[T5qYkHWQ]

A few countries in South America have recently turn to the left in a big way. The most high profile example is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. In December Bolivia is holding elections and a leftist is ahead in the poles. These countries are definately not what the current administration wants and our government has gotten involved in South American politics several times. Do you think the administration will try to support a cue or even use military force to change this trend?

[addisonnicogel]

Good question.

Guardedly, I don't think so. Revolutions have a way of backfiring and resulting in worse things. Moreover, such plans seem impractical given the incredible amount of eyes on the present administration given the global disdain for it, including but not limited to multiple scepticisms and oppositions regarding Iraq and the war of terror.

As a result, alot of people are already keeping a close eye on the US regarding Latin America. If anything, Chavez, Castro and other hard leftists already make such charges against Bush regarding this topic without offering evidence and they are already given weight in global opinion, which I find unfair to accuse and/or credit without sufficient evidence.

But given the US has a long track record of such interference, nothing would shock me either. And I think alot depends on how each Latin American government behaves too.

[lollypopz]

A few countries in South America have recently turn to the left in a big way. The most high profile example is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. In December Bolivia is holding elections and a leftist is ahead in the poles. These countries are definately not what the current administration wants and our government has gotten involved in South American politics several times. Do you think the administration will try to support a cue or even use military force to change this trend?

Chavez was elected by a wide margin. Let's assume a "leftist" wins in a fair election in Bolivia.

So the administration should demonstrate it's support for free and fair elections by seeking to have freely elected leaders removed from power because we don't like them?

I know it's been the policy in the past to treat SA countries like US playthings. Not that it ever really works.

[padlabtard]

No,

They remember Brasil in '64 and Chile in '73.

Among other US backed 'revolutions' in the region.

[DenisMoor]

A few countries in South America have recently turn to the left in a big way. The most high profile example is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. In December Bolivia is holding elections and a leftist is ahead in the poles. These countries are definately not what the current administration wants and our government has gotten involved in South American politics several times. Do you think the administration will try to support a cue or even use military force to change this trend?

our government has gotten involved in South American politics several times closer to several hundred times
I was just reading a listing of invasions don't know where my source is. This screen is hurting my eyes hurting my eyes now so I'll go look for it.

Georgie boy hasn't any troops free to invade, but he's got John D Negroponte maybe a coupla death squads. Guardedly I'd say it could not be done secretly enough. Then again George is a stupidly arrogant scum bag.

[indianstory]

A few countries in South America have recently turn to the left in a big way. The most high profile example is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. In December Bolivia is holding elections and a leftist is ahead in the poles. These countries are definately not what the current administration wants and our government has gotten involved in South American politics several times. Do you think the administration will try to support a cue or even use military force to change this trend?

It would depend on how you define "intervene?" If the US comes out to suggest or want a country to go a particular direction, Chavez will jump at the chance and say the US is intervening in their affairs. I do not see any direct intervention, but I do see some hostilities. The best policy for the US is not to directly associate with a party or political leader, but to continue its message that democracy and democratic principles outweigh anyone who is elected in office. That is a more powerful message which Chavez has no defense.

[PIORARMADDERI]

Chavez was elected by a wide margin. Let's assume a "leftist" wins in a fair election in Bolivia.

So the administration should demonstrate it's support for free and fair elections by seeking to have freely elected leaders removed from power because we don't like them?

I know it's been the policy in the past to treat SA countries like US playthings. Not that it ever really works.

The problem with Venezuela was the collapse of the traditional parties that were absolutely corrupted. But Chavez has done little with the corruption. He has eliminated some corruption that will only affect his political power but left alone the police corruption that is rampant in Venezuela. Since the police are now firmly in control, Chavez has little reason to change that. In fact, political curruption is rampant in South America. One day, Venezuelas will wake up and see the little freedoms they had left gone completely and probably blame the US for not intervening in the first place. Canada will probably support the dictatorship as long as it goes against US foreign policy.

[KixdricyArrip]

The problem with Venezuela was the collapse of the traditional parties that were absolutely corrupted. But Chavez has done little with the corruption. He has eliminated some corruption that will only affect his political power but left alone the police corruption that is rampant in Venezuela. Since the police are now firmly in control, Chavez has little reason to change that. In fact, political curruption is rampant in South America. One day, Venezuelas will wake up and see the little freedoms they had left gone completely and probably blame the US for not intervening in the first place. Canada will probably support the dictatorship as long as it goes against US foreign policy.

When it comes to corruption the US is a rank amateur compared to much of the world, and South/Central America in particular.

Chavez is up for re-election in 2006. Assuming that the elections are held (and are fair, not a good assumption probably) then Venezuelans can remove Chavez from power.

Evidently many Venezuelans already "blame" US "imperialisn" for many of its woes. That they might do so if the US does not intervene would be contradictory, but not surprising.

[leyliana]

I don't think so - it is way too risky, especially after the recent and unfortunate experience in Iraq. Would aggression towards countries in South America help the US? Hardly. It would only prove people like Chavez right.

[KLhdfskja]

The big twist in US-Latin relations will be if Evo Morales gets elected to lead Bolivia, and there is a good chance he will win this December. He is a big Hugo Chavez fan and hard leftist who seems salivating to get the opportunity to jab at the US and its interests. His biggest planned stick-in-the-eye is legalising unrestricted coca production. Right now, coca production is heavily restricted and over 80% of the illegal coca crop is destroyed. A Morales victory followed by unrestricted legalised coca production stands to open the floodgates with cocaine, something that has the US and the EU extremely concerned.

[disappointment2]

The big twist in US-Latin relations will be if Evo Morales gets elected to lead Bolivia, and there is a good chance he will win this December. He is a big Hugo Chavez fan and hard leftist who seems salivating to get the opportunity to jab at the US and its interests. His biggest planned stick-in-the-eye is legalising unrestricted coca production. Right now, coca production is heavily restricted and over 80% of the illegal coca crop is destroyed. A Morales victory followed by unrestricted legalised coca production stands to open the floodgates with cocaine, something that has the US and the EU extremely concerned.

What is a big catch is that U.S. intervention's popularity is at it's lowest point in decades yet these guys are pretty much doing everything they can to hurt U.S. interest in their own countries. They are pretty much putting their countries needs first (which is what they are elected to do) and telling U.S. companies that their needs come behind their needs. I'm sure the administration wants to take action but it would hurt them in the eyes of voters since we already are stretched thin.

[Muhabsssa]

With South America progressing economically, of course the republicans want their hand in it. Military coup? Nah. Chavez will disappear only to be found in a river somewhere with two behind the ear. Poor guy.

[elton]

What is a big catch is that U.S. intervention's popularity is at it's lowest point in decades yet these guys are pretty much doing everything they can to hurt U.S. interest in their own countries.

True. The US being overstretched with two wars in conjunction with the fact that so many people around the globe do not like the present American Administration has certainly helped Chavez, Castro and other Latin socialists/communists in that regard.

They are pretty much putting their countries needs first (which is what they are elected to do) and telling U.S. companies that their needs come behind their needs.

I don't know about that just yet. Sadly, Latin America's history is filled with people who present themselves to the poor masses as their champions who turn out to be the next self-serving dictator and/or cruel and/or corrupt and/or incompetent regime. Whilst Chavez speaks charismatically and shows signs of following the anti-American Latin-styled socialist playbook, his reign is far from complete and time is still required to judge him properly, and his thirst for power is troubling given such power is naturally corrupting. Evo Morales talks the same talk, but whether he will walk it is also undetermined. And Morales' legalising coca issue is troubling to far more than just the US government.

I'm sure the administration wants to take action but it would hurt them in the eyes of voters since we already are stretched thin.

The US can't do much now even if it wanted to do so, and that means alot of opponents of the US and its interests can get things accomplished. But, I would not want to press my luck either if I were them given there may be repercussions later.

[VarenHokalos]

True. The US being overstretched with two wars in conjunction with the fact that so many people around the globe do not like the present American Administration has certainly helped Chavez, Castro and other Latin socialists/communists in that regard.

I don't know about that just yet. Sadly, Latin America's history is filled with people who present themselves to the poor masses as their champions who turn out to be the next self-serving dictator and/or cruel and/or corrupt and/or incompetent regime. Whilst Chavez speaks charismatically and shows signs of following the anti-American Latin-styled socialist playbook, his reign is far from complete and time is still required to judge him properly, and his thirst for power is troubling given such power is naturally corrupting. Evo Morales talks the same talk, but whether he will walk it is also undetermined. And Morales' legalising coca issue is troubling to far more than just the US government.

The US can't do much now even if it wanted to do so, and that means alot of opponents of the US and its interests can get things accomplished. But, I would not want to press my luck either if I were them given there may be repercussions later.

Chavez has been in power for seven years now. He was first elected in 98 and so far he remains popular in that country. I do not know enough to say he is not corrupt in some way but the voters in that country do not seem to think so.

[Freefspruptpx]

Chavez is getting big support in Latin America and it is a thorn in the side for the United States. The cooperation between Castro and Chavez is very compelling and Chavez might be called upon to keep Cuban leaders "in check" after Castro passes away.

So the States is more heavily weighing in on Cuba just counting the moments for Castro to pass away.

But the counter against Chavez has been in full efffect. Condi took a tour of the region trying to convince other neighboring nations to Venezuela to isolate the nation, but the other nations didn't respond favorably to the policy. That didn't succeed much. They have also been funding an opposing party in Venezuela, but that hasn't been making much influence either.

So, since those efforts didn't have the appeal they had hoped, they are gonig to wait for Cuba to lose their leader to drive a wedge into the left movement in the Latino nations. I'm sure Castro will permit, through government influence, Chavez some guidance and oversight into Cuba after Castro passes away. I'm sure the States already have a couple 'moles' within the infrastructure of Cuban government to sway from the left.

This will ultimately leave the fate of Cuba with the with people. The States will offer Cuba a trade treaty to the post-Castro leaders of Cuba to diplomatically weaken the left agenda. Who will the people side with? There is lots of U.N. support for Cuba to have the American embargo lifted unconditionally. Castro has also doubled wages about 6 months ago and there has been improved economical conditions thanks to the symbiotic relationship with Venezuela.

The other Latino nations are taking more of a unified stand, leaving Mexico out in the wind pondering what direction to go. Unfortunately, they are trapped in the grasp of NAFTA and have no option to take psuedo-cooperation with the U.S.

Most of the cooperation from the Latino nations was mostly based on a policy of "no way out" if they weakened diplomatic relations with the U.S., but now China is providing that out (pros and cons within that as well). But Chinese political persuasion in the Latino nations can be curved by Chavez' stubborness to follow his own tune and not adopt Chinese policy in the region.

So I'm not really worried about South America in regards to American influence, but I'm sure that America already has a plan set to execute for post-Castro Cuba though.

[Illirmpipse]

Note: If elections are free and fair, Mexico will also take a turn to the left next year.

[Draftcasino.com]

Like I was trying to post in this thread prior to being banned the ERA of Roosevelt Corollary realignment of the Monroe Doctrine (28 invasions Twixt 1900 and 1923) we've switched to "Dollar hegemony".

I doubt the risk of disclosure but then one must recognize John D Negroponte.

[Acciblyfluila]

When it comes to corruption the US is a rank amateur compared to much of the world, and South/Central America in particular.

Chavez is up for re-election in 2006. Assuming that the elections are held (and are fair, not a good assumption probably) then Venezuelans can remove Chavez from power.

Evidently many Venezuelans already "blame" US "imperialisn" for many of its woes. That they might do so if the US does not intervene would be contradictory, but not surprising.

The "Blame the US" is more of a political toy that certain leaders use to fascade the poor decisions its leaders has make. That is the only reason why Chavez is in power. Eventually, Venezuelans will grow weary of Chavez and his party to only put their hands in another party that will be equally corrupt.

[AlexBolduin]

Note: If elections are free and fair, Mexico will also take a turn to the left next year.

The PRI have turned Mexico to what it is today. Nationalizing the oil industry in the 60's did nor bring the wealth distribution that was preached by the PRI. Mexico truely needs land, financial, and environmental reform to help bring their industries on par with industrialized nations. Unfortuneately, every major political group will oppose such reforms in one way or another because it will eliminate their powerful rhetoric on the peasant farmers and workers. The peasant farmer and worker will vote for anyone who will rob the other party and bring the chance of being compensated.

[errolespopume]

The "Blame the US" is more of a political toy that certain leaders use to fascade the poor decisions its leaders has make. That is the only reason why Chavez is in power. Eventually, Venezuelans will grow weary of Chavez and his party to only put their hands in another party that will be equally corrupt.

So........ history is what you say?