Subscriber Services

Saturday, March 10, 2007


The word President Bush has used the most so far in his weeklong Latin American tour is "compassion." He says the United States has a lot of "compassion" toward Latin America. Is that a good message? Or does it sound patronizing? I tend to think the latter. What do you think?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation." - President George W Bush in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack

Maybe Oppenheimer cares to comment to his readers wether he supports George Bush statement above...

7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally, I find it patronizing. I have been living in Cordoba, Argentina for two years now and the amounty of dislike to hatered for Bush grows by the day. A little trip by Bush to the region with a message of compassion will do little to bring up his popularity. Really, it just gives ammunition to crazy Chavez and the crazier Mothers de la Plaza de Mayo. I do want to believe that Bush does see the dire situation that is taking place in much of Latin America, but I doubt that he will every address the region in great length before his term is up. I do believe that he made a good decision in change Noriega for Shannon. Shannon seems to be more compassionate.

10:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from: Paul Thørsen

Hey anonymous, I never got the impression that åndèrs either likes or supports George W Bush. All I can make of åndèrs is that he continually demands the USA make a prosperous and successful Latin America. He thinks it is our responsibility to make a success out of Latin America.
He doesn't really try to hide his anti-USA rhetoric, which is typical of Latin Americans with names like Gárcia and Gønzålez, but not typical of Latin Americans with the last name of Oppenheimer. I bet his mother is of Spanish ancestry.
I hate George W Bush because he lied to the American public about Iraq having WMD and I supported the war because of those lies. And now I feel 100% responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans and many more Iraqis.

10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush is now on Colombia- its a good time to take a look at the results of the 20 + yrs of the American financed "War on Drugs".....

Mr. Oppenheimer: what has the US regime's war on drugs achieved in the last 20 yrs ? How much longer will the US need to win the "war on drugs" ?

Here's my personal little view on the US "war on drugs" : this failed program is simply another one of the countless US government billion dollar bureaucracies from which hundreds of thousands of American bureaucrats make a livin; the war can never be won which suits the bureaucracy just fine and this unwinnable war is also a very convenient way for the US regime to station thousands of US soldiers in bases in Colombia in very close proximity of Colombia's oil and gas fields.

If the Colombians had any sense of pride they would insist on stationing Colombian military troops in the streets of the US to patrol the "demand" side of this "War on Drugs".

Mr. Oppenheimer: what do you think about such reciprocity: the US right now has thousands of US military troops in Colombia to fight the "supply side" of the war on drugs; should Colombia be allowed to stationed heavily armed Colombian soldiers in US streets to patrol the "demand side" of the equation ?

Instead of course as we all know the Americans are snorting more cocaine then ever; the US "war on drugs" is a total failure and hundreds of thousands of American bureaucrats continue to live off the proceeds of this failed program financed by the US taxpaying masses.

If the US taxpayers had any common sense they would fire all the hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats livin' off the "war on drugs" ; drugs would be legalized but sold through the nations pharmacies - taxes would be levied on all the sick people taking drugs (just as is done today with "legal" drugs such as Valium/Alcohol/Tobacco etc) and the proceeds of these taxes would be invested in educating the masses about the dangers of drugs.

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don't see how supportive Oppenheimer can be in Bush’s policies in general, but effectively you should not honored him just because he is announcing that the American government will "help" Latin American countries with "$385 million for affordable housing mortgage programs and $75 million for English language studies in the region" we have to see this phrase come in a reality first. In addition, teaching English to the poor won’t change the living conditions of the people nor the way rural people think, I will honored American Government once they decided to bring real help at the whole south-American continent; forcing them to respect the constitution, signing a free trade that will not only benefit the Americans but also the Latin American countries. Globalization is a fact and not all countries in South America are prepared for such impact, and there is also a fact that we have natural resources that the American industries need, so why instead of killing each other we help our mutual convenience come true in better terms.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First and foremost, let me appologize for my pedestrian remark.
South America begins at the Panama Canal, or if you would like to be more precise, south of the Equator.
Latin America is a more appropriate term as it refers to the countries which speak a romance language because they were colonized by their European romance-language speaking mother countries.
It is important to know of whom we are talking about to begin with.
Second- I find it quite surprising that you don't believe that acquiring something like an additional language would help the impoverished. I on the other hand would argue that pledging 75 million dollars is just not enough.
I find it hard to believe that you mention globalisation as a pre-eminent factor and you don't believe that learning English will help these people. Can you imagine how many new jobs these people will be eligeable for better-payed jobs? or for jobs in general?
Please don't confuse economic growth with economic development. Even in the micro-level, the only thing that will eliminate poverty is productivity, and the only thing that increases productivity is employment and higher technical skills. In order for development you need growth.

1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right at some point and I’m not going to argue your historical remark, if you want me to be specific let’s talk about South America only (10 countries-(north: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia)-south: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil). I also want to make clear that I’m the first one who support competition as a prime factor of converting people more productive, but you have to considerer distribution of social class in South America is very unproportional where low class do not have access to study not even in their native language so how they going to learn English ? also some portion of the middle class don’t go to school either so basically the 75 million will only benefit a small portion(part of the middle class and high class) of the population who already finish the school and this people don’t need subsidies nor for education or other basic needs.
“This money will help people that do not need help”

2:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home