his mother died.

Anyway, the Queen of Portugal Maria I was living in Brazil and ruling the Portuguese Empire from Brazil, and at the same time her country was in the middle of a war between the 2 major world powers of the time.

.

Should read:

France financed the US independence war against the British. Without that French financial help we would "not" have had the independence of the United States in 1776.

As Napoleon Bonaparte is fighting his wars in Europe he needs some extra cash, and to raise the money fast he is forced to sell for a song the Louisiana territory to the United States.

.

Here is another history lesson for you, quoting from my book about Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva.

Regarding the three French invasions of Portugal, Jose Bonifacio fought very bravely during a number of years in Portugal under the command of the Duke of Wellington, and during that period of time they defeat the French armies on all three different French invasions of Portugal.

They have all documented and it is on record about all these battles and they have documented how Jose Bonifacio came very close from getting killed in battle a number of times – he earned many honors as a great warrior. He was always in the frontlines and was one of the first ones to charge against the enemy and he was an inspiration to his battalion.

They had three French invasions of Portugal the first one in November 19, 1907 by General Andouche Junot, and the day before the French forces reached Lisbon, the Portuguese Royal Family with a large number of nobles left Portugal to go to Brazil.

In August 21, 1808 the Duke of Wellington’s army with on Portuguese brigade defeated the French – the French suffered over 2,000 casualties and the British about 700.

In 1809 there was a second French invasion under Marshall Nicolau Soult Duke of Dalmacia with his 70,000 men – The Duke of Wellington with his Portuguese allies surprised Soult and his army at Oporto. The French were sent flying out of town, abandoning guns, and supplies, as well as chests of gold. The French retreated for a second time into Spain.

In August 1810 there was a third French invasion, and this time the French army was commanded by Marshall Andrea Massena, Duke of Rivoli. Wellington thought very highly of Massena and he was considered to be one of the best French generals. Wellington thought that only Napoleon himself was a better army commander than Massena.

Massena had 65,000 men against the British 25,000 men plus 25,000 Portuguese men.
The day after the battle on September 27, 1810 they counted 4,500 casualties for the French and 1,252 casualties equally divided between the British and Portuguese.

On April 10, 1811 Wellington announced that the French army had retreated to Spain for a third time and in the process the French had suffered heavy losses of over 25,000 men.

.

and i think i mis represented what i meant to say....

my point is, i am not going to be emotional if brazil doesnt rise up and support the usa in colombia and start a massive defence against chavez. i recognise the bs of chavez and am in much agreement with you augustus about his threat (no slight leaving your name out of my list i just forgot for a moment and realised soon after i forgot you on there), but,i just dont root for his asasination or invading his country

but i understand that support for colombia because of ideological reasons, isnt happening so im not going to get bundled up about it

im not going to get bundled up about celso amorim saying the recent arms deal with france was to diminish usa influence...even if i think its strange i just dont want to get emotionaly involved in it...

im not going to get bundled up at brazil seeking strong business ties with china, france, arab countries . probably part of the strategy to not have influence from the usa and understanding the usa is a sick puppy right now and its smart to diversify...but whether its going to capitulate and self destruct is another matter, and i laugh at anyone who thinks they can make difinitive statements about what is going to happen

im not going to get bundled up because there is nothing i can do about it, its out of my hands, i can only watch from the sidelines...

but i am going to get bundled up at ridicuals clicheid bull s**t anti americanism, mostly from cold war one sided crud.im not going to sit back and listen to stupid arguments why people think colombia is inviting the usa down when this ridiculas dynamic with chavez the farc and correa is running havoc in the area including affecting brazil

and i get bundled up at statements ridiculing aspects of brazil that i know are good. meaning im hardly going to argue with ch cs statistics but i will argue aestheticly about culture and life style and why i love it in brazil

i made a point about mentioning past peoples statements and that i dont jump in on them every time is because amoral has addressed my arguments personaly that is why i am arguing personaly with him. i dont usualy jump in when people make statements i dont nescasarily agree with if they arnt countering my arguments directly...ch c , costa and others make statements all the time i might not agree with 100 percent,but they werent arguing directly with me. only to say im not singling out amoral, he has just tried to put my arguments down so he is getting the brunt of my statements back now...

i make bold statements of aspects addressed by each of these threads,i dont really attack people

joao, i have no idea where you think i was upset at r amoral saying what he did about france and the usa. i dont really get why you were insisting i read about that doctrine versus the monroe doctrine...i read it...i dont get your point...im not arguing one way or the other about it..im much more concerned about what was happening with slavery in brazil at that time and how that really is ifluencing what is going on and what is wrong with aspects of social dissonance in brazilian society today

and augustus i know that it might have sounded like i was countering something you said, but,it really wasnt that, more just trying to clarify what i really am arguing about

basicly, i am very secure with where i am at with my country. i recognise its errors and am feircly proud of its accomplishments in the world. yes, if amoral makes dumb statemenst about the a bomb, i am getting in his face about it.or dumb statements like the usa is after brazils recources to the point of possible military invasion, i will get in his face about it and let him know of the real drama going on down here that he chooses to ignore..

so i just think i didnt put it correctly

Now that I described what was happening in the early 1800's I hope the readers can understand why the "Andrada Doctrine" which defined the foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the internal affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere had a bigger impact the history of the Americas than the "Monroe Doctrine."

I wrote about the “Andrada Doctrine” and you can read it on Part II of my 2-part article: “Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas.”

Quoting from that article:

“The Andrada Doctrine

In May 30, 1822, Brazil through the “Andrada Doctrine” became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere. Here is the actual history of Brazilian leadership in the Americas….”

From a Brazilian and South American perspective the “Andrada Doctrine” is the real deal. And in South America we don’t care about the Monroe Doctrine, it does not mean a thing for Brazilians for example, and you should read the following articles to educate yourself about South America and foreign policy:

1) Brazzil Magazine - February 2005
“Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas – Part I”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/1360/49/


2) Brazzil Magazine - February 2005
“Brazil, the Original Leader of the Americas – Part II”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/1425/49/


After you read these 2 articles you will understand that the Monroe Doctrine means something only to Americans and the USA. But it means nothing to the countries of South America, including Brazil.

In 1822 the South American countries and major world powers such as England and France were paying attention to the “Andrada Doctrine.”

What became known as the “Monroe Doctrine” is a doctrine from the United States point of view and that doctrine became well known only almost 3 decades after the “Andrada Doctrine.”

But for some reason the mainstream media today has a hard time grasping what was happening in the world of the 1820’s, and they keep referring to the “Monroe Doctrine” as if that doctrine was the original doctrine that were implemented regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent.

It’s time for the mainstream media such as the Financial Times (UK), The Economist, and many others to get their historical facts right, and start referring to the “Andrada Doctrine” since that was the doctrine that defined the foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent.

.

Now that I described what was happening in the early 1800's I hope the readers can understand why the "Andrada Doctrine" which defined the foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the internal affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere had a bigger impact on the history of the Americas than the "Monroe Doctrine."

.

just as i dont argue with ch cs statistics, i have no argument against r amorals history, except whether the colonies could have defeated the british with or with out french help...after all, the french were major contributors to the south in the civil war and it didnt help them...that still doesnt diminish larissas argument that the usa started its tragectory as a democracy back then and has survived until today without having its inner political guts churned out as most countries in europe did in world war two ( of course ch c, the swiss being the neutral exception) and in russia , china, africa, and south america etc after being attacked and declared war on by japan and germany and fighting soviet style comunism and now fundimentalist islamic terrorists, all who want or wanted the usa to be totaly destroyed

that was one of the points i was trying to make.i dont have an argument or i dont care if the andrade doctrine is more relevant to south america than the monroe doctrine. great if it is..

my points were based on the last paragraph by the writer ( not the economist)

this history has no relevance to the drek that r amoral has brought in here about colombia loosing its sovernty to the usa for letting military come down to its bases

it has no relevance to implications that the usa would invade militarily to get brazils recources...that is a croc of s**t..they will negociete for it

it has no relevance to the dynamic between chavez , correa and their relationship to farc and the havoc farc is causing brazil...now that is very relevant right now, any one who doesnt acknowledge that is shooting themselves in the foot if they have brazils interest at heart. and many smart brazilians do understand that..

these are the points im arguing with you r amoral and you have not answered with any satisfaction . your answers are flipant and dismisive..saying its irrelevant to brazil is really naive

where you may know brazil histroy very well, your perception of the united states in the last 23 years , and how it relates to south america is stunted and naive and steeped in your day to day dealings with the idiots in joisey and the elite traders...f**k, the elite traders are some of the people who tanked the usa, you cant look to them as any example of what the usa is or represents..and warped cliches that red flaggers and false nationalists bandy about to keep them from looking at the truth going on

Asp: this history has no relevance to the drek that r amoral has brought in here about colombia loosing its sovernty to the usa for letting military come down to its bases


*****


Ricardo: Yes, it has relevance regarding Colombia.

Under the “Andrada Doctrine” the countries in South America are supposed to come to the rescue of Colombia, and help free Colombia from a foreign military occupation.

The only problem in this case is that the Colombian government is the one that it is turning its independence and sovereignty as a country to the military forces of another country. The Colombian president Alvaro Uribe sold the sovereignty and independence of his country most likely for a fist full of US dollars. On my book a traitor like that is not worth even the food that he eats.

There is no doubt that Colombia will become a country under foreign military occupation – we are talking about 7 US military bases in Colombia.

Only a FOOL would think that any country around the world where a foreign superpower placed 7 military bases on their soil that that particular country wasn’t under foreign military occupation.

I am not sure how many military bases the United States still has even in Japan, and in Germany after almost 65 years after the end of WW II, but I understand why the US still pissing a ton of money to maintain all these military bases after all this time. You never know if Hitler and the Nazis might try for a come back.

Regarding Japan, the US military must like a lot “Sushi, Tempura, and Teriyaki” because on their case they didn’t need a military base in Japan; all they needed was the threat of another nuke landing in Tokyo. Americans like to give a nick name to their nukes – This time around the new nuke would be called “Godzilla” to be more in touch with the Japanese culture.


*****


Reply to Joao da Silva

Changing the subject just a little. Today when I stopped on a local diner for lunch, as I waited for my food I started reading a copy of today’s “Daily News” the New York City newspaper, and they had a cartoon that remind me of your recent comments.

On this cartoon they had a picture of an American soldier holding his machine gun and he is in the middle of nowhere you see on the background high mountains all around him. And the American soldier is reading the two signs to figure out in which direction he is supposed to go; the top arrow said in large letters:

1) “Kabul” – “15 Km”

and the second arrow said in large letters:

2) “Vietnam” - “closer than you think”.

.

Thanks, nice to have different perspectives. But what happened that Brasil did not keep up with its importance? Don't tell me that it was "JUST" U.S. interfeerance, I don't buy that. And now that her time is coming again, we have politicians being very irresponsible. I read news in Brasil. Lula has visited, and has shaked hands with most of the worst dictarors in the world -Kadaffi, Fidel, and the one from Sudan, just to name a few. Why? Don't tell this is to oppose the U.s. or to show independence. This is dangerous. Early this year, Vanucchi -Human rights secretary- had to respond to tough questions from the UN assembly regarding violations of human rights in Brasil. For the first time ever, Brasil delegation was greated with protests outside U.N.
I also heard "Itamarati" wants to open an embassy in North Korea. For what? Inviting the Iranian president. For what? This is the way to show the U.S. we can walk on our own shoes? If you want to ask me this is a childish behavior.
I appreciate Brasil importance at that time and today, but it means nothing if this importance does not translate to better education, less violence, less corruption, respect to the environment, respect to children, respect the laws, access to health, clean water, better seewage system, and many more.......

This article was a little confusing for me, And it got me thinking...

What where the key policies that Da Silva implemented that moved Brazil from a 'protectionist tp a champion of free trade'?

Could anybody answer this question for me?

what is it amoral ? the joisey mathah fuggahs are kickin your ass? tired of the elite trader insults ?

only an idoit would refer to what is happening with colombia and their bases and american military coming down as "foreign military ocupation.."

really cat, that is some of the most tired bulls**t i have heard...you think its a military ocupation ? what is that, the moda cliche merda of the month? that is the problem with you false nationalists, you come up with your flipant anal observations...like the little bitches who passed around that the usa has a textbook that sais the amazon belongs to the usa and has the right to invade...is that how you all rationalise things ? because its weak...the only rectum getting streched with that mentality is you alls....

you cant even answer the real issues ive raised, because i live down here and see it , and have been following it up close...you are so far out of touch just exchanging e mails with other false nationalist oafs , but you dont even know what is crippling brazil...you are stuck in your false nationalist stance thinking the usa is coming to ocupy colombia....you severly disapoint me with this logic...your opinions loose huge credibility with me...but you already showed me how bizarre you think before obama was elected...you sure were wrong about that , werent you?

as long as chavez and correa play their little footsie games with farc, uribe has the right to get the usa military in on it, especialy because they arnt getting help from anyone else in south america..and farc is dicking brazil,make no mistake about it...but i dont hold it against brazil for doing nothing...just dont think you can tell uribe what is good for him...you cant...

as far as your south american aliance,wow, good luck with kirshner, chavez, morales, lugo,correa etc...dont bend over in the shower...

O.K.

Since you are so smart, then please give me just another country located anywhere in our planet that has 7 foreign military bases inside their soil, and that country is not under foreign military occupation.

Please don't give me as your example: Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I am sure that on your view the United States Armed Forces are just guests in Iraq.

.

I am not going to get sucked into a discussion about human rights because that would be a waste of my time – and we would not get anywhere anyway.

If Brazil were going to have diplomatic relations and do business with other countries based on human rights then Brazil would need to close its borders and stop any contact with the outside world.

You said: “I also heard "Itamarati" wants to open an embassy in North Korea. For what? Inviting the Iranian president. For what? This is the way to show the U.S. we can walk on our own shoes? If you want to ask me this is a childish behavior.”

First, Brazil does not have to show the US anything.

The childish behavior has been coming from the United States for many years. And the US has been doing everything to prevent the 2 Koreas from re-uniting into one country – the same way that the West and East Germany merged into one country.

I am bored about the subject of North Korea, and Iran, and I have been writing about it for many years, and you can read the discussions on that subject at:

North Korea's Nuclear Weapons
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...genumber=1


*****


Brazil and Iran
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...genumber=1


*****


Larissa: I appreciate Brasil importance at that time and today, but it means nothing if this importance does not translate to better education, less violence, less corruption, respect to the environment, respect to children, respect the laws, access to health, clean water, better sewage system, and many more....


*****


Ricardo: I don’t know if you realized, but there are only 3 or 4 countries in the entire world that meets your high standards – and they are all very small countries.

.

please tell me how many other countries has farc deeply entrenched in three major coke drug and arms selling rings from three major differant areas of that country including two of the mega cities of that country ?

and dont say venezuela because they live there even if they are from colombia

god,i used to hate the joisey jerks and the gorilas from the other barrious that came into manhattan with there "uh" thick borrough accents

most of them are racist pigs, god i remember some wedding factories out there , you know,enormous complexes where they have about 6 wedding receptions going on at once...they wouldnt allow the bands to have black people playing in them....

no wonder your fugged up you fugghead, you been livin in joisey too long, you must detest the bastards...

and your elite trader colleagues...jesus f**k, calling you a monkey and go eat a banana, that is some f**ked up s**t....i dont blame you for seething at the americans inside...god, you sure been around the worst...it must be tearing you apart with bitterness...

thats all right, im all for brazil to do really well in the future...

This article was a little confusing for me, And it got me thinking...

What where the key policies that Da Silva implemented that moved Brazil from a 'protectionist tp a champion of free trade'?

Could anybody answer this question for me?

I am very disappointed that you are not neorotic also about Che Guevara.

Maybe you are not old enough, otherwise I am sure you still would be going crazy about the danger that Che Guevara represented to South America.

And Che Guevara had a much high status than any of the 3rd rate people that you are so neorotic about.

.

Should read: Neurotic

.

Part 1 of 2


BRAZIL: “Military Deal with France Strengthens Multipolar Focus
Analysis”
By Fabiana Frayssinet
IPS – Inter Press Service
September 8, 2009

RIO DE JANEIRO, Sep 8 (IPS) - With the announcement of a multi-billion-dollar military technology-sharing deal with France, Brazil is projecting itself as a future regional military supplier, while sending out a clear signal about the multipolar focus of its foreign policy.

The choice of scenario for what they described as a "strategic alliance" could not have been more symbolic for presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Against a soundtrack of military marches, the two leaders clinched their latest agreement in the Brazilian capital on Sept. 7 – Independence Day in Brazil.

Their meeting formalised the accords reached in December, on Sarkozy's first visit, when the Brazilian government announced that it would buy five submarines from France - including Latin America's first nuclear-powered submarine – to be built at a new shipyard in Itaguai in the southeastern state of Rio de Janeiro.

Also announced on that occasion was the purchase of 50 French EC-725 transport helicopters, to be jointly assembled at the Helibras factory in Itajubá in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais. The EC-725 Cougars are made by Eurocopter - a subsidiary of European aerospace giant EADS – which holds a 45 percent stake in Brazil's Helibras.

Also confirmed Monday was a final element in the agreements, estimated to be worth around 12.5 billion dollars: the start of negotiations for the sale to Brazil of 36 Rafale combat jets made by French firm Dassault Aviation, which could be finalised in October, according to a joint communiqué issued by the two governments.

The announcement indicated that fierce lobbying by Sweden's Saab, which hoped to sell Brazil its Gripen NG, and by the U.S. Boeing, which was pushing its F/A-18 Super Hornet, had fallen flat, putting an end to a lengthy contest that had dragged on since 1998, under the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1995-2003).

In exchange for the Rafale fighters deal, estimated at four billion dollars, the French government promised to purchase 10 KC-390 military transport planes from Embraer, Brazil's national aircraft maker.

Brazil's main argument for choosing the French company was that unlike manufacturers from other countries – like Germany in the case of the submarines and the U.S. in the case of the combat jets – France not only offered the sales but the transfer of technology as well, according to Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.

"We decided to negotiate the purchase of the Rafale's because while the airplane is important to us, what is really important is having the technology to be able to build the plane," said Lula, standing next to his guest, Sarkozy.

According to professor of international relations Daniel Castelán, the transfer of technology will help make it possible for Brazil to live up to its aspiration of becoming a future military supplier not only for Latin America but for other regions as well.

Towards that end, the agreements with France will allow Brazil not only to build – and to learn the secrets of making – the military equipment, but also "to sell it jointly," as Sarkozy pointed out.

"The fact that the submarines and helicopters are being built in Brazilian territory signals a strategy of producing for South America in the future," Castelán, a researcher at the South American Political Observatory (OPSA) and a professor at the private Candido Mendes University, said in an interview with IPS.

Fernando Gabeira, a federal lawmaker for the Green Party (PV) and a member of the congressional commissions on foreign relations and defence, reached a similar conclusion.

"Brazil could have bought the American fighters, but not their technology, because that would have depended on authorisation by the U.S. Congress," Gabeira told IPS.

"The French understood that, and offered all of the technology so that Brazil could also produce the planes or submarines," he added.

Part 2 of 2


However, Gabeira also remarked that "Brazil has the aim of becoming a producer of military equipment, but where are the wars" that would justify such a major upgrading of Brazil's own military capabilities? He pointed out that besides the planes, helicopters and submarines, South America's giant also has a fleet of warships.

Lula, on the other hand, believes the answer lies in the "new independence" that the discovery of enormous oil reserves will offer this country, set to become one of the world's top oil producers.

According to the president, the new investments in the defence industry are justified by "a question of sovereignty," to defend two important areas in this country of 190 million people: the Amazon rainforest and an 800-sq-km area of offshore oil reserves in the Atlantic ocean, off of Brazil's southeast coast, which hold an estimated 50 to 80 billion barrels of crude, found seven km below the surface of the ocean.

The oilfields, which were discovered in 2007 and have not yet been explored, lie beneath a layer of salt up to two-km thick. According to government projections, they could represent up to six times the country's proven reserves of 14 billion barrels.

Lula pointed out that oil has long been a motive for wars and conflicts. To avoid them, he said, although his government puts a priority on peace, it is also laying the foundations to make Brazil a "world power" within 15 or 20 years.

According to Gabeira, that aim reflects "a continuation of the policy of the military (who governed Brazil from 1964 to 1985) to make this country a major power, but now in a totally different world, where wars are not waged the way they used to be."

In his view, "Brazil should strengthen its role as a 'soft power' rather than seeking to become a 'hard power'." He admitted, however, that this is still not an easy argument to make in this country.

The alliance between Brazil and France has already begun to bear fruit for Brasilia at the international level. Sarkozy reaffirmed Paris's support for Brazil's aspiration to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and in the Group of Eight (G most powerful countries, which he said was "fair."

But Castelán said that besides the aim of strengthening Brazil's defence industry, the alliance with France should be considered part of a broader foreign policy strategy guided by "a strong multipolar focus on the part of the Lula administration."

That "strategic vision," he said, is based on the "search for military and defence cooperation not just with the United States," at a time when the Brazilian Foreign Ministry has complained about the increase in the U.S. military presence in Colombia, which is lending the U.S. armed forces seven military bases.

The idea is to forge more multilateral ties as a "counterbalance to U.S. hegemony" in the sphere of the military as well as trade, the analyst said.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48373


.

me and forrest are the worst spellers in english here, and we are american. you spell much better than i do...

i only express disapointment when celso amorim said that it was to get rid of american influence...the part about not having to answer to americans about the tech details mades tons of sence to me. and i said earliar that doesnt upset me. only amorims statement is a little disapointing.a good deal is a good deal, it shouldnt have anything to do with getting rid of american influence.

look , we can duel all we want, i love brazil and wish it the best of a future.im as interested as you are at brazil succeeding and being powerful and determining its own destiny...

where we are going to square off on is what i would detect as mischaractorisations of what you think "the americans" were , are , and what they do...and,i can look at a lot of things the usa has done and find fault in it, but , i also see some pretty wrong things spread around about it...and you can beleive when i started finding out the resentments people have down here about americans, i have done a lot of listening and research to try to figure it all out...

but, hey, you live and work around some of the biggest false nationalists in the world...the goddamn flag waving , tie a yellow ribbon on an oak tree but let the va f**k over veterans, type of people....god is it any wonder you have some of the veiws you do...you have been subgected to one living hell...

me and forrest are the worst spellers in english here, and we are american. you spell much better than i do...

Sorry to butt in. I agree that Forrest and you are the worst spellers. That is because you both are mule headed and don't listen to me. Probably using Mac. I suggest you download Firefox browser with spell checker as add on. IE and Google Chrome don't have this luxury.

Oh, BTW, don't get drowned or try to fight a tornado.

Cheers

cmon, joao, im in the moment, this is pure thought process unadaulterated existential pearls of wisdom flowing here...

you would interupt that ? all those fire fox spell checkers would just cramp my improvisationary style..

yeah, you think the weather is bad now, look at the next 10 day forcast...sometimes i wonder about the south...june until dec are seriously under question as a habital climate to live in....lucky they have those little sprinkly glitter bikinis when the sun comes out, and they say they wear them smaller in the south than the north east...i tried to catch that big waggy booty on a skinny waiste at the hotel pool, but all i see is dudes coming to look for her too....

cmon, joao, im in the moment, this is pure thought process unadaulterated existential pearls of wisdom flowing here...

If thats the case, stop apologizing for your spelling errors.

The other thread with Lloyd is more interesting though. I think he uses Firefox.

I am always amazed at the way certain individuals wish to rewrite history to make their claims have validity. Such is the case with the so called Andrada Doctrine. What an absurd claim to compare a non-existant historical claim with the Monroe Doctrine, an historical fact that has shaped the history of the Americas for the past century and a half. Even checking the Andrada Doctrine on google.com.br produces only a handfull of references ...all of which originate with Brazzil.com It is laughable at the length to which some individuals will go to make a point even when their point is absurd. The Andrada Doctrine...ha ha

After thinking better...i am still not convinced...don't agree with the than U.S. statement...
here is why:
using my 4th grade thinking skills...
let's suppose Madonna was visiting Brasil and if i was friend with her brasilian boyfriend and they stay at my house instead of hotel. My house will be the most important house in brasil and in the world. Hundreds of paparazzis and journalists would be there. My house would be the most important not because of my house itself but because of the people that is in there. As soon as they leave, my house will loose importance. The British Kingdom would not venture in U.S. at that time, even less so to make their official residency there; the population was fed up and tired of being explored by taxes, taxes,and taxes. People can have different interpretations of history but to me the young republic of the U.S. was already having a headstart, and to my fourth grade perspective this was an advantage, and an important factor.

P.S. i want my house to be important not because Madonna is there, but because it is clean, has a beautiful garden, an unique architecture design, it has an orchard with vast variety of fruits, and the people who live there is civilized.

Ricardo: Douglas your complete ignorance about Brazilian history it is understandable.

I would not be surprised if you thought that Brazil is a country located on the African Continent.

No wonder you never heard about the “Andrada Doctrine” – you probably never heard of Jose Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva as well.

People who have no clue about the history of other countries then they think the only history that happened is the history that Hollywood promoted all these years.

Ha, ha, ha – if Hollywood did not make a movie about it then can’t be a historic fact.


******


Here is a subject that is foreign to Hollywood and also to most Americans:


The Andrada Doctrine

In May 30, 1822, Brazil through the “Andrada Doctrine” became the original leader of the Americas regarding foreign policy issues dealing with the defense of the American continent against European interference in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere. Here is the actual history of Brazilian leadership in the Americas.

José Bonifácio’s decisions projected a firm, decisive and powerful image of his administration also in his foreign policy. In his diplomatic letter to the American Consul Mr. P. Sartoris in Rio de Janeiro in which he appointed a diplomat to represent Brazil in the United States, José Bonifácio wrote:

“Dear Sir: Brazil is a nation and will take its place as such, without expecting or requesting its recognition by the other world powers. We will send them representatives of our nation. Those nations who receive and deal with them in that capacity will continue to be allowed to use our ports and their commerce will receive favorable status.

“The nations that refuse our diplomats will be excluded from our ports and commerce. This is our frank and firm politics.” He also sent a similar letter to the other representatives of the major European powers, including a letter to Chamberlain, the English representative in Brazil.

José Bonifácio also formulated international foreign policy for the hemisphere with the tendency to protect other American nations that had aspirations of political emancipation.
In his instructions to the Brazilian diplomat representing Brazil in Buenos Aires, José Bonifácio in his diplomatic correspondence dated May 30, 1822, wrote:

“After you have skillfully persuaded that the interests of this Kingdom are the same as that of the other States of this hemisphere, and of the part that they will play in our destinies, you will promise them from our country the solemn recognition of the political independence of these governments and you will lay out the incalculable utilities which can result from us forming together a Confederation in a form of a treaty with Brazil, for defensive and offensive purposes, to go together with the other governments of the Spanish America against the extraordinary European manipulations.

As per instructions from José Bonifácio, the Brazilian diplomat representing Brazil in Buenos Aires, also got in contact with the other South American governments regarding this foreign policy treaty. The “Andrada Doctrine” was the original document that laid out the foreign policy structure for the Americas.

The “Andrada Doctrine” precedes by 18 months, and it is more precise and more courageous than the “Monroe Doctrine” laid out by the United States President in his message to Congress in December 2, 1823.

There is a certain resemblance between both doctrines, but we have to recognize and give credit to José Bonifácio for being the first to expose his thoughts and making a policy in that regard for the entire hemisphere.

José Bonifácio preceded the American President James Monroe in formulating foreign policy for the American hemisphere by more than one and a half years.

.

Douglas c: the Monroe Doctrine, an historical fact that has shaped the history of the Americas for the past century and a half.


*****


Ricardo: In 1845 US president James Polk used it to justify US expansion, and he invoked the Monroe Doctrine against British threats in California and Oregon, as well as against French and British efforts to prevent the US annexation of Texas.

The first time a US president invoked the Monroe Doctrine about 160 years ago the United States was using the Monroe Doctrine as a tool to expand the US territory.

As a component of foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine has had considerable effect and has had strong support in the US, in part because it promoted US interests.

Only Americans think that the Monroe Doctrine was the first document formulating foreign policy for the American hemisphere – Americans think that way because the Monroe Doctrine was designed to promote US interests.

The current US military occupation of Colombia, the US government can justify this latest military occupation of a South American country by invoking the Monroe Doctrine one more time.


*****


The Monroe Doctrine

I have seen a number of times over the years people quoting the “Monroe Doctrine” in written articles in major US newspapers and magazines, and also on television programs.

The American history books, written from an American history perspective, usually mention the Monroe Doctrine as an important American contribution to setting up foreign policy for the Americas.

Usually, they are trying to imply that the Monroe administration was the first administration of any country in the Americas to establish foreign policy for the Americas not allowing any new European colonies in the Americas, and European powers were not to interfere in the affairs of the countries of the American hemisphere.

President James Monroe in his seventh annual address to the U.S. Congress on Dec. 2, 1823, made a statement that eventually became one of the foundations of US policy in Latin America. Monroe’s statement initially remained only a declaration of policy; its increasing use and popularity elevated it to a principle, slowly becoming in the mid-1840’s what we call today the Monroe Doctrine.

Responding to Russian territorial claims along the northern Pacific coast, and concerned that European nations would attempt to seize recently independent Latin American countries, President James Monroe announced a new national policy. No new colonies would be allowed in the Americas, and European powers were not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Here is a list of some key points of that document:

“The American continents, by the free and independent, condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers….declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.
Our policy in regard to Europe… remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers…”

In his pronouncements, Monroe asserted that European powers could no longer colonize the American continents and that they should not interfere with the newly independent Spanish American republics.

He specifically warned Europeans against attempting to impose monarchy on independent American nations but added that the US would not interfere in existing European colonies or in Europe itself.

He rejected the European political system of monarchy, believing that no American nation would adopt it and that its presence anywhere in the western hemisphere endangered the peace and safety of the young United States.

Despite the boldness of his assertions, Monroe provided no means to ensure the enforcement of his ideas, and as far as the US was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine meant little until the 1840s, when President James Polk used it to justify US expansion.

In 1845 he invoked the doctrine against British threats in California and Oregon, as well as against French and British efforts to prevent the US annexation of Texas.

As a component of foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine has had considerable effect and has had strong support in the US, in part because it promoted US interests. The doctrine has served other American nations too, particularly because it asserts their right to independence.

Because the doctrine as originally formulated made no clear distinction between the interests of the US and those of its neighbors, however, the US has used it to justify intervention in the internal affairs of other American nations.

Given growing US anxiety about the unstable politics of Latin American countries, intervention in a number of occasions has been especially prevalent and controversial in the last 100 years.

.

Larissa: using my 4th grade thinking skills...

I came to the conclusion that “The British Kingdom would not venture in U.S. at that time, even less so to make their official residency there; the population was fed up and tired of being explored by taxes, taxes, and taxes. People can have different interpretations of history but to me the young republic of the U.S. was already having a headstart, and to my fourth grade perspective this was an advantage, and an important factor.”


*****


Ricardo: Why don’t you use your 4th grade thinking skills and read the following:

The War of 1812, between the United States and the British Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812


See what you think about the War of 1812 and this interpretation of history.

Believe it or not the War of 1812 (from 1812 to 1815) was against the British.


*****


By the way, Madona is very old news, and today nobody cares about Madona anymore.

On your 4th grade world you should know that today Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are in.

.

Here is another reality check for you. About 36 years after US independence the entire US experiment almost collapsed around 1812.

America on the Brink: How the Political Struggle Over the War of 1812 Almost Destroyed the Young Republic. By: Richard Buel Jr.

http://search.barnesandnoble.c...1403973931


Many people would be surprised to learn that the struggle between Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party defined--and jeopardized--the political life of the early American republic. America on the Brink looks at why the Federalists, who worked so hard to consolidate the federal government before 1800, went to great lengths to subvert it after Jefferson's election. In addition to taking the side of the British in the diplomatic dance before the war, the Federalists did everything they could to impede the prosecution of the war, even threatening the Madison Administration with a separate peace for New England in 1814. Readers fascinated by the world of the Founding Fathers will come away from this riveting account with a new appreciation for how close the new nation came to falling apart almost fifty years before the Civil War.

Biography:

Richard Buel is Professor of History Emeritus at Wesleyan University. He is author of several books, including In Irons: Britain's Naval Supremacy and the American Revolutionary Economy. He lives in Essex, Connecticut.

.

Even when it comes to Pop culture we don't agree
Madonna is not important? Who did MTV invite to make a tribute to Michael Jackson at the MTVA? Bradgelina? NO, Madonna and Janet Jackson.
The only good movies I watched from Bradgelina was respectively, "Legends of fall", and "girl interrupted". That's it. After that I stopped trying. I don't even think Brad P. is an actor. My fourth grade friends literally dragged me to see "inglorious basterds". Ten minutes after the begining I left my seat saying I needed to go to the bathroom, and never went back, and instead went to see "taking woodstock"; much better. Now, I bet you will state that Tarantino is the most important film-movie director And I will state that he also likes to revise History American Jewish soldiers scalping nazis

P.S. What is the name of your book?

See "chuchu"...

Love is in the air.

Me thinks Triple Dot got a point there!
Not only IT is in the air... but also in every sight and every sound!

Drawn by what irresistless power,
Shall I with trembling notes recite,

Why, glowing like an opening flower,
I fleet before the morning light?

Ricardo: The Economist magazine on the issue dated September 19th, 2009 launched a new column on business and management called “Schumpeter.”

On their first “Schumpeter” column they said: “…Larry Summers, Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser, argues that Schumpeter may prove to be the most important economist of the 21st century.”

I wrote an article four years ago on this subject, and I gave a better and more complete explanation on my article than The Economist about why in a very short period, almost overnight, Joseph A. Schumpeter became the most relevant and important economist for the 21st century.

When reading my article keep in mind that I wrote most of that article in October 2005, and only the final conclusion I wrote at the time when that article was published.

Brazzil Magazine - September 06, 2006
“While the American Dream Is Outsourced Brazil Drives the World into the Future”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzil.com/compone.../9684.html


.

Me thinks we should collectively polish up a medal for Monsier d'Amaral