Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales

[DC]

http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/archives/2008_12_01_democracyctr_archive.html

I believe we should have done much more to support Morales

I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist.
But what will this mean in reality?

What do you think about Morales and the US relationship?
especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation?

I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land.

About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

 

[gtc]

I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez.

 

[DC]

I get the impression she was saying that if the US had done more to befriend Morales he wouldn't have been so quick to turn to Chavez.

i guess that is indeed what she ment.
But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together.

But i think there will be atleast more dialogue to get better relationships under Obama. Obama and Morales have something in common, they both belive in a society of dialogue.

 

[gtc]

i guess that is indeed what she ment.
But i doubt that to be correct. Morales his MAS has alot in common with the other Socialist leaders in that region. It is just normal that they kinda stick together.

The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR.

The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together.

 

[DC]

The same argument that Clinton seems to be making could be applied to Chavez - if the US had befriended him he wouldn't have been so quick to befriend Castro. And if the US had befriended Castro, Castro wouldn't have been so quick to befriend the USSR.

The argument has some merit but I agree - it is natural that they stick together.

But i think it is not easy for Politicans to search the dialogue.
The Socialists are Nationalising things that is been seen as property of US and other Western countrys Companys.

The Socialists politicans and press in Latin America are demonizing the USA.

the US Politicans and Press are Demonizing the Socialist governments in Latin America.

hard to get a good picture of what is going on for the average joe plumber.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/archives/2008_12_01_democracyctr_archive.html

I am sure this will scare the ones that honestly belive Obama to be a socialist. But what will this mean in reality?

What do you think about Morales and the US relationship? especially considering Morales's position on Coca. Or in cases like Larsen beeing taken away his land without compensation?

I think Land redistribution without Compensation is wrong, while i dont know exactly the Circumstances when the Larsens buyed the land.

About Coca, i can understand the Coca farmers, especially considering this plant has a 2000+ years tradition in Bolivia. But i think more cooperation is needed to get the Cocain problem solved. Destroying Coca Farms is not the solution, especially not for the people that are dependend on those plants to make a living. And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No!

Hillary Clinton on Bolivia and Morales

Your thread title evokes Mercutio's Political Porn thread in the Humor sub forum.

DR

 

[DC]

it was actually not ment to be a funny thread.

also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny.

ETA: aah lol i think now i get why the title is funny, maybe, forgot that kind of humor was last used in school as a teenager.

 

[Darth Rotor]

it was actually not ment to be a funny thread. also the Coca / Cocain problem is not so funny.

What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell.

And Morales is not so wrong when he says, that we have to take care there is no demand for it.

If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody.

 

[DC]

What is funny is that you didn't cotton on to the absurdity of your statement about controlling demand. You are invited to look up Nancy Reagan and Just Say No as part of the War on Drugs policy in the US, if you please. Also an absurdity, on the face of it. Controlling demand. Funny as hell.

If I didn't know better, I'd call that deliberate parody.

maybe you notice that i actually did not say, Morales is correct when he says....

i do think he is not completly wrong.

Also the demand problem need to be worked on. They will find other sources to get drugs if the supply from one source stopps.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force.

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca.

The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs.

 

[DC]

I have no problem with a nation's nationalizing its resources if those resources are under foreign ownership as a result of force.

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

The land on which the peasants are raisng coca is not of much use for anything else. Perhaps if they had access to other resources to earn a living, they would stop growing coca.

The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs.

what a comment. You keep debunking prejudices against Americans
can only agree.

Privatisation of natural resources was very very strange made, very corrupt. and ways to cheap. I know of a swiss company that buyed a mine in Bolivia, they didnt want to accept its nationalisation by Morales. But when you read true the whole process that mine went true from the time it belonged to the Bolivian people untill it was in the hand of a shady swiss company you can come only to one conclusion, give it back and do no demand compensation.

About the Coca problem, i dont blame them to grow it, they would be stupid to not do it.
But i think there is International cooperation (not profit making) asked to find a solution to the problem. destroying the plants from some farmers will not help anything than make them upset and poorer as they are already.

 

[moon1969]

"There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control."

So? Maybe many of the wealth is controlled by honest businesses? Just because Evo Morales and the communist claim that it is bad doesn"t mean it really is. Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin claimed alot of things and so did Pol Pot. Evo Morales is not Pol Pot, Lenin or Stalin but Evo Morales is a radical who wants to change the constitution and steal other peoples lands with his land reforms.

"I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights"

So Muammar al-Gaddafi was not abusive to human rights?

"and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources."

And communism and Nationalization is even worse and more evil. And Evo Morales doesn"t want the people to own their resources. Morales is just like Nicolae Ceauşescu or Josip Broz Tito and soon dictator Morales will use the methods that Erich Honecker used in DDR.

 

[Darth Rotor]

There is a lot of mineral wealth in Bolivia, and a lot of it is under foreign control. I saw the same thing in Libya in the 1960s. It is abusive to human rights and a bad deal for the people of the nation who do not own their resources.

Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that?

As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland?

Who are you kidding, other than yourself?

DR

 

[moon1969]

"The colonial period is over. We have no standing to tell the people of other countries that they just have to go on living as second-class citizens in their own lands because our ancestors had more fire power than theirs."

And they will not live as second-class citizens in the workers paradise Evo Morales is trying to create. Evo Morales supports the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and like George Orwell said "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

 

[moon1969]

"Morales aide faces terrorism charges; Peru leadership seeks extradition.(WORLD)"

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-159603898.html

 

[moon1969]

Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez.

 

[DC]

Lefty, can you explain that a bit for me? Under foreign control? What do you mean by that?

As to ownership of resources: I live in Texas, and I don't seem to own the oil here. Should I? Do "the people" of Venezuela actually own the oil there? Do the people of Saudi Arabia actually own the oil there? Do the people of Norway actually own the oil in the North Sea? The people of Scotland?

Who are you kidding, other than yourself?

DR

Goni sold out the country for some peanuts. Even water got privatized, poor people ended up not beeing able to buy water etc.

the National oil company was quickly sold just before the coup.

i know about a mine that was sold by goni extremly cheap to some shady companys including a swiss one.

Morales is just geting back what belongs to the people.

And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth.
Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.

 

[DC]

Still Evo Morales has done alot of good things to Bolivia. Morales still is a communist radical just like his best friend Hugo Chavez.

Morales is not radical, nor is he a communist, nor is Chavez a communist.
Morales is a very inteligent, yet not educated man. He has an ability to bring together good people. He has a very clever and well educated vice president, Linera, a University professor and 30 years political analyst inspired by Marx.

 

[Puppycow]

Get rid of demand? Oh, right, Nancy Reagan figured that out: just say No!

 

[funk de fino]

And yes, the Oil in Venezuela and Bolivia belongs to the people, which is writen down in the constitution. Also Norway has a national oil organisation and a very inovative investment fond because they are running out of oil and gas, so they try to prevent loosing wealth.
Dunno about scotland, i guess it belongs to the queen.

Norway has it written into law that the oil is for the good of the people of Norway and they have a large oil fund like the middle east countries.

The North Sea has just as much oil left in it than has been taken out, it is just more difficult to get to but american companies have the technology to get to it and the tech is improving all the time. The wells being drilled now could not have been drilled 7 years ago.

Scotland oil was done differently. The UK govt own prts of the North sea and sold licences to companies for sections of the sea. These companies then drilled for oil and payed taxes/revenues to UK govt. The bulk of the money went outside the UK. If Scotland had been independant and we had setup like Norway we would have been much better off.

Again DC shows ignorance about the Queen.