 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
dp
Last edited by TCO on 27-04-2003 at 22:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Do you favor a more anti-US politician (or less pro-US) down there? Who? |
I don't have too much problems with Fox being a bootlicker, but he's being an ineffective bootlicker, which is what really bothers everybody. He doesn't exert effective control of the congress, he lost his coalition, and he'd rather see gridlock than "lower" himself to make deals with congress to get things done. Other than coming up with creative new taxes, the general feeling is that the Federal government isn't doing anything, and isn't really being run by anyone.
Fox's logical successor within the PAN is Santiago Creel, who runs the Sectraria de Gobernacion (sort of a domestic policy ministry on roids) who is unfortunately being tainted by Fox's legacy of ineffectiveness.
Across the country, people are actually starting to talk about bringing back the PRI, despite it's legacy of vote manipulation and corruption, because at least things happened more or less occasionally. That's not a majority pov yet, though.
Right now, the hot ticket would seem to be Andres Lopez-Obrador, the mayor of Mexico city. He's PRD though, which is pretty damn socialist (not that anything in Mexican government isn't), but Lopez has shown he's more or less at the right within the PRD spectrum, and he's capable of allying himself with business interests and political interests across the spectrum.
He'd definitely be more capable than Fox, far more popular and less tainted than Creel, but it's a question of how much, if anything, he'd have to give away to the farther left majority within his party to buy the nomination. If they give him too much ****, he could also do what people do all the time down here, and form his own party.
wrt anti- or pro-American policies down here, Mexico is never going to get off the ground following pro-American policies, but it is also too weak economically to go overtly anti-American. Myths of NAFTA aside, Mexico is largely an ecnomic colony of the US, and the US has no perceived interest in seeing that relationship change much.
To me, the ideal would be for at least the large economies of Latinamerica to form internal free trade and political agreements, and try to act as a bloc in dealing with the EU, Asia and the US. There's still a lot of structural reform and economic growth necessary in those countries before that could be attempted, and there's a lot of little basket case contries that would have to be ignored initially.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
I think they would be better served by unilateral free trade policies and by introducing more free-market reforms. oh...and the rule of law. If they form a pact like the EU that promotes free trade in the region, that will be good. But if they try to get into pecker-flexing contests, than I think it will be counterproductive. |
Privatization of oil and gas, and total restructuring of tax policy were some of what I lumped in as structural reforms, as well as major emphasis on education. The problem here is perception - in Mexico, the PRI did a good job of convincing everyone that paternalistic socialism was what the masses needed (while catering to billionaire political allies), and much of Latinamerica has seen "free enterprise" as the ability of a group of elites to reap the benefit of massive exploitation.
There needs to be some reshaping of perceptions, and some growing up first, because otherwise, pecker-checker politics is pretty much what you're going to get.
Still, an EU type trading bloc would have a hell of an impact. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
 touche
quote:
Saddam's capability was significantly higher than that - you can't equate capability with willingness to mount up and get slaughtered for a buffoon. Given the size of the country, and the time frame, it's very premature to write off Iraqi WMD development and intentions, just because we haven't found much yet. |
His conventional capability was almost nill. Any offensive action by him would have been met with a united effort against him. The US and Britain kicked his ass on their own. A coalition like the first one would have only been more effective. And Saddam was much closer to having a successful nuclear program in the 80's. Israel alone has done more to stop Saddam's WMD endeavors than the US. The fact is, since 1991, Saddam's capabilities have decreased. The French and German plan of increased inspections and more pressure would have slowly choked him. And by buying more time, it would have made a much more favorable regime change situation possible. But instead, Iraqi's see the US as conquerers. And while I know the US isn't in the conquering business, it's extremely important for the Iraqi opinion to be on our side. Number one, it gives greater credibility to any post-Saddam regime. Number two, it decreases the possiblity of terrorist attack significantly. And third, and most importantly, it doesn't give Islamic fundmentalists any rhetoric to use against us.
There were three possible solutions to the problem of Iraq:
Do nothing (bad)
Stall and slowly choke Saddam (the best solution)
Play cowboy and invade (get's rid of Saddam, but creates bigger problems)
What's done is done. But the US continues to screw the pooch. Hopefully things will still be managable in 2004. Then America can hang a "Under New Management" sign on the door and begin to fix the problems Dubya has created.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 22:38
|