Latin America Wins?

What if the Latin Americas benefit the most from the current america/asia conflict. They bear the least brunt as the US exhausts itself in asia and they gain greater freedom to control their futures.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by NeoQuest]

Wins what? I didn't know there was a competition going on. Is this something like the communists vs the capitalists for example? For south america to win they have to kick out both the communists and the fascists, no easy feat since one or the other controls each of those countries.

Still the current leaders who are at odds with America may benefit if the US is weakened in its current conflicts.

What would the leaders of South America gain? Many of them are tin pot dictators from what I can see. They have absolute power now over their citizens they are also likely to be filthy rich.

The only gain would be on the international stage eg. the struggle between capitalism and communism which has raged for many decades.

If somebody is a dictator I can't see how they are a true communist since they are likely wealthy and they don't believe in true power sharing.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
What would the leaders of South America gain? Many of them are tin pot dictators from what I can see.

If somebody is a dictator I can't see how they are a true communist since they are likely wealthy and they don't believe in true power sharing.

Lol, where do you get your information from? Do you just make this stuff up? How many communist dictators do you think are left in Central and South America? Name all the countries that have communist dictators right now in Latin America.

I think the point was that while the US is focused on the Middle East and/or Asia, that they will meddle less in the affairs of Latin American countries, probably referring to Venezuela and Bolivia specifically. Both are republics btw, which means they have an elected government.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. The U.S. military isn't the one involved in South America.

Listen to this half hour clip:

Self-Described Economic Hit Man John Perkins:

“We Have Created the World’s First Truly Global Empire”

It's about economic hitmen in South America who always try to scare of South American leaders into doing what's best for U.S. interests.

While I'm at it. It's good to mention the Guatemalan massacre initiated by a CIA backed coup of the guatemalan government which installed a dictator there. All for the profit of a corporation... The United Fruit corporation.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
What would the leaders of South America gain? Many of them are tin pot dictators from what I can see.

If somebody is a dictator I can't see how they are a true communist since they are likely wealthy and they don't believe in true power sharing.

Lol, where do you get your information from? Do you just make this stuff up? How many communist dictators do you think are left in Central and South America? Name all the countries that have communist dictators right now in Latin America.

I think the point was that while the US is focused on the Middle East and/or Asia, that they will meddle less in the affairs of Latin American countries, probably referring to Venezuela and Bolivia specifically. Both are republics btw, which means they have an elected government.

What about your buddy in Venezula for a start? Oops that isn't a long enough post so I got to add some more here.

In regards elections answer me this: how is an electin in Venezula legit and GWB isn't?

Originally posted by denythestatusquoIn regards elections answer me this: how is an electin in Venezula legit and GWB isn't?

What? If you think Bush won the election illegally, this is not the place to debate that subject. This thread is about Latin America and the influence that American political focus in Asia will have on politics in Latin America.

If you go to the CIA factbook or any other reputable website, you will see that there are virtually no communist dictators in Latin America, except for maybe Castro. Your assertions are a gross, simplistic misrepresentation of the current political atmosphere of what you refer to as "each of those countries".

[edit on 12-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In regards elections answer me this: how is an electin in Venezula legit and GWB isn't?

All voting machines had paper trails in Venezuela.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
What would the leaders of South America gain? Many of them are tin pot dictators from what I can see. They have absolute power now over their citizens they are also likely to be filthy rich.

The only gain would be on the international stage eg. the struggle between capitalism and communism which has raged for many decades.

If somebody is a dictator I can't see how they are a true communist since they are likely wealthy and they don't believe in true power sharing.

Part of the problem with this argument is that it assumes the modern myth of democracy is the only way to economic success. Assuming I were to agree with your argument that all of these guys are just dictators does that mean they wouldn't be successful.

Theres no proof that someone can't create a successful and more powerful nation if it's a dictatorship. Nations have been rising to power for centuries run by dictatorships, nor have modern economic rules changed so much as not to allow this. There's no new only democracy leads to success rule.

While democratic rule may be more favorable, and maybe one could argue more successful most of the time; its not require to build up a country. Indeed there are quite a number of poor democracies out there, along with corrupt ones.

Most countries gain certain success more because of internal and external politics. Some countries have simply had history go their way while others haven't thus the word developing. On the other hand you can easily have a powerful dictatorship as long as its a dictator who cares about his/her people and wants their nation to rise.

Look at the example of Iraq and Iran. I'm not an expert in these countries history, but from what I read the Shah and Saddam built and ruled over economically successful and powerful countries. What changed this? War and revolution. The Iranians have a revolution and then fought an eight year war. Combine this with the sanctions lead by the worlds most powerful country and it was a major setback.

Iraq gets into this war with Iran and then because of the economic problems it causes even though his country is still in goodshape economically Saddam invades Kuwait leading to a neverending conflict with the U.S.

The Iranians meanwhile at peace throughout the 90's have had a better success at probably regaining some of their position as opposed to Iraq which suffered the 12 year sanctions and second war, which continues to destroy their country.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by NeoQuest]