Socialist Physician Leads Chilean Polls

Ideals don't kill people.

Capitalism hasn't killed anyone or destroyed any countries? Why do you think these countries are going Socialist? The pendulum swings.

Bectel tried to privitize water in Bolivia. Who do you think would profit from that deal? This stuff is happening everywhere and the people in these countries are tired of it they have nothing to lose. It's part of the history of the world.

What if the government told you you had to grow coffee for Starbucks instead of beans to feed your family and they were hungry?

I am ignorant on this Walter. I'll have to read up a little bit. Is this bad?

Well, no, not really. :wink:

Business as usual? Is that what it means?

from what i've read, pres batchelet is very much a "free enterprise" politician.
btw socialism (social-democrats etc.) in britain, germany, france, several canadian provinces etc. haven't killed too many people lately, should we all be afraid of pres batchelet now ? hbg

Not worse than the liberal-enough social-democrats that intermittently rule much of Western Europe ... bit too mainstream to my taste, but better them than the true-blue conservatives and liberals.

And (he said with one eye on Chavez) probably also better than the "national-populists running on a left wing disguise", to use Fbaezer's words, that have the upswing in some other Latin-American countries.

(Nimh's perception of the world: Better social-democratic-type socialists like Bachelet than the populist radicals to their left, especially if they're of the autocratic Chavez type; but all of them are preferred over the dictatorial and pseudo-dictatorial conservatives who used to rule the continent. And annoying the US and its once-self-evident control over the region is always a plus

When I want to find out the low down on a candidate, party, etc,etc. I just cut to the chase. I follow the money. I see whose backing them (international bankers).

Alot of time it's the usual suspects.

like the women in liberia giving a speech with Condaliza rice and Laura Bush in the backround. I don't like those people.

I dont much like the American hegemony in world politics (as is probably obvious). The Bush administration even less. But the world's a strange place, and there's people a lot more evil than Condoleezza Rice out there too. And thus you may find out that in some places, the US actually supports the good guys. Actually, in some places American conservatives and European leftists support the same guys.

When? For example, because the alternative is some dictator-criminal (and specifically, one even the Americans dont like). Or just a petty vote-falsifying, journalist-murdering autocrat, like Kuchma in the Ukraine. As long as rulers like those serve some US strategic interest, Bush and Rice will support him. But if they dont, they wont - and that alone doesnt make the guy suddenly good.

Ergo, you may have a tyrant, petty or larger-than-life, somewhere. Say Kuchma, or Karimov (Uzbekistan). The EU and various social-democrat, liberal and leftist politicians and human rights activists will then usually be against him in the first place. If he offers the US some military facilities or he owns oil, the US may however protect him. But if he doesnt, the US may well join the EU and the human rights activists in pleading for his opponent. In your logic, that would suddenly make that opponent the bad guy - after all, Bush is for him, so you don't like 'em - nuff said. Right?

Can you see where there is something wrong in that logic?

In casu, Liberia's president-elect Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. The country has been a warzone for decades, has gone through some of the unimaginablest cruelties possible, with drugged child soldiers run amock hacking random civilians' limbs off. Its been dictators and warlords ten, twenty years back. The chaos benefits noone's strategic interests anymore; it's regularly spread into neighbouring countries; all any external major power wants by now is the same Liberian civilians want: some calm and quiet in the place.

So finally they get reasonably democratic elections in place, and the contenders are a) a Harvard-trained economist with World Bank experience who spent time in jail for speaking out against the Samuel Doe dictatorship, and b) a former pro soccer player.

Rice and Laura Bush preferred a). That really enough reason to conclude that, therefore, you dont like a)? Thing is, Rice and Bush werent alone ... it certainly seemed like pretty much everyone abroad, left-wing and right-wing, were glad with her election.

nimh, I thank and curse you at the same time. Now I have to go out and re-examine what I think I know.

After all it wasn't long ago that I thought the world only had two parties. The Democats and the Republicans. But now I see, as many Americans are starting to see, that the world is larger then our own country.

nimh, was Weah the other Liberian candidate?

A hell of a good football (soccer) player.

Yep, he sure could play

Perhaps if he had been an American football player, Rice & Bush would have supported him.

BTW, with both Bachelet and Johnson victories, now the 5 continents have at least one woman as head of government.

And some damned unexpected countries, or at least so I think, in my ignorance...


Now, Ghandi and Bhutto were connected to men.....but AFRICA with a woman president?

Before the US, Canada etc?

See if France will be next (Segolene Royal)...

At first, however, Segolene Royal must become the official candidate. :wink:

Well, she seems to be well on her way!

dlowan, in the Americas, before Bachelet:

Elected, Miriam Moscoso, Panama; Violeta Chamorro, Nicaragua, and another woman: Guyana.

Not elected, provisional, in Bolivia, Haiti, Ecuador. And the infamous Isabelita Perón, Argentina.

Not in Canada or the US.

Or Oz.

dlowan : canada did have a female prime minister.
kim campbell didn't last long but she had a good sense of humour (and wasn't a bad looker either). hbg

Didn't know about her, Hamburger.