[Truth To Power]

You have yet to explain why does the US have to solve Bolivia's problems. I would think the ones that have to solve Bolivia's problems are, above all, Bolivians themselves.

Because as you would know if you had watched the videos Tainari88 linked to, the USA has caused most of Bolivia's problems.

Why don't we see 52 year olds masquerading as student union leaders and getting government money in the US?

Because that is such small potatoes compared to the massive, multi-billion-dollar cheating going on in business in the USA, such as Enron, etc. See Inside Job, The Big Short, etc.

[wat0n]

Because as you would know if you had watched the videos Tainari88 linked to, the USA has caused most of Bolivia's problems.

No, it hasn't.

YouTube videos by leftist activists are not a reliable source of information.

Because that is such small potatoes compared to the massive, multi-billion-dollar cheating going on in business in the USA, such as Enron, etc. See Inside Job, The Big Short, etc.

You haven't heard of Lava Jato, haven't you?

Why do you pretend to know about Latin America when you are obviously completely ignorant about the extent of corruption in the region?

[Mike12]

Puritan Pilgrim Presbyterian Church of Alabama on "House Flipper"

[noemon]

You have yet to explain why does the US have to solve Bolivia's problems. I would think the ones that have to solve Bolivia's problems are, above all, Bolivians themselves.

Why don't we see 52 year olds masquerading as student union leaders and getting government money in the US?

I agree with wat0n.

All Latin countries(Greece included) are mired by the same set of issues.

Greece has been similar and even though it has made strides to get rid of clientelism, either through privatization or through digitization and transparency, clientelist reflexes still remain in the state and the bureaucratic blob takes a very long time to change, kicking and screaming in the process.

The attitude of Latin people towards the state is that of a pinata.

It is always easy to blame others for the state of affairs and in very many cases a case can be made of foreign interference but even if it can be made, it does not mean it's right to do so(depending on the context of course), but certainly not in this context. Because the bottom line is that others interfere in countries that are unable to govern themselves. And even this falls on the hands of the country itself .ie to protect itself from foreign interference.

[Mike12]

From George Washington to John Witherspoon, 10 March 1784

I have been long endeavouring to hit upon some mode, by which the Grantor & Grantees of these Lands, might be mutually considered, & equally satisfied; but find it no easy matter; as it is to be presumed that all adventurers, especially emigrants from foreign Countries, would not only chuse, but expect Leases for a long term. In this case, it is difficult in an infant Country, where lands rise progressively, & I might add rapidly in value, to fix upon a rent which will not in the first instance, startle the Tenant by its magnitude, or injure the Land-lord in the course of a few years by the inadequacy of it. What course then is to be taken?

To advance the rent periodically, in proportion to the supposed increasing value of the Land, is very speculative—And to leave it to the parties or their representatives—or to persons to be chosen by them, at like stated periods to determine the increase of it, would not only be vague & uncertain, but more than probable open a door for many disputes, & prove very unsatisfactory to both sides. Yet, difficult as the case is, private & public considerations urging me thereto, I have come to a resolution which I am going to promulge in the Gazettes of this Country, by inserting an advertisement, of which the enclosed is a copy 4—leaving it optional in the Grantees to make choice of either.

Whether the terms there promulged, are sufficiently encouraging to the people of this Country, & inviting to strangers; or whether the latter might think so in the first instance, & change sentiments afterwards, upon seeing a wide, a wild & an extensive country before them, in which they may for ought I know, obtain good—tho’ not so valuable & pleasant spots, upon easier terms; is not with me to decide—experiment alone can determine it—But it is for me to declare, that I can not think of separating forever, from Lands which are beautifully situated upon fine navigable rivers; rich in quality & abundantly blessed with many natural advantages—upon less beneficial terms to myself.

The Leases for short tenures, if these should be preferred to either of the other two, could be attended with no great injury to me, because the improvements which (according to the conditions of them) are to be made thereon, will enable me, if I am not too sanguine in my expectation, to rent them thereafter upon more lucrative terms than I dare ask for either of the other two at present.

It has been my intention in every thing I have said, & will be so in every thing I shall say on this subject, to be perfectly candid; for my feelings would be as much hurt, if I shou’d deceive others by a too favourable description, as theirs would be who might suffer by the deception.

I will only add, that it would give me pleasure to see these Lands seated by particular Societies, or religeous Sectaries with their Pastors—It would be a mean of connecting friends in a small circle, & making life, in a new & rising Empire (to the Inhabitants of which, & their habits new comers would be strangers) pass much more agreeably, than in a mixed, or dispersed situation.5

If a plan of this sort should be relished, it would be highly expedient for an agent, in behalf of such Societies, to come out immediately to view the Lands & close a bargain; for nothing is more probable, than that each of the Tracts here enumerated may, if the matter is delayed, have settlers upon it; an intermixture with whom might not be agreeable.

The number of Families which these tracts agregately, or each one separately would accommodate, depends more upon the views of the occupiers, than on any other circumstance. The soil is capable of the greatest production, (such as Europeans have little idea of): for mere support then, the smallest quantity would suffice; which I mention in this place, because a plan for the settlement of them (under the information here given of the quantity, quality & situation) can be as well digested in Europe, as on the Land itself—so far as it respects support only; & is to be prefered to a waste of time in ascertaining on the spot, the number it would receive, & what each man shall have, before the association is formed.

In Scotland to which Country we propose to set off in a few Days The better sort of People are even more set against America than here but the common sort much more favourable to it & the Spirit of Emigration is very strong Some have corresponded with me & pressed me much to take some Measures to assist them but I have hitherto declined. I shall however when in that Country my self not only make known Your Proposals as they stand & obtain the Sentiments of People upon them but also hear their Observations & make my own upon any Alterations which might be made in their Terms.1 I suspect that lease holds will not in general be agreeable—the rather that all who go to the Northern Parts purchase the Lands in fee Simple. Yet the Reasons you give for not parting with it altogether are good. However both Ends perhaps might be answered. How would it be for example to covenant with any body of Emigrants that a certain Tract should be surveyed & laid out in 100 Acre Lots which is the way in the Northern parts & then to sell the tract to them for what could be agreed for—conditioned that You should reserve a third part of the Lots either taken alternately or drawn by Lot & the improvement which they would receive would be a full Equivalent for parting with the rest. Or perhaps a Manner of holding well known in Scotland might strike many even to purchase the Land on a simple quitrent with fines of a years Rent of the real Value at the End of every Term suppose 19 years or at the Entrance of every Heir ⟨with⟩ something additional in Case of a Singular Successor as it is called in Scotland that is in Case of a Sale—This Method of a years Rent of the real Value at the Time the fines become due is more certain & Safe to both sides than a Rent rising in regular Proportions which you justly observe is a Speculative thing.

It is my Intention to commit this Short Letter to some Person who is going to America & I expect that Mr Reed & I will ourselves be there very soon if it please God to give us a safe Passage.2 As soon as I arrive in America you may expect a Letter from me on the Subject of Emigrants & in the mean time with respectful Complements to Mrs Washington & best wishes for your self I am Sir your most obedient humbl. Servant John Witherspoon

[wat0n]

I agree with wat0n.

All Latin countries(Greece included) are mired by the same set of issues.

Greece has been similar and even though it has made strides to get rid of clientelism, either through privatization or through digitization and transparency, clientelist reflexes still remain in the state and the bureaucratic blob takes a very long time to change, kicking and screaming in the process.

The attitude of Latin people towards the state is that of a pinata.

It is always easy to blame others for the state of affairs and in very many cases a case can be made of foreign interference but even if it can be made, it does not mean it's right to do so(depending on the context of course), but certainly not in this context. Because the bottom line is that others interfere in countries that are unable to govern themselves. And even this falls on the hands of the country itself .ie to protect itself from foreign interference.

I agree, but you could make the case it's actually a Western attitude, given the importance of Classical Greco-Roman culture, given the Roman patronage system. This system then evolved into feudalism, which was also clientelistic in nature (where the King or some High Lord would grant land to those knights and lesser lords loyal to him), and this would in turn be inherited by European colonies in America.

The US itself also practiced it during the spoils system in the 19th century. Yet towards the late 19th century and the early 20th century the US managed to severely cull clientelism so, while it may still remain in place, it exists in a much reduced form. Several European countries did as well.

Perhaps the real question is why haven't we been able to do so too, and if this has in fact left us poorer as a result.

[Tainari88]

You have yet to explain why does the US have to solve Bolivia's problems. I would think the ones that have to solve Bolivia's problems are, above all, Bolivians themselves.

Why don't we see 52 year olds masquerading as student union leaders and getting government money in the US?

It is not about solving Bolivia's problems it is about the capitalists who make money off of Bolivia's natural resources because they have the power to set up the Bolivian economy for extraction. If you can't understand coercive financial tactics how are we going to debate Wat0n. The USA is run by international capitalists and bankers and people who use the US military and sanctions to control the decisions that a nation takes. That is fact Wat0n. You want to avoid facts yes or no?

The USA is run by greedy people manipulating the resources of rich in mineral regions of the world. Study Bolivia. It used to be part of Peru. It has enormous natural resources since the 16th century on. Spain extracted the gold, and so on....and so has the USA.

Look:

Elon Musk wants the lithium resources because electric car batteries rely on that. He is trying to manipulate the government to get access to it and doesn't want to pay more than he has to. Why does this happen?

How is Bolivia in conflict. Unregulated gold mining. I saw an entire episode on Dirty Money series in Netflix. The Florida bankers clean the money even though it is illegal. Why? Greed by banks. In the USA. How are they responsible?

Encrouching on Indigenous land. Who is responsible? Are you going to keep denying the problems?

Stop the excuses Wat0n. If the Indians get organized and say you need to do this clean up and stop the mercury because it is bad for our health. The mines say,---they don't care. They want money. To hell with the health of Indians in Bolivia. You don't see the connections?

I do. You just want to not make the USA government and the capitalist greed responsible. You should. They are responsible. If you admit that we get somewhere. If you don't? You will say, over and over again. It is the Latin American nation's fault for being poor and not having a welfare state and poor people working for peanuts because they have no choice. Work or starve. It is undeveloped capitalism.

Do you understand or not?

[Pants-of-dog]

I think we often confuse cause and blame.

Figuring our who is to blame for corruption and illiberalism in Latin America is complicated and subjective. It seems simpler to look at causes.

While it is true that many of Latin America’s problems are caused by colonialism and neocolonialism, it does not make sense to blame the colonisers, even if the colonisers are the cause.

This is because it implies that those who are to blame should also fix the problem. In a moral world, this would happen.

In our reality, Latinos are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for fixing the messes left by colonisers , both Spanish and gringo. While this is neither fair nor justified, it is a fact.

And neither the US nor its opponents (i.e. the Russians and the Chinese) are going to help us.

Much like black and Indigenous people will end up fixing racism in North America, despite the fact that it is not caused by them.

[Mike12]

[Tainari88]

No, it hasn't.

YouTube videos by leftist activists are not a reliable source of information.



You haven't heard of Lava Jato, haven't you?

Why do you pretend to know about Latin America when you are obviously completely ignorant about the extent of corruption in the region?

Wat0n if you read Perkins the man is far far from a Leftist. He was an ambitious dude and did the dirty work for the USA intelligence community and people who wanted to extend their power in the Latin American region. He was never a Leftist dude. Neither was Michael Hudson. But if your intention is to win an argument about information that is accurate because it is leftist---you just lost. Neither of them were Leftists. They just did the dirty work for years and noticed it was highly unethical and detrimental over the long haul.

Why discard it?

You either read the information we provide or you don't. But don't be lazy, not read it and invent a lie to try to cover your lack of reading to dispute what is being debated. Be honest Wat0n.

[Tainari88]

I agree with wat0n.

All Latin countries(Greece included) are mired by the same set of issues.

Greece has been similar and even though it has made strides to get rid of clientelism, either through privatization or through digitization and transparency, clientelist reflexes still remain in the state and the bureaucratic blob takes a very long time to change, kicking and screaming in the process.

The attitude of Latin people towards the state is that of a pinata.

It is always easy to blame others for the state of affairs and in very many cases a case can be made of foreign interference but even if it can be made, it does not mean it's right to do so(depending on the context of course), but certainly not in this context. Because the bottom line is that others interfere in countries that are unable to govern themselves. And even this falls on the hands of the country itself .ie to protect itself from foreign interference.

You do it through democratic votes and not have the threat of military backing of parties that are not what the voters want Noemon. If the USA doesn't like the result of the UK elections and pours millions of dollars and gives arms and backing to the opposition in a nation living in stark poverty and easy to manipulate because it is in the process of development we have stagnation.

The USA has to stop that Noemon. Otherwise they are going to get caravans of people. The same as in Greece, Turkey, and the rest of Europe, Italy, etc. getting Africans leaving countries that are unlivable. You want the problem with that to continue or not?

I say, stabilize the nation and stop interfering. Don't try to get into these nations of Latin America that are the lungs of the world, and have resources galore in every category. The piñata attitude is the US corporations and other capitalist globalists without ethics. That is reality Noemon.

[Wellsy]

The disregard for a history of colonialism upon the current status of institutions in South American countries reminds me of this.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/antifa-women-doomsday/10650398

KEVIN PETERSON
Surely no-one can price these intangible values that were gained during the British rule in India and propelled the country to its present position as one of the leading countries in the world? Finally, one more question. I'm doing a Geoffrey Robertson here! In your opinion, where would India be today if the British did not step into India?

SHASHI THAROOR
Oh, there's a lot there, it'll take the rest of the program to answer. I'll try! But this is almost like the American saying to the widow of the American President, "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" You know, the British came to one of the richest countries in the world, accounting for 27% of global GDP in 1700, 23% in 1800. And over 200 years of exploitation, depredation, loot and destruction, reduced it to a poster child for Third World poverty. Just over 3% of global GDP. 90% of the population living below the poverty line when the British left in 1947. A literacy rate... You speak of education, a literacy rate below 17%. And a life expectancy of 27. The growth rate of British India from 1900 to 1947 was 0.001%. That's what they were doing while draining the country of taxes and resources. Education, my gosh, the British, the last thing they wanted to do was invest in educating Indians. Will Durant, the American historian travelling in India as late as 1930, pointed out that the entire expenditure of the British on education in India, from the nursery level to the highest universities, was less than half the high school budget of the State of New York. All the Indian institutes of technology, the engineering achievements you were talking about were established after independence by the government of India. There is simply no comparison between the accomplishments of India rising from the ashes the British left us in, and what was done in 200 years.

A point being not just the economic influence but the institutions which make a colonial state are not easily displaced either, same as how many decry Russia's absolutist power after a long history of being a source of extracted wealth for Mongols and then a mutual benefit to the Ruler and Nobility to severely exploit the peasantry leading to an absolutist monarch to a degree no other European nation necessarily had.
I enjoy the below German liberal who makes an argument for the difference in American and Mexican (Central American country I know) institutions lay in their different histories.

Where America is more a result of the difficulty for the elites to have directly ruled the people and the emergence of a very lively participatory democracy of sorts at the local level. So it is the case that every country regardless has a responsibility in trying to manage their own affairs, but it has always been the case that many nations affairs have been and still are strongly dictated by the larger encomic and sovereign powers who also largely dictate the international institutions of the modern day.

The point being that other nations don't HAVE to solve other problems and to a large extent cannot without effectively taking over the country and not allowing them to grow more independent and functional. However, it is also the case that many international actors are not benign and undermine such a capacity for stability and can be quite hostile to such self-determination which isn't something in the distant past as if geopolitics and major regional powers somehow no longer exist because the Berlin Wall was knocked down.

[Tainari88]

I think we often confuse cause and blame.

Figuring our who is to blame for corruption and illiberalism in Latin America is complicated and subjective. It seems simpler to look at causes.

While it is true that many of Latin America’s problems are caused by colonialism and neocolonialism, it does not make sense to blame the colonisers, even if the colonisers are the cause.

This is because it implies that those who are to blame should also fix the problem. In a moral world, this would happen.

In our reality, Latinos are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for fixing the messes left by colonisers , both Spanish and gringo. While this is neither fair nor justified, it is a fact.

And neither the US nor its opponents (i.e. the Russians and the Chinese) are going to help us.

Much like black and Indigenous people will end up fixing racism in North America, despite the fact that it is not caused by them.

Pants, the issue for solving the injustice in all human societies is the task of all of us. Together. And unfortunately until people start taking ultimate responsibility for what they have done to damage everyone in that society both in their own nations and abroad? The issue of how to solve the problem is going to be in total stagnation.

Look at this movie documentary of Seaspiracy, it is many people not doing anything to solve the problem. Ignoring and ignoring hoping that somehow the responsibilities are on some other party. It is not. It is all of our problems together.

People ask me all the time that Mexico has more serious problems than the USA has? Why move to a nation doing worse than the USA?

The truth is that every country on Earth has different problems. But all have problems. If they are human you can bet they got problems. But you choose which problems you are going to work on actively and which you won't.

In fact, I think hyper responsibility is the answer to all of your problems. Don't hide or deny what the USA does wrong or badly, don't hide what Mexico does wrong or badly, or EU or Greece either.

In fact, I will say Greece has issues, and yet I still want to visit Greece and spend my money there. Despite the problems they had financially and etc. An entire culture or society is not about if they have the average citizen making a lot of American style money or not. Poor people are everywhere and they have the culture they grow up in their entire lives. Poverty doesn't equal lack of culture or history.

My point is to always cooperate with all willing parties on problems that affect everyone in the world. If nations that have enormous lands filled with tropical plants that make the planet breathe and live and have clean air....then it is imperative that all the nations in the world be involved in making sure they can preserve their lands and keep the politicians who are callous and greedy from damaging that heritage and geography.

The oceans and the seas are the vitality of the planet. So keeping it clean involves Greece, Italy, Europe and the Americas, Africa and Asia too. Everyone involved as one.

If the competition and attitude of we are superior and the Empire I am a part of has to be number one or else? Prevails? No solution reached.

[wat0n]

It is not about solving Bolivia's problems it is about the capitalists who make money off of Bolivia's natural resources because they have the power to set up the Bolivian economy for extraction. If you can't understand coercive financial tactics how are we going to debate Wat0n. The USA is run by international capitalists and bankers and people who use the US military and sanctions to control the decisions that a nation takes. That is fact Wat0n. You want to avoid facts yes or no?

The USA is run by greedy people manipulating the resources of rich in mineral regions of the world. Study Bolivia. It used to be part of Peru. It has enormous natural resources since the 16th century on. Spain extracted the gold, and so on....and so has the USA.

Look:

Elon Musk wants the lithium resources because electric car batteries rely on that. He is trying to manipulate the government to get access to it and doesn't want to pay more than he has to. Why does this happen?

How is Bolivia in conflict. Unregulated gold mining. I saw an entire episode on Dirty Money series in Netflix. The Florida bankers clean the money even though it is illegal. Why? Greed by banks. In the USA. How are they responsible?

Encrouching on Indigenous land. Who is responsible? Are you going to keep denying the problems?

Stop the excuses Wat0n. If the Indians get organized and say you need to do this clean up and stop the mercury because it is bad for our health. The mines say,---they don't care. They want money. To hell with the health of Indians in Bolivia. You don't see the connections?

I do. You just want to not make the USA government and the capitalist greed responsible. You should. They are responsible. If you admit that we get somewhere. If you don't? You will say, over and over again. It is the Latin American nation's fault for being poor and not having a welfare state and poor people working for peanuts because they have no choice. Work or starve. It is undeveloped capitalism.

Do you understand or not?

You are the one who was whining about how come the US doesn't solve Latin America's problems.

You do realize Bolivia has been simply replacing the US with China under Morales and the MAS, do you? American companies massively left Bolivia after 2005, and then the Chinese came in and, yes, they have polluted the environment and repressed local labor. Here's a fairly long article about it, from 5 years ago, from a lefty source:

https://nacla.org/blog/2017/08/11/finan ... ng-bolivia

But I suppose it's okay when socialists do these things. Gotta fight big meanie USA.

Our Mission

The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) is an independent, nonprofit organization founded in 1966 to examine and critique U.S. imperialism and political, economic, and military intervention in the Western hemisphere. In an evolving political and media landscape, we continue to work toward a world in which the nations and peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean are free from oppression, injustice, and economic and political subordination.

For more than 50 years, NACLA has been a leading source of English-language research and analysis on Latin America and the Caribbean. Our mission has always been to publish historically and politically informed research and analysis on the region and its complex and changing relationships with the United States. We use the NACLA Report on the Americas, our web platform nacla.org, as well as public events and programming as tools for education, advocacy, dialogue, and solidarity. Our work aims to assist readers in interpreting the most pressing issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, and their connections with U.S. policy, to help further movement struggles throughout the hemisphere.

Our mission is guided by our organizational values. NACLA offers a forum for debate among a range of voices and perspectives on the Left. As we enter our sixth decade, we maintain an editorial focus on issues related to political economy, race and indigeneity, gender/sexuality, and climate and the environment. NACLA also provides a platform for voices from the region, and has made a commitment to emphasize Black, Indigenous, Latinx, LGBTQI+, and feminist perspectives.

For more about NACLA and our work, read our history.

Wat0n if you read Perkins the man is far far from a Leftist. He was an ambitious dude and did the dirty work for the USA intelligence community and people who wanted to extend their power in the Latin American region. He was never a Leftist dude. Neither was Michael Hudson. But if your intention is to win an argument about information that is accurate because it is leftist---you just lost. Neither of them were Leftists. They just did the dirty work for years and noticed it was highly unethical and detrimental over the long haul.

Why discard it?

You either read the information we provide or you don't. But don't be lazy, not read it and invent a lie to try to cover your lack of reading to dispute what is being debated. Be honest Wat0n.

Perkins was never able to prove he had ever worked with the NSA.

And yes, he is a leftist:

Perkins is a founder and board member of Dream Change and The Pachamama Alliance, nonprofit organizations devoted to promoting environmentally sustainable and socially just societies.

So why would I believe him again? He's never been able to sustain his claims.

@Wellsy why have the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand been able to become independent actors? This is nonsense. Colonialism didn't stop these countries from becoming developed, and it's about time we stop blaming others for our own failures in Latin America, most of which has been independent for 200 years already.

I think we often confuse cause and blame.

Figuring our who is to blame for corruption and illiberalism in Latin America is complicated and subjective. It seems simpler to look at causes.

While it is true that many of Latin America’s problems are caused by colonialism and neocolonialism, it does not make sense to blame the colonisers, even if the colonisers are the cause.

This is because it implies that those who are to blame should also fix the problem. In a moral world, this would happen.

In our reality, Latinos are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for fixing the messes left by colonisers , both Spanish and gringo. While this is neither fair nor justified, it is a fact.

And neither the US nor its opponents (i.e. the Russians and the Chinese) are going to help us.

Much like black and Indigenous people will end up fixing racism in North America, despite the fact that it is not caused by them.

Have you ever considered that maybe, and just maybe, we're the ones making the messes? That we are the ones who invite foreigners to invest in our economies, which by itself isn't a bad idea, yet we prefer to just use the windfall resources for consumption in good times and cry over spilled milk when the good times end, commodity prices come down and these resources dry? This happens in one way or another regardless of the political party, system of government or political regime in place. And it's happened in pretty much every Latin American country.

It also happens in developed countries, but the contrast is far starker in Latin America.

[Tainari88]

The disregard for a history of colonialism upon the current status of institutions in South American countries reminds me of this.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/antifa-women-doomsday/10650398


A point being not just the economic influence but the institutions which make a colonial state are not easily displaced either, same as how many decry Russia's absolutist power after a long history of being a source of extracted wealth for Mongols and then a mutual benefit to the Ruler and Nobility to severely exploit the peasantry leading to an absolutist monarch to a degree no other European nation necessarily had.
I enjoy the below German liberal who makes an argument for the difference in American and Mexican (Central American country I know) institutions lay in their different histories.

Where America is more a result of the difficulty for the elites to have directly ruled the people and the emergence of a very lively participatory democracy of sorts at the local level. So it is the case that every country regardless has a responsibility in trying to manage their own affairs, but it has always been the case that many nations affairs have been and still are strongly dictated by the larger encomic and sovereign powers who also largely dictate the international institutions of the modern day.

The point being that other nations don't HAVE to solve other problems and to a large extent cannot without effectively taking over the country and not allowing them to grow more independent and functional. However, it is also the case that many international actors are not benign and undermine such a capacity for stability and can be quite hostile to such self-determination which isn't something in the distant past as if geopolitics and major regional powers somehow no longer exist because the Berlin Wall was knocked down.

Wellsy, the Mexicans I know all know about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ceded half of Mexico's territory to the USA. The excuse they give is that the USA can do better with that land. After they make sure the Mexican who lived there for many generations before they came along are relegated to the foreign. One has to be truthful. There is a reason why New Mexico and Texas and other states in the US Southwestern part of the USA have enormous Mexican influences (its history is there). It was a part of another administration. War made it happen the way it did. Violence. The solution. Victors rewrite history to justify the violence. That is reality.

One has to then realize. Work on your own group's or nation's ability to solve problems in cooperation with former enemies or former competitors. You can't expect to dictate and force and kill forever. That is exhausting and counterproductive and just not feasible.

What has the USA done to help these tiny nations from Central America? Not much. Just a lot of damage and helping out corporate profits. Time to re-evaluate what the obligations are about eh?

I got errands to run. Who is Mike12 dude he is talking but which are the points that man is trying to do?

[Truth To Power]

No, it hasn't.

It most certainly has.

YouTube videos by leftist activists are not a reliable source of information.

They are far more reliable than your false opinions. Hudson is an internationally respected economist who formerly worked on Wall Street, and Perkins is a former CIA operative and whistleblower. The CIA has not tried to deny anything he has said.

You haven't heard of Lava Jato, haven't you?

Wrong again. And why are you trying to change the subject from Bolivia to Brazil?

Why do you pretend to know about Latin America when you are obviously completely ignorant about the extent of corruption in the region?

I know incomparably more about Latin America's corruption problems than you, which is how I know that they have largely been caused by the USA, especially its financial imperialism as detailed by Perkins and Hudson, and its evil and insane War on Drugs.

[wat0n]

It most certainly has.

Prove it, but using a decent source now.

They are far more reliable than your false opinions.

I'm still waiting for sources, will you post them?

Hudson is an internationally respected economist who formerly worked on Wall Street,

Internationally respected by whom?

and Perkins is a former CIA operative and whistleblower. The CIA has not tried to deny anything he has said.

Perkins never claimed to work for the CIA. He claimed to work for the NSA.

Get your facts straight at least.

Wrong again. And why are you trying to change the subject from Bolivia to Brazil?

I know incomparably more about Latin America's corruption problems than you, which is how I know that they have largely been caused by the USA, especially its financial imperialism as detailed by Perkins and Hudson, and its evil and insane War on Drugs.

Again, you are so ignorant about Latin American corruption it's astounding you are not aware the scandal hit several Latin American countries, Bolivia included, in its Odebrecht/OAS branch:

https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/201 ... t-bolivia/

Is this the US' fault too?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I understand why you want to believe it is our fault. But again, I am not discussing blame.

Instead, I merely pointed out that the causative chain starting at colonialism and ending at the current system of corruption in Latin America exists, but it does not mean that anyone other than us is going to fix it.

If you also want to blame us, go ahead. It has no impact on anything except your peace of mind.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

I understand why you want to believe it is our fault. But again, I am not discussing blame.

Instead, I merely pointed out that the causative chain starting at colonialism and ending at the current system of corruption in Latin America exists, but it does not mean that anyone other than us is going to fix it.

If you also want to blame us, go ahead. It has no impact on anything except your peace of mind.

I think it's important, as you said it's on us to fix our problems. But that also requires knowing we're part of the problem to begin with.

It's on us to change our system of corruption. Other former colonies did so, the US included, and so did several European countries. So why can't we?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I never said that we can not fix our problems.

In fact, I said that we are the only ones who will fix our problems, regardless of who caused them.