# News Socialist doctor wins Uruguay's sunday election

1. Mar 1, 2005

### fourier jr

No turmoil as S America goes left
By James Painter
BBC Latin America analyst

The victory of the socialist doctor, Tabare Vazquez, in Sunday's elections in Uruguay has prompted analysts and left-wing presidents to talk of a "new South America".

They point out that left-leaning leaders run the big three economies of Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, and now predominate in most of the rest of the region.

The only exception is President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, who remains adamantly pro-Washington and free market policies.

What is more, both President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil did well in recent local elections.

Pro-government candidates won in 20 of Venezuela's 22 states and in Brazil, Lula's Workers Party won the most number of votes nationwide and doubled the number of local councils it won in 2000 -even though it lost Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre.

etc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3975663.stm

this must be a nightmare for the USA. the good ol Monroe Doctrine goes something like this:
1. no countries are allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of other north & south american countries
2. but we are
3. ha ha ha.

so let's see here...
Venezuela -- Chavez
Brazil -- Lula
Argentina -- Kirchner
Cuba -- Castro
Canada -- ??????? (Orchard? Layton? who?)

2. Mar 1, 2005

### Bartholomew

That's the Dave Barry doctrine.

3. Mar 2, 2005

### Staff: Mentor

I'm all in favor of modifying that: let them rot in their squalor if they choose to.

4. Mar 2, 2005

### fourier jr

looks like they chose not to though

Uruguay had been stable until more than two years ago, when a depression sank the country's economy by 11 per cent. Now one in three Uruguayans lives below the poverty line.

One of Vasquez's first projects as president is expected to be a $100 million social emergency plan aimed at helping poor people. With roughly 3.5 million people, Uruguay is the sixth South American country with a government that identifies itself as socialist. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and Ecuador have all elected leftist governments within the past few years. Conservative governments, interrupted by brief periods of military rule, have led Uruguay for the last 170 years. http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/01/uruguay-vasquez050301.html [Broken] Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 5. Mar 2, 2005 ### cragwolf There is one ugly mind under all that right-wing rhetoric. 6. Mar 2, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Hardly, craig - I'm all for helping people who want (deserve) our help. If people want to promote an 'us vs them' mentality, they can have it. They will find that life is better when they work with the US, treat us with respect, and promote freedom in their own countries. I'm tired of people blaming the US for not doing enough to help and at the same time blaming us for being overbearing. Somalia comes to mind: you don't want our food? Fine. Same goes for Indonesia and the tsunami: the government of Indonesia used the misfortune of its citizens as leverage for a political game. Contrast South America with Eastern Europe. We intervened in South America and they hate us. The Russians ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist and E Europe hates them. Now that they have been freed, the E Europeans love us. Why? Because they have seen the alternative and know that our way really is a better way. Its a shame that in S. America, pride keeps them from truly giving democracy a chance. Last edited: Mar 2, 2005 7. Mar 2, 2005 ### EL "White or black. There's no gray." /Americans. 8. Mar 2, 2005 ### Bartholomew The US gives veeery little in foreign aid. 9. Mar 2, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor The US gives more foreign aid than any other country. Both your statement and mine are factually true from different points of view. Don't you love spin? 10. Mar 2, 2005 ### Burnsys Argentina and brazilian goverments are not lefties ... they only say they are but all they do is saying one thing in their speaches, and doing the oposite.. they still folow the IMF and washington "Advices", and they still impose the same economic model. they still pass conservative policies giving more power to the police and the military... If not they would be desestabilized by US goverment and covert actions just like with chavez who is realy a left wing goverment... 11. Mar 2, 2005 ### Burnsys i am tied of sayng this.... how can you talk about "Truly giving democary a chance" wher YOUR goverment suported.. helped... gived money and gived weapons to all the military dictatorships in the 70 to overtrown DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED GOVERMENTS in all latin america. And they left us with thousens of disapeared and deaths and tortured.... with millons and millons of dolars in debt that are imposible to pay.... and an economic model that now has made 50% (in the lukyest cases) of poor people, has left us with comunications. water suply, electrical suply and oil industries in the control of the so called "Civilized Word" and we don't want your help, not becouse of our pride.. but becouse we already know what your help means....... And your democracy is not a democracy. it's a two party dictatorship.. Last edited: Mar 2, 2005 12. Mar 2, 2005 ### klusener exactly man, they preach peace and brotherhood on sundays, but they practice it on no day.. they use violence everywhere, they used violence in Korea, they used violence in Vietnam, but when it comes time for you and me to fight for our freedom, our basic human rights, they tell us to be nonviolent. They are not a democracy, they are a hypocrisy.. (sorry, i was just listening to Malcolm's speech in Detroit, just in the mood to type it..) Seriously, my actual point, Russ talks about all these helpful things the US has done for South America in an almost paternal way, and refers to the South Americans has the prodigal sons who have not yet returned, and are still out.. But the truth shows that the US has followed an almost ruthless policy towards the South Americans, and ever-changing policy that changes to suit America's interest.. History shows that anything the American army did in South America, it wasn't for the people of that land, it was for America herself, it was for Sam... 1954 - Arbenz, a democratically elected president of Guatemala, he seizes some lands of the United Fruit company, that has been idle for many years and promises them that he will pay back its worth... What does America do? It accuses him of communism, trains army to overthrow him, and thrones a dictator, Armas, who murders 100000 citizens.. Now if i was the prodigal son in this case, I would have burned down the father's house.. 1961- US overthrows a democratically elected president of Ecuador, because he has close relations with Cuba.. 1973 - the US, supposedly protecting the good interests of the S. American people according to Russ, puts in power a dictator named Pinochet in Chile who goes on to murder more than a 100,000 innocent civilians.. I suppose it was for the good of the people, eh russ? :uhh: 1989 - the US goes in to remove Noreiga, because he doesn't follow their plans, even thought they were the ones who trained him.. Now I could go on and on, but I will stop here, because I think I have referenced my points enough... Russ, good books to read - Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World The Good Neighbor The Murder of Allende and the End of the Chilean Way of Socialism Last edited: Mar 2, 2005 13. Mar 2, 2005 ### klusener Now Pinochet is a funny guy in terms of russ's points.. Most of Pinochet's victims were raped and tortured, Russ, you are probably right man, those Chilean women needed to really lose their virginity man and who better to provide the personnel to do the job, then good ol' Uncle Sam,eh? ..and you wonder why the S. Americans don't run to you crying for help.. They have already been catching hell from you for a century, they are not going to come to you begging for help, they already know what kind of help they get from you... Coming to actual terms, for the rich people here, please help some of the victims of that US-puppet Pinochet, they are still out there needing your help, more info - http://www.trentu.ca/~mneumann/pinochet.html [Broken] Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 14. Mar 2, 2005 ### Bartholomew No, your statement is factually false from any point of view. Japan gives more foreign aid than the USA in terms of sheer capital, not just percentage of GNP. 15. Mar 2, 2005 ### Bartholomew http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don [Broken] Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 16. Mar 3, 2005 ### fourier jr re: pinochet yes i think torture has been the rule rather than an exception in south america. 17. Mar 3, 2005 ### Burnsys And they where all trained in the School of americas. ------------------------------------------------------- The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American security personnel in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians. (See Grads in the News.) In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school. The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten vote margin. In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation. They tell us they are teaching DEMOCRACY. We say "How do you teach democracy through the barrel of a gun?" 18. Mar 3, 2005 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Your numbers are old (1999 and 1997). http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid.html With the war on terror and reconstruction of Iraq/Afghanistan, our numbers would be off the scale today, but I can't find a good source. And it is important to note that Japan is a special case: since they don't have much of a military (due to the treaty ending WWII), they give a considerable amount of money to foreign militaries/military operations. Whereas we spent millions sending a carrier battle group to Indonesia after the tsunami (probably$100 million in material aid that does not get added to our total), Japan being almost right next door didn't have ships to send, so it sent money (which does get added to its total). Japan also spent a considerable sum financing part of Gulf I.

Following that reasoning, the US never gets any credit for the money spent on its military. Every time a European power (or Canada) decreases its military, its because the US is so strong and that is money spent by us so they don't have to spend money. And more directly, things like Kosovo, Somalia, and Gulf I cost the US a lot of money for the benefit of other countries. That's foreign aid. So while it is factually true using certain criteria that we rank last of 22 developed nations, I don't accept the criterea as being reasonable or objective.

Last edited: Mar 3, 2005
19. Mar 3, 2005

### franznietzsche

And because Noriega was heavily involved in the drug trade. Noriega was a dictator, and not elected.

Also, not many people may know this, but the final hours of Noriega's freedom is an interesting story. He fled to the Papal nuncio to hide from american troops. So what did we do? We obviously couldn't storm the Vatican's embassy, so we blasted it with heavy metal rock music nonstop until he surrendered.

Of course our policy has always been to suit our own interest, what else would we do? That would be called capitalism, FYI.

I don't know how old russ is, but everyone of thos incidents that you quote happened before i was two years old (the only one in my lifetime was Noriega). Using them as counter-points to any modern policy opinions is pointless.

And as for our use of violnce...

I hate to break it to you, those were wars. You know, where other people shoot our people and we fight back. Vietnam was sparked by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. There has been much speculation about what actually happened, but the official story is that a US destroyer (IIRC) was attacked.

In Korea we where defending an ally in a NATO style agreement, which dictates that if any country in the treaty is attacked, it is the same as attacking all of them. Incidently this also means that the European nations, ingrates that they are, still have our gauranteed protection should they be attacked, by terrorists or sovereign nations.

PLease fix your use of the word hypocrisy, its entirely incorrect in that usage. Your attempt at making a play on words was pitiful.

"Vote or Die" ?

*For those of you who don't get it, that was an add campaign by the american left on MTV to motivate young people to vote.

Ok for all you US-haters out there, here is my personal solution to all your problems:

US retracts all foreign aid(except Israel, since they're the only nation that is ever appreciative of anything we've done). Withdraws from UN, and NATO. Downsizes military to a primarily defensive force. Slam China on the trade deficit, either with massive taxes, or just flat out closing US markets to chinese goods. Or better yet, make any company selling a product in the US obey US labour laws wherever it is producing them (this essentially means all our companies going to india and china would be better off back here).

See how well off you are then.

20. Mar 3, 2005

### klusener

I am not saying it is wrong to retaliate in wars, but at the same time what your politicians were saying back in the 1960s was that black people shouldn't retaliate even when they were being lynched by racist whites, even MLK was saying it, and when somebody came (Malcolm, Kwame, Huey, H. Brown) saying that black people should defend themselves when they are being hung from a tree, the press and the gov. started accusing them of reverse racism... That's what I mean is wrong...

21. Mar 3, 2005

### klusener

So, what.. I am just saying if this was what the past "HELP" was like, why do you expect the S. Americans to come to you asking for help? (That's basically the query here, Russ says that they are being non-appreciative of America's help in the past and instead should be thankful).. I am asking why? For population reduction?

Last edited: Mar 3, 2005
22. Mar 3, 2005

### Bartholomew

Point taken, that my numbers are old. The US now is probably the largest distributor of foreign aid in terms of capital. Nonetheless, we spend a shamefully small amount on foreign aid for a country as large as we are.

If Japan gives money to foreign militaries, this is not included in Japan's foreign aid total. Foreign aid is defined to only apply to developing countries, and it must have a main purpose of promoting the economic development of those countries.

The "war on terror" as foreign aid is a joke. The war on terror is an election campaign combined with oil interests. In general, waging war is not foreign aid. Wars are always waged for foreign policy reasons.

As to our army allowing other countries to reduce the size of their armies, that's ridiculous. China has a huge army, you might as well credit them with the same. If any country has nuclear bombs it is in no danger of being taken over by military force.

23. Mar 3, 2005

### franznietzsche

No you misunderstand MLKs message entirely.

He wanted that whites and blacks be equals, perfect societal equals. Malcolm verged on preaching black supremacy, putting him dangerously close to the same moral ground as the KKK.

What MLK knew was that if you fought back by killing whites, you would not win. Would it be fair, eye for an eye? Yes. Would it work? No. By being peaceful however, he took the moral high ground, by being peaceful he proved that he was better than those he was fighting against. That is why he is respected. Because he was a better man, a better human being than those he was fighting against.

Was reciprocal violence against whites a fair doctrine? Yes. But it was no better, morally, than what racist whites were doing. It was still racial violence.

I will be the first to say that violence is sometimes necessary, but it is still rarely the best choice.

The day the palestinians learn from MLK is the day Israel is royally screwed. Israel's hard liners will never back down, even now they're threatening to assassinate sharon for seeking peace. If the palestinians took up peaceful resistance against the israeli hardliners, even US opinion would turn against Israel. The American people would not permit their government to support a nation that killed people in peaceful protest. But because the palestinians insist on violence, and a culture of violence against civilians, they ensure that US support remains with Israel. Is palestinian retaliatory violence fair? Yes. Is it the best course of action for them? Absolutely not. But they are too blinded by a culture of violence to ever see that. They simply don't get it.

You have a rather weak grasp of international politics. By many many treaties (NATO and equivalents in particular) we are bound to protect our allies in the event that they are attacked by anyone. South Korea, Japan, most of Europe are all gauranteed our protection. So they can downsize their militaries all they want--they have ours to their fighting for them. China is at odds with us, and needs that military. China is one of the few major nations not in a mutual defense treaty with the US.

And as for nuclear weapons, thats not a good defenseive strategy. Russia, the US, and China all have policies of a total retaliatory response in the event of a nuclear attack by any sovereign power, and i would be very surprised if western europe was any different. Relying on nuclear weapons for self defense is a sure-fire way to gaurantee your people's extinction in the event of a war.

24. Mar 3, 2005

### klusener

See when other countries are retaliating, you want them to be peaceful, but when your country gets bombed, you want to get revenge on those people.....

25. Mar 3, 2005

### Bartholomew

You don't do a nuclear _attack_, you do a nuclear _counterattack_. The threat is always there, so nobody will be dumb enough to attack you. Mutual Assured Destruction. If North Korea develops nukes with enough range to hit US cities, do you think we're going to invade them to topple their regime?