Back to our cover

Brazzil Forum [ return ]
FromMessage
Birds Eye
Guest


10/15/2002
17:03:43
Subject: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
A letter sent President Bush by 12 House Republicans worried with Lula policies.


Washington, DC, October 2, 2002.-

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States

The White House

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to express our concern regarding Mr. Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva, presidential candidate of the Worker's Party in Brazil, and his
recent public statement criticizing Brazil's adherence to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - NPT. Given Mr. da Silva's
lead in the opinion polls for the October presidential elections, his
comments are a matter of grave concern to Congress, the United States
Government, Brazil's neighbors, and the world. We request that the
State Department review Mr. Lula da Silva's comments and assess the threat
that his policy poses to U.S. and hemispheric security.

On September 13, 2002, Mr. da Silva said that compliance with the NPT
"would make sense only if all countries that already have - nuclear -
weapons also gave them up." He continued, "if someone asks me to disarm
and keep a slingshot and he comes at me with a cannon, what good does
that do?" He concluded his remarks by stating, "all of us developing
countries are left holding a slingshot while they have atomic bombs."

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been one of the
highest priorities for the United States, Latin America, and the entire
United Nations. Agreement between Brazil and Argentina led both
countries to end their many years of work on nuclear weapons, not only
reducing the risks of potentially deadly conflict, but also freeing
hundreds of millions of dollars for both countries to use for peaceful
social purposes.

At a time when there is broad consensus on the need to defeat
international terrorism, we are also concerned that in 1990, Mr. da
Silva, in cooperation with the communist regime of Castro in Cuba,
established a leftist, anti-globalization group called the "Forum of
Sao Paulo." This ensemble, which has liaised with communist and radical
political movements from around the world, held its most recent meeting
in December, 2001, in Havana, Cuba.

The leadership of Mr. da Silva in this annual gathering of communist
and radical organizations and alliances; his long-standing close relations with, and admiration for, the communist dictator and sponsor ofterrorism, Fidel Castro; and recent statements regarding nuclear
non-proliferation, raise grave questions concerning the international
policies a government of Brazil might pursue under his Presidency.


We appreciate your attention to our concerns and look forward to the
State Department's findings with respect to this potentially serious
national security matter.


Sincerely,

Dana Rohrabacher, MC
Benjamin Gilman, MC
Dan Burton, MC
Christopher Smith, MC
Darrel Issa, MC
Walter Jones, MC
Wally Herger, MC
Jim Gibbons, MC
Cass Ballenger, MC
Illeana Ross-Lehtinen
Ed Royce, MC
Brian Kerns, MC

They are all Republican: Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee; Rep. Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., former chairman of the House International Relations Committee; Cass Ballenger of North Carolina, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Wally Herger of California, Darrell Issa of California, Walter Jones of North Carolina, Brian Kerns of Indiana, Dana Rohrabacher of California, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Ed Royce of California and Christopher Smith of New Jersey.





Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/16/2002
02:52:08
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Lula is a pragmatist. He would have to be a damned fool to pursue a path of nuclear armament knowing full well that Uncle will not truck such ventures. I doubt that Brazilians want it either; they know that one ecstatic moment at carnival could press the button. But Lula is correct in asking that all nations get rid of the monstrous threats that terrorizes all of us everywhere.

the crux of the letter is on the threat to economic hegemony of the US over Latin American trade policies. Lula represents a shift to the much maligned Left--a direction that traditionally implies greater egalitarian distribution of resources and wealth of a nation. We would be in serious self delusion if we denied that Brazil needs some adjustments of distribution of land and wealth. Matter of fact the USA could use a bit of adjustment in the same areas.
That nasty ol' bearded demon Castro talked about the real problems back in the early sixties; now damn near everyone talks about it, but Fidel is still a terrorist and a devil. Maybe he should have pitched for the Rangers...?

By the way, does what the US Navy Seals and the CIA did to the Nicaraguan port of Corinto in 86(?)
constitute terrorism? Ask Harry Belafonte!


ALNICOM
Guest
 Email

10/16/2002
16:44:01
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
BUSH IS A IDIOT TERRORIST!!!

USA CAN EXPECT FOR US!!!!


Randy Paul
Guest
 Email

10/16/2002
17:28:25
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
While I agree that Bush is an idiot, we have a saying in the US that peple who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You have a similar saying in Brazil:

Quem tem telhada de vidro, não joga pedra na casa de vizinho.

Yous should remember that next time you open your mouth or put finger to keyboard.

Fica sonhando, moço.


Alex
Guest


10/17/2002
09:29:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence: "Redistribution of wealth" proved an effective
policy in both Castro's Cuba and in the former Soviet Union.
Good thinking.



Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/18/2002
01:47:10
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Alex: two distinctly differently situations-historicly. The Soviet Union inherited a tradition of utter and total authoritarianism, possible only with the forces of religion in the czar's camp and the enmity of the "free West" and its freedom loving forces. Lenin and Stalin both reflect their history and the immediate pressure on their revolutions.

Cuba is another story. America do Norte is responsible for the turn toward authoritarian rule in Cuba. Fidel wwould have been gone years ago IF the USA had allowed normal relations to flow--economic and cultural and diplomatic. Those who extol the benefits of free enterprize and thenrefuse to let those benefits take their course of international understanding are living a contradiction if not a boldfaced lie. America do Norte does not like the attitude of a Castro who refuses to be a sycophant. Interestingly, there are parallels between the American Revolution and the Cuban Revolution: both expropriated property from "loyalists of the old order"; and both had tens of thousands of counter revolutionaries who fled--to Canada from the liberated Colonies and to Miami from the New Cuba. And both refused to pay for expropriated property--Cuba's offer to repay is actually more genuine than that of the USA of 1800. The real problem is one of attitude--If our policy were to follow something of the ideas of Jimmy Carter rather than those of Imperial Rome we just might have some genuine friends in this family we call the Americas. Not only have our Latino brethren been betrayed, but also the American People have been deceived and made to participate (unwittingly) in the oppression of members of the family.


USCIT
Guest


10/18/2002
10:09:59
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence, I'm curious as to the following statement.

<<Cuba is another story. America do Norte is responsible for the turn toward authoritarian rule in Cuba. Fidel wwould have been gone years ago IF the USA had allowed normal relations to flow--economic and cultural and diplomatic.>>

Just how is it that you know that Pirambuence?

Cuba had 'normal' relations with several countries. Russia, France, China and several Latino nations to just name a few. Your comment that the U.S. embargo is solely responsible for 'Castro' and the Cuban economy doesn't seem to be very well thought out. Everything Castro needed was available from any of those other countries, just not the welfare handouts. The embargo against Cuba was put in place AFTER Castro kicked the U.S. businesses out and declared a communistic nation.

The U.S. has many problems, and will continue to have many more. Its made up of humans. Do stop trying to blame the failures of every clown that puts on a military cap and declares himself 'el Presidenté' however. It isn't flying.

There never would have been an embargo had Castro maintained any attempt to have a democracy in Cuba and normal relations with the U.S.. He was convinced however that he could make it without the U.S. and declared Cuba to be in alliance with Russia. Sobeit. The U.S. just let him.


Brazilian
Guest


10/18/2002
11:27:23
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
You are discussing the past. Cuba is a poor island where only has sugar cane and poor people.
When Fidel to be dead, the things will change naturally in Cuba. Nothing is definitive in this life. There is the ALCA to take effect with all Latin American countries. Clowns as Hugo Cháves, Fidel Castro are temporary in Venezuela and Cuba. They can´t change the destiny of the history and the power of the market in all the world. To discuss about the Cuba is a lost of time.


Alex
Guest


10/18/2002
14:11:52
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Good points by USCIT and Brazilian -- you've both saved me
the trouble of a substantial, direct response. There's no need
for me to give Perambuence a lesson in basic economics; he
seems to find enough of a challenge in managing basic
history. The 100 percent failure rate of the systems he
endorses (in terms of number, globally, of sustained state
participants practicing an essentially maintained form of one
of the derivatives of the school of thought he references and
lauds) is evidence enough of their inviable natures as
economic constructions, and the failures within those
systems to maintain even the basic tenets of their social
theories -- religion and free markets, among other targeted
aspects of contrasting philosophies, exist within, though
hidden beneath, these systems -- is testament to their
ineffectiveness, except as impediments, in terms of state
development and, ultimately, progress. Without preaching: If
the socioeconomic and political history of the period dating
from the late 19th century to the late 20th century taught us
anything, it's that while economic systems should perhaps
facilitate humanity on state, corporate and individual levels,
they should not lay their foundations in emotions, and
especially not in an obtuse, malleable definition of morality --
just as they should not exclude humanity from their ultimate
goals. The successful economies of today have a long way to
go in terms of facilitating, by encouragement, the kind of
moral responsibility we would like to see practiced on state,
corporate and individual levels, but they are closer to
achieving a sustainable balance of humanity and viable
economics (state progress, etc.) than the extreme socialist
movements of the relatively recent past. More than lava lamps
and bell bottoms, Permambuence's way of thinking has
expired. And though groups like ALNICOM, with which I'm
guessing Perambuence is familiar, may draw inspiration and
support for this kind of thought through aberrated
interpretations of writings and songs like John Lennon's
"Imagine" (the lyrics to which ALNICOM conveniently posts on
its Web site), they might be better served by studying
mathematics -- among other things -- and listening repeatedly
to the chorus of another classic, "Let it be."


Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/19/2002
03:07:17
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
I wont get caught up in debating the causes of past excursions into totalitarian regimes, but I do know that it is difficult to type with the hands tied behind the back. Being something of a capitalist myself I don't mind examining the other forms of economic structures. I see a mixture of production through "free enterprize' and distribution on a socialist oriented basis as healthier for the stability of modern states--especially developed ones. If one refuses to recognize the growing disparity between rich and poor nations today they are naive and in serious intellectual denial. As for my knowledge of history being distorted, I doubt that hiding behind a few jitterbug adjectives and dislocated assumptions can ever dismiss research into the events that lead into international pitfalls--which is precisely what the USA has given us in "our own backyard."


USCIT
Guest


10/19/2002
20:03:17
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
There's too much to say here, and not enough space in which to say it.

Castro's regime. But first of all Brazilian, the reason for even bothering to discuss it is Lulu's professed admiration for Castro. For some of us, that's a little scary. Not Lulu specifically, but the fact that he either has not studied Castro, or is indifferent to Castro's tactics. And might possibly try to repeat them in your own Brazil.

Pirambuence, you say that you don't want to get caught up in debating the causes of totalitarian regimes, and then close with the comment that the U.S. has placed international pitfalls in "Your own back yard." Such comments put you in the discussion. Not because of you, but because others read this forum and that type of misleading information must needs be answered.

On January 1, 1959, Castro was infuriated to hear that Batista had resigned. That Manuel Urrutia had been selected as President of Cuba instead of himself. He was named Commander in Chief of the Cuban Armed Forces. (Documented from his own people with him at the time.) Not good enough. Within one and a half months Castro forces the Prime Minister of Cuba to resign and himself named in his place. Still not good enough. By July 17, 1959 Castro had forced the resignation of Urrutia by harassment and intimidation (documented) and named himself President.

Urrutia had been expected to be a good President. He had the support of the U.S. and Cuba's businessmen. They even offered to pre-pay taxes in order to finance his administration.

In the meantime, Castro was executing so many Cuban peoples that the MEXICAN Bar Association registered a complaint with the United Nations. He was slaughtering people wholesale. Anyone whoever who didn't support him in his grasp for power. And there were many.

On March 1, 1959; in an effort to quiet the critism against him, Castro invited 400 reporters from 20 nations to witness a trial of traitors. He threw a gala celebration in advance. 'Everything' rooms. Lavish cocktails and banquets. Cuban beauties to attend to the reporters needs. On March 2nd. All defendants were acquited in public for lack of evidence. Castro was furious and demanded a retrial. He had one reporter sentenced to 10 years hard labor for writing that the rebels were a bunch of 'Thieves and Bandits."

Castro 'took over' the cabinet and proclaimed himself 'Maximum Leader'. He recinded ALL Cuban law and declared that the only future law was what the Maximum Leader (himself) professed.

Urrutia tried to hold general elections. Castro was opposed. His comment of record. "He distrusted the people of Cuba, as individuals, to make informed decisions."

Castro took power on July 17 and immediately declared himself pro Russia and began accepting Russian armament. That brought about the Bay of Pigs.

Nov 17, 1959. Castro disolves all Unions in Cuba that did not do as HE ordered.

The embargo against Cuba did not take place until February of 1962, TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER CASTOR SEIZED POWER, when he took Billions of dollars worth of U.S. assets into his own coffers. As well as his continuing murders of his people.

To quote: " Castro continued to murder, continued to steal, continued to throw honest men and women in prison for speaking their minds, continued to harass churchgoers and continued to force ordinary Cubans into a grinding and demoralizing poverty."

Those were the reasons for the embargo. ANY argument that the embargo was the cause of Cuban poverty is ridiculous. Castro was free to trade with any nation on earth. Other than the U.S.. He just couldn't pay the bill. No more than he would have paid the U.S.. He wanted gifts. The U.S. did not consider Castro to be worth very much.

Castro went to Venezuela to borrow 300 million from Betancourt. He was refused.

After Russia found out Cuba was not going to be a base of missile armament for a possible attack against the U.S., they dropped Castro. After all their promises, he was of no value to them.

Castro dug his own pit with his sadistic way of governing. Unfortunately, he took a whole peoples with him.

This relates to current times as Lulu is said to be an admirer of Castro. NOT a good plan.

Very abbreviated I know. Castro's full story is available on the web. Just type 'Fidel Castro' into a search engine. Point being, just how does all of this affect Lulu and what he intends?





Brazilian
Guest


10/19/2002
21:46:15
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Historical resume of Cuba:

Batista´s period until 1959:

Mafia, gangsters, cabarets, prostitution, games, private enterprises, dictartorship of right wing and sugar cane.

Castro´s period 1959-1989 (Part I):
Communist party (communist mafia group), drug dealers, smuggling, political represion, dictartorship of radical left wing (Stalin style), and sugar cane.

Castro´s period 1990 - until today (Part II):
Communist party (communist mafia group), drug dealers, smuggling, cabarets and prostitution, joint ventures either the communist mafia and European companies, political represion, dictartorship of radical left wing (but not more a Stalin style and more Chinese style with joint ventures in tourism and other companies) and sugar cane.


Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/20/2002
01:26:08
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
The "facts" here stated by USCIT about Castro"s rule in Cuba are quite challengable. Years ago when I was researching the events that lead to the alienation of this little island to our south, I found a interesting scenario that went something like this: King Ranch with huge holdings in Cuba was offered x amount for its holdings--this was the amount on which King paid taxes to the Batista regime. The King people said "no"! Our property is worth x plus y-- that is the price we will agree to. Fidel said you have valued your property at x for taxes we will pay x or you may pay the back taxes on the amount you state is the true value. King said - no; Fidel said va se emborra. And the ranch became property of the new regime.
Perhaps both of us are seeing the shadows on Plato's cave wall (so to speak). But I did live in Brazil while working with the Peace Corps from 65 --68 in the state of Ceara in the Nordeste. At times in the sertao I thought I had gone into a time warp--back to the 17th century. No sewage, no water other than the stream in good times, no roads, electricity, schools, health facilities, nor food for most of the vastly illiterate people. I saw remnants of the Ligas de Campesinas where virtually enslaved workers were given a glimpse of a better future for themselves and their children. Most of the leaders of the Ligas had been exiled, imprisoned or gone into hiding, A few were killed I recently learned.(Not like Chile or Argentina in the 70's) Once I was invited to dine with a USAID rep who fed me bettern I'd eaten in months. He asked me If I had a problem with the "communists"in the region. Yes, I said, the priest told me that a few of the most dedicated peasants I had befriended were communists. These illiterate Marxists were the only ones who volunteered to rebuild the hammock factory, organize a local school and talk to people about health problems. I had a problem I told the USAID man--there weren't enough of them. Well, he almost choked on his lobster and steak; but I had spoken the truth as I witnessed it. And these were devout catholic communists to boot!

One more question that I haven't quite figured out: both the US and Cuba respect Nelson Mandela, the incredible human being from South Africa. Mandela refused to abandon Castro despite US urging. Did the Cuban army play an instrumental role in the defeat of apartheid South Africa?

After this aside, lets get back to focusing on O Nosso Brasil.


USCIT
Guest


10/20/2002
03:02:05
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Time is short right now Pirambuence and I'll answer your comments in more detail later. Good post btw. Anyway, I'm not sure what Cuba did in Africa, however Che Guevara went over there several times. What role he may have played in apartheid or contact he may have had with Nelson Mandala's people, I cannot say off hand. I have also heard that there was a Cuban Army presence in Africa, but had also thought it more to the north instead of S. Africa itself. Could be wrong though. Bears looking into. I agree with your assessment of Nelson Mandala as a human.


USCIT
Guest


10/20/2002
20:12:21
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Back again, Pirambuence

First of all, No, I don't believe my facts are quite challengable. They stand as stated.

But I must say something about your statements, as they are misleading. Therefore, a danger to any who believe them at face value.

Take an instance of buying something at TAX value. Especially real estate. I don't know what it is where you are, but a fairly high number for TAX value as opposed to MARKET value is something like 11 1/2%. And then you pay taxes on a mil rate calculated from that. Here, about $2500.00 on a $175,000.00 house.

Now you say that Castro offered the King Ranch the TAX value of their properties. The value of the properties at that time was 1.1 millions of dollars. MARKET value. Just to make it simple, lets say the TAX value would then be about One hundred and ten thousand.

Now lets turn that around and call it YOUR property. Say you have a house you value at One Hundred and Fifty Thousand at MARKET value. At TAX value that would be about Fifteen thousand. Someone comes up to you and shoves an AK-47 in your face and tells you they are taking it for Fifteen Thousand Dollars. Either that or get out.

Now you can accept that, or get out and hope to come back one day and reclaim your property. You're going to lose a bunch either way, but maybe less with the latter.

NOBODY is going to write off 90% of the value of their property and call that a 'fair' deal. NOBODY.

And yet when you say that Castro 'offered' to buy the land at TAX value, for those not familiar, that makes it appear as if he was trying to be 'fair'. Bull^^^^. He was laughing every step of the way and knew he would never be taken up on his offer, and further couldn't even have paid the 10%. Then instead of it becoming confisticated property, it would just be a bad debt. At 10% of value.

Castro was educated. He knew how history was written. And that in time people, such as yourself, would come along and say such as, "Well, he tried to buy it." Such a pity he's taken so many in.

As to paying back taxes on the FULL value, that isn't even realistic. No one can pay the tax if it were assessed at FULL value. Castro is a Thief. He stole over One Billion Eight Hundred Million of U.S. assets. Its on record, and earning interest at 6%.

In such as the google search engine type in 'King Ranch" Cuba and you will find the government site where the records are kept of ALL businesses who were robbed by Castro. Or I should say all businesses who lost more than one million dollars. They don't list those who lost less.

Point being, to make an arbitrary statement that Castro offered to 'pay' leaves out the fact that Castro 'Couldn't' pay, and what he offered he did with tongue in cheek, knowing how much an insult it was. I'm sure he was laughing with delight at every thing he took.

That is just another step of what Castro did to destroy his Nation.

A note to lovers of Castro policy. Someone similar could be after YOUR house next.


USCIT
Guest


10/20/2002
20:48:49
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
And now, Communism.

I found that a very interesting comment about your experience in the back parts of Brazil, Pirambuence. It is those types of experiences I would like to see more of posted here, and to me that is: O Nosso Brasil.

I have studied much on the Brazilian Indian and from what I can gather they 'were' (at any rate - don't know about now) some of the most communistic peoples in the world by nature.

They didn't have a manifesto, nor Elitists leading them around telling them what to do, they did all by nature.

When they built a house, it was for ten families. (Or so, somewhere around there, just an example) When a man caught a fish, HE didn't have a fish, the TRIBE had a fish. When the women worked the poisons out of manioc they did it as a village effort. Not just one for one family. All was done in a natural communistic lifestyle.

But do note the difference between NATURAL communism, and that dictated by an Elitist, or power monger.

Therefore, when you said that the peoples you worked with were "illiterate" the first thing that comes to my mind is that an educated person could go up to them and say they were a communist, and they would say "Ok." That same person could say they were peacocks, and they would say Ok to that also. Most Brazilian natives wore feathers, or paint, or both, for decoration.

The difference being in our talk however is the type of communist. Their communism is great. Especially so as a struggling people trying to better their life situation. They sounded like very hard working and industrious people. Should yu be in the mood, write more of them.

But the communists of the 'outer' world are an entirely different matter. Belaboring Castro again. He has luxury, ease and plenty. The poor peasant working the land, hardly enough to eat. That's what most communism is today.

Just as there are democracy's by name, and democracy's by action, there are communists by name, and communists by action. As I'm sure you know.

Don't try to sell me Castro though. It ain't flyin, and I ain't buyin. I know too much about the man.

Have not had time to check further on Cubans in Africa. It seems to me that Paul Theroux wrote a bit about that, but I could be wrong. He was Peace Corps in Africa. (Some good stories) Also others. They were there, I'm sure of that, just where I can't pinpoint.

O Nosso Brasil.


USCIT
Guest


10/20/2002
21:31:29
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Nelson Mandela.

<<One more question that I haven't quite figured out: both the US and Cuba respect Nelson Mandela, the incredible human being from South Africa. Mandela refused to abandon Castro despite US urging. Did the Cuban army play an instrumental role in the defeat of apartheid South Africa?>>

It would have been difficult for Nelson Mandela to have been known personally by Castro, but maybe one of his followers. Mandela was imprisoned in 1962 and not released until 1990.

During the early years of Mandela, Castro, et. al. were busy with their own revolution.

It is possible that he met Che Guevara. During a trip in 1961 - 62, Mandela arranged guerrilla training for the Umkhanto we Sizwe, his own revolutionary group. That was also the timing for Guevara's first trip to Africa. And, guerrilla warfare, his speciality.

Just a guess, the mutual respect of Castro and the U.S. for Mandela was simply his philosophy. Mandela stood for equality and freedom for all and was willing to give his life to attain it.

The U.S. admiring the equality factors, Castro the revolutionary part.

Also, if Guevara did meet Mandela, he may have come home to Cuba and sung his praises to Castro. And also helped set up the training camp for the Umkhanto we Sizwe. If so, I doubt if that would be on any available records. So that is just a guess on my part.

Further, if Guevara did help Mandela at that time, Mandela may have valued the help. He wasn't getting much from anywhere else. (Except Norway. They stood for him when all other nations opposed him or just considered him a rabble rouser.)


Sick
Guest


10/21/2002
01:42:59
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Nelson Mandela credits Cuba’s intervention in the Angolan civil war with hastening the end of South African apartheid. Also, assisting Angola to win it's independence and fight off the South African army that was supported by the United States.


Alex
Guest


10/21/2002
08:13:28
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
It seems that Pirimbuance has managed to move us off-point.
Whether passionately exposed -- as by USCIT and by many of
my associates and friends in Florida -- or academically
dissected, Castro's regime is a failure. Any association with
him or invocation of him or his policies in regard to inspiration
for future political and economic planning is terrifying in that it
suggests a numbness of the intellect. Hence, Lula causes
concern, no matter how loose his association. (Note: I, for one,
optimistically hope that Lula's association with Castro is
limited to the idealism that fuels most extreme socialist policy
and not the actual policy itself.) At any rate, Castro's regime
was/is an operational failure -- as were/are all of the other
then-contemporary political institutions with similar
governmental policies. Any successes in those regimes have
come through aberrations of stated policy, not by adherence
to their originally purported idealism. That said, debating the
impact or moral aspects of specific Cuban, U.S. or other
countries' operations, while interesting, is an unending road.
The best point made so far, to my mind, is Brazilian's concise
reminder that no matter the time period or leadership in Cuba,
many of the same corrupt variables have remained in place --
Mafia, drug dealers, oppression, etc. In fact, the argument can
be made that no matter what the regime or the country, these
variables exist. Rather than focusing on the unintended
variables (despite conspiracy theorists, crime, while it may be
endemic and even necessary to certain administrations,
exists apart from their stated intentions), we should focus on
administrations' effects on the general population. If we agree
that all regimes have some kind of corruption present in their
ranks, we can also agree that there are obvious differences in
standards of living associated with certain administrations
apart from their peripheral negative aspects. It is amazing that
any leader pursuing a course of administration so
consistently associated with producing an antiquated,
substandard quality of life for the general population would
find support among that general population, but it obviously
happens. There are specific variables that contribute to
quality of life and to this support -- discussions, like those that
USCIT mentioned, too large for this forum -- but I believe it's
safe to say that management of those variables, the "big
picture," if you will, is the ultimate substance of most
ideological debate. On that, people may have reason to find
concern with Lula. His "big picture" seems to look like those
faded shots we see in history books. Rather than building on
ground that has been proven unsteady, Brazil might consider
finding a new, better way to build on solid economic and
political ground -- take what works and seek to make it better,
to correct those faults it finds in other manifestations of
modern free-market economies. It has the resources -- both
natural and human -- to be an inspiration internationally. Better
that than yet another warm-climate cliche.


Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/22/2002
03:25:42
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Obrigado for the info on Mandela and the fall of apartheid. I have a Cuban friend that fled his island home for the USA in the mid 80's. He was one of the Cuban soldiers in Angola and told some harrowing tales of his time there. One thing that amazed me in the confusion of that war was his duties included defending a US owned oil company from the enemy. Like many pawns in the struggle he knew not why. But I found it ironic that Cubans did play that role in Africa. Why did he flee Cuba? Castro wanted him to fight in Nicaragua.

To Alex's main point--the big picture and how policies affect the common man and thereby move a social structure, often despite itself: the history of US relations with Latin America point out that policies interpreted by the North Americans as threats (socialistic tendencies) are threatened, undermined, and aborted if need be from within or without. The Goulart government of 1964 is evidence to that in Brazil; the numerous Guatamalan experiences starting in 1954; the Allende overthrow of 72 and on and on to the Nicaraguan tragedy of the 80's. Like most of us who want a decent life for the common man in the hemisphere, Lula knows what grounds he cannot trespass with out Sam undoing him regardless of the authenticity and legitimacy of his road to power.

As a pragmatist in things political I suggested to a group of Latinos, including Brazilians, that they might try becoming a state in the US Union! After they cooled down and decided they would not lynch me until after I had had my say, I said they would have a much better venue for their social experiments and a strong voice in the US Congress with representation. Nicaragua being the bone of contention at the time, they had no voice other than vociferous grass roots resistance to US intervention via the well paid Contras. Consequently, their Revolution was murdered by America do Norte. The election that undid the Sandinistas was awash in US dollars for the opposition, yet foreign monies in US electons is anathema to our democratic process!
It's those small things like rural health posts, schools, agricultural cooperatives and free college education for the masses that have been undone in today's Nicaragua. Drugs and prostitution are rampant again though, and the suffering of the people is unending.

The people of Brazil deserve an opportunity to give a better life to the millions on the periphery of their rich civilization. All of us in this discussion agree on that. How to get there is the question and what are the pitfalls history tells us to beware of. It's a little bit like dealing with the Roman Empire, nao e?



Sick
Guest


10/23/2002
11:45:34
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
>the history of US relations with Latin America point out that policies interpreted by the North Americans as threats
(socialistic tendencies) are threatened, undermined, and aborted if need be from within or without.

Cold war politics. There are some in the Bush administration that still follow those insane doctrines, but i doubt it would be as brazen, possible or in the interest of the US to revert to that way of thinking in foreign policy. So don't assume that would happen.

>It's those small things like rural health posts, schools, agricultural cooperatives and free college education for the
masses that have been undone in today's Nicaragua. Drugs and prostitution are rampant again though, and the suffering of the people is unending.

You should probably rethink this and take into consideration the entire history of Nicaragua and US involvement there. But what you say about Nicaragua is true, the place is poor and suffering. It always has been. Now can you explain how it is that Daniel Ortega, who left behind an US$11 billion debt for his services as president, was living in a million dollar mansion in Nicaragua? Not to mention the fancy homes his other comrades miracuously came about during their reign. How do socialist revolutionaries gain so much personal wealth? The answer is easy, they steal it from evil capitalists who create wealth, yet did not share their bounty with the vaunted "masses" that revolutionaries pretend to help. What happened when Ortega and his band of economic geniuses implemented their plan for a classless society? Average wages dropped 90%. Yes, 90%. Yeah you're right though, the US "murdered" the revolution. Hahahaha

>The people of Brazil deserve an opportunity to give a better life to the millions on the periphery of their rich
civilization. All of us in this discussion agree on that. How to get there is the question and what are the pitfalls history tells us to beware of. It's a little bit like dealing with the Roman Empire, nao e?

A Russian accountant figured the total dollar value of subsidies and loans the USSR gave to Castro up until 1986 (I am not sure about the year, but it was around that time) and came up with a figure of about US$100 billion. Yes, billion. (This figure was adjusted for 1994 dollars when it was calculated) Now take a look at Cuba....where did all that money go? Cuba also borrowed a billion from Spain and another billion from Argentina. They will never see that money again. Where did it go? Cuba produces practically nothing that is why no one trades with them. The embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's poverty because NO ONE wants to trade with or loan money to Cuba. Cuba's poverty stems directly from it's socialist economic system.

See how great socialism is? It's a beautiful thing if you're a sadist.

But none of this explains why Latin America is so poor. I think the explanation for that is easy but no one ever talks about it. It is because Latin America was colonized by Catholic nations. It seems any place that suffered this unfortunate fate is poor, corrupt, mostly backwards and have an insatiable taste for socialistic solutions. Church dogma, doctrine and propaganda is mighty powerful as you can see and translates well into socialism and revolutionary ideals. (Liberation theology that is so prevelant in Latin America is one of the more twisted examples of this.) The Catholic church's fetish for hierarchical structures laden with corruption clearly was passed on to all of the Latin American political systems, as well as their class systems. How does a culture eradicate something so ingrained? It usually doesn't, unless that culture wants to survive and adapts. Based on the voting in Latin America lately, it doesn't look like adaptation is part of the culture either.

Beijos Tchau


an observer
Guest


10/23/2002
12:37:22
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To Sic:

You bring up many interesting observations and points regarding poverty in Latin America. Your point regarding religion is interesting also.

However, I think the key cause of poverty is disrespect for individuals and disrespect for rule of law. Poverty seems to be most prevalent in the world where there is war, or corrupt government.

A previous Brazilian writer on this board once mentioned his observation that English-speaking countries are generally among the most prosperous in the world. And, countries formerly colonized by England are much stronger economically than those colonized by Spain or Portugal.

It is easy to suggest that the difference in prosperity is due to religion, since England is predominantly Protestant (Anglican), and Spain & Portugal are predominantly Catholic.

However, it is also easy suggest that the difference is due to skin and hair color, since the population of England (and most English speaking countries) has a higher percentage of population with light hair/skin color than the populations of Latin American countries.

I think both the above are false.

A pivotal moment in the history and culture of the English speaking world is the signing of the “Magna Carta”.
In June 1215, King John of England agreed to the demands of his barons as expressed in Magna Carta. Magna Carta expressed human principles that previously had never been stated or written into law, guaranteeing freedoms for generations to come. And, also guaranteed that rulers (and Kings) would be subject to the rule of law.

When American colonists raised arms against England in 1776, they were not fighting for new rights, but to preserve the liberties they already had as outlined in Magna Carta that dated back to the Middle Ages, the 13th century.

Please note, that England was still Catholic at the time the Magna Carta was written. (The Magna Carta was written a long time before the King of England would declare himself to be the head of the Church of England, giving him the power to cut off the head of his wife without being subject to the wrath of the Catholic Pope).



Brazilian
Guest


10/23/2002
13:19:01
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick wrote:
"...But none of this explains why Latin America is so poor. I think the explanation for that is easy but no one ever talks about it. It is because Latin America was colonized by Catholic nations. It seems any place that suffered this unfortunate fate is poor, corrupt, mostly backwards and have an insatiable taste for socialistic solutions. Church dogma, doctrine and propaganda is mighty powerful as you can see and translates well into socialism and revolutionary ideals. (Liberation theology that is so prevelant in Latin America is one of the more twisted examples of this.) The Catholic church's fetish for hierarchical structures laden with corruption clearly was passed on to all of the Latin American political systems, as well as their class systems. How does a culture eradicate something so ingrained? It usually doesn't, unless that culture wants to survive and adapts. Based on the voting in Latin America lately, it doesn't look like adaptation is part of the culture either."...

I think that is true. Look the example of Australia. Brazil was discovered 500 years ago, and Australia only 200 years ago. Look the differences either the both countries in terms of social and economy society.



USCIT
Guest


10/23/2002
13:20:37
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Religion is the opium of the masses. So said Karl Marx. His belief was that it kept them from thinking and made them accept the status quo, whatever that was. And so, in an area where religion is heavily practiced, per he, that may well be true.

As to myself, I don’t think much about religion at all. I think it a waste to listen to somebody expound pontifically on a subject he knows no more about than I do. If any man KNOWS GOD, then let him speak. Otherwise, forget it. Pontifical rhetoric is boring.

As to why Latin America consistently lives at a poverty level status, and below, is that they don’t PRODUCE anything. Not anything of real value. Name me a single Latin American country that produces something better than any other nation, and tell me what that item may be. Please. I would like to know.

After the 2nd world war, Japan pulled itself out of a total economic destruction by making things better than they could be had anywhere in the world at that time. Cars, later electronics. When they stopped doing better, they slid back down the economic scale. Germany, much the same. Any nation that produces SOMETHING OF VALUE better than any other nation, will excel in the world market. The U.S. has changed its economical structure to base, to a large extent, on information technology. Bill Gates became the worlds richest man by letting people steal that from him. Until he had control. When he developed MS-DOS and was asked why he made it so easy to copy on the black market, he just said “I can’t stop them.” Then after 80% of the computers in the world were running on Microsoft technology, using M/S based software, he started tightening up. Try to copy Windows XP and see what you get. Or even Win95.

Latin America? From an outsiders point of view the thing they seem to do best, or most consistently, is fight. Display their EGOS. One guy becomes boss, they don’t like him, so they shoot him, or exile him, and make another guy boss, till they don’t like him so they get rid of him and make another guy boss. But no one MAKES anything. Just copy-cats other items made in other places. And battle with one another.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. So it is said.



an observer
Guest


10/23/2002
16:00:55
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To Sic and Brazilian: I don't know much, but, ...... I think I think the cause and effect relationship SIC and Brazilian are making (that the Catholic religion is the cause of poverty) if false.

The most popular single religious denomination in the USA today is Catholicism, and has been for more than 100 years.

For example, Lee Iacoca the Business leader who is credited for saving Chrysler corporation in the 1980's was Catholic.

Jack Welsh who is credited with turning GE into the economic power engine that it is today is a Catholic.

I will not try to defend everything that is said or done in the name of Catholicism. I have many problems with many things about Catholicism. But the cause and effect relationship that you claim, is not there.

The evidence indicates that poverty is most prevalent wherever disrespect for rule of law is prevalent, and/or power is not distributed throughout a large segment of the population (regardless of the religion of the population).


Sick
Guest


10/23/2002
16:48:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
>However, I think the key cause of poverty is disrespect for individuals and disrespect for rule of law. Poverty seems to be most prevalent in the world where there is war, or corrupt government.

The Catholic church does not think much of individuals or their rights. Corrupt government, yes, where do you think they learned how to corrupt so as to remain in power within a hierarchical system? It's endemic in the culture, it's normal. The Catholic church also recently publicly apologized for aiding dictators throughout Latin American history, so even the Church acknowledges it's influence and complicity in corruption.

>I think both the above are false.

The above mentioned are not analagous. No one attends a gathering to learn their skin color. There is no book to study to learn skin color. No one converts to another skin color, etc. etc. Skin color holds no relevance in this discussion.

I am merely pointing out the fact that Latin America was unfortunate enough to have been colonized by Catholic nations. The same argument could be made for the Phillipines. The Catholic church has been political for hundreds of years, this isn't news. So for about 500 years the Church has been the power behind the power in Latin America. It's cultural influence is even more striking than Protestant influence in North America because the Church was literally a player in the policy realm and was dictated by scholastic dogma. These days it is the liberation theologists making inroads by exploiting the poor and uneducated (that's how the Church prefers common folks to be) and trying to convince them that the road to salvation is through socialism. Friar Betto in Brasil is a good example.

Brazilian makes a great point about Australia, I had never thought of comparing the success of Australia to Latin America.

USCIT, I think we tend to see this the same way but using slightly different explanations. But I should point out I am not talking about an indivduals belief, I am refering to the influence of the Catholic Church on society as a whole, as an institution, in Latin America.

You are right, Latin America produces very little and I blame that on the Church. Spain and Portugal essentially just moved their 1492 structures and institutions, influenced mostly by the Church, to the new world. There were no fundamental changes in this for the first 400 years or so of colonization. So that mercantile mentality, the idea of relying on the production of commodities to produce wealth, was clearly the wrong path. Latin American culture STILL relies on commodities for the most part. And at least for the last 100 years or so, the price of commodities have been on a steady decline, and will continue to decline. It is time to change, time to adapt, but no, let's vote for Lula he cares about poor people. Just like his idol Castro who cares so much about poor people he impoverished an entire island of 11 million people.

Japan is a great example. Talk about a society that can adapt to changing times, Japan might be the best at this. Japanese culture can practically do a 180 overnight, like, as you mentioned, after WWII. This is what I meant by Latin America has to adapt to the current environment. If it doesn't, it will surely perish.

So you see USCIT, I think we fundamentally agree. :)

Observer, you forget history. The Catholic Church was not the dominant influence at colonial North America's nor the US' founding. I am sure you have heard of Max Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic" theory. Plus, since those Catholics who have immigrated to the US were operating in a generally WASPish culture, they were secularized (for lack of a better phrase) for the most part and accepted this culture. The Catholic Church for the most part has taken on a completely different nature in the States. I am not sure that comparison is valid. However, look at many working class neighborhoods, especially in larger cities in the Midwest and East, and you will see they are often dominated by Irish, Italian and Eastern European Catholics. I live in Chicago, I see it everyday. There isn't technically poverty in these areas but they are one pay check away as we say here in the States. I am from an Irish Protestant background on both sides of my family, the Protestant Irish headed west and secured farmland in the Midwest, the Catholic Irish stayed in the city ghettos working factory jobs and local government jobs. Which do you think have been more successful?


an observer
Guest


10/23/2002
17:28:30
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Dear Sick:
You discuss many things. But, I still fail to see cause and effect relationship between Catholicism and poverty. Many people make the claims that you make, but it is clear to me that this claim is usually based on a desire to defame the Catholic church.

Also, if you knew anything about the Catholic church you would know that the Vatican is directly aposed to "liberation theology".

Note that it is only now that the British occupation of most of the counties of Ireland has lifted that the Republic of Ireland (extremely Catholic) is blossoming economically.

Poverty in the world is caused by disrespect for human life, human liberty, property rights, and rule of law, as exemplified by corrupt government and war (i.e., the 600 years of British occupation and subugation of Ireland).


an observer
Guest


10/23/2002
17:37:26
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Further point, the Scots (protestant) Irish, inherited the benefits of a history based on the rule of law which draws from the Magna Carta.

Regarding the Japanese, they had imposed upon them a Constitutional Republican government with a Parlement and some democratic means of distributing economic power while respecting property rights.


an observer
Guest


10/23/2002
18:00:35
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the Catholic church has not been involved in "bad behavior" at many stages of it's history.

But, from my observations, the most conservative Catholics (i.e., William Buckly, and those most likely to read and study the catechism and encyclicals or to become involved in Catholic philosophy and theology) are also generally the most supportive of capitalism (with some restraints)).

It is the liberal Catholics (and I do not consider these people to be Catholics at all, although they claim to be Catholic, i.e., Ted Kennedy) that are supportive of the far left socialism.

Both the liberals and conservatives listed above claim to be Catholic. Yet the Catholic Conservatives promote ideas that foster economic power and economic independence.

The Catholic Liberals believe in "group rights" have no respect for individual rights, rule of law, property rights .... etc ....

Yet, they both claim to be Catholic.


USCIT
Guest


10/23/2002
18:20:33
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
I place my thoughts on religion on a personal basis as I do not attack any belief another man has without a definite and solid point to replace it. Since religion is ALL rhetoric, there's nothing to replace it with under currently held beliefs. Catholic, Prostentant, Hindu, Muslim or Jew. Voodooism etc also I might add. One is just as much the spouting of a man, who actually 'knows' nothing, trying to make a living without physical work, as the other.

So I go back to the concept that it is a lack of production that causes poverty. Do note, I am not saying at all that the people don't work. They might work very hard, and I believe they do. The problem however is they don't produce at a higher quality than a competitive market. And therein lies the difference.

If I were to lay a blame, I would blame it on the Iberian mentality. The macho, I am the greatest, attitude without showing a thing to prove it.

Latin America was mostly conquored, and settled by Iberians. Sure, they were Catholics, Ferdinand demanded it. You were either Catholic or you were in a dungeon. (Do you know what one of the greater sins was during the early days of the conquests? Eating meat on Friday was a greater sin than killing a man, if he were Indian.) But that was secondary to their macho mentality.

Francisco Pizarro went into Peru with 120 soldiers and faced a nation of millions. He not only faced them, he TOOK it. He took all of their gold, their culture and their freedom. Mighty cajones there Francis, mighty cajones. But then he, and his followers, rested on their laurels. They haven't done a thing since. Except fight over who gets what.

In a much longer drawn out action, Brazil was taken by another Iberian nation. But they're still 'taking' they're not 'producing'.

And, the descendents of both these countries have moved to take over nearly all of the Latino countries. (Certainly not in that order, but if you need an order to identify, I can give it.) Still all with the same mentality. Take. Don't give.

The world has evolved enough by now that it is time that mentality was put by the wayside and the lessons of history learned.

I wouldn't however blame Catholicism any more than I would any other religion. To me one is just as bad as the other. In fact, if Brazilian history is studied, a person would find that the Jesuits were kicked out of Brazil because they were having too great a commercial success. The King wanted it and the church wasn't taxed. Time and again comercial enterprises have gone into Brazil, made an initial success, then started running into legal tangles. Until they were taken over by the local elitists. Who couldn't run them, and let them fall by the wayside. The elitists managing to take a few bucks from the wreckage. Ruining a whole enterprise but blaming it on 'foreign' investment.

That isn't Catholic, just macho stupidity. Shortsightedness. Gimme.




Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/24/2002
00:43:12
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
REading all the points of view here detailed, I side with the Magna Carta. and I have seen some sterling examples of socialism amongst people. The best example of Liberation theology I witnessed was in atheistic, communistic, Sandinista Nicargua. Where landless peasants were given cooperatives to work. Some had splendid successes, built houses, health posts and schools for the common good, and most importantly shared a realization of accomplishment in the improvement in their dignity and lives and the hopes for their children. So why was the USA so determined to undo the Sandinistas? Was it the alleged corruption of the regime? We furnish hundreds of millions for equally corrupt governments around the world. Was it the fear of an invasion across our southern border? I heard this expressed in the US Congress. I saw teenaged soldiers of the Revolution being carried about in carts pulled by oxen. Surely our stealth aircraft would have espied them before they took Texas. What made it so essential that the Sandinista Revolution fail in American policy makers minds?
I daresay it is fear of the chance that Socialist Revolutions might succeed were they to be treated as experiments in social structure--upon social organizations that are proven failures--Haiti, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, most of Central America and much of South America. It is because they tend to have a vision--they build infra structure--education, and health.
Why would an army destroy an enemy's health post, grain mills and food staples, co-operataives if not to prove that they cannot be given a chance to realize their dreams? NO, I don't blame it on the church alone nor on the racial mix, not even on the silly-assed machismo that permeates so many aspects of Latin American society. I blame it on the twisted form of property rights and denial of human rights to fellow human beings, which the Magna Carta addresses. Capitalism in the modern sense fails to throw its immense power and support to the underclass. Some say it cannot do so and survive. Lula seems to believe it can.
******************************
Has anyone out there got a connection for a real Brazilian folkloricist--Uma pessoa quem sabe bem a historia dumas artistas musicais contemporanea do Nordeste? Muito agradecido





Brazilian
Guest


10/24/2002
01:01:39
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
There are many focus to explain the consequences of poverty in Latin America. The religion can be one of them... But, and the example of Canada? There is a side of which is protestant and other side of which is catholic (Quebec) and inclusive is spoken French (a Latin language). I remember when De Gaulle, president of France, said in public in Quebec: Vive Quebec livre! ( Viva! Quebec Free! ). The Quebec province in Canada is poor in comparation the British´s influence provinces?...

Other thing, one body says that the color of skin doesn´t have nothing with the poverty? Can you give me a good example of a country in Africa of which the government and society is only black people and the country is developed and rich?


an observer
Guest


10/24/2002
04:54:12
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Brazilian, Yes you are correct about French Canada. Here is the reason why what you say is true: Part of the culture inherited by English speaking people dates back to the Middle Ages. In June of 1215, King John of England agreed to the demands of his barons as expressed in Magna Carta. Magna Carta expressed human principles that previously had never been stated or written into law, guaranteeing freedoms for generations to come. And, also guaranteed that rulers (and Kings) would be subject to the rule of law. The French do not inherit the cultural legacy of the English Magna Carta of the Middle Ages.

Regarding Latin America, I think I agree with Pirambuence. Pure Capitalism is as bad as pure democracy and socialism, but for different reasons. While Pure democracy fails to respect the rights of individuals. Pure Capitalism fails to throw its immense power and support to the underclass.

Constitutional Republics (as developed in English speaking countries) with distributed power and rule of law seem to have balanced things better.


Silvio
Guest
 Email

10/24/2002
11:02:11
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
If Quebec were to succeed from Canada, what would they call the Montreal hockey team? They certainly could not be called teh Canadians as they wouldn't then be Canadian.

THINK ABOUT THAT!!!




Sick
Guest


10/24/2002
12:36:17
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Yes, I discuss many things, but there are also some things I haven't discussed, namely that Catholocism "causes" poverty. I haven't addressed the "causes" of poverty and I don't intend too. Let me address some other points that have been made:

*Yes, I take great pleasure in defaming the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean my points aren't valid.

*I am fully aware the Vatican stands opposed to "liberation theology". However, someone forgot to inform many in the Catholic hierarchy in Latin America, especially the priests and nuns. It has had a significant influence in the region for about 40 years now. I mentioned Betto and I know you are aware of Romero. Just two of the more famous examples.

*As for Ireland, occupation and colonization are hardly the same thing. I don't think they are analogous.

*Scotland? Relevance? Scotland has often been mentioned in critiques of Weber's Protestant Work Ethic theory, but I never said I subscribed to that theory. It is also noted that Scotland for some time did not have a separation of church and state as is the case in the States, and that in itself gave different results. Although look at the ingenuity of the Scots, there is an entire book about it. Maybe there is something to Weber's theory.

*Yes, the Japanese had an entirely new economic and governmental system "imposed" upon them. That just makes my point about cultures adapting to changing environments. Japan has a number of quick cultural adaptations in it's history, that is why I mentioned it. The Japanese culture adapted to the new environment, and quite successfully as we all know. Latin America is doing the precise opposite, because one can argue the neo-liberal system is the dominant paradigm at the moment. Latin America, for the most part, is rejecting it. In other words, not adapting, and I think they will fall further behind and become even poorer.

*I really don't think comparing Catholics in North America or Europe to Catholics in Latin America is valid. In North America, they have assimilated into a WASPish culture. (WASP is White Anglo Saxon Protestant for those who may not know.) I am focusing on how the Church has behaved in Latin America. The Church was involved from day one of the colonization process and has exerted great influence over the culture, both political and social, throughout Latin America. I think this is undeniable. Remember, I am referring to countries specifically "colonized" by Catholic nations.

*If Ted Kennedy isn't Catholic in your opinion, then following that logic, almost no one in Latin America is Catholic, especially those who work for the Church. Ever since socialism appeared on the soci-political scene, it has been favored in Latin America over free markets. And if it wasn't socialism, the power usually went to some centralized entity, namely not-so-nice caudillos. This is why I talk about the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church as an institution. The Church believes strongly in centralized power. That is just how hierarchical systems work. Socialism is centralized power. It fits in nicely with Catholic doctrine and dogma, therefore it is a natural draw to those who grew up in that culture. It is the obvious solution for many of them.

*The Latino "machismo" thing, I dunno, I don't really think about it as a socio-political influence. However, the way you put it USCIT, gives it validity as an influence. I don't deny there are other influences on Latin American culture that makes it the way it is. I actually am drawn to the culture and I truly admire it. I just believe the Catholic Church has had the greatest influence in the political and economic realm, much to the detriment of the region.

*I had read the Jesuits were kicked out of Brasil because they strongly and actively opposed the enslavement of indigenous people, who were used as slaves prior to the African slave trade. Someone who knows for sure, please chime in.

*Pirambuence, what planet are you from?

*Skin color is a factor in soci-economic status in Latin America and all over the world, this is undeniable. However, that is an entirely different discussion. I was focusing on the influence of the Catholic Church in Latin America.

*It is pointless to discuss pure capitalism or pure communism or theoretically pure anything because they have never existed and never will.

*Hockey sucks. ;)



Beijos Tchau



USCIT
Guest


10/24/2002
13:29:02
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence, you really need to look at history a little closer perhaps. In 1977, under President Jimmy Carter, U.S. assistance to Somozas stopped. Aid Nicaragua needed, but the U.S. would not give it considering the method of the Somozas regime and the exposure of the Managua earthquake as to what was happening to that aid. In May of 1979, the SANDINISTA'S were offered U.S. aid.

Now that doesn't sound to me as if the U.S. was very worried about some ox carts invading their southern borders. Manned by communists or not. The Sandisista's refused it, instead they began a takeover of established businesses. Al a Castro. The middle-class businessmen of Nicaragua came to the U.S. for help to stop this take-over of things they had worked their lives to obtain.

The U.S. provided that in the form of minor military aid. Then the Sandisista's accepted aid from Castro, and the U.S.S.R.. and that put the total affair on a different footing.

The U.S. does not like Castro, has never liked Castro, and will not tolerate Castro tactics on American soil. North or South. Also keep in mind the feelings at the time toward the U.S.S.R.. Not the Russia of today, but the old system that went broke.

What the Sandinasta's ended up doing was digging their own grave. The fact that they were socialistic didn't bother the U.S.. In fact, aid was even offered to them in the early days. Their tactics however left much to be desired. That feeling of favor soon faded and another view was taken. When they brought in Castro, that was almost an automatic death sentence. With the U.S.S.R., a finalization.

So if a country on American soil goes socialist, it might be a thought to leave out Castro. Ergo the message at the head of this thread. Beware Lulu, a Castro supporter. We do remember.


USCIT
Guest


10/24/2002
14:18:37
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick, you've posted some good material here for consideration, albeit while we agree in some areas, we do disagree in others. Which is fine.

I did have to laugh at your comment about one side of your family being Catholic, the other Protestant, and the result. You see, I come from the same type situation of half and half, albeit, the result is the exact opposite. The Catholics went to farming and the Protestants stayed in the cities. Several Protestant school administrators and preachers in my family on one side, and successful Catholic farmers on the other. The flip side of the coin.

As to Brazil, and other Latino countries, there were both good and bad Catholics. An interesting point of history to me was the Spanish Inquisition in the 'New' world. In Peru, it was the Inquisitors who were the champions of the Inca people in many instances. In Brazil, the same Inquisition was the detriment. (Of course the Tupi should NEVER have eaten that High Priest, that did rather irritate those of the Inquisition.) Yet again, there were good and bad in both camps.

I still don't attribute the current political situation however to 'anyone' being Catholic.

I mentioned it earlier, Catholicism was required by law in the early days of conquest. But that was FERDINAND'S law. (King of Spain.) Not the law of the Church. In fact, the Pope at the time only reluctantly endorsed Ferdinand. He did so mainly because he was so powerful a King, and the Pope was busy with the heretic's in France.

But cramming a religion down someone's throat does not make them a devout follower. Many who were Catholic were so in name only. Which is very true to this day.

I yet feel the thing that perpetuates poverty in Latin America is that macho mentality. The same thing that has caused them to war since the days of Pizzaro. Me. Mine. I am greater. I deserve more. And how will I get it? I will take it from you. Or that one.

These are the actions of the social elitists of the areas. Not the common man. There are very few 'pure' Iberians left in the America's. Most all Latino's are part Amerindian to at least some extent. Some keep the mentality of grab and get. Pizzaro style. Others the Indian way of sharing. Those who share, are not aggressive enough to take. Those who take are not sharing enough to give.

And so, regardless of religion, the thing that needs to be addressed is the macho mentality.




USCIT
Guest


10/24/2002
14:46:35
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Brazilian, enjoyed your comments about Australia and Africa both. My thoughts on Africa are that those there have only had independance so to speak, less than 100 years. Many less than 60. Their biggest problem seems to be ancient tribal warfare however. They can't get together within their own countries to make any advancement. Which has nothing whatever to do with the color of their skin.

Australia, of course, had English investment, and sense enough not to kick it out.

Observer. You have also made many good points. I do have one comment about yours regarding the Vatican. One must keep in mind that back in the early days of the conquest, the Church as it was in the 'new' world was of the Spanish Inquisition. NOT of the Vatican. The Spanish Inquisition did not answer to the Vatican. If they answered at all to anyone, they answered to the King. (Spanish to begin with, Portuguese later, then both countries were headed by the same King for a time.) Which is to say that much of the development of the Church in Brazil was not that of the policies of the Vatican, but that of the ruling King. Or the Inquisition itself. They became a very powerful entity as weaker Kings were crowned. A definite political force themselves. (No Sick, that is not CATHOLIC, <g> remember it is a separate entity. It merely uses the name.)



Randy Paul
Guest
 Email

10/24/2002
14:47:47
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
It's worth noting that in brazil in particular the Jesuits played an integral role in protecting the Tupi and Guarani until the Portuguese threw them out because they needed more slaves.


USCIT
Guest


10/24/2002
22:04:38
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To All.

I apologize. In an earlier post I said that the Tupi Indians had eaten the High Priest. That is wrong. It was the Caeté Indians. The incident took place on 16 June 1556 along the coast about half way between Bahia and Pernambuco. The Bishop eaten was the 1st High Priest of Brazil. One Bishop Pero Fernandes Sardinha.

Randy Paul. You are correct in that the Jesuits were instrumental in protecting the Indians from those who wanted only to sell them for commerce, however the Jesuits also favored 'reductions'. Which is another way of saying, to forcibily bring the Indians in for work and training. The Jesuits just treated them more kindly, and caused them to work on Jesuit farms. It was all a form of slavery against the will of the Indian.

The King was opposed to that because he got one fifth of the value of each slave sold on the market, (by licensed slavers) and the Jesuits paid nothing since they didn't 'sell' them.

The height of hypocracy however took place in 1718. 200 Indians were captured and sold, by the church, to pay for the refurbishing of a Church building in Sâo Luis. This action was approved of and authorized by the King.


Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

10/25/2002
01:28:14
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
someone asked from which planet I originated. I'm from the land where one tries to understand the issues and attitudes of all parties. When I see a health post in rural Nicaragua blown to smithereens by parties subsidized by my government, on my planet we use critical thinking to analyze the situation. If you love the USA, don't be so damned quick to defend it every unsavory action in the name of "vital Interests." that's really a sad dis-service and is quite UN-American in my book on my planet.

USCIT has this Castro boogie man complex, must be in Florida. Was Castro taking over Allende's Chile too?? And Arbenz's Guatamala in 1954???

Stop self deluding, companeiros! The USA has betrayed the American Dream when it is interpreted by fellow South and Central Americans.



Sick
Guest


10/25/2002
03:31:12
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence, for the record I am willing to bet I am just as critical as you of US policy in Latin America, especially in the post-WWII era. I just am critical from a different perspective.

Pirambuence, I challenge you to see how open minded you really are. Please read this book:

Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot

by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Don't let the title mislead you, that is a playful jab at their fellow Latin Americans.

You probably won't agree with their point of view, but at least the book is a great anthology to important figures in all aspects of Latin American history. The English version doesn't have an index, which sucks, but seriously, it is a good read, and you may then see why I asked you what planet you are from. :)

Beijos Tchau




an observer
Guest


10/25/2002
11:02:45
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To USCIT and others:
There are to many subjects wrapped up in this discussion. I cannot possibly address them all (nor would you want me to).

I will keep this as short as possible. ……

The issue is not what went wrong with the governments from Latin countries and colonies, but what went right (or better) with the government of English speaking countries and colonies.

Specifically, the English people and colonists understood that they had rights that protected them from the power of the King and the King’s officers. Thus allowing the English people and colonists the power to develop economic power. However, this did not stop the English from exploiting anyone who was not English. But, if you were English, you knew you had written laws protecting you from the arbitrary power of the King. When English-speaking people colonized other lands, they always understood they had rights as individuals (as outlined by the Magna Carta).

This is a result of something special that happened in the Middle Ages in England (in the 13’th century). Although England was Catholic at the time, religion is not the issue.

The issue is this: Several different political groups were at war. And the King of England was attempting to confiscate property from several land-owning people (barons) who had their own armies. They, the Barons, were successfull at capturing the King. But, rather than simply kill the King, they used their power to force the King to distribute some of his power. The King signed a document, agreeing to this distribution of power, called the Magna Carta.




Sick
Guest


10/26/2002
18:14:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
>Specifically, the English people and colonists understood that they had rights that protected them from the power of the King and the King’s officers.

What rights were these? Your infatuation with a document that was found by accident did not guarantee English people anything. It guaranteed the wealthy landowners certain protections for sure, but for the average citizens, which was what? 90% of the population?, something like that I bet, life did not change. Those Barons, who you think were so free then, held that 90% or so as serfs, who had virtually no rights. If the English had all these rights, how come there was a revolution that resulted in the creation of the US?

>But, if you were English, you knew you had written laws protecting you from the arbitrary power of the King. When English-speaking people colonized other lands, they always understood they had rights as individuals (as outlined by the Magna Carta).

Only if you were wealthy and owned land.

>This is a result of something special that happened in the Middle Ages in England (in the 13’th century). Although England was Catholic at the time, religion is not the issue.

"Something special"?? About 600 more years of civilians being subjected to arbitrary laws and taxation with no recourse to address grievences or representation is something special?

Religion IS the issue here. Whether the behavior of the Spanish and Portuguese was endorsed by the Vatican or the King is irrelevant. The Church, no matter who endorsed it's behavior, was the power behind the power in Latin America. The influence the Church exerted on the civilian leadership in terms of structuring the political and economic systems, not to mention laws that affect the cultural structure, is undeniable. A large degree of Latin American society was created in the Church's image of what a society should be like.

>The King signed a document, agreeing to this distribution of power, called the Magna Carta.

He didn't sign it, it received the royal seale pressed in wax. Of course that distribution of power went solely to the Barons, who were glad to use their new found "rights" to weild even more power over their rightsless serfs.

Tchau


USCIT
Guest


10/27/2002
01:41:44
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
On June 15, 1215 King John of England affixed his seal to the document that became known as the Magna Carta. It gave specific rights to the Earls, Barons and such, and their ancestors, that no King could violate. King John was killed in battle the following year and for his son to gain the ascendency, he had to swear to follow the laws as outlined in the Magna Carta.

Sick is right in that that document only applied to English sub-royalty.

In 1250 however, Henry of Bratton a judge and clergy assembled a group of writings by people then practicing the law under the title, "On Laws and Customs of England." (In Latin.) These documents were 'based' on the concepts of the Magna Carta, but not exactly copied from it.

That held for about the next 300 years. At which time the Parliment was formed, and British Common Law became the leading legal precept. Again, based on the Magna Carta, but not exactly of it. The law was also expanded to cover 'freeholders', not only those with titles.

At about that same time, the Colonies of the U.S. were writing their individual laws. Penn for Pennsylvania, as example. Each Colony had its own law. Most, but not all, based their laws upon that of England, and the Magna Carta. And further expanded the rights of 'free men'.

After the U.S. Revolution was successful, the ratification of the newly written constitution almost did not pass, due to the authors neglecting certain passages of the Magna Carta which others felt were needed for freedom. Which brought about the Bill of Rights. Those were the agreed amendments to the Constitution to help fill the gaps between the Constitution and the concepts of the Magna Carta until all were satisfied that the rights of individual freedom had been served.

England does not have a Constitution. They are governed by Common Law which has evolved over the years. The U.S. is not, and never has been actually under the laws of the Magna Carta. The U.S. is under the laws of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The laws written for the U.S. in the Constitution were however based upon it to a great extent.

It is the freedom of the individual to advance, and secure resources for himself that gives all countries who base their Charters upon the precepts of the Magna Carta an advantage in world commerce. When the working man can produce, work and save for himself, and be insured that the governement will not interceed in his efforts, the entire country is able to lift itself.

Law or Church? The Law has the advantage. Regardless of the Church.

The Magna Carta is probably the most referenced work in law in every English based country. But no country, including England, actually has the Magna Carta as a law.


USCIT
Guest


10/27/2002
01:57:08
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence,

As mentioned before, I don't answer some of this for your edification, but for others who may read this forum and wonder about mis-leading statements.

Very briefly. Allende. Mr. Allende kind of goofed I would say. He nationalized ALL American businesses and banks. What did he expect, U.S. favor? The U.S. does not take kindly to that sort of action.

Arbenz. He was slaughtering Mayan Indians wholesale. All one had to do to be murdered by he and his cohorts was be born a Mayan Indian. The oldest peoples of the Guatomalan land. Are you saying that no one should have gone to their aid? Leave poor Arbenz alone?

You say I have a Castro boogie man complex. No, I don't. But I think you should. The tactics above, and Castro's own, are what has ruined these governments. It's just not done you know.

As to Castro himself, he'll be dead in a very few years, and then the island will be able to choose; democracy and something to eat, or communisim.

Florida? No, Montana. Rather removed.


Jo
Guest
 Email

10/27/2002
02:24:46
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Just a comment on the Catholic vs. Protestant argument:

When Protestants dominated, they encouraged ALL citizens to read--well enough so that they could interpret the Bible for themselves, not rely on some high priest. This creates citizens who are able to discover information and think for themselves. And govern themselves.

The Catholic attitude about education was quite different. They only educated a select few who would tell the people what to think ... information from the top down. "Don't worry about things you don't know, we'll tell you what to do."

The evangelical Protestants have made huge inroads in Brazil.... One important result is that education is improving. Those new Protestants are strongly encouraged to read the Bible...which isn't easy reading in Portuguese either. (I'm not an evangelical, but I think this is a positive result of their efforts.)

Consider this in your debate.



an observer
Guest


10/27/2002
07:05:21
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
USCIT and Jo:

Thank you for adding more to the discussion regarding the Magna Carta. Note, however, I do not claim that the USA, England, or any other country has a government that is beholden legally to the actual Magna Carta document of the 13'th century. My "infatuation" with the 13'th century Magna Carta is based on it representing a pivotal moment in history. A moment when legal power began to become distributed away from centralized arbitrary control of a few individuals (the Kings, etc). Certainly, the English speaking world has been successful at distributing more and more power throughout the population over time. I suspect we still have much further to go. But, progress is difficult. Democratizing power, while protecting the individual from "mob rule" requires a slow process of experimentation. The Magna Carta of the 13'th century represents a first major step in right direction. And its lagacy is felt in the governments of all English speaking countries.

Regarding the comments of religion. I am Catholic. However, regarding the legacy of Protestantism and the distribution of bibles in the native language of all peoples, ..... I say Cheers ......

Note that I also thank God for the invention of the Printing Press, and the Jesuits who happen to run some of the best schools in the USA.

cheers



Sick
Guest


10/27/2002
09:16:53
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
I find it interesting that literacy could be such a threat to one of the largest religious organizations in the world. I think that pretty much says it all about the Catholic Church as an institution.


dan
Guest
 Email

10/27/2002
09:28:13
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Ok look Lula is going to be president and I am not too happy because I think Serra had better plans than Lula, in any case, I pray for Lula to lead Brazil with his moderate tone, and that he maybe be able to grow the economy, create jobs, reform the tax and pension systems, and provide better social services, I am now must admit to support LUla, the PT, and may God Bless Brazil and Lula!


Brazilian
Guest


10/27/2002
10:26:45
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Who governs the Brazil is the MIF (FMI). Therefore, there is not a lot difference who is the next president of the Brazil.


an observer
Guest


10/27/2002
16:00:50
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Dear Mr Sick:
Hmmmmm ..... interesting, countless have learned to read through ..... can you guess? ...... schools run by the Catholic Church.

Your apparent hatred of the Catholic Church seems so personal!!!


USCIT
Guest


10/27/2002
19:18:23
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Jo, Welcome to the great debate. <g> You commented earlier asking if women ever joined these forums, sadly to say, a feminine viewpoint is noticably lacking. A reason perhaps is that as you may notice in previous posts, no quarter is given. Not to idea nor gender. But do join in.

As to your comment that it is the Protestants who encourage reading over Catholics, (for reasons so stated) keep in mind that in many developing countries it is the clergy of whatever denomination that provides all of the schooling. Protestant or Catholic. And the Catholics have provided a great many schools throughout history. Which is what and when and how is more dependent upon location and timing than secular interest. Keeping available funding in mind.

It is also for all to keep in mind that the qualities of a school depends a great deal upon the teacher. I'm sure you must each have experienced that in your own lifetime. One teacher good, another hardly worth attending. Therefore I say it isn't the denomination that is in question, Catholic or Protestant, but the quality of teaching.

The Catholic church has never especially required their congregations to know how to read. They don't teach the Bible to begin with. They teach the catechism and rituals of the Church instead. And those passages of the Bible they want to use for emphasis. They do encourage reading however, and have taught many over the world to do so. It is only the Bible they are not heavily into promoting.

The Protestants do encourage reading, and for each man or woman to read the Bible on their own. But they too want each person to 'interpret' the Bible, as they are told.

The root of if all, it doesn't matter whether the teacher is Catholic or Protestant, but is he/she good?

Does the Church, and Church form the policy of Brazil? Not by any means. If Church teachings were followed, there wouldn't be any murderers, thieves, rapists, or rip-off artists and such. But Brazilians are as human as we all are. What goes in one ear goes out the other. The law however can make them think twice before commiting an act. Just as it does here. Sometimes.

That was a good post, Dan. I wish all of you the best.


Sick
Guest


10/27/2002
20:35:44
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
It's very personal but that is irrelevant because I held these views of the Church's behavior in Latin America long before it became personal. I may just sound a bit more acerbic now than before. I doubt you will believe this but I am not obsessed with loathing the Church, I believe what I have said here to be fact, based on what I have studied, and I don't pretend to be an expert. I don't consider the Church evil or anything outrageous like that. I just do not like the hypocrisy of the Church and blanket denials by many of it's members of it's history. I compare them to Americans' knowledge of the world or past US foreign policy adventures...they truly have no clue and think all the Church does is great and always has been.

You are right about building schools, but that seems to be a North American phenomena, and I applaud the Church for all those endeavors. However, the Church has not done nearly as well in Latin America. I think Jo summed up the reasons for that nicely. Catholics in the States seem to be not much like their fellow Catholics south of the border, so I didn't consider a comparison relevant because the US was not created in the image of the Catholic Church as opposed to our southern neighbors.

Tchau


Carioca
Guest
 Email

10/27/2002
22:12:07
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
At the risk of sounding merely stupid or for the most iliterate to this discussion, I wish to state a few things. I'm a 19-year-old Brazilian girl, born in Rio and raised at the capital, Brasilia. I've been in colege for about two years now, and I'm aware that that doesn't say much about my intelect. I was born in a time where democracy and freespech were unthinkable; yet I have no idea how people managed that situation. I learned about Brazil's past on my classes on the private schools I went to - I guess you know here education is not a right, but a privelege. I have never lived abroad. My political education is not shared with my classmates nor with most youngsters my age. I was taught by my aunts and my mother, who lived in the US, Haiti, Turkey, Paraguai, and many other countries, they being raised among the turmoil of the cold war. On the other hand, my father came from a poorer family, and with him I had the perspective of PT- the workers party. I remember joining him while campaining for Lula in 1989 - but of course, I had no idea of what was going on then.
I've stated the previous just to create a background for what I'm about to say. I don't know much about the world and that may undermine my "knowledge" about my own country. But while reading what you all had to say about Brazil, I came to think of something. I don't think you understand us at all. There isn't a sole cause for the so-called failure of Latinos regimes. It is due to a demographic, cultural, economical status quo that has reign for so long I can't even express in words. ( I could just say "502 years" but I don't think this kind of latino society was simply brought up exacly 502 years ago) Sure, to a protestant, it may seem that catholicism is the problem; for a socialist or a comunist, that the US is the problem, so on and so forth.
But look at the kind of world Portugal has given us. They didn't come here to create a new home - like in the US. They came here to take. Their arrogancy gave us our arrogancy - what someone here called the "macho". There's a say here that goes something like "the one with might will rule; the one with goodsense will follow". And there's also the tradition that everything that's good comes from outside Brazil. We often undervalue ourselves. People who fight for what they believe are discouraged as well. I do not think Lula's election is a state of change in Brazil. This is a country were the tradition is inconsistence, where the iliterate rich farmer who calles himself a "coronel" but has no link to the military is treated as a god by hungry people who's only ambition in life is to have food on their stomach. I think Brazil as a microcosmos of the world, that being said. Electing Lula as the president but failing to elect his party to form the majority on the congress and on the states is hardly what I'd think to be a "leftwing government". I follow PT because I hate the "coronels", not because I'm a comunist (how could I be a comunist?). This country is not formed solely by workers or biznessmen or currupt, iliterate yet awfully rich farmers. There's a whole world of demographic variety. There should be a government for all of us. But there never is. And no-one never wins.


USCIT
Guest


10/27/2002
22:32:55
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Carioca,

That was a good intelligent post. Thank you for sharing that information.

No one ever wins? Well maybe its hard to win sometimes. But each little win counts. Its not until all the counting is done that one can say they did or did not win. Keep going, you sound intelligent enough to make many wins.


Carioca
Guest
 Email

10/27/2002
23:18:53
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Thanx USCIT.

I guess I'm just so frustrated that PT's candidate for my state lost the election to one of those "coronels" I've mentioned. By 0,5%.

And thanx again for the compliments...


Randy Paul
Guest
 Email

10/28/2002
06:24:51
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Carioca,

You are wise beyond your years. I have often argued that the fact that Brazil is the only Ibero-American country in South America that got its independence not through revolution, but through imperial fiat (in other words, Dom Pedro II simply declaring independence) meant that the Portuguese colonial social structure was not rejected, but was absorbed into much of Brazilian society. This is best exemplified by the tradition of the coroneis as you noted.

I salute you, wish you the best of luck, continue your studies and I hope that you consider a run for president some day.


Sick
Guest


10/28/2002
12:19:11
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Carioca, you know more than you think you know. I must say though, what you said is essentially the same as what I have been arguing on here. I don't blame the Catholic Church for every problem in Latin America. I just raised the question of why countries colonized by Catholic nations seem to have not been as successful as others. My main point is, the Church exerted most of it's influence on how Latin American political, economic and social institutions were structured (and as you mentioned are essentially the same today). That influence has had a significant affect on the success and failures of those societies even to this day. I think some of my comments and ideas in this thread have been misinterpreted and you said some of what I believe much better than I. Obrigado!

Tchau


Jo
Guest
 Email

10/28/2002
15:02:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Carioca,

Thanks for sharing your information. Of course you are right...Brazil's problems are ever so complex; the Catholic Church, education...are just two of many issues involved.
There's so much potential, but people have been saying that for a century! There is also a tremendous amount of 'inertia"....the tradition of getting around many rules that are made to improve the lot of everyone.

We're all wishing Lula good luck. It will still be an uphill battle with the congress, the governors, the banks (!), the international financial community, and the Brazilian bureaucracy. The latter is the essence of "inertia." Of course the "coronels" and their relatives are well-established in all of those areas.

Agora é Lula!! I'm wearing red today!


Pork_Chop_1
Guest


10/28/2002
22:02:05
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Carioca wrote:

'But look at the kind of world Portugal has given us. They didn't come here to create a new home - like in the US. They came here to take. Their arrogancy gave us our arrogancy - what someone here called the "macho".'

What a dumb statement. As a group, Portuguese immigrants have been one of the most successfull immigrants to Brazil over the last 50 years. Why is that? DUMBASS!!

Look at where Portugal's standard of living is right now compared to Brazil. There's no comparison. Why is that? Why hasn't "latifudios" and the Catholic Church, "machismo" and whatever other dumb excuse you can come up with kept Portuguese society back like it has Brazil?

Look around you. Who are the single largest group of people making up the poor in Brazil, the "underclass?" The answer is right in front of your face. You just can't handle the truth!

Who makes up the single largest group of the 'underclass' and poor in the USA, that is, the supposed richest country in the world? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. How come the English common law, and the Constitution, and the Magna Carta and all the other bullshit excuses you guys have come up with have not done miracles for them? Lame asses!

Stop coming up with lame, moronic excuses for lazy, unmotivated, and criminal groups in your society. They have no one to blame but themselves. They are the reason Brazil has the 9th largest economy in the world, instead of the third or fourth.


Sick
Guest


10/28/2002
23:52:26
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pork Chop:

You've come unhinged! Pull yourself together, man. I think you have missed the gist of this discussion. We are merely discussing how colonization has affected certain societies, specifically in this case, in Latin America.

At first I was shocked at your comments. I thought you were implying that these "lazy, unmotivated, and criminal groups" were blacks or people of African descent that happen to have a darker tone of skin than yours. I am thankful I reread your comments because you asked: "Who makes up the single largest group of the 'underclass' and poor in the USA, that is, the supposed richest country in the world?" and everyone knows that group is whites or people of mostly European descent. You cannot imagine the relief I felt when I realized you didn't actually make such an ignorant and crass assertion.

I am just curious about a couple of your comments...precisely what do Portuguese immigrants, arriving in the last 50 years, in Brasil have to do with what we are discussing? For that matter, what does Portugal's current standared of living as compared to Brasil's have to do with anything, let alone this discussion? Remember, we aren't discussing the societies that colonized other parts of the world. We are discussing the societies they began and eventually left behind.

I unfortunately cannot see Carioca's face, so enlighten me, which group makes up the largest portion of the 'underclass' in Brasil?

You asked: "How come the English common law, and the Constitution, and the Magna Carta and all the other bullshit excuses you guys have come up with have not done miracles for them?" Who claimed those three things have done miracles for EVERYONE in any given society? How do you figure we are making "excuses" for anyone? You're completely off the point.

Also, I think you should apologize to all of us, especially Carioca, for your insults and vulgar language. I have seen you post on here before. I know you are above all the name calling.

Beijos Tchau



Gil
Guest


10/29/2002
05:40:20
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Did I hear someone in need of info here?

Actually the recent portuguese immigration really has nothing to do with anything here, they where few, and installed themselves mainly in Rio, but Brazil was a portuguese colony, and even our first king was portuguese. The immigration of other europeans only happened at these last two centuries.

Those who mainly compose the poor classes of Brazil do not share what could be called a common ethnic, but a common origin, which are the northeastern states of Brazil, they are called "Nordestinos". Altough one can point out that they have some african descendancy, many that would be considered white by any standards are subject to discrimination due to their origin.

... Still, there is racism against blacks, orientals, and so goes on the list.


Jeromy Ray
Guest
 Email

12/11/2002
22:29:14
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
One word can explain the root of the problem of poverty in Latin America, and that is imperialism.
Imperialism is the forceful expropriation of one country’s land, labor, markets, and resources by another. Since the formation of the United States, the power elite in this country has looked to Latin America to further it’s imperial ambitions. They for two centuries sought to gain and possess the land, labor, markets, and resources of it’s southern neighbors.
This is the root cause of Latin American poverty.
It is understandable that U.S. citizens believe that it is caused by such things as the socialism, Catholic church, laziness, or cultural and racial inferiority, considering that those in the United States who control the tools of mass communication go to considerable lengths to suppress these facts, and present those views.
Newly formed Latin American countries who already weaken by centuries of imperialism by the Dutch, Spanish, British, Portuguese, and French empires, once winning independence were betrayed by the U.S., and faced consistent acts and attempts to gain control of the land, labor, markets, and resources of Latin American countries by the U.S., at the expanse of the people. Latin America is not underdeveloped, it is overexploited.
Have we forgotten that after the Spanish war, Cuba and Puerto Rica were held by the U.S. as colonies. That at the inception of the independence of countries such as Panama, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic the U.S. invaded these countries, each over 12 times to maintain and expand business interests. Keeping the countries as protectorates. To name all the examples would be exhaustive.
This was all before WWII. After the war, public opinion was against imperialism, or the building of empires by having direct colonies. So the U.S. elites mastered the art of neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism.
Neocolonialism is where one country rules and controls another country indirectly. It is the process of dominating the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direct possession. Kwame Nkrumah, describes neocolonialism in his book Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism:

“Neocolonialism is the worst form of colonialism. For those who practice it, it means power without responsibility, and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the old days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad. In the colony those who served the ruling imperial power could at least look to its protection against any violent move by their opponents. With neocolonialism neither is the case.”

In order to fulfill these ambitions into Latin America, the U.S. in the coming years would install into power, and support a succession of military dictatorships in Latin America, that would brutally repress their people. This would occur many times as the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would work within Latin America countries to overthrow the government of those countries (which many were democratically elected), and install puppet regimes that would oppress and terrorize the population, while making the country safe for U.S. corporations investment. So in essence the U.S would rule these countries, through these dictators without the mass population in the U.S. Noam Chomsky says: “The U.S. effectively switched the mission of the Latin American military from hemispheric defense to internal security. Internal security means a war against it’s own population.”
Edward Herman explains why the U.S. so favored military dictatorships. He says:

As human rights conditions deteriorate, factors affecting the "climate of investment," like the tax laws and labor repression, improve from the viewpoint of the multinational corporation. This suggests an important line of causation -- military dictatorships tend to improve the investment climate.... The multinational corporate community and the U.S. government are very sensitive to this factor. Military dictators enter into a tacit joint venture arrangement with Free World leaders: They will keep the masses quiet, maintain an open door to multinational investment, and provide bases and otherwise serve as loyal clients. In exchange, they will be aided and protected against their own people, and allowed to loot public property.

Examples are such: In 1954 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenez in Guatemala. In it's place it installed and maintained a military dictatorship, that in four decades of violence killed 200,000 non-combatants. This dictatorship protected and expanded U.S. corporate interest, while terrorizing it's population and bringing incredible poverty.
The same story in Brazil in 1964. Another democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA, another military dictatorship installed. A terrorized population and unbearable poverty, Wall Street investment increase.
The same story in Chile in 1973. Where the democratically elected Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA led coupe, that installed Augosto Pinochet into power. 120,000 would be tortured, killed, or disappeared. U.S. business investment increased as the people starved.
In Nicaragua the U.S. supported and multi-national friendly Somaza regime killed 50,000 people and starved half his population. His regime was overthrown by the Sandinistas.
In El Salvador the U.S. financed, trained, supported Salvadoran forces killed and tortured 75,000 people. U.S corporations would only have to pay 33 cents a hour to a terrorized, repressed, and poverty stricken labor force.
I haven't even told the half or even a tenth of all the incidents.
As an U.S. citizen I oppose U.S. neo-imperialism. I support Luga. I say what is bad for Wall Street and the U.S. elitse is good for both the people of Brazil and the U.S.
If Luga is able to strengthen labor rights in Brazil, then he while secure labor jobs in the U.S.. U.S. multinational corps. will not be able to move to Brazil to exploit cheap Brazilian labor, which would cause those in the U.S. to lose those jobs. Imperialism has always been at the expense of the mass population. Including the citizens of the Empires. As Bertolt Brecht once said:
There were conquerors and conquered.
Among the conquered the people starved.
Among the conquerors the common people starved too.





Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

12/11/2002
23:59:18
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Amen to the above.

The problem presented is whether a New Rome type super power can wield its strength in quest of an open society that genuinely works toward improving the lot of the underdogs--Los de Abajo.

the United States of America could pull this historical long shot off--IF we could get over the idea that our wealth is dependent on their impoverishment. We need more dreamers in positions of responsibility if we are to perform miracles. The times they call for Miracles.


Adrianerik
Guest


12/12/2002
02:30:30
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
@Jeremy Ray - Muitos Obrigados!


brazzaboy
Guest


12/12/2002
07:55:17
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Seconded.


Sick
Guest


12/13/2002
15:07:45
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Poor Jeromy. He is just more proof that a little education is a dangerous thing.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/13/2002
17:59:18
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Or maybe he's just bright enough to see the light and you are not?


Sick
Guest


12/13/2002
20:57:11
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
No. Perhaps you should really contemplate the accuracy of many things he said. The BS he regurgitated has been amply exposed as false (or at the very least, misleading) in any number of publications by any number of scholars. The rest of that crap, his own ignorant assertions namely, would be quite humorous if not so pathetic.

Propaganda goes both ways you know.


Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

12/14/2002
00:32:07
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Prezado seu Sick: It would be far easier to communicate if you got specific as to one of the numerous points you charge as propaganda.


Jeromy Ray
Guest
 Email

12/14/2002
01:08:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To sick guest.
If what you call is propaganda is truly propaganda, than it can be easily discounted with facts. I challenge you or anybody else to disprove what I wrote with factual information. It is not good enough to just say that it has been disproved by scholars. What was their argument, what was the facts that they provided.
It reminds me of recent events in this country, where the U.N. weapons inspector and U.S. military intelligence officer Scott Ritter gave proof that Iraq no longer holds weapons of mass destruction. U.S. officials and the press responded by saying he was crazy, unpatriotic, etc. They did not provide one ounce of proof against the evidence he presented. If they had any, they could simply provide the evidence, or show how could be misinformed. It is as the saying “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” If can’t you disprove what they say with facts, then resort to name calling or other forms of distraction.
I heard Ted Koppel (media journalist) say in an interview with the Iraqi ambassador that imperialism is a old word. This is true, but is not an old practice. I can change my name and my appearance, but it does not change the reality of who I am. The same with imperialism, you can change what you call it, or how it appears, without changing the facts of what it does. That will never really change what it truly is.
It is the same with slavery. It is an old word, that usually if referred to about past events. It is the same as the word imperialism, it is an old word, but not a old practice. Leo Tolstoy once said of slavery. “The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live.”
By that definition, many in Latin America have been held as slaves to foreign multi-nationals, who have been back by U.S. foreign policy. Who’s musclemen have been the U.S. military and it’s surrogate Latin American military forces. The U.S. elites took control of Latin American countries’ land, labor, and resources, many times by force. Sometimes by using U.S. forces, and sometimes by using Latin American surrogate forces. That is the facts.
I remind you that the definition of imperialism is the forceful expropriation of one country’s land, labor, markets, and resources by another. And the definition of neocolonialism is where one country rules and controls another country indirectly. It is the process of dominating the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direct possession. Consider that with what Leo Tolstoy said of slavery. Then give the facts to support the view that Latin America is not effected by U.S. imperialism, and that it does not create a form of slavery, which is the root cause of Latin American poverty.
As I said before if propaganda is propaganda, then it can be disproved with facts. No distractions please, just the facts.



Adrianerik
Guest


12/14/2002
02:04:06
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
@Sick - we are waiting for your 'ample' rebutals.

You have the floor.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/14/2002
03:21:25
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
God Bless You Adrianerik. and GOD BLESS BRASIL


Sick
Guest


12/14/2002
15:05:02
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sorry for my delayed response, I don't check this site every day, let alone every hour. I apologize to Adrianerik Guest (haha) for my failure to respond in less than five hours.

How perplexing. Haha, where does one begin with this? I was under the assumption that most on here would at least have some grasp of history and see through much of that nonsense that was posted, but i guess not. That is why I didn't bother with details. So in effect, I didn't bother with details and he didn't bother with any cogent conclusions. We both acted in the wrong, so I suppose the best way to go about this is to start at the beginnng of his post and trickle down.

But first, let me make a few things clear for those who only see the world in absolutes. That means, and I guess I have to explain everything plainly on here, just because I find his post to be juvenile at best, mildly retarded at worst (Luga??), doesn't mean every detail he mentioned is wrong. He did mention facts, however, it's the conclusions he draws from those facts that, to put it mildly, show an incredible lack of knowledge and understanding. I don't defend everything the US has done in South America. I agree that the US has been guilty of imperialistic acts (Guatamala 1954) and outright criminal acts (Chile 1973 and the aftermath). In fact, I can be very harsh on US foreign policy, not only in South America but other parts of the world as well (Viet Nam is too easy and obvious, the end and aftermath of the Gulf War leaps to mind, the abandonment of the Afghanis after the Soviets left and so on). To me, the ends do not justify the means in those cases. I just take into account things like the US, just like any other country on the face of the earth, has a right to act in it's own interest. The US being a super power magnifies it's actions and gets more notice than when say, France does it, or even Brasil. Imagine the outrage and EVEN MORE extreme loathing of the US if it was pilfering away a vital world resource like the Amazon. The world wouldn't stand for it. Yet, everyone loves Brasil (and rightly so I might add). Therefore, items including internal security, national defense, economics, the political, the social, etc. etc. all must be considered when analyzing a nations behavior. Also, I take into account the ENTIRE history of the Americas, not just the history that suits my purpose. I would never lay the blame for the struggles in Latin America solely on one concept (i.e. imperialism). And please refer to my prior posts when I was speaking of the influence of the Catholic Church in Latin America, (keyword: influence) I never claimed that to be the sole cause of all these problems, just one aspect. Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church was in Latin America from day one, whereas somehow the blame has shifted to the US which has not even existed as an independent nation for half the life span of Latin America. According to Jeromy, 300 years of history are non-existent or at best irrelevant. And to him it has to be that way because how else could he lay all of Latin America's problems at the doorstep of the dreaded US? So onto specifically addressing Mr. Jeromy Ray Guest's (haha) post.

"Since the formation of the United States, the power elite in this country has looked to Latin America to further it’s imperial ambitions. They for two centuries sought to gain and possess the land, labor, markets, and resources of it’s southern neighbors. This is the root cause of Latin American poverty."

Speaking of lacking facts, where are yours concerning "imperial ambitions" since the inception of the US, specifically in regards to Latin America? Didn't the US have more immediate concerns at that time, such as EUROPEAN imperialists, or say expropriating lands from the natives? Is the term "power elite" a fact? Sounds mildly vague to me. Why didn't the US just conquer Latin America? We had the entirety of Mexico, or what was left of it, at one point, so tell me why an imperialist nation would bother giving so much of it back.

"It is understandable that U.S. citizens believe that it is caused by such things as the socialism, Catholic church, laziness, or cultural and racial inferiority, considering that those in the United States who control the tools of mass communication go to considerable lengths to suppress these facts, and present those views."

Yes those gullible US citizens (except Jeromy of course). The latter half is correct in the sense that the owners of media influence their product. Ted Turner is a prime example. Now name one enterprise or institution anywhere in the world that doesn't influence it's own output. Just curious, do you have any facts to support their going to "considerable lengths to suppress these facts"? Another theme you should consider is that "feelings are not facts" (and that applies to Tolstoy too). Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

"Newly formed Latin American countries who already weaken by centuries of imperialism by the Dutch, Spanish, British, Portuguese, and French empires, once winning independence were betrayed by the U.S., and faced consistent acts and attempts to gain control of the land, labor, markets, and resources of Latin American countries by the U.S., at the expanse of the people. Latin America is not underdeveloped, it is overexploited. Have we forgotten that after the Spanish war, Cuba and Puerto Rica were held by the U.S. as colonies. That at the inception of the independence of countries such as Panama, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic the U.S. invaded these countries, each over 12 times to maintain and expand business interests. Keeping the countries as protectorates. To name all the examples would be exhaustive."

You forgot some quotaion marks in there, although I must admit I cannot clearly state where you started copying these comments. So these newly formed countries that already had been weakend by centuries of European imperialism were betrayed by the US. HAHAHA...How? I won't even ask you how a newly formed country could have been weakened for centuries, but at least explain how the US betrayed them. Did we break promises? Did we assist in their independence then turn right around and imperialize (awesome, a neologism) them? How strong were these nations before they were newly formed? Are you talking about Earth or a planet in the universe of Bizarro?? The last part, again, the US is guilty of those things, as I stated earlier. You need to start serious contemplation on what constitutes "causation". This is the weakness in your argument.

"This was all before WWII. After the war, public opinion was against imperialism, or the building of empires by having direct colonies. So the U.S. elites mastered the art of neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism."

Source of this poll please, I am dying to see it. Plus some facts concerning the conspiracy of the elites to suddenly and so adroitly leap to mastering the art of the neos. Are the elite the same as the illuminati?

"Kwame Nkrumah...."

Mr. Nkrumah's comment is well pasted, I applaud you. However, after reading it several times, I have yet to discern a fact in it. It appears to be merely opinion based on never mentioned facts. But more specifically, I cannot discern anything from that comment that bolsters your thus far factless and plagarized rant. It seems that the dictators the US helped into power and to maintain that power, enjoyed the same degree of protection, if not more, than the old colonialsts did. Only it came not in the form of US troops (usually) but in the form of arms, training and economic favors, not to mention propaganda, which we both know is maybe the most powerful tool of coercion. Ever heard of the Cold War? Why do I mention that? Because you for some odd reason refuse to mention the other neo-colonialist power after WWII...the Soviet Union. The competition for neo-control in Latin America surely had some influence on the current state of the unions in Latin America? No? Maybe? Never even occurred to you did it?

Chomsky and Herman...I can only shake my head. As to Chomsky's quote, hemispheric defense against whom? I think the only answer could be the US, unless the Antarctica and Galapagos had dangerous standing armies that were censored from my history books. Mr. Chomsky also seems to have failed to remember, because I am sure he knows, of the internal security efforts employed by over four centuries of caudillos throughout the hemisphere. I would love to see your facts linking US imperialism to over 400 years of that brutality. I won't hold my breath. WOW nothing slips past that Herman fellow..."military dictatorships tend to improve the investment climate"...the very idea of unregulated enterprise prospering in an environment of corruption and cronyism just never occurred to me, that man is a genius. (Sarcasm, so you all know before I have to waste a post explaining it). Hmm, Mr. Herman and Mr. Nkrnmzbrhumah don't seem to agree.

Your examples, your facts, are well known and no one disputes those as facts, just your assinine conclusions about what they all mean in the aggregate. You simply ignore too much, too many other factors that have contributed to the problems that exist in Latin America. Strike that, you don't ignore them, you simply refuse to even attempt to learn such things, since each tidbit adds to the degree of how far off you are on this.

"I haven't even told the half or even a tenth of all the incidents."

That is right, you didn't mention one pre-US caudillo, or even any of the more recent ones that were not US backed, for instance Peron or Vargas, so in reality you didn't even mention probably 100th of the devestating leaders that have brutalized Latin American nations.

"As an U.S. citizen I oppose U.S. neo-imperialism." WOAH! This is a bold statement. Don't go out on a limb or anything.

"I support Luga." Isn't it "Lula"? You did that twice, it can't be a typo.

"I say what is bad for Wall Street and the U.S. elitse is good for both the people of Brazil and the U.S." I guess if you believe loss of jobs and lower standards of living is "good" then more power to ya. I wholeheartedly support the free expression of sadists no matter how strongly they desire to have me bound in chains. (GOD DAMN that was a good one)

"If Luga is able to strengthen labor rights in Brazil, then he while secure labor jobs in the U.S.. U.S. multinational corps. will not be able to move to Brazil to exploit cheap Brazilian labor, which would cause those in the U.S. to lose those jobs." Interesting, did you look at a chart of the employment rate in Europe when the US created labor laws? And then continually strengthened them over time? You may be onto something, I have never seen a chart like that, it would be nice if you could provide one.

Bertolt Brecht.....*yawn*

POST #2

This in many ways is even more humorous to me, simply because of the irony of it, and I just love irony.

"If what you call is propaganda is truly propaganda, than it can be easily discounted with facts. I challenge you or anybody else to disprove what I wrote with factual information. It is not good enough to just say that it has been disproved by scholars. What was their argument, what was the facts that they provided."

Again you provided "facts" in a technical sense. But you only provided a very few of those. Somehow you tie these all together into one agreed upon US policy. You really, really need to learn a bit of history. But I have no problem with your small list of facts, I have a problem with the overwhelmingly large list of facts you intentionally omitted. You are not discussing a specific facet of Latin American conditions, you propagate causation and the conclusions you draw on such few and biased facts is what is so laughable.

"If can’t you disprove what they say with facts, then resort to name calling or other forms of distraction." If you can't provide sufficient facts to support causation and the fact that you omitted so many relevant ones, it is simply a FACT that you deserve to be called names ;) and the names are not the distraction, your willful ignorance is, not to mention your arrogance. And by the way, I don't have to disprove any of your facts you provided, I simply need to prove that you can't possibly come to the conclusions you espouse because you omitted so many others. In other words, your facts do not connect and are often countered by other known facts. (See below)

Leo Tolstoy once said of slavery. "The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live." I will save this quote and enter it into the stupidest things ever said contest. I am sure the absurdity of that comment escapes you, so I will just give you a one word clue...Liberty. The latter has it, the former does not. (At least in free market systems, or ones that try to be leaving only Chile in Latin America.)

"The U.S. elites took control of Latin American countries’ land, labor, and resources, many times by force. Sometimes by using U.S. forces, and sometimes by using Latin American surrogate forces. That is the facts." Do you know what else IS the facts? US "elites", again that nameless, faceless group, often did NOT do any of the above mentioned. Explain that. Well not just yet...See below.

"I remind you that the definition of imperialism is the forceful expropriation of one country’s land, labor, markets, and resources by another. And the definition of neocolonialism is where one country rules and controls another country indirectly. It is the process of dominating the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direct possession." Thanks for the definitions Mr. Jeromy Ray Webster Guest...now can you cite a current example of this in Latin America? If you can, then by all means share.

"Consider that with what Leo Tolstoy said of slavery. Then give the facts to support the view that Latin America is not effected by U.S. imperialism, and that it does not create a form of slavery, which is the root cause of Latin American poverty. As I said before if propaganda is propaganda, then it can be disproved with facts. No distractions please, just the facts."

I clearly stated the US has engaged in imperialistic acts, and that is a factor in the Latin American condition, I totaly concede this, but you still have provided no facts suggesting imperialism or neo-imperialism by whatever definition is a defacto US policy. I agree, the policy of imperialism creates a form of slavery. I disagree, you have yet to prove in any way, shape or form that this is THE root cause of poverty in Latin America. Yes propaganda is propaganda and it can be disproven by facts, I agree. When you provide sufficient facts to prove your conclusions, and not just the facts and conclusions that fit your narrow (VERY narrow) world view, then I will gladly respond in kind, just like I did today.


This is a short passage from a great book entitled "Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot" which I often mention on here. I would love for you to read it even though it is decidedly pro-free markets and democracy. Two things I gather you despise. Anyway, it is full of a great list of historical/political intellectuals throughout Latin American history and almost ALL of them were vicious dictators or supported such people, but you won't read it I know, because I know your type, and knowledge, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, is something you despise, as you have amply shown. So, take a deep breath, you will see the authors have a great sense of humor too. It concerns General Velasco Alvarado of Peru who seized power from a democratically elected president in 1968 via a military coup (and all WITHOUT the aide of the US). He stood up to the imperialist gringos as you shall see:

"Velasco's partriotism became a symbollic expression. A patriotism that did nothing more than take over the government by expropriating the Brea and Parinas oilfields, which were owned by the International Petroleum Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey, a favorite obsession of Incan anti-imperialists. Velasco's tragedy was that he found hiself confronting Nixon's and Kissinger's White House, which, too pragmatic to create another Castro in South America, treated the Peruvian regime with ironic condescension. So, despite the outcry by Standard Oil for Washington to sanction Peru, Nixon's advisors didn't take the hint and dashed Velasco's hopes. Desperate for them to notice him, he detained two Yankee ships that he accused of having penetrated Peru's "200-mile territorial waters" and then refused to receive Nelson Rockefeller, sent by Nixon. The only thing he succeeded in receiving was idol American pressure, some public threats, and a secret negotiations in which his government finally paid the "gringos" for the expropriation. This furious anti-imperialist ended up being a gentle little dove. The man who had accused Belaunde (the man he overthrew) of selling out to the International Petroleum Company (although Belaunde, in tune with the times, was in the process of "renationalizing" part of the economy) ended up passing imperialism a small check under the table. Imperialism, of course, returned the favor by expressing understanding for Velasco's socialist measures."

HAHAHAHA now that is funny. More proof of what an evil imperialist nation the US is and how lucky, how DAMN lucky we just didn't go in there and take over Peru. Most imperialists nations would have....right? Actually that book covers I think, all of your facts that you presented here about coups and what not, but whatever you do don't read it, you might learn something.


Beijos Tchau



brazzaboy
Guest


12/14/2002
17:52:03
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
'Lula checkmates Bush'- very interesting reading on home page of this site. Make sure you read the last paragraph especially the last couple of sentences. The writing is there for all to see. Except for all those so draped in the US flag they have become blind. Tchau. Whats with this beijos business (Yes I know what it means).A little fruity if you ask me.


Sick
Guest


12/14/2002
21:27:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Who here is blind to the US imposing trade barriers to appease political donors at home? When hasn't the US done that, or any country for that matter? I am sure you are not hinting at that being some sort of imperialistic ploy, since protectionist measures are isolationist and not imperialistic.

If the term "beijos" brings "fruity" thoughts to your head well then I am sorry. I had no intention of sending anyone into gay panic. I will try abracos instead.

Abracos, Tchau



Guest


12/14/2002
21:43:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Since when does isolationist measures hinder imperialism?


Sick
Guest


12/14/2002
22:42:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
"Since when does isolationist measures hinder imperialism?"

Ze, now that is an interesting question. The simple answer is, of course isolationist policies don't necessarily hinder imperialistic endeavors. In fact, a nation intent on imperialistic endeavors will not be hindered by anything whatsoever, since the goal is imperialism for imperialisms sake there is nothing that could stop it. Even if the US built a wall around itself and refused to be part of the world community, sort of like an even more extreme North Korea, (I know, I know, North Korea gooooood US baaaaaaaad) that of course is STILL imperialism (or can be, well since it is the US we are talking about, it most likely is, right?).

And that question says it all about how people around the world and even people in the US think about the US. And that is, no matter what the US does, even when it engages in practices that are the complete opposite of how popular myth insists the US behaves, in this case imperialistic, the US will always, no matter what, be in the wrong. That is the simple truth of the matter. It explains Jeromy's posts in which facts are extracted from historical context and pieced together to expose this grand imperialistic scheme. It's what made brazzaboy make a non-sensical post in the midst of gay panic and it is what made Ze ask that question. Not to mention those other minions who were waiting with bated breath for someone like Jeromy to post words they had all read a million times before but were afraid to cut and paste for themselves. All for the sake and the relief of being able to add "I second that" or "ditto".

People have always done things like this in all realms of life, in which they can twist anything around to justify a position they hold dear and true, no matter how untenable that position truly is. So it doesn't surprise me and if I wasted energy being upset by it, it would have killed me years ago. It's just the way it is and I get endless entertainment exposing it. So Ze, I thank you for posing the $64 question.

OBRIGADO!!!!

Abracos, Tchau.


adrianerik
Guest


12/14/2002
23:11:34
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
@sick - Still waiting for rebuttal. I've graded university papers where the undergraduates bullshit for 25 pages and still avoid the point.

I've read your entire post and well....okay...ummm...errr....uh......

But anyway...nice try. "C" for effort.

Mild accusations about people you don't know.

Expected. Typical.

Attempts to run off on the tangent.

Men generally don't say "kissy" to other men.

But...it's cool.


Gotta go.





Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

12/14/2002
23:17:54
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
There seems to be a struggle over definitions concerning imperialism and neo imperialism. the definitions are unnecessary in today's dealings. Today it is a global capitalism or corporatism that will pit the rich of all colors, sexes, and religions againsst the same of a lower class. Both Brazil and the USA are in that flow today. Maybe it is the new economic order of the times--when money truely rules. but is this any different from what came down under the cover of "protecting our nations vital interests?" The Monroe Doctrine said the USA will save the hemisphere from foreigners, even if they don't want to be saved. It is a declaration of this is our backyard. But it must be noted that it is, we all agree, quite a backward backyard, so are we, the protectors, responsible for the existing condition?? Can we Americans be proud of the fact that there is a Haiti or a Nicaragua in our hemisphere. The facts show that America's hands are not clean in our dealings with our southern neighbors. It is also quite clear that they could have been a lot dirtier. We have been absolutely essential in maintaining the ruling elite and military over-rule in almost every nation to our south. And we have made it clear that socialist regimes--elected or not--will not stand. Fear of Castro's revolution spreading sprang forth an Alliance for Progress in the sixties. Being in Brazil with the Peace Corps in 65--directly after the coup, I saw the remnants of an awareness brought about by social activists branded communists and forced to flee their homeland or else. The US supported the restriction of the liberties of the poor--many with the mentality of serfs and or slaves. "Eu sou de seu Lorenco", they'd respond if asked for their name--no name, they regarded themselves as the property of Lorenco. People are taught that mentality. It is eliminated through education and an even playing field in the social order.Such changes insure that there will be a change in social priorities--as Dillon says, "the up side now will later be down, for the times they are a changin'". And they still are a-changin. I have seen the opportunities to do a lot of good for people on the grass roots level.
Maybe we just never really got to understand the Latin mentality. Patria o Muerte is a cry that fills the soul of every nationalist. I see a lot of it since 9/11 here in the USA. The Anglo mindset still lingers in inter American relations. Is this a deadening hangover from the defeat of the Spanish Armada in the minds of the Anglo Americanos.
It is not enough to dismiss the overthrow of Allende as "that was then, thirty years ago."
It is not enough because the social experiment was not allowed to be played out and the consequences for the spreading of that mentality of change was asassinated. We as good as took over the country through puppet personalities in charge. And they hate us as much as the others for their treasonous subterfuge against their own people.

So we all get another shot at the great change in Lula. I think Brazilians and Mexicans understand America best--that's intuitive, I guess.



Guest


12/15/2002
04:30:56
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Why not stop at the consense that what USA is well off in economic and military power it lacks in diplomatic ability?

It is agreeable after all that blunt diplomacy leaves a sour after taste.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/15/2002
05:08:49
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Well Sick, all I can say is you gave yourself the correct moniker. Bush is not simply protecting his and the US's own best interests he is out to do what ever it takes to stand in the way of anyone who opposes his own ultra right wing viewpoints. Did you in fact read the article? The US is guilty of a succession (many of them) of violations all over this globe in interferring with internal politics of other nations to install the American will on those people. It has greatly back fired in the Middle East and will continue to do so in other parts of the world. Just remember there is one other 'Super' power out there sitting quietly waiting for the US to self destruct. and I am not talking about Russia. It is a super power with a military power 10-20 times the size of the US, and equal capabilities in all the big artillery areas. They are a nation with unbelievable human rights violations but because of their might no one stops them just like the US. Do you think if Brasil went around the world causing the fall of sovereign governments and instilling their own puppet leaders so as to gain access to the wealth and resources of that country, the UN would not step in and stop it. Of course they would, but no one stops the US or no one stops or sanctions the Chinese because of their might and influence. Beware the 'Yellow Peril' they are in waiting.


Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/15/2002
10:15:34
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
First let me apologize for referring to Lula as Luga. That was a severe brain fart. A very embarrassing mistake. Thank you, for pointed it out. I also had things in quotation that were not quoted from anything. The only ones that should have been put into quotations were the ones preceded by the name of the person quoted.
To sick, you said, "I just take into account things like the US, just like any other country on the face of the earth, has a right to act in it's own interest. The US being a super power magnifies it's actions and gets more notice than when say, France does it, or even Brasil. Imagine the outrage and EVEN MORE extreme loathing of the US if it was pilfering away a vital world resource like the Amazon."
Brasil has no history of invading other countries, overthrowing democratically governments, installing dictators who terrorize their people. Use nuclear weapons to wipe out two cities. Use chemical and biological weapons, such as napalm and depleted uranium on civilian populations. Install sanctions on Iraq that cause 500,000 children under the age of five to die of starvation or curable diseases. Brasil has not bullied practically every nation on earth.
By the way, about the Amazon. Maybe I am wrong. Inform me if I am. Isn't at least some of pilfering of the Amazon by foreign multi-nationals.
When you say acting in their interest. Who's interest do you mean. Are you referring to the interests of the wealthy elite, or the interests of the people of the U.S.. The U.S. owns 50 % of the world's wealth, has 6% of the world's population, but 24% of the U.S population live under the poverty level. The highest in the industrial world. U.S. foreign policy does not serve those 24 %. It serves the interest of the five percent who posses 22.4 percent of the U.S. wealth.
You said " Didn't the US have more immediate concerns at that time, such as EUROPEAN imperialists, or say expropriating lands from the natives?
I didn't say it was their only interest.

Is the term "power elite" a fact?
When I am referring to the U.S. elite I am not referring to the average U.S. citizen. I am referring to the ruling class. The oligarchy if you will. Samuel Huntington, Harvard historian defined it best. He said "To the extent that the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War Il, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment'."
Yes there is ample proof of this. It should be noted that often times the U.S. elites interest or opinions are often in conflict with those of it's public.

You said "Why didn't the US just conquer Latin America? We had the entirety of Mexico, or what was left of it, at one point, so tell me why an imperialist nation would bother giving so much of it back.
A combination of U.S. public opinion being against it, the deterrence of the other Imperial powers, and the lack of the strength to do it with the former two being present.

"Yes those gullible US citizens (except Jeromy of course)"
I am not referring to all U.S. citizens, as millions have the same opinion that I do. Those who hold those views, most are simply misinformed, and have been giving one side of the issue. There is always hope when people are able to hear both sides of the story. That is why this forum and Brazzil magazine is important.

Just curious, do you have any facts to support their going to "considerable lengths to suppress these facts"?
To many to name. They do it usually through omission. Take for instance the facts that we have agreed on. How many times have you heard them in the major media.

"Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it so."
What possible reason would I want it to be true for.

I won't even ask you how a newly formed country could have been weakened for centuries, but at least explain how the US betrayed them. Did we break promises? Did we assist in their independence then turn right around and imperialize (awesome, a neologism) them?
When I refer to the country I am mainly referring to the people. Latin American countries are mixture a mainly of three types (excluding the immigrants who would later come) the native Indians, the blacks who were imported as slaves, and the Europeans. Now let's look at how imperialism effected each.
The Indians. Let's say those of the Incan empire. When the Conquistadors encountered the capital city of the Incan empire. Historical records show that they were amazed at how clean and organized the city was, and that the people virtually had no disease. They also commented that there was no poverty or hunger, for they shared their possessions in an communal way. Their chief was chosen by the people, but his power was mostly symbolic. They had basically a form of social democracy. One thing they didn't have is weapons of mass destruction. The Conquistadors did. They had a lot of gold. Gold was coveted by the Spanish empire. They slaughtered many and enslaved the rest. Those causing mass disease and poverty to come to those who knew little to none of this before. Same basic story with the rest of the Indian groups. A competition began with the Empires as to who could control the land, who could export the resources of Latin America for profit, and who could control the labor of the peoples
Africans were captured or bought by the Empires and exported to Latin America for labor.
Most of the Europeans who came to Latin America were subjects of the empires who had suffered poverty under them. A small aristocracy came over and where the main land owners and rulers. The enrich themselves by exported the resources of Latin America primarily to the Empires.
The people fight to gain independence. They look to the U.S. for support. The U.S. doesn't give it to them. Simon Bolivar (El Liberator) in 1819 “In ten years of struggle and travail, that beggar description, in ten years of suffering almost beyond human endurance, we have witnessed the indifference with which all Europe and even our brothers of the North have remained but passive spectators of our anguish."
Then began the history of U.S. involvement mentioned earlier.
It is true that the conservative side of the Catholic church has supported the imperialist and the rich, and that this has been part of the problem. The liberal theologians has changed this greatly.
"Are the elite the same as the illuminati?"
What the...never mind.
"Ever heard of the Cold War? Why do I mention that? Because you for some odd reason refuse to mention the other neo-colonialist power after WWII...the Soviet Union."
Oh yeah. Kennedy's "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy." The Evil Empire that Reagan said was "behind every problem in Latin America (he also said that facts were stupid little things)."
First of all, just because an enemy is evil, that doesn't justify every thing you do to fight against them. Hitler was evil, that didn't justify the bombing by the allies of civilians that killed 120,000 in Dresden, Germany. Pearl harbor was evil, but that didn't justify the fire bombing of Tokyo that killed 85,000 to 250,000 or the dropping of the atom bombs after knowing the Japanese were surrendering.
Besides that, Soviet expansion never went beyond Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Soviet Union was allies with Cuba and gave aid to the Sandinistas and a few other Latin American countries. Name one time when the Soviet military attacked a Central American nation.
A lot of the peasants fighting for revolution that the U.S. suppressed never even heard of Marx or Lenin. What you are referring to is the greatest propaganda myth of all time. It was used as a pretext or for justification, but was a complete myth.
"I am sure the absurdity of that comment escapes you, so I will just give you a one word clue...Liberty"
Yeah the liberty if you are peasant in El Salvador to choose to work for 33 cents an hour, 18 hours a day at Liz Claiborne or US Steel. And still not be able to feed your children and have access to health care.
The Peru thing. My God you are grasping for straws. That is like saying, Britain was not imperialist because they didn't invade Russia during the American revolution.
The Nixon/Kissinger White House was a little busy at the time. They had the Chilean government to overthrow, millions of Indochinese to kill, and had top give support to Suharto in Indonesia, who the CIA brought to power and help kill 500,000 to 1,000,000 of his own people, then invade East Timor and kill another 200,000 out of the population of 600,000. Just to name a few.
You keep saying your kinda people, and that I am giving propaganda. What do you mean. Do you mean to say I am a communist conspirator? Or is it international terrorism. Or International Communistic terrorism. You got me. I am a KGB spy. We are planning the coming takeover of all the Americas. North Korea will wipe out New York with it's mighty nuclear arsenal. Cuba is going to take Florida with it's overwhelming military might. Vietnamese women and Children will paddle to California and take the West Coast, teenagers in ox carts will take Texas. That is why I am on here. I am trying to win support from Lula so we can slingshot to death those evil freedom lovers. My cover is blown.





BRAZZABOY
Guest


12/15/2002
11:54:40
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Taken from 'Towards a new century of American imperialism' by Herbert I Schiller.

'How can the US maximize its current condition of singular power? At the governing level, few question the desirability of pursuing an 'imperial policy', however euphemistically it is described. One of the more 'moderate' strategists put it this way: "The aim of American foreign policy is to work with other like-minded actors to 'improve' the market place, to increase compliance with basic norms, by choice if possible, by necessity- i.e coercion- if need be.

Irvinh Kristol, a long standing theorist of a beligerent conservatism shrugs off the notion of constraints and takes for granted an 'emerging American imperium' He writes, "One of these days the American people are going to awaken to the fact that we have become an imperial nation. It happened because the world wanted it to happen. A great power can slide into commitments without explicitly making them" He continues "It's an imperium with a minimum of moral substance". Nonetheless, Kristol is among those who see US global control as an unproblematic condition: rivals can be subdued by one means or another.

However, the most influential view among the American governing class-upto 1997 at least- expresses doubt that full political control can be achieved. Though completely at ease with the idea of an American 21st century, it accepts the necessity of enlisting partners, however temporarily, in running the world. Richard Haase, director of foreign studies at the Brookings Institute and a former assistant to President George Bush Sr., is a proponent of this prevailing view. He writes approvingly of the Gulf War as a model for future policy.

In his book-THE RELUCTANT SHERIFF, Haase recommends that the US should be the global sheriff. In his scenario, unlike the policeman, the sheriff is more of a part-time worker. He comes to work when there is a demand to organise a raid on some recalcitrant powers or 'rogue states'-that is, areas or groups that do not accept US imposed arrangements- and he assembles posses of 'willing states' as the enforcers. In this mainstream American view, a frontier species of vigilantism is advocated as foreign policy. How well a 'posse' policy wil fair in a world with 3 billion people below the poverty line, and nuclear warheads scattered araound a dozen or more regions like melons in a field, is not easy to imagine. Underlying these strategic outlooks is an uncomplicated reading of the outcome of the cold war. "We won, and the other side not only lost but disappeared" With this interpretation in hand, the geopoliticians weave their imperial reveries.

More consequential perhaps are the blueprints, some already drafted, for the material basis of the world economy in the immediate years to come. In this more practical realm, a loose working coalition now exists of governmental, military and business interests spanning the computer, media and informational industries. No less than the geostrategists, this group has its eyes focused on an American-directed world and insists that the means of achieving this is the electronically-based information/media component that confers cultural and general power. Representatives of this outlook come from the top echelons of power.

David Rothkopf-Clinton administration official, cuurently director of Kissinger Associates writes."In praise of cultural imperialism-For the US a central objective of an Imformation Age Forein policy must be to win the battle of the world's information flows, dominating the airwaves as Great Britain once ruled the seas. He continues " It is in the economic and political interests of the US to ensure that, if the world is moving to a common language, it be English; that, if the world is bocoming linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American; and that, if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable".

Of course the disertation continues for many several more pages, but hopefully y'all get the picture. Imperialism is alive and well in the US in one form or the other and it is all directed solely for the good of the US of A. Selfish, repunant, arrogant, lacking morals and ethics. Anyone wonder why America is so distrusted the whole world over.


Sick
Guest


12/15/2002
13:09:38
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
@adrianerik

Wow a whole C. Thanks teach.

If you actually have graded undergrad papers then that says it all about our university system. I am disappointed you do not take the historical context of facts into consideration. Odd thing is, when I was in graduate school, and wrote similar things, they always gave me grades better than a C. But oh well...it's cool. I passed YAY!!

Not surprised. Typical. So where is your cut and paste input?

Are you related to William Shatner by chance?


Adrianerik
Guest


12/15/2002
14:27:47
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Please....don't let me be the rationale for your getting off track.

Forgive me for the sarcasm.

Issues are much too serious for me to give you that level of importance.

My bad!

But...is your post an example of your graduate school work?

Just a question.


Sick
Guest


12/15/2002
14:52:22
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
No, it is not an example of graduate school work. And why should it be? This is a bulletin board, and not worth such grand effort. Other than the last paragraph I quoted from that book, I didn't seek any resources. I didn't have to in order to explain something that should be obvious to anyone that has ever read a history book. Jeromy is playing the very propaganda game in which he decries. Which is, extracting historical facts (actual events) and piecing them together to present some grand historical scheme. The events may, on their face seem very similar (i.e. military interventions), but the reasons behind them almost always are not. As someone who "grades papers", I would think you would agree with this, I don't mean my political point of view, but my view of how intellectually dishonest that type of presentation is.

Abracos Tchau


Sick
Guest


12/15/2002
14:54:27
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Pirambuence, thank you for that post. I would be greatly interested in hearing more about your experiences in Brasil while you were a member of the Peace Corps. What a time to be there. Also, I would like to thank you for understanding the importance of historical context (as well as for pointing out the US lack of consideration for consequences of foreign policy, a major criticism of mine about US foreign policy). I doubt I share your political world view in general, but I respect your comments and opinions because they are imbued with knowledge (as well as personal experience), and I am always looking to learn more from a variety of sources, as opposed to some. I can only hope Jeromy, and some others, take note of your post.

Ze, I totally agree, how the US has conducted it's foreign policy diplomacy, a delicate art, over the past 50 years or so has been abyssmal. That recent world survey on how others view the US that Madeline Albright was involved with makes your point. The US has to do a much better job of justifying it's actions to the rest of the world.

I'll respond to the others later.


Patinho
Guest


12/15/2002
16:28:17
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
hey Sick, it's me again.. Patinho.

Someone posted this link a while back about ex-Peace Corps volunteers' stories from Brazil. Thought you might like them.

http://www.expcvsbrazil.com/stories/menu.htm


adrianerik
Guest


12/15/2002
17:26:27
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Then does it trouble you to select just one incidence and explain it differently than Jerome.

Just one.

And possibly explain, let's say, what he historical developments of caudillos have to do with, let us say, the US support for Trujillo in the Domincan Republic.

The proper use of context is to clarify cause and effect. So I'm asking a simple question. That you might perhaps elaborate on some contextual impetus that would shed light on our support for, let's say Batista or Somoza.

That doesn't take a tome to do. An educated person can bullet simple contextual points and show their affects on the various rationales for my countrys support for dictators and fascist regimes.

You've already read the book you've suggested. So, if it has enlightened you, why not share one or two points, to whet our appetites. I'm quite sure that you have some tidbit that would completely expose our inadequacies in analyzing U.S. foreign policy in the Americas since the late 1800's and the end of the Spanish-American war.

ps - "progaganda" In graduate school we crucify students who resort to labels. It's a lazy mind.


Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/15/2002
19:15:24
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To Sick,

I still would like to know what conspirators who's propaganda I am promoted. Please reveal them that the evildoers may be exposed.




Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/15/2002
20:34:04
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Here is two quotes that reveal U.S.post war doctrine.
George Keenan, head of US State Department Policy Planning Staff, 1948 revealed US foreign policy doctrine after the war:

"We have 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity.
We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

President Woodrow Wilson further elaborates:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturers insist on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nation which are closed against him must be battered down…colonies must be obtained or planted in order that no useful corner of the world be overlooked or left unused."



Randy Paul
Guest
 Email

12/15/2002
20:49:09
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Well if you're going to go after Wilson, be sure to include the 14 points, especially I, IV, V and IV:

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

XI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.



Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/15/2002
23:53:23
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Woodrow Wilson invaded Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic where his soldiers murdered and destroyed, reestablished virtual slavery, demolished the political system, and placed the countries into the hands of US investors. He claimed these actions to be in self-defense against the Huns.
He did see the error of his ways close to his death. (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been "deceived" and that "I have betrayed my Country" He is quoted as saying in referring to the U.S. government, "great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men".
Just about all imperialist give positive sounding public pledges. Remember how we were protecting the South Vietnamese people and bringing them freedom and democracy by killing them, in mass amounts. That is like pledging to want to cure someone's headache by chopping of their head.



Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/16/2002
00:32:16
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
A quote from the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guide for 1994-1999" America must prevent other states "from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order....We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. "
Imperialism 101




Sick
Guest


12/16/2002
09:45:40
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Jeromy's false, misleading, out of context and fantasy (most likely just lies) statements:

*Brasil has no history of...overthrowing democratically elected [sic] governments - Misleading. Mentioning this would imply that Brasil itself has a history of democracy. It does not. Yes I am fully aware of the US backed coup, a bad bit of US policy no doubt, but that doesn't explain the first 400 years of Brasil's existence.

*Brasil has no history of...Use chemical and biological weapons, such as napalm and depleted uranium on civilian populations - False. Neither of those are chemical or biological weapons banned by the UN. Napalm is debatable, I admit, and before you mention Agent Orange, please consider the fact it is not a weapon.

*Brasil has no history of...Install sanctions on Iraq that cause 500,000 children under the age of five to die of starvation or curable diseases. - Misleading. Those are UN sanctions, the US and the Brits enforce them. You have a serious misunderstanding of causation. For the record, I do not defend the sanctions on Iraq either, but why those children are dying is debatable.

*The U.S. owns 50 % of the world's wealth, has 6% of the world's population, but 24% of the U.S population live under the poverty level - False. 2001 statisics state 11.7% live in poverty. The first two stats strangely appear in that quote by Kennan you posted. I believe that quote of his was made prior to 1950. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty01/pov01cht.gif

*U.S. foreign policy does not serve those 24 %. It serves the interest of the five percent who posses 22.4 percent of the U.S. wealth. - Misleading. Unsubstantiated opinion.

*I didn't say it was their only interest. - False. You said it was an interest. Please recall, strike that inform yourself, of Washington's warning about foreign entanglements.

*Samuel Huntington - Misleading. I didn't bother looking up the context of that quote and I am positive you didn't either, but it is still misleading since you have not provided an example of a time when the US was not governed by such elites. Or, any government in the history of the world for that matter. I will save you the trouble...there has never been such a case.

*It should be noted that often times the U.S. elites interest or opinions are often in conflict with those of it's public. - Misleading. Often the public is wrong. An example since I am sure Jeromy is just baffled by this concept, we'd have prayer in schools if the public had so much power, abortion could become illegal simply based on the power of persuasion of certain elites, slavery may never have been outlawed...etc etc.

*In regards to conquering Mexico. A combination of U.S. public opinion being against it, the deterrence of the other Imperial powers, and the lack of the strength to do it with the former two being present. - False/Fantasy. I am unaware of public opinion polls being considered let alone taken prior to 1850. Plus look how we handled the Oregon question with the Brits, we negotiated them off the continent south of Canada. "British leaders were similarly adverse to conflict and did not want to jeopardize their important economic relationship with the United States. In June 1846, the Senate, preoccupied with war against Mexico, quickly approved the Oregon Treaty with Britain, setting the boundary at the 49th parallel." So the British imperialists apparently weren't concerned. I couldn't get a quote from the fledgling Ottoman empire.

*That is why this forum and Brazzil magazine is important. - Ironic. Yeah I had to add this one. I assume you are against multinationals imposing themselves upon hapless, exploited people such as Latin Americans by enslaving their bodies and minds with such things as ....computers. HAHAHAHA

*Just curious, do you have any facts to support their going to "considerable lengths to suppress these facts"? To many to name. They do it usually through omission. Take for instance the facts that we have agreed on. How many times have you heard them in the major media. - False/Fantasy. The latter part first, there is no one that I have NOT read about in American publications. Ommission, well many are now old news, published before, and some of the little stories that tell a lot that I often find in the foreign press does aggitate me. However, look at the amount of information available, it can't all be published by a single news source. That is why they have these people called "editors". Plus, and you would agree with this based on a prior comment of yours, much of that dreary foreign policy news is ommitted because people would rather read about Madonna. Sad but true. And remember, you are all for elites never disagreeing with their public.

*Latin American countries are mixture a mainly of three types (excluding the immigrants who would later come) - False. Other than the natives that lived in the Americas in 1491, and the slaves forcefully brought in, they were ALL immigrants.

*Incas, Their chief was chosen by the people, but his power was mostly symbolic. They had basically a form of social democracy - False/Fantasy. "The Inca society was rigidly structured under a god-like, all powerful ruler, called the Inca. Beneath the Inca were the royal family, several levels of nobility, priests, the administrators and government experts, and the large mass of common people - craftsmen, farmers and soldiers. People's lives were strictly controlled, but the government protected them and made sure that they were well fed and had what they needed to live and work." That was one of the nicer comments I found about the Incas.

*One thing they didn't have is weapons of mass destruction. The Conquistadors did. - Misleading. Use of the term weapon indicates intent. So therefore, they had no weapon because the Spaniards wanted the natives alive to work as slaves. Since disease and brutality killed off most of the natives, African slaves had to be imported.

*A competition began with the Empires as to who could control the land, who could export the resources of Latin America for profit, and who could control the labor of the peoples - Just plain stupid. What people? It was conquistadors and natives/slaves. Portugal, Spain and France just basically set up agriculture and mining shop with slaves. The intent wasn't to settle the land initially to create new wonderful countries, it was a place of business. Settlement occurred to a much larger degree in North America.

*A small aristocracy came over and where the main land owners and rulers. The enrich themselves by exported the resources of Latin America primarily to the Empires. - Misleading/Ignorant. Hey dummy, that small aristocracy sent there to rule and enrich themselves traded primarily with the Empires because they WORKED FOR THE EMPIRES.

*The people fight to gain independence. They look to the U.S. for support. The U.S. doesn't give it to them. Simon Bolivar (El Liberator) in 1819 “In ten years of struggle and travail, that beggar description, in ten years of suffering almost beyond human endurance, we have witnessed the indifference with which all Europe and even our brothers of the North have remained but passive spectators of our anguish." - HELLO? WTF? If the US had helped...wouldn't that be...meddling? Also, wouldn't all those leaders that took power after their revolutions be de facto puppets of US interests, namely the unnamed "elite" classes bent solely on exploiting and enslaving their southern neighbors? Would that not be imperialism?

*Then began the history of U.S. involvement mentioned earlier. - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*The liberal theologians has changed this greatly. - Fantasy. Read up on the liberation theologists of Latin America, and what they truly believe. Nevermind, you would just agree with them.

*First of all, just because an enemy is evil, that doesn't justify every thing you do to fight against them. - Granted. I conceded that long ago.

*Besides that, Soviet expansion never went beyond Eastern Europe and Central Asia. - Misleading. Now tell me, what lands did the US expropriate after 1950?

*The Soviet Union was allies with Cuba and gave aid to the Sandinistas and a few other Latin American countries. - Misleading. Then I can make the same pathetic argument about the so-called US allies that we propped up and supported around the world. Have you forgotten about the Soviet sattelite nations of Eastern Europe within a single sentence?

*Name one time when the Soviet military attacked a Central American nation. - Misleading/Stupid. Name one Soviet Satellite nation the US invaded. I can name a few Eastern European countries the Soviets invaded. Ever here of "sphere of influence"?

*A lot of the peasants fighting for revolution that the U.S. suppressed never even heard of Marx or Lenin. What you are referring to is the greatest propaganda myth of all time. It was used as a pretext or for justification, but was a complete myth. - Insane. I bet, too, that many of those peasants didn't know who Marx or Lenin was. But the people who organized them did. Those revolutions in Latin America, especially post WWII, were never once led by a peasant uprising. The entire intellectual base of the revolutionary movements were, in general, middle to upper middle class college educated 30 somethings. So it was not a myth to those organizing the revolution and occassionally enjoying support from the USSR via Cuba. It was actually a reality that two super powers were competing for ideological dominance in poor regions of the world like Asia, Africa and Latin America. Sadly, it was those peasats who always paid the ultimate price.

*Yeah the liberty if you are peasant in El Salvador to choose to work for 33 cents an hour, 18 hours a day at Liz Claiborne or US Steel. And still not be able to feed your children and have access to health care. - Misleading. If that is what that person chooses then yes, that is liberty.

*The Nixon/Kissinger White House was a little busy at the time. They had the Chilean government to overthrow, millions of Indochinese to kill, and had top give support to Suharto in Indonesia - False. Peru was in 1968, from day one Nixon was wide open for any legitimate option to get out of Viet Nam but his predecessor left him an unwinnable war with no face saving way out. Allende was elected in 1970. And Suharto had taken power in 1965 and had already become a US ally. I guess LBJ didn't mind the roughly 500,000 slaughtered in the process of Suharto gaining power. And, Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975 setting off that genocide. What year did Nixon resign?

*I still would like to know what conspirators who's propaganda I am promoted. Please reveal them that the evildoers may be exposed.

prop·a·gan·da: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

No conspirators. By "people like you" I mean people engaged in the systematic propogation of a doctrine (ha). In your case, American imperialism. To further explain, because I am now convinced that isn't nearly enough for you to understand, you have chosen a point of view (for whatever reason, I am sure someone dictated it to you since you only regurgitate), espouse only that point of view, refuse to learn more in regards to the foundations of your point of view, refuse to consider other points of view, and will defend your point of view even if it means you have to mislead (which is what you do with your piecing together of out of context historical facts), misinform (wanton spread of falsehoods) and literally resort to fantasy as fact (which your post in response to me clearly shows). One not need to be affiliated, or excusively of the left or the right, to be a propagandist. I have encountered "people like you" from all points of the political spectrum. You are not unique. Got it?

*George Kennan[sic], head of US State Department Policy Planning Staff, 1948 revealed US foreign policy doctrine after the war:"We have 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.... We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

That isn't a description of imperialism you twit, it is a description of the foreign policy school of thought known as Realpolitik. AKA International Machiavellian power politics. Or as Kissinger defines it, "foreign policy based on calculations of power and national interest". Which isn't imperialism. Kennan was the founding father of implementing this policy and it is arguably the current foreign policy paradigm of most international policy makers.

*A quote from the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guide for 1994-1999" America must prevent other states "from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order....We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Imperialism 101 - Out of context thus false. First of all, the Pentagon doesn't set foreign policy. Second, it was published in a New York Times article in 1992. It was merely an excercise in identifying perceived potential threats to US security.

"By the Times's account, the policy paper asserted that America's mission was to ensure that no rival superpower emerged in any part of the world. The United States could do this, it proposed, by convincing other advanced industrialized countries that the US would defend their legitimate interests and by maintaining sufficient military might. The United States, the document stated, "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." It described Russia and China as potential threats and warned that Germany, Japan, and other industrial powers might be tempted to rearm and acquire nuclear weapons if their security was threatened, and this might start them on the way to competition with the United States."

HA! Now THAT was fun.

Tchau


Sick
Guest


12/16/2002
09:48:23
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Brazzaboy I am not sure why you keep tossing the Bush administration and it's alleged right wing agenda at me. I have never mentioned Bush. I have this feeling you have leapt to the wrong conclusion that I am a Bush or Republican supporter. I am not. For the record, I do not support the Democrats either.

Yes, the US does and has meddled in the past in the internal politics of other nations. Who disagrees with that? So did the USSR, so did Cuba in Latin America and Africa, so have European nations all over the world. Why does it upset you only when the US does it? I guess China too, but they don't have much of a history of meddling outside their own borders or their immediate sphere of influence. You fear "yellow" people or something? Your word, not mine.

You think China is waiting for the US to self destruct? China is in the throws of major economic change, a change toward free markets. Self destruct as a market competitor or as a free market system so socialism can replace it as the leading economic paradigm? I am curious what makes you think China dreams of our demise. In regards to China being a peril, I would say you share the majority view on this one, but there is a saying about China..."Only China changes China"...that has been the case for about 5000 years. So pressuring China to do anything has always failed, but China doesn't have much of a history of expansionism. Tibet and Taiwan are claimed as historical lands, so they are a different issue. At best, China is an economic threat but it doesn't necessarily have to be, in my opinion. Interesting topic though.

In regards to Schiller, I disagree that what he is describing is imperialism. He is a describing a school of thought in the foreign policy world known as Realpolitik. Essentially, Machiavellian power politics in the foreign policy realm that promotes the nation and will always hold the option of brute force if it feels it is necessary to maintain it's interests. He quotes David Rothkopf, which made me laugh because he now works for Kissinger Associates, and if you know anything about Realpolitik you know that Dr. K is the "mackdaddy" of that school of thought. I believe Realpolitik and imperialism are mutually exclusive. I will explain why some other time if you wish.

Abracos Tchau


Down to Earth
Guest


12/16/2002
09:49:44
Full spectrum Dominance
IP: Logged

Message:
“USCIT - There never would have been an embargo had Castro maintained any attempt to have a democracy in Cuba and normal relations with the U.S.. He was convinced however that he could make it without the U.S. and declared Cuba to be in alliance with Russia. Sobeit. The U.S. just let him.”
How kind of daddy USA to have let Cuba do that…

“Alex - it's that while economic systems should perhaps facilitate humanity on state, corporate and individual levels, they should not lay their foundations in emotions, and especially not in an obtuse, malleable definition of morality -- just as they should not exclude humanity from their ultimate goals.”
I totally agree with that, unfortunately the world’s media and political powers don’t so maybe our time would be better spent trying to understand a society’s needs rather than writing half a mile posts to show how many big words one can come up with or learning mathematics.

USCIT, don’t worry mate, you don’t need to feel scared about LULA, you’ve got enough things to be paranoid about down your end. It is very easy to demonise Castro and his regime by calling on your typical “sensational” propaganda. But while Castro “dug his own pit with his sadistic way of governing” by killing its own people, the USA decided he had enough killing it’s own people (Indians, Mexicans, blacks) and moved on internationally since one can get away with saying “I’m a democrat” a lot more if he exerts war, murder and dictatorship abroad, preferably in countries with less international power. of governing and dictatorship. Unfortunately, since 90% of the worldwide Media is owned by America those sensational facts are not as well publicized as those of the Empire of Evil (communists) and the Axis of Evil (terrorists).

Maybe that you people need to watch less CNN and read more about Vietnam, Malaysia, Laos, Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Lebanon, Chile, Venezuela etc… BRAZIL, YOU’RE NEXT!



Sick
Guest


12/16/2002
18:25:10
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Unfortunately, since 90% of the worldwide Media is owned by America those sensational facts are not as well publicized as those of the Empire of Evil (communists) and the Axis of Evil (terrorists).

Earth, interesting comment. I'd love to see your source on that, assuming you weren't being sarcastic.


Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/16/2002
23:58:39
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
To sick,
If napalm is not a weapon. Than what is it.
A quote by Denis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator - on effect of US sanctions on the Iraqi people
"[Genocide] certainly is a valid word in my view, when you have a situation where we see thousands of deaths per month, a possible total of I million to 1.5 million over the last nine years. If that is not genocide, then I don't know quite what is."
"We are in the process of destroying an entire nation. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
It is not debatable on why they are dying. U.S. officials have even admitted that the deaths have been the direct result of the sanctions that are enforced by the U.S. and Great Britain.
You have a consistent tendency to say I am lying, than completely agreeing with what I said.
For instance nothing you said about the Incans disputed the point I was making. You also said "Hey dummy, that small aristocracy sent there to rule and enrich themselves traded primarily with the Empires because they WORKED FOR THE EMPIRES." That was my exact point.
I said Soviet expansion never went beyond Eastern Europe and Central Asia. - You said "Have you forgotten about the Soviet satellite nations of Eastern Europe within a single sentence?" You do understand the word expansion. I was clearly stating that the Soviet Union had satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but did not have any in any other parts of the world and never showed any intentions to.
Harry Truman once said "if you can't convince them, confuse them." This seems to be what you do. You purpose seems more to confuse than to inform. You have yet to disprove that the U.S. is an imperialist nation.
You mentioned Indonesia. Suharto came to power through a CIA led coupe that overthrew the democratically elected government of Surkano.
According to the CIA's own report Suharto's forces killed 500,000 to 1,000,000 non combatants, taking from a list created by the CIA and the U.S. embassy. Former CIA officer Phillip Letchy was quoted in John Pilgers book, Hidden agendas.
"The Indonesian president Suharto was given the green light by the U.S. to do what he did. There was no discussion in the embassy and in traffic with the State Department about the problems that would be created for us if the public and Congress became aware of the level and type of military assistance that was going to Indonesia at that time ( approximately 90% of its arms). It was covered under the justification that it was for training purposes."
He later invaded East Timor killing over 200,000 in a population of 600,000. This invasion occurred a day after Suharto had met with President Ford.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Suharto had moved boldly in defeating the coup makers and consolidating his power using strength and finesse.
The London economist said that (Suharto) was at heart benign.
In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, and installed into power the murdering despot the Shah.
You keep saying that these are just a few cases, but it is not policy.
According to former CIA officer John Stockwell. The CIA has overthrown 24 democratically elected governments. That was stated in his book that was written in 1989. There have been more since then, such as the recent attempt in Venezuela.
Former CIA agent William Blum in his book on U.S. military and CIA interventions gives the reasons why. "As numerous interventions have demonstrated, the engine of American foreign policy has been fueled, not by a devotion to democracy, but rather by the desire to:
1) make the world safe for American transnational corporations;
2) enhance the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to congress people;
3) prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
4) extend political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power"; and
5) fight a moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy.
Over the past 50 years, in striving to establish a world populated with governments compatible with these aims, the United States has - apart from monumental lip service - accorded scant priority to this thing called democracy."
You keep saying that I am repeating a certain groups doctrine. I spent 11 months, 2 to 14 hours of day researching the facts to come to the conclusions that I have. The first 4 to 5 months were trying to disprove what you call propaganda. That is exactly what I thought of it as, but the more I researched the more I realized they were true. How I became convinced was when I saw much of it confirmed in the National Archives of declassified government records.
You have yet to give any evidence whatsoever to support the argument that the U.S in not an imperialist power.




Pirambuence
Guest
 Email

12/17/2002
01:53:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
After reading the lead article on Presidente Lula by ----Buarque, and reading most of the entries on this erudite forum, I am afraid for the aspirations of the Brazilian people and their enthusiastic turn to an egalitarian democracy. Are we to dream that America will be a benevolent imperialist power?? is that not an oxymoron? Perhaps there is something we , as all of us here seem to have a love for things Brazilian, can do to keep the perspective accurate as policies take shape-- If they do--that are not to the liking of the current administration in Washington.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/17/2002
02:54:41
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
One thing I have clearly noticed about Sick's posts is no matter what anyone says they are fantasy/fiction and he has yet to say anything of any substance to support his stance. I really think Sick is a very confused and befuddled person. He seems to read into my posts that when I mention Bush I am referring to himself in some way. I mention Bush as he or his cronies have clearly made statements in the past (as have presidents and their cronies of other ilks) of the US intentions of in some form or the other being an Imperialistic nation and sppressing others into their way of thinking, preferrably by legit means, but by force and coercion if necessary. These were not words written by some 2nd or 3rd world lunatic but by Presidents or high ranking advisors to Presidents yet this individual (Sick) for all his nationalistic pride ( I am all for being proud of your Nation) chooses to ignore such statements and calls everyone who brings them up as liars, fabricators, fantasizers etc. Very, very sad-Sick.


Sick
Guest


12/17/2002
04:30:39
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
At what point does embarrassment set in for you? But OK, I'll play.

How I titled that last post...it was a list of methods you use to make your fallacious arguments. Not all apply to each and every post. Please scroll up and note how I labeled most of them.

*If napalm is not a weapon. Than what is it. - It's a weapon for damn sure. No one disputes that. However, I was talking about Agent Orange.

*A quote by Denis Halliday... *sigh* Yes simpleton, it IS the sanctions that are killing the Iraqis. What is debatable is WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE SANCTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Hussein could easily bring the sanctions to an end. He does not. The UN could easily just end the sanctions. They do not. THUS THE DEBATE YOU MORON. Good Christ.

*You have a consistent tendency to say I am lying, than completely agreeing with what I said. - No. See above explanation about my previous post.

*For instance nothing you said about the Incans disputed the point I was making... - I would find it highly disturbing if you think making up "facts" that eventually support your point anyway is acceptable. I hope that is not what you are implying. I will explain this to you only once, I may share your point of view on any given point, but I will never accept the false statements to justify it.

*"Hey dummy, that small aristocracy sent there to rule and enrich themselves traded primarily with the Empires because they WORKED FOR THE EMPIRES." - I was mocking you're hilariously obvious and pointless statement. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't shine through in text, but I couldn't resist.

*I said Soviet expansion never went beyond Eastern Europe and Central Asia. - You said "Have you forgotten about the Soviet satellite nations of Eastern Europe within a single sentence?" You do understand the word expansion. I was clearly stating that the Soviet Union had satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but did not have any in any other parts of the world and never showed any intentions to. - I apologize for this confusion because I asked that question but put it on the wrong bullet. It was to go with the one below it, where I mention sphere of influence. Again I apologize for that. Anyway, what I was saying was the Soviets were prone to using military force on their satellites, their sphere of influence, one could argue the US viewed Latin America in a similar manner. But not consistently, as the Soviets did and therein lies the difference. You think the Soviets had no intentions of expansion outside of Eastern Europe and Central Asia? I will give you a chance to retract that statement before I respond.

*You have yet to disprove that the U.S. is an imperialist nation. - I disagree but if you insist, then I will argue I am still waiting for you to prove that it is.

*You mentioned Indonesia...- HAHA No, YOU mentioned Indonesia. I was simply corresponding the date of events with your claims about Nixon/Kissinger to show they don't add up.

Why do you insist with these constant cut and paste history lessons of something neither of us disspute nor have a point? (Please stick with cutting and pasting, because remember what happened when you ventured out on your own about the Incas.) Where did I even imply that Suharto was somehow a legitimate leader?

*You keep saying that these are just a few cases, but it is not policy. - Now you are lying about what I say. I never said that, and save your breath, I am fully aware of the US interventions and coups. The policy on such things has never been consistent, which to me voids the imperialist argument. That is why I gave the example of Peru. If we are this nation hell bent on imperialistic domination, then how that Peruvian situation ended up would have been quite different. Again I ask, why haven't we just invaded and conquered Latin America? Could the answer possibly be because the US isn't an imperialist nation? Is your very life inextricably tied to the US being perceived as imperialist?

*Former CIA agent William Blum...- This one I won't bother letting you retract. Your lies are becoming dispicable.

"William Blum left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer, because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and editor of the "Washington Free Press", the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."

*You keep saying that I am repeating a certain groups doctrine. I spent 11 months, 2 to 14 hours of day researching the facts to come to the conclusions that I have. - It is quite obvious that you never sought any other sources than that of the extreme left.

If you actually did that much research, given the frequency and seriousness of your errors and your inability to grasp simple concepts and history, then I can, without a doubt, only conclude that you are the stupidiest person on the face of the earth. By the way, that is not ad hominem, because I can prove it simply by pointing to what you have posted here.

*The first 4 to 5 months were trying to disprove what you call propaganda. That is exactly what I thought of it as, but the more I researched the more I realized they were true. How I became convinced was when I saw much of it confirmed in the National Archives of declassified government records. - Such as?

*You have yet to give any evidence whatsoever to support the argument that the U.S in not an imperialist power. - Countering practically every comment you make doesn't do that? By the way, your credibility is now Zero. I suggest you try a different strategy, like say, things that are actually fact?


Sick
Guest


12/17/2002
06:04:57
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
*I mention Bush as he or his cronies have clearly made statements in the past (as have presidents and their cronies of other ilks) of the US intentions of in some form or the other being an Imperialistic nation and sppressing others into their way of thinking, preferrably by legit means, but by force and coercion if necessary. These were not words written by some 2nd or 3rd world lunatic but by Presidents or high ranking advisors to Presidents yet this individual (Sick) for all his nationalistic pride ( I am all for being proud of your Nation) chooses to ignore such statements and calls everyone who brings them up as liars, fabricators, fantasizers etc. Very, very sad-Sick.

Not getting enough sleep Brazza? You seem grouchy today. I was hoping you would enlighten me on China's hope of the demise of the US, but don't bother if you are going to snap my head off.

Who, other than Jeromy, have I called those things? Pardon my vanity, the wording you used just struck me as odd when you asked me to read that article. I am not used to such verbose invitations. It still strikes me as odd, though, when you claim that while those Bush comments were not directed at me, you are now directing comments at my "nationalistic pride". I guess I am just being vain again, because just like there is no way you can know my political affiliation, there is no way you can know the degree of my "nationalistic pride". How many times do I have to state that in certain aspects I am just as critical of US foreign policy if not more so than most posting on here? Sorry, but simply because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I lack substance. I just have a completely different understanding of how US foreign policy is formed and under what auspices. Plus, I have no agenda, as opposed to some on here, maybe that is what you mean by lack of substance? What I find most disappointing about most of my detractors on here is the deafening silence about Jeromy's posts. Again, not the world view he espouses, but his blatant errors and misleading analysis. None of you say a word to him, yet you have plenty of words for me. If I shared his world view, I would be highly embarrassed of his comments. But that's just me. Politics does make for strange bedfellows, I guess sleeping with shame is one of them.

Oh, one last thing Brazza, I'm curious, exactly what is a legitimate means of "suppressing others into their way of thinking"? That sounds so Kissingeresque or something.

Abracos Tchau.



Guest


12/17/2002
06:07:47
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
... A: USA = powefull = big = empire = imperialism = evil = must_stay_away_from_poor_countries

...B: USA = powerfull+democracy = big+good = free = must_protect_human_rights_across_globe

...this is merely an humorous speculation, if someone feels offended, please, seek professional help.

*Are these small details in discussion really worth something on the whole scenario?


Sick
Guest


12/17/2002
06:24:52
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Ze, you and your catch-22 games! I'll play, just to piss off Brazza. The answer is B. However, in order to protect human rights on a global scale, one would have to act in an imperialistic manner. And if that occurred, then Jeromy would be on here quoting "Former CIA agent Noam Chomsky..."

Yes these "*" small points matter....seriously. The constant inaccuracies at some point, I would think, would draw the credibility of his assertions into question...but maybe not. Geez.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/17/2002
14:34:01
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sorry to disappoint, but you really can't piss me off. I just look at you as a 'Perfect American' who is right about everthing.



Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/17/2002
16:19:15
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
First of all. Every imperialist act that I have mention, included mass atrocities and human rights violation. That is what so offends me about them. I am working very intensely to see that answer b. takes place. I believe this will occur if those in the U.S. who truly want that to be so, unite together and make it so.
You are very right about the William Blum info, as well as Luga and Lula mistake as well as the misplaced quotation marks. I knew that William Blum had either worked for the CIA or the State Department. I didn't research it out. That was a mistake. The rest were previously researched out. That was not.
I like what you did. You focused on that error, while never answering William Blum's quote. Nor John Stockwell's saying that the CIA has overthrown 23 democratically elected countries. By the way he could of said 23 or 24 or even 26. I'm recalling a quote in his book. Whether the exact detail is 23 or 24. It is of only small importance.
Do you dispute the fact that the CIA has overthrown over 20 democratically governments. And if not, can you please explain to me how in the hell that is not imperialism.
You may not have considered Suharto legitimate, but President after President did. A Clinton aide even called him their kinda guy. To his credit Clinton did finally end three decades of U.S. support for him.
It is amazing. You are doing actually what I saw former CIA chief James Woosley do in a debate with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. It is also what I have seen politicians and journalist do to those they disagreed with and could not disprove. They first avoid and do not address certain points. They respond back by attacking them personally, and pointing out minor mistakes they have made, while avoiding the question and the arguments they brought up. (Also in that
interview, James Woosley keep referring to a particular website for people to go on.)
This is why you see politicians in the U.S. do ads that talk about all the dirt of the other guy. Because they can't win on the issues alone. They know that they do not serve the interests of the people, so they make the other guy look as bad as possible.
They can't win on argument alone. This is why right wing deaths squads in El Salvador and CIA supported right wing paramilitaries in Colombia must kill everyone with a left leaning. They know that serve only the needs of the rich. That they can never convince the people that their slave like conditions are good for them. So they must kill anybody who is able to communicate left ideas.
In the U.S. they don't use death squads. They use propaganda. Since almost all the tools of mass communication are controlled by 'radical conservatives’ as Rudolf Murdoch, the owner of one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world called himself. They deluge the masses with right wing messages, or in Sick's case, deluge you with long winded posts, that confuse more than inform.
By the way. I have a few times pasted quotes from writings I have done in the past. So I am plagiarizing myself. Does anyone know of a lawyer who will help me sue myself for plagiarizing



Sick
Guest


12/17/2002
22:32:05
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
*I like what you did. You focused on that error, while never answering William Blum's quote. - Why should I? Everything you pasted is exclusively his opinion. I would think my other posts to you would make it obvious that I simply don't agree with those type of conclusions? So I will answer in the manner in which it was posted, with no substantiation. I disagree. Happy now?

*Do you dispute the fact that the CIA has overthrown over 20 democratically governments. - Nope.

*And if not, can you please explain to me how in the hell that is not imperialism. - Sure. For the simple fact, a fact that I wrongly assumed would be a given, that overt or covert action, be it military or otherwise, in foreign lands does NOT necessarily imply imperialism. According to you, any act of aggression taken on behalf of perceived national interests (US only) is imperialism. Therfore, according to your logic, no matter what the US does, it can only be imperialism. Let's apply your logic to Rwanda, what if the US had intervened militarily, which it very well could have and saved thousands of lives? According to your logic, that would have been an act of imperialism. Bill "Never Again" Clinton, chose to ignore it. That is his preogative as president, he didn't consider nearly one mllion Rwandan lives to be in the national interest of the US. However, when Clinton chose to intervene militarily in the former Yugoslavia to stop a genocide, the US is called imperialist. When I responded to Ze's comment and you agreed that the scenario should be B, you fail to even recognize the reality of your choice. The US would then, by YOUR definition, be an imperialist nation. Protecting human rights on a global scale would call for military intervention, covert intervention, economic embargos, most likely the deaths of millions of innocents and the threat of constant, never ending Orwellian wars. Just like the left describes the war on terrorism. And why is that imperialism? Because it would be doing precisely what you decry and claim has been happening now. You believe the US acts imperialistically to protect the wealthy "elites", oppress and enslave people for profit, impose Western ideology upon weaker nations, refusing to allow alternative forms of governments and economics to emerge, etc. etc. In other words, imposing US/Western beliefs, morals and culture upon the rest of the world. The "B" scenario would be the same thing, the EXACT same thing, but with different causes.

Now explain to me why it was OK for the Soviets to support the Sandinistas but not OK for the US to support the Contras? The Soviets can back a revolution that may have never occurred without that financing yet the US cannot back a coup in Chile? (I don't defend US actions here, I am merely describing what US policy was and how you're a hypocrite. I still have no agenda). Now compare the Chile of today with Nicaragua of today. Before you say it, I agree 100%, the means do not justify the ends. However, you are only concerned with the means of the US and refuse to even consider US actions in context. The bottom line is, the average citizen in South America suffered over these cold war battles, but it was not exclusively the making of the US, something you refuse to acknowledge. The Realpolitik point of view was (and is) the US was acting in it's sphere of influence to protect it's PERCEIEVED national interests, NOT creating an empire. In fact, policy makers strongly believed they were THWARTING an expansive empire that may eventually be at it's southern doorstep. I know you think that is absurd, and some of it was, but that is HINDSIGHT. I pointed out the example of Peru, which you think is only anecdotal or something but it is not. My point was, the US only acted with aggression if it felt that leader were a direct threat to the stability of the region or a threat to overall US interests. Velasco was sort of a left wing joke and never sought much support from the Soviets. So he was seen as not much of a threat, even by a paranoid Nixon administration. So, no aggression was taken to regain those oil fields. They negotiated a settlement. I bet you believe peaceful negotiated settlements are imperialistic actions too, especially if the US is involved.

As far as supporting military coups and dictators....basically the same thing as above. It was the realpolitik point of view that marginally friendly leaders, despite their brutalities to varying degrees, were much better than hostile despots supported by the left that were just as brutal. (I am sure you don't believe this, so I will point you toward "The Black Book of Communism", written by Europeans, not Americans FYI, for the dirty details of Soviet expansionism you hilariously claim didn't exist.) It wasn't about dominating Latin America, or Asia or Africa, it was about opposing Soviet expansionism. Please note, it wasn't just communism the US opposed, it was specifically Soviet style communism. China was never much for supporting the Communist cause outside of it's immediate sphere of influence, and even then the support was negligible. Obviously, the economics of these policies weren't a huge factor simply because no one can argue the US imposed free market systems upon these Latin American nations, they just simply wanted to keep Soviet influence out. The Realpolitik policy makers were fully aware of history, and had learned from Wilson that you cannot create democracy and free markets by using Marines in a region that has no history of either one. Therefore, since Realpolitik theory is unconcerned with moralistic aspects of policy, the policy makers never concerned themselves with what appears to everyone else as US hypocrisy, i.e. not encouraging democracy and free markets. To them, that is what domestic policy makers did on the homefront. And it should be noted, one aspect of this type of policy making to be considered is that it also did not take into account the consequences of it's own policies. Thus our dilemma today, and my major criticism of this school of thought. But it STILL isn't imperialism.

Let me re-iterate, I don't necessarily defend any US actions taken anywhere in regards to the context of this subject. I just do not believe those actions were acts of imperialism. The left wing interpretation of this history is loaded with ideology and conspiracy, not to mention hypocrisy as Jeromy himself has shown.

By the way, your mistakes are not minor. They are egregious.

"...they make the other guy look as bad as possible." - You don't need my help.

"This is why right wing deaths squads in El Salvador and CIA supported right wing paramilitaries in Colombia must kill everyone with a left leaning."

Want to take a body count since 1900 on which end of the political spectrum has killed more people for not adhering to ideology? First I would need your definition of right and left wing though, not only to conduct the count but to get a good laugh I am sure. I am curious what you think, was Hitler's Nazi party of the right or the left?

"In the U.S. they don't use death squads. They use propaganda." - This comment, by definition, is propaganda.

"Since almost all the tools of mass communication are controlled by 'radical conservatives’ as Rudolf Murdoch" - Yes yes Ted Turner is a prime example of a "radical conservative".

"They deluge the masses with right wing messages..." such as?

"or in Sick's case, deluge you with long winded posts, that confuse more than inform." I apologize for burdening you with reading. I can tell by your posts it is not a favorie pastime of yours. Which came first, what I wrote or your confusion?

"By the way. I have a few times pasted quotes from writings I have done in the past. So I am plagiarizing myself. Does anyone know of a lawyer who will help me sue myself for plagiarizing" - Another example of just how stupid you really are. Not once have I mentioned plagarism or accused anyone of such.


Jeromy
Guest
 Email

12/18/2002
00:40:03
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
You said "not once have I mentioned plagirism or accused anyone of such."
Your earlier post "I cannot discern anything from the comment that bolsters your thus factless and plagarized rant."
What is imperialism? Please define it for me.
You have many times accused me of saying that being involved in the affairs of another country is imperialism. Anybody paying attention even half way would understand that I am not.
I am saying that imperialism is forcing your way into a country, against the will of the people, and at the expense of the people. I beleive in democracy. Democracy is the will of the people. I beleive forcing a mass population to sumbit to your will is tryanny, whether that is done militarily, economically, or in any other way. Imperialism is one country bringing tryanny and oppression to another, in any form or fashion.
Plan and simple.
Saving a people from genocide would not be imperialism. It would be act of supporting democracy, for of course the will of the people would be against being slaughtered.
It is very bizarre to me. The argument that you keep giving, that they are acting in their own interest. The very same argument could have and was made by the Nazis, the British Empire, and the Roman Empire. Tyranny could always be defined as the tyrant acting in his own interest.

I apologize. I got caught up in the whole right wing, left wing thing. I will later explain this better, and explain the doctrine that the media promotes.



Guest


12/18/2002
01:09:14
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
They where not scenarios, they where over simplified positions seen at this discussion. They where a mockery of both of your positions.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/18/2002
04:19:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick are you serious was Hitler a rightist or leftist. He was clearly and by his own accounts an extreme rightist, he was a Fascist. Get a grip man. Come down from your hallowed cloud just for a moment. My God you are really sounding duh.


Down to Earth
Guest


12/18/2002
05:03:44
Let's shorten our posts, pleazzzz
IP: Logged

Message:
“Sick says: Earth, interesting comment. I'd love to see your source on that, assuming you weren't being sarcastic.”
Well unless you wish the re-world, in a more “friendly” way the fact that most of the world’s media is owned by a handful of multinational (American) companies i.e. TNCs, General Electric, Microsoft, AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney, Time Warner, Fox, Viacom etc… etc… etc…

“Sick says: However, in order to protect human rights on a global scale, one would have to act in an imperialistic manner.”
This only again proves what everyone out there is trying to say, including quite a few Americans, more recently Dan Rather and Michael Moore. An interview with a few American scholars in a documentary on BBC a few months ago, only resumes Sick’s views: “We are happy to help those who will accept our (American) ways but as for the others…they are on the outside”.

In other words, Sick not only believe that America is “free” and “Good”(We can only assume that those who oppose to it must be EVIL) but that it knows what is best for the rest of the World. And if one will not accept that than the US will make sure to apply its “imperialistic” manner to impose such. So let me get this right, the US an European colony, with a heavy load of poverty/violence/healthcare/security issues to fix, with a couple of hundred years in Imperialistic, democrat and government experience will decide what is best for several-thousand-year-olds kingdoms, ex-empires and cultures. Hmmmm… I think that “THIS” sounds a little scary.

“Sick Says: And if not, can you please explain to me how in the hell that is not imperialism. - Sure. For the simple fact, a fact that I wrongly assumed would be a given, that overt or covert action, be it military or otherwise, in foreign lands does NOT necessarily imply imperialism. According to you, any act of aggression taken on behalf of perceived national interests (US only) is imperialism. Therfore, according to your logic, no matter what the US does, it can only be imperialism.”

Stop contradicting yourself! Let me give you a hand. Your American dictionary tells us that the definition of Imperialism is: “The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.” So if it isn’t imperialism that you are doing what is it? Friendly persuasion?

“Sick Says: Now explain to me why it was OK for the Soviets to support the Sandinistas but not OK for the US to support the Contras?”
I’m not really surprised to see such a childish argument coming from you. Couldn’t hold it any longer hey mate? Are you finally showing us your true colours? So, your argument is: “If the soviets kill, destroy, oppress, corrupt than WE CAN DO IT TO, thee hee!”

“Sick Says: It was the realpolitik point of view that marginally friendly leaders, despite their brutalities to varying degrees, were much better than hostile despots supported by the left that were just as brutal.”
Again, you couldn’t help yourself could you? So it’s all about the left VIS right thing? Ohhh it is sooo much better to have a dictatorship, which kills millions of civilians, distorts the media, torture and kidnap entire families for having different views than a nationalistic representative of the people who supports communism. Where is the freedom that you talk about then? If it doesn’t even apply inside your own borders where and when will it apply? You can’t run a country on propaganda, at some point even your average American will want to see some facts. Communism vis Americanism, Good vis Evil, West vis East, bad arab/german/Russian guys vis good pro-American ones etc… there is always a new title for the latest news header or the next action flick.

Like Alex you spend far too much time lengthening posts that could be resumed in 2 or 3 paragraphs to try to prove what a clever geezer you are. There’s no need to be that insecure, we all believe that you can be a really bright chap, but if you paid more attention to what you write maybe you wouldn’t be full of contradictions and it would be much easier for all of us to have a more productive debate as well as saving us a lot of time.



brazzaboy
Guest


12/18/2002
06:00:21
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Anyone notice a trend here. Seems Sick is the only one who actually believes anything he writes, he has been dissected by many so far and I have'nt seen one stand up and say he's right. We must all be Commie losers/liars/fantasizers while he is the lone White Knight riding in to clear the world of us trash.


Down to Earth
Guest


12/18/2002
06:05:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Well Brazza, we can only conclude one thing. Bush is certainly doing a great job in representing his people.


Sick
Guest


12/19/2002
08:18:48
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
HAHA. I just checked back in here to respond to Jeromy. I will have to do that later. I guess I need to explain a few things to Brazzaboy and Down to Earth, because neither of them have any understanding whatsoever about what I have posted.

*"Sick are you serious was Hitler a rightist or leftist." - Yes, that was a serious question directed to Jeromy. I was curious about his point of view. There is no standard political spectrum need I remind you, it can be quite subjective. So that is why I asked him. I only ask you quit leaping to conclusions about what you think I know or don't know or believe or don't believe.

*",,,the fact that most of the world’s media is owned by a handful of multinational (American) companies..." - Still intriguing, and still waiting for your source. You see, maybe in the future I would like to make the same claim, and I would want to use a source to substantiate it. So by all means, when you come across it, please pass it along. Thank you in advance.

*"In other words, Sick not only believe that America is "free" and "Good" (We can only assume that those who oppose to it must be EVIL) but that it knows what is best for the rest of the World." - Just like Brazza, you have no way of knowing what I believe especially since you can't understand the ideas behind my posts. I was saying the exact same thing as you are, that if the US does use foreign policy as an instrument for protecting human rights, then it would be imperialism. The idea of it scares me too. I made it quite clear, or so I thought. Here is what I said:

"When I responded to Ze's comment and you agreed that the scenario should be B, you fail to even recognize the reality of your choice. The US would then, by YOUR definition, be an imperialist nation. Protecting human rights on a global scale would call for military intervention, covert intervention, economic embargos, most likely the deaths of millions of innocents and the threat of constant, never ending Orwellian wars. Just like the left describes the war on terrorism. And why is that imperialism? Because it would be doing precisely what you decry and claim has been happening now. You believe the US acts imperialistically to protect the wealthy "elites", oppress and enslave people for profit, impose Western ideology upon weaker nations, refusing to allow alternative forms of governments and economics to emerge, etc. etc. In other words, imposing US/Western beliefs, morals and culture upon the rest of the world. The "B" scenario would be the same thing, the EXACT same thing, but with different causes."

Now what part of that don't you understand?

*"So if it isn’t imperialism that you are doing what is it? Friendly persuasion?" If the definition you quoted were the standard definition then every nation on the face of the earth would be imperialist, since all nations take actions in their own interest. The dictionary is not a good source of political definitions. They are too limiting. Before you respond, look up the word neologism so you don't waste your time. I also looked this up for you in a political dictionary:

Imperialism - the policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which many states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are controlled by one dominant state. Imperialism is the opposite of the principle of self-determination, which is the more generally accepted creed today. As such, although imperialism has existed from the times of Alexander the Great, it is not currently fashionable. Much of the twentieth century history of the Third World, for example, is of the dismantling of the legacy of nineteenth century European imperialism.

See how nice I am? I'm here to help.

*"If the soviets kill, destroy, oppress, corrupt than WE CAN DO IT TO, thee hee!" - I wasn't defending that and I stated that I don't defend it. I even re-iterated the fact that I don't defend it. I was pointing out how Jeromy focuses solely on US actions and ignores Soviet actions during the cold war. I believe that is hypocritical and takes US actions out of context. Which does not justify US actions, I will say for the THIRD time.

*"Sick Says: It was the realpolitik point of view...Again, you couldn’t help yourself could you? So it’s all about the left VIS right thing?..." Yes, the cold war was very much a left vs. right thing, to put it in simple terms. Again, I was not defending that or defending all or any US actions taken in that light, I was, *again* , EXPLAINING the reasons behind US actions during the cold war, not defending them.

*",,,but if you paid more attention to what you write maybe you wouldn’t be full of contradictions and it would be much easier for all of us to have a more productive debate as well as saving us a lot of time." - I hope you take your own advice and start paying more attention to what I post. Maybe then you will understand it, "and it would be much easier for all of us to have a more productive debate as well as saving us a lot of time.."

*"Anyone notice a trend here." - Yes, yes I do see a trend.

*"Well Brazza, we can only conclude one thing. Bush is certainly doing a great job in representing his people." - And the trend continues...


brazzaboy
Guest


12/19/2002
08:47:23
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
There we have it. Imperialism looked up in a political dictionary and it confirms exactly what I have been stating. Read it again and again. The Us is using this approach to try and UNITE the entire Americas, and who would be the dominant state, instilling its views, directives,policies, ideologies. You got it the good ole US of A. Imperialism at it's grandest. Thank you Mr. Sick for supplying us with the final installment in this discussion.


Sick
Guest


12/19/2002
10:01:42
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Excellent. But by all means don't address "Imperialism is the opposite of the principle of self-determination, which is the more generally accepted creed today. As such, although imperialism has existed from the times of Alexander the Great, it is not currently fashionable." All those nasty free elections in Latin America is just too discouraging for you to address I am sure...so just leave your evidence of the US imperialistic plot at the door and the rest of us will move on.


brazzaboy
Guest


12/19/2002
10:09:47
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Your point being? If the US succeeds in this and they instill their wishes, policies, ideology etc.etc on the rest of the Anmericas, where in the hell is the SELF DETERMINATION. ?


Down to Earth
Guest


12/20/2002
09:40:05
Miles of text!
IP: Logged

Message:
Well Sick, if you have not yet noticed that American TV and News are present in virtually every country in the world that the war on American vis Evil Terrorism got more propaganda than any foreign catastrophe in history since the WWII I suggest that you vary your information intake by visiting http://www.alternet.org/ - http://www.cpbf.org/ and http://www.presscampaign.org/

**Sorry about the length**
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, U.S. Media Corporations can own radio, TV, book publishing, newspapers, Internet services, all in the same market area, and up to one third market share nationally. With globalisation as we call it (which for others could also be referred as “westernisation”) Many companies have since merged or fallen under some form of co-ownership creating the existing biased media cartel we now have of half a dozen U.S. Media Multinationals. These Corporations continue to own larger and larger shares on the back of capitalism and globalisation. Taking for Example General Electrics, which not only owns NBC and CNBC as we know, a few channels in Britain as well as Canada and Microsoft co-owned Internet cable news services; but also manufactures electronics, rail transportation systems and even (“surprise, surprise”) nuclear warfare and military equipment. Therefore, when you think that everything is all (TV) screen-deep, look further and you will see why the American News and Entertainment industry always gets so excited when there appears to be a “valuable” reason for war. There is no doubt that CNN has even managed to induce fear of the Muslim terrorist on your average favela resident in Sao Paulo who has lived his day to day life with the constant threat of violence/murder or robbery. Already in the 30’s-50’s, even in Brazil, my grandma as a youngster, would be terrified of communists since they not only played scary bad guys in movies but were also said to kidnap children for concentration camps and eat babies.
American TV makes 50% of its profits from foreign exports and being so tight with the directorship of capitalist corporations and multinationals, U.S headlines will always have a tendency to be so biased somewhere between the right and extreme-right against liberation struggles all over the world (unless economic/political interests are at stake i.e. presidential propaganda or Oil in Iraq) and so favourable to International Monetary Fund politics and multi-national capital flows.
“Sick Says: Just like Brazza, you have no way of knowing what I believe especially since you can't understand the ideas behind my posts. I was…”
Then explain them! It seems that you say one thing to one person than change it around to suit someone else’s argument or to piss them off as you proudly announce. I mean, which of you posts should I consider serious? You chose B, which said ...B: USA = powerfull+democracy = big+good = free = must_protect_human_rights_across_globe. You recon that the US is good and to protect human rights you must act in an imperialistic manner, however you later defend the accusations about the US being an Empire…. Geee your confusion is confusing me! But it looks like this is what you are try to do, to beat the bush about so nobody gets your point and that you can say that we are all lost. That’s been tried a lot you know, just watch the Matrix.

And how about (clearly) explaining how the situation B would be EXACTLY the same thing?

“"Sick, do you actually know what do you stand for? How many definitions of imperialism do you have? And which one applies to what you write so much about to “piss Brazza and Jeromy” off? As for the “take actions in their own interest” definition… in that case my dog must be imperialist since it rolls on its back to get a cuddle or a treat.

“I was pointing out how Jeromy focuses solely on US actions and ignores Soviet actions during the cold war. I believe that is hypocritical and takes US actions out of context. Which does not justify US actions, I will say for the THIRD time.”

So every time one will criticize the US, you will then “make out for it” (if you don’t like the expression justify) by pointing your fingers at actions committed by other countries in the “past”? We would be here all day. It would make things a lot more productive if you would at least use the present otherwise we can only assume that you do not like hearing anything criticism about the US which makes you presence in this forum pointless.

P.S. Would also help if you would write to whom you are replying to. That “you” is a little vague.






Sick
Guest


12/21/2002
05:48:25
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
DOWN TO EARTH: Wow, there is some serious misunderstanding here. As far as that 90% statistic you (DOWN TO EARTH) mentioned, I just thought it seemed kind of high. I only asked for your (DOWN TO EARTH's) source on that. The source on the 90% number, not well known facts that US interests own a lot of media. But so does Rupert Murdoch not to mention Europeans, especially the Brits. I thought it was a simple request, but obviously not, so I apologize.

DOWN TO EARTH: Don't you (DOWN TO EARTH) think the 9/11 attack is arguably the single most significant event to happen to and in the US since say...ohhhhh...Pearl Harbor and WWII? Thus all that media coverage or propaganda, as you (DOWN TO EARTH) like to put it. I guess you (DOWN TO EARTH) don't feel that way, but thanks for the input.

DOWN TO EARTH: "Then explain them!..." - I have explained them, it just seems obvious that you (DOWN TO EARTH) don't understand. This is what I said" "Ze, you and your catch-22 games! I'll play, just to piss off Brazza. The answer is B. However, in order to protect human rights on a global scale, one would have to act in an imperialistic manner..." Ze also added his equations were merely "humorous speculation" so I was just playing along. I said I was doing it to anger Brazza because selecting B is in essence selecting an imperialistic option. Something he is bravely against. So, I thought that was funny, at least to me. It keeps getting funnier by the day, actually.

DOWN TO EARTH said: "however you later defend the accusations about the US being an Empire..." - False. Again, you (DOWN TO EARTH) completely misunderstand. I was only explaining the context of US actions which is not defending anything. I even stated that I strongly disagree with some of the US actions taken. How many times do I have to tell you (DOWN TO EARTH) this?

DOWN TO EARTH asked: "And how about (clearly) explaining how the situation B would be EXACTLY the same thing?" I already did. Please see my 12/17 post. If that isn't enough, please read my 12/19 post where I pasted it for your (DOWN TO EARTH's) benefit. A third posting is gratuitous, even to me.

DOWN TO EARTH wrote: "Sick, do you actually know what do you stand for? How many definitions of imperialism do you have? And which one applies to what you write so much about to "piss Brazza and Jeromy" off? As for the "take actions in their own interest" definition" in that case my dog must be imperialist since it rolls on its back to get a cuddle or a treat." - Yes. One. The one I pasted from the political dictionary. Then you (DOWN TO EARTH) should have that imperialist swine of a dog killed.

DOWN TO EARTH wrote: "So every time one will criticize the US, you will then "make out for it" (if you don’t like the expression justify) by pointing your fingers at actions committed by other countries in the "past"?" - What part of "Which does not justify US actions" don't you (DOWN TO EARTH) understand?

DOWN TO EARTH wrote: "It would make things a lot more productive if you would at least use the present otherwise we can only assume that you do not like hearing anything criticism about the US which makes you presence in this forum pointless." - Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL history leads to the present. I know I am going out on a limb there but feel free to set the record straight.

Abracos Tchau


USCIT
Guest


12/21/2002
08:38:51
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick,

Just as a casual comment about the final words in your last comment. (Most of which I agree with btw)

But, 'all history leading to the present'. In a sense, of course, it does. But with the U.S., (and most other countries) elect a new President, get a new cabinet, and the entire perspective of about any previous action can change. That doesn't change anything that happened before, but it can lead off to an entirely different outlook and approach to a given subject for all time to come.

History is valuable for lessons. Sometimes, some few even learn from it. But a new course of action 'can' be brought about with every election. Making history something that 'happened in the past' and something for bibliophilics and historians to ponder over.

As to d2e's comments about not liking criticism about the U.S. and staying with the present, unless I lost my ability to comprehend, nearly all of the criticism I see posted is about the 'historical' past. Dyed in the wool U.S. bashers dig deeply trying to find something with which to knock the U.S.. They seldom understand history well enough however to make their comments in context.


Down to Earth
Guest


12/21/2002
10:19:04
Competing with the Bible
IP: Logged

Message:
“SICK: As far as that 90% statistic you (DOWN TO EARTH) mentioned, I just thought it seemed kind of high…I thought it was a simple request, but obviously not, so I apologize.”

Well since you do not seem to understand that US Media ownership is not only about TV and Internet let me give some statistics. 85% percent of the Internet is American owned – this statistic has been taken from an Article by “Blake Rohrbacher” in http://www.clickz.com. This is without mentioning that Microsoft (and we also need to mention Sun) practically owns the Internet. 90% of Internet users will have windows the rest probably Sun, if this isn’t a monopoly to you I do not know what it is, I guess that is part of building an “Empire”. American News are broadcasted virtually across the globe. Go to CNN and check out CNN international, see in how many countries it broadcasts. Needless to say how many countries live on a diet of American Movies. Also, by the way to speak, I am sure that you are familiar with your government plans for Full Spectrum Dominance. Rupert Murdoch has been an American Citizen for a long time; otherwise he will not be able to own so much media and news papers in your country. Don’t you know the law? Americans are allowed to by into a country’s TV but the reverse doesn’t happen. Do you only consider your people “American” when it is convenient?

“SICK: DOWN TO EARTH: Don't you (DOWN TO EARTH) think the 9/11 attack is arguably the single most significant event to happen to and in the US since say...ohhhhh...Pearl Harbor and WWII?”
Do you see what I mean? Yes it has been the most significant in “the States” I guess since Oklahoma did not kill enough people and wasn’t committed by evil Arabs but an ex-recruit American. But apart from that the Media is not really keen at showing us 24/7 what happens (including massacres) in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, South America etc…What is interesting is how hardly any media coverage was made on “American caused massacres” in Somalia, Bosnia, Panama, Iraq etc… Can you just about imagine what it would be like if we also got a “Remembering Hiroshima” news headlines every year with as much propaganda as we got for the 9/11? I tell you what, we are lucky that Europe gets at least a chunk of the Media.

“SICK: Ze also added his equations were merely "humorous speculation" so I was just playing along.” Good, now I should start guessing when you are “playing around” or actually debating.

“SICK: I was only explaining the context of US actions which is not defending anything.” So it’s not defending, not justifying… Explaining? Who’s asking you for explanations on how the US acts? And if you were not trying to justify the US’s actions why ask: “Now explain to me why it was OK for the Soviets to support the Sandinistas but not OK for the US to support the Contras?”

“SICK: I already did. Please see my 12/17 post. If that isn't enough, please read my 12/19 post where I pasted it for your (DOWN TO EARTH's) benefit. A third posting is gratuitous, even to me.”
You haven’t, how do you justify (relate/defend/explain whichever doesn’t upset you) being GOOD with acting in an Imperialistic manner?

“SICK: Yes. One. The one I pasted from the political dictionary. Then you (DOWN TO EARTH) should have that imperialist swine of a dog killed.”
Ohhhhh he is getting all-angry now and even letting it out on my dog. Tut tut tu Sick, keep your hair on. So let me try to understand how your mind works… You dismiss my definition by trying to simplify it down to “acting in one’s own interest”, you then you give me your definition, in other words you shall chose the definition that suits you best.

Okay, in that case using your own definition: “Imperialism - the policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which many states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are controlled by one dominant state.” Hmmm, I won’t give you any definition of EMPIRE because you will probably dismiss it as well. But what is your definition of an EMPIRE? Were/Are saying that you are trying to build and maintain an Empire? Is this what you were doing in Vietnam? In South America? In the Middle East? In Africa?

At last you admit it. You want to be the state that dominates the world. Finally! Thanks for that.

“SICK: Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but ALL history leads to the present. I know I am going out on a limb there but feel free to set the record straight.”
Your point being? Are you saying that you will ape over and over again every nation’s actions and massacres only because “They did it too?” Does learning and progress mean anything to you?

You are right this is getting hilarious, but only if you are actually “fooling around” or “playing along” because otherwise Darwin’s fears will have never been more accurate.

Anyway, I shall let you ruminate on that over Christmas and come up with some “clever answer” while you look forward to bombing Iraq. Merry Christmas!

P.S. There should definitely be a word count on this thing!


Down to Earth
Guest


12/21/2002
11:29:07
Why bashers?
IP: Logged

Message:

"USCIT:As to d2e's comments about not liking criticism about the U.S. and staying with the present, unless I lost my ability to comprehend, nearly all of the criticism I see posted is about the 'historical' past. Dyed in the wool U.S. bashers dig deeply trying to find something with which to knock the U.S.. They seldom understand history well enough however to make their comments in context."

Past??? Watch the (non-biased) news.You’ll see that you don’t need to dig deep at all.




brazzaboy
Guest


12/21/2002
11:58:37
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Unfortunately Mr/Ms./Mrs Sick has a selective eye. He obviously did not read my entire post of 15/12 with direct quotes from high ranking presidential advisors (to Bush sr and Clinton) clearly stating US ambitions is to dominate the worlds airwaves and bring other states, willing or not under their control.

Imperialsim- they even mentioned that word themselves. Irving Kristol's own words were that the US is an Imperium state and they really had no moral objectives. They just want to dominate others.

Disgusting, arrogant, un-ethical and totally immoral.

By the way sick, once again you say to 'Piss Brazza off' you cannot piss me off, in fact your last several posts have clearly shown you to be going off the deep end. You are a sad little person.


USCIT
Guest


12/21/2002
12:22:20
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Here I am. I swore I wouldn't become involved any more with the political threads on this forum mainly because they address things out of context and seldom address a situation as it happens.

But, unbiased press, or news or whatever you want to call it. What is it? Someone say's something counter to what you hear on CNN (or whatever the media) and you say to yourself, "Ah Ha, I'm finally getting the true facts." Those 'facts' are no more true than those published elsewhere. They are targeted to the circulation reader. Whatever will sell the most news. ALL press is that way. U.S., Iraqi, Brazilian or whatever. I was taught in grade school to read at least three as diverse newspapers as I could find, and if they all reported an event the same, still suspect it, but perhaps they were reporting a near truth. I currently subscribe to six newspapers.

As to Microsoft (and Sun and whomever) owning the Internet, I've posted the response to that in other threads, at other times. If someone doesn't like the way things are going, build a better mousetrap. Sit down this evening and write a new operating system that is better than anything Microsoft and/or Sun (or whomever) can come up with and YOU will own the Internet. But I see no need to knock Bill Gates (or the company) because he DID it. That isn't very productive. Just a bunch of 'bitchin'.




Sick of Idiots
Guest


12/21/2002
12:47:27
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Down to Earth, you have got to be kidding me. You think Microsoft and Sun own and control the content on the internet? They provide the operating systems to ACCESS the internet. I admit I misunderstood you, when I think of media and the transmission of information in whatever form, I think of news gathering agencies, not the means of transmitting it. I see Japan has returned to its imperialist ways by dominating the tv production market...since a tv is like an operating system, it merely provides access to the information but doesn't control the content. I guess that means Japan is trying to take over the world.

Wow, I have now learned that if a US news organization opens a news bureau in a land outside of US borders that is an act of imperialism. God forbid a news organization try to broadcast news about some other part of the world. God forbid Americans learn something about someplace outside it's borders. Next time I hear or see a non-American complaining about Americans seeming to be so misinformed about the world, I will correct them and explain that if the US news organizations attempted to gather news around the world, then that is imperialism. I will give you as a reference if they do not understand.

And Rupert Murdoch, silly me, I forgot he is a US citizen, and that he became one in 1985, not so he could supercede US law and own US media organizations and add to his fortune, but because he WANTED to wave the American flag and assist in setting up the US imperialist dynasty. Now THAT is patriotism. Thank you for pointing that one out, I was too overwhelmed in defending the US at all cost and forgot.

"Do you see what I mean? Yes it has been the most significant in "the States" I guess since Oklahoma did not kill enough people and wasn’t committed by evil Arabs but an ex-recruit American." - Are you insane? What is the proper amount of media coverage? Please give me the formula, and how the number of deaths apply. I can't help it you are so blind by your hatred for the US that you can't figure out on your own that the perpetrators of the Oklahoma incident were immediately captured, there was no international aspect to it, and there was no ongoing conspiracy concerning it, meaning, McVeigh did not belong to a group with international reach subscribing to the destruction of the US and the West. Surely, you are not this obtuse.

All the information one needs is available on all those atrocities, even moreso with the "evil" imperialist owned internet. The US will gladly fall in line behind the rest of the world with "Remembering Hiroshima" when every year Brasil gives us the headline "Remembering Mengele and Our Nazi Sympathies", Japan gives us "Remembering the Rape of Nanking", Russia gives us "Our Gulags, Home Sweet Home", Belgium gives us "Oh, About that Genocide of 10 Million in the Congo that We Forgot to Mention" and so on.

"Who’s asking you for explanations on how the US acts?" - No one asked, but it was obvious to me that Jeromy needed the context of US actions explained to him.

"why ask: Now explain to me why it was OK for the Soviets to support the Sandinistas but not OK for the US to support the Contras? - Because I wanted to know why? One could only infer that Jeromy thought it was OK for the Soviets to do that since he never mentioned it? So I mentioned the context of US actions in the form of a question? Is that OK Down to Earth? Am I allowed to do that? Please clarify the rules for me.

"how do you justify (relate/defend/explain whichever doesn’t upset you) being GOOD with acting in an Imperialistic manner?" - I don't equate being good with acting in and imperialistic manner. I have never said that, nor implied it.

"in other words you shall chose the definition that suits you best." - And you aren't doing that very same thing? I told you my definition and how I interpret things to help you understand my point of view. I didn't say you had to abide by that definition. I didn't say you had to agree with me. I am just offering my point of view.

"Is this what you were doing in Vietnam? In South America? In the Middle East? In Africa?" - No.

"At last you admit it. You want to be the state that dominates the world. Finally! Thanks for that." HAHA WHAT? Because I gave you a definition of imperialism that therefore means that I want the US to be imperialist? HAHAHAHA what the hell is wrong with you?

"Your point being? Are you saying that you will ape over and over again every nation’s actions and massacres only because "They did it too?" Does learning and progress mean anything to you?" - It is just beyond your capability to understand what someone else is saying, especially if what they say doesn't fit your world view, isn't it? You just can't do it can you. Just because I explain why something occurred, I am therefore am defending it? Justifying it? Hoping it continues? So, to use your logic, if you read a newspaper about a murder, and someone who hadn't heard the murder asked you what happened, and you explained to them how, why and where the murder took place, that means you are defending/justifying the murder. That is some real interesting logic you have going on, Down.

"Good, now I should start guessing when you are "playing around" or actually debating." - You no longer have to guess, because I will not be responding to you further on this subject since your posts make a couple of things quite obvious to me, one being you have a serious inability to understand much of what I say or why I say it and the other being that it doesn't matter if you understand me or not, because you are blindly anti-American, not that you should be pro-American, but you have chosen to hate the US for whatever reason and I will say that is just fine and dandy with me. Enjoy your obsessive hatred. I am not going to try to have a reasoned debate with someone so wilfully close minded and biased.

Abracos Tchau


Sick
Guest


12/21/2002
13:06:40
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
My god, what is wrong with you people?

Brazza, I responded specifically to your post of the Schiller item in my 12/16 post. I will add though, that the people Schiller quotes are not making those statements as active policy makers. They are making those statements in books they have written after their work for administrations. Books expressing how they think foreign policy should be conducted, not how it was conducted while they worked under those administrations.


Mineirinho
Guest


12/22/2002
22:22:36
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Eu nunca vi um apelido tão justo quanto este: SICK. Faço um pequeno adendo: que tal ampliar para SICK DA CABEÇA?

Sugestãozinha...
Inté Outr'orinha...


Sick
Guest


12/23/2002
05:00:14
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
A suggestion that I am sick in the head or something? I dunno, I don't speak Portuguese. But DAMN! is that clever (actually it isn't). I hope that makes you feel better, cuz you really put me in my place (actually you didn't). I would like to thank you for your well thought out and researched input into this discussion. I am not buying it yet, but perhaps John Fitzpatrick is right about Brasilians (assuming you are one, if not please stop making them look so bad). I sure hope not but the scale is beginning to tip.

Tchau


Mineirinho
Guest


12/23/2002
14:38:31
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick:

Quem conclui sobre a personalidade de 170 milhões de pessoas a partir do julgamento sobre um único indivíduo realiza um raciocínio estúpido.

Eu não gosto de você e deixo isto bastante claro. Não gosto porque você é arrogante.
Não gosto porque você não diz as coisas diretamente, sempre deixa um rota de fuga...
Exemplo:
"I am not buying it yet, but perhaps John Fitzpatrick is right about Brasilians... "

Você e John Fitzpatrick estão errados sobre as 170 milhões de almas brasileiras porque qualquer generalização sobre tanta gente é impossível. O máximo que se pode dizer sobre elas é que são gente.

Você tem todo o direito de me julgar negativamente porque fui rude com você. Ataque-me.
Mas não destile seu fel sobre o Brasil que ele não merece.

Eu estou feliz porque você não me mandou "abraços" eu detestaria abraçá-lo.

Adeus.


Sick
Guest


12/23/2002
20:25:43
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Just curious, I am concerned I am engaging in a cultural faux pas here. Does sarcasm not exist in Brasil? It seems a couple of posters here take everything literally and/or lack the ability to draw inferences from such statements. The Brasilians I know personally never have a problem understanding the manner in which I occassionaly make my points. But then again, I have known them only since they have lived in the US, so maybe they are used to it.


Rafael
Guest


12/23/2002
21:13:01
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Sick.........

Você realmente acha que brasileiros não conhecem o sarcasmo......? E que os brasileiros que você conheceu só entendiam o seu sarcasmo porque moraram nos EUA????! Se é isso mesmo, me recuso a acreditar que possam existir pessoas tão tolas nesse mundo...

... Ou você estava usando seu sarcasmo original norte-americano novamente em sua mensagem?...*

*Obs.: Isso também pode ser considerado sarcasmo.

Rafael Costa


Sick
Guest


12/24/2002
02:09:34
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
UNCLE!!!


Mineirinho
Guest


12/24/2002
16:15:04
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Caro Sick,

Percebi o quanto fui deselegante com você, perdoe-me.
Estou vermelho como o Papel Noel...
Sabe, se você não fosse tão sarcástico, se não escrevesse aqueles irritantes 'hahas', se não assumisse sempre uma postura de ser superior e se em cada mensagem sarcasticamente não tentasse sugerir a irrelevância do que dizem aqueles que pensam diferentemente de você, talvez eu não tivesse escrito Sick da Cabeça...
Suas idéias são defensáveis, mas você não consegue transmiti-las de modo simpático...porque subestima as idéias alheias.

Desculpe minhas agressões...
Normalmente não sou assim.
Foi um acesso de fúria.
Feliz Natal para você e um abraço brasileiro na família.

Beijos Fraternos,
Mineirinho

MINHA CULPA, MINHA MÁXIMA CULPA...

Isto não é sarcasmo, talvez uma leve ironia.



adrianerik
Guest


12/25/2002
10:11:12
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Interesting flow.

I´d like to respond to some of what´s been written but I´m in Brazil right now and don´t want to spend time doing that right now.

Particularly regarding opinions about populist movements. (I´d like to contrast the populist´ movement that led to the United States Revolutionary War and the questioning of similar populist movements in Latin America)

Also would like to discuss the implications that Cuban involvement in African wars of liberation are to be put on the same level as other intrusions by major countries into the affairs of other countries.

We were talking context...I believe.

So...after the holidays I´ll shout back at this board.

Peace.

To All

1) An enlightened Kwanzaa
2) an unmaterialistic Natal/Christmas
3) a reflective New Year

Peace





brazzaboy
Guest


12/27/2002
18:03:49
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
yeah right.


Down to Earth
Guest


1/01/2003
19:28:12
Why is everybody sooo sensitive?
IP: Logged

Message:
USCIT: “But, unbiased press, or news or whatever you want to call it. What is it? Someone say's something counter to what you hear on CNN (or whatever the media) and you say to yourself, "Ah Ha, I'm finally getting the true facts." Those 'facts' are no more true than those published elsewhere. They are targeted to the circulation reader. Whatever will sell the most news. ALL press is that way. U.S., Iraqi, Brazilian or whatever. I was taught in grade school to read at least three as diverse newspapers as I could find, and if they all reported an event the same, still suspect it, but perhaps they were reporting a near truth. I currently subscribe to six newspapers”.

This is why I said UNIBIASED news. I’, talking about NEWS which another from one side or another, not from one single country. To take what you can GLOBALLY. And don’t forget that most of you national newspapers are actually owned by one of the few Media Globalisations.

And it has nothing to do with writing a “better” operating system or better anything apart from better “marketing/propaganda/use of capitalism”. McDonalds is not the world’s biggest fast food chain because it does the best burgers, nor is Britney spears known in Indonesia because she sings the best songs. So spare me the bichin’ card and don’t be so childish.


SICK: I did not read all of your post, did not get around to do it, but I will if you make your mind up. I’m unclear about what you want to do because it looks like on your lasts posts you actually asks me questions but then you say that you won’t reply to my posts, so what would be the point in me answering your questions?

But overall let’s say we both agree to DISAGREE. I stand by my point and you stand by yours. But I quite like debating with you because unlike many people around here you don’t seem to get too upset about things, apart from the odd “poor me everyone hates Americans” deliriums so let’s find something less “sensitive” for you that we can discuss about, what about something on “Brazzil”, I’m bored with the U.S. now, it’s all over the news/internet/tv/streets etc.. It’s even taking over Brazilian forums! Ghaaa Imperialism!!! LOL


P.S. Sarcasm would work if you would accept it both ways too!

Mineirinho rapaz, nao precise te desculpar isto aqui e para debate mesmo, as galinhas sensiveis nao sao bem vindas! Choooooo







Mineirinho
Guest


1/02/2003
06:50:52
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Cara Down:

Interessante sua predileção por cavalos, jumentos e outros animais de casco farto. De verdade, não me agrada agredir gratuitamente as pessoas porque creio que o bom debate é aquele capaz de comunicar uma nova idéia, capaz de influenciar o modo de pensar das pessoas, senão é inútil. Creio que se desculpar não é inútil. Mas ataques pessoais da lavra de 'galinha sensível, chooo', ou 'você é uma égua escrota que adora ser escoiceada por outros quadrúpedes' não levam a bom termo, ficamos todos na estrebaria, ou no galinheiro.

Se por acaso, por descuido, agredi você,

MINHA CULPA, MINHA MÁXIMA CULPA.
Abraços,
Mineirinho.


Down to Earth
Guest


1/02/2003
11:06:08
Se identificando com galinha..
IP: Logged

Message:
Interessante pois para alguem que “nao se agrada a agredir as pessoas pessoalmente” voce me paresse estar fazendo um bom trabalho no contrario, ou sera que estas dando outro ataque de furia?

Ainda nao entendo tua reacao violenta (com tendencias bestiais) com minha expressao impersonal “galinha sensivel”. Ta biruta mesmo cara? Porque voce pensa que eu estava me referindo a voce? Sera que voce se indentifica como sendo uma galinha sensivel entao? Meeuuu agora vou ter que tomar cuidado caso eu nao ofendo nenhum animal da familia de bipeds.

Minheirinho:
” Desculpe minhas agressões...
Normalmente não sou assim.
Foi um acesso de fúria.”

Entao volte quando voce sair do teus acessos de furia pois ate agora voce so provou que es assim “normalmente”.

P.S. E qual e a idea que voce esta tentando comunicar? LOL que homen estranho poxa, e ainda manda abraco eu em… creepy…



Mineirinho
Guest


1/03/2003
14:43:11
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Cara Down:

Você continha escrevendo para um louco como eu? Talvez você seja da minha laia...
Beijos Afetuosos,
De tua galinha sensível, ( e não adianta afirmar que não me chamou de galinha sensível que chamou que eu li, tá? )
Mineirinho.



Down to Earth
Guest


1/03/2003
15:56:40
GHAAAAAAAA!!!
IP: Logged

Message:
Ai meu Deus! So eu mesma para ter a paciencia de corresponder com loucos.

Eu te falei para nao te desculpar com o cara porque galinhas sensiveis nao eram bem vindas neste forum. Em outras palavras PESSOAS QUE ESPERAM DESCULPAS OU TRATAMENTO SENSIVEL!!!

CAPISCES???????

So te perdo-o porque es mineiro



Anonymous
Guest


1/03/2003
20:13:49
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Cara Down, recordar é viver:

"Mineirinho rapaz, nao precise te desculpar isto aqui e para debate mesmo, as galinhas sensiveis nao sao bem vindas! Choooooo"

"Ainda nao entendo tua reacao violenta (com tendencias bestiais) com minha expressao impersonal “galinha sensivel”. Ta biruta mesmo cara? Porque voce pensa que eu estava me referindo a voce? Sera que voce se indentifica como sendo uma galinha sensivel entao?"

Ora, ora, pensei que estivesse se referindo a minha pessoa, pois usou a expressão chooo, que é a forma de expulsar galinhas indesejadas, e, logo, concluí que a galinha indesejada era eu, óbvio não?

Mas aí você explicou:

"Eu te falei para nao te desculpar com o cara porque galinhas sensiveis nao eram bem vindas neste forum. Em outras palavras PESSOAS QUE ESPERAM DESCULPAS OU TRATAMENTO SENSIVEL!!! "

Então percebo que você se referia a toda e qualquer pessoa que chegasse a este fórum esperando desculpas ou tratamento sensível. Como eu sou uma destas pessoas que espera o aludido tratamento e as citadas desculpas, estou incluso no rol das galinhas sensíveis, portanto, fui a princípio atacado por você, mas não incomodo mais com a expressão galinha sensível que de repulsiva se tornou querida, e agradeço a ela de coração.
Ah, adorei as tendências bestiais também.
Da tua galinha sensível com tendências bestiais e louca, o perdoado Mineirinho.

Beijos galináceos!




Ana
Guest


1/06/2003
12:13:19
RE: Beware, Lula, Mr. President
IP: Logged

Message:
Just making a comment on what one of the guests said about religion having an influence on the success of a nation,etc. The difference in between colonizations performed by Potugal and Spain and by England (considering US only) is that our colnization was an exploitantional (does that word exists?!) one. British that came to US were seeking a new home, eventhough they had the Crown on their backs for a while.
Well, but that's what I think. I don't believe it was a religious issue and I consider the religious discutions (when not done in a very respectful and open minded way) a danger zone!


P 1

Back to our cover