Thread: The States Have a Chance To Hit Us Hard in July2006.........

Originally Posted by Judy

What do you think about Hugo Chavez?

IF THIS MANUEL L.O. WINS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN MEXICO WE ARE FU#%&* UP.

Now i can answer this question. MANUEL LOPEZ OBRADOR do not like any kind of relationships between USA-MEXICO same as FIDEL CASTRO and same as HUGO CHAVEZ.

MANUEL LOPEZ OBRADOR thinks (or has the same ideas to govern) exactly like those two mans and that kind of thinking is damaging Cuba and Venezuela economy because USA is blocking both countries.

As you all know diplomatically, Cuba is recognized by almost all countries in the world, and receives the support of over 150 countries (versus 3 for the US) in opposition to the US embargo in the United Nations. Economically, Cuba has trade and investment relations with all major European, Asian, African, Latin American and North American nations (except the US). Militarily, the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies have defeated every US-sponsored terrorist attack on the islands for the past half-century in addition to raising the political cost for any potential invasion. In response to a half century of failures, the Bush Administration has escalated its aggression: practically eliminating all US travel to Cuba, blocking almost all family remittances, and tightening trade restrictions on food and medicine. While these harsh measures have had some negative effects on Cuba, they have also provoked opposition among some conservative sectors of the US public. Many Cuban exiles who would normally support Bush have been antagonized because they cannot provide economic assistance to aging family members. Agricultural interests (from 38 states) which supported Bush are furious at the new restriction on trade. Liberal and conservative enemies of the Cuban revolution who hoped to subvert the revolution via cultural and ideological penetration are upset by the travel and cultural restrictions.

Finally Washington's attempts to limit Cuba's access to energy sources after the fall of the USSR have been defeated by the far-reaching trade and investment agreements with the Venezuelan government of President Chavez. The Chavez regime provides Cuba with petrol at subsidized prices in exchange for Cuba providing a vast health and education program for the poor of Venezuela. The Cuban-Venezuelan political and economic ties have undercut US efforts to force the Caribbean and Latin American countries to break with Cuba. As a result of past and present failed policies of directly attacking Cuba, the Bush administration has turned toward destroying Cuba's strategic alliance with the Chavez regime.

IF THIS GUY WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELLECTIONS IN 2006 JULY same thing it is going to happens to US.

Now, let’s be clear that there are reasons for concern about how Hugo Chávez is governing in Venezuela. While Javier Corrales’ cover story in the current Foreign Policy includes many exaggerations and downright inaccuracies, its general thrust – that checks on executive power are disappearing in Venezuela – is hard to deny. I would add more concern about the politicization of the Venezuelan military and its insertion into a host of new internal roles.

But it doesn’t follow that Latin America is turning into a bunch of carbon copies of “radical populist” regimes modeled on Chávez’s “Bolivarian” vision. In the few minutes per week that they spend thinking about Latin America (am I giving them too much credit?), top foreign policymakers in the administration and Congress would do well to stop and take a deep breath. They will only do more damage if they find themselves hyperventilating about a “leftist wave” or a new “hemispheric axis of evil.” Let’s keep a few things in mind:

Many countries will not be electing leftists. Some don’t even have anyone on the ballot who is to the left of, say, Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. In others, the left-of-center candidate is either far behind or not at all guaranteed victory.

A general rule of thumb seems to be security: if people feel personally insecure – due to guerrillas, paramilitaries, gangs or generalized crime – they are likely to vote for the candidate who promises to crack down with a mano dura (hard hand), and that means they will choose a right-winger. On the other hand, if polls show security taking a back seat to economic concerns like unemployment or poverty, the left has the advantage. (Sort of like the United States in 2004, when the Democrats were more trusted with managing the economy but Bush was seen as stronger on the “war on terror.” Unlike the United States, “values” issues like abortion or gay marriage haven’t played a role in Latin America, where a socially conservative, Catholic consensus still holds.)


Few if any leftists are as radical and anti-U.S. as Hugo Chávez. Even before this election cycle, Latin American voters had sent several left-of-center leaders to their countries’ presidential palaces. Besides Chávez (who, for all his faults, has been fairly elected and re-elected), leaders from the left already rule in Argentina (Néstor Kirchner), Brazil (Luis Inacio Lula da Silva), and Uruguay (Tabaré Vásquez), and from the center-left in Chile (Ricardo Lagos) and Ecuador (Alfredo Palacio). All have been much more moderate, and far less eager to confront Washington, than Chávez.


Where leftists are being elected, Castro and Chávez are not the masterminds. Yes, some candidates’ campaigns may be getting Venezuelan funding or Cuban political advice, though that is almost impossible to prove. But what if they are? The question that should really worry me is why a radical, anti-U.S. option is appealing to so many voters in Latin America, and what the United States can do about that. Much has been written already about frustrations with neoliberalism in Latin America – growth without poverty reduction in the world’s most economically unequal region – which feed anger at the United States, the main promoter of the so-called “Washington Consensus.” But it is important to keep in mind that the popular support behind leftist candidates in Latin America is homegrown, not imposed from without.


In most cases, electing leftists is a sign that democracies are maturing. Thirty years ago, nearly every country participating in the current election season was either a military dictatorship or a semi-democracy limited to one or two parties, with outsiders repressed. Many candidates in the running now – or elected recently – would have been jailed or disappeared under the previous regimes. Indeed, many of today’s leaders –Lula, Kirchner, Vásquez, Lagos – were imprisoned during their countries’ “dirty war” years. On several occasions during the Cold War – Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973 – democracies gave way to military dictatorships (with U.S. support) after they elected leftist leaders. We should be greatly encouraged, then – not wringing our hands with concern – if people with left-of-center views finally have the political space to campaign, be elected, and govern without interference from their militaries, traditional conservative elites, and the United States.

Hugo Chavez is not "anti-U.S." He's anti-imperialist, which means that he opposes the efforts of U.S. political and economic elites to dictate other countries' policies.

In the wake of the U.S. Katrina disaster, the Venezuelan government stepped up shipments of gasoline to the U.S. gulf coast region to help alleviate shortages triggered by the hurricane. In the face of skyrocketing heating costs, the Venezuelan government has begun shipping heating oil and diesel fuel at below market prices to poor communities throughout the United States.

These ideas is what people in mexico are talking about now. Because we are very concerned with relationship between USA-MEXICO. Maybe at this point this will help ya the States to reduce the work-programs if this guy brake the economic relationship with USA once he WINS the elections.

Those worker-programs are 100% operational now cause we have many privilegies with the States but what is going to happen if MLO wins the elections and he brake all kind of ralationship with USA, those kind of privilegies are goinf to shut down. So I concluded you all have a chance to win your battle about illegal imigration at this point.

If Obrador's victory would end NAFTA and let Mexico share the wealth with the citizens, he's got my vote. OOPS--I forgot you guys vote here but I can't vote there.

your position is well thought out. Thank you. I want mexico to finnaly stand on its own two feet. Through my cousin I have watched as one fat cat regime after another enjoys the fruits of Mexico while the majority of its people get the rine.

If it means a cooling relationship with the US so be it. We have not exactly been great neighbors. We like to use you like labor cattle.

Mexico is beautiful. Its chief export should not be cheap labor.