1st Canada, now Mexico (maybe) Viva la Revelucion!

[peragro]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-03T162603Z_01_N28358335_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEXICO-ELECTION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Hatterasguy]

Good, Fox is an idiot, maybe this guy can do better.

[peragro]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-07-06T205752Z_01_N28358335_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEXICO-ELECTION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Botnst]

I'm gonna take the Zeitgeist view of this, hope Z doesn't mind the presumptuousness.

Mexico needs a top-to-bottom revolution. The current ruling party is so corrupt that it is, IMO, beyond the ability to repair itself. Worse, it is run by a fairly small number of extremely powerful families for the benefit of those families and their lackeys. This is much like the disaster that was Venezuela before Chavez' peaceful overthrow.

We tend to look at a foreign gov in the short-term self interest of the USA. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But if the short-term overwhelms our long term strategy then we have the potential to work against our long term self-interest. Unfortunately, we are unable to foresee which strategy is long-term and which is short-term. Hindsight reveals it to some degree but even the wisdom of hindsight changes due to changes in future circumstances.

Mexico (and Venezuela) should be a wealthy country, about like Canada. It has abundant resources and a good constitution and rational laws. Unfortunately, it is so corrupt that the entire population is cynical, distrustful, and increasingly without hope for their own futures. This is why they clamber to come to the USA, they have essentially given-up on their homeland.

They need a revolution, without our interference.

B

[peragro]

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm gonna take the Zeitgeist view of this, hope Z doesn't mind the presumptuousness.

Mexico needs a top-to-bottom revolution. The current ruling party is so corrupt that it is, IMO, beyond the ability to repair itself. Worse, it is run by a fairly small number of extremely powerful families for the benefit of those families and their lackeys. This is much like the disaster that was Venezuela before Chavez' peaceful overthrow.

We tend to look at a foreign gov in the short-term self interest of the USA. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But if the short-term overwhelms our long term strategy then we have the potential to work against our long term self-interest. Unfortunately, we are unable to foresee which strategy is long-term and which is short-term. Hindsight reveals it to some degree but even the wisdom of hindsight changes due to changes in future circumstances.

Mexico (and Venezuela) should be a wealthy country, about like Canada. It has abundant resources and a good constitution and rational laws. Unfortunately, it is so corrupt that the entire population is cynical, distrustful, and increasingly without hope for their own futures. This is why they clamber to come to the USA, they have essentially given-up on their homeland.

They need a revolution, without our interference.

B

You may be right, I don't know enough about it. I was focusing on the liberal response to losing the election - it made me recollect 2000 and 2004.

[Botnst]

The terms liberal and conservative have completely different meanings in MX. Conservatives own everything and control everything and have succeeded in keeping democracy from the people since their independence from the equally corrupt, royalist Spain. Mexico merely shifted to local masters. That is, except for Texas (and the Yucatan), which willingly and forcefully rejected dictatorship and embraced the concepts of liberal democracy. Sam Houston betrayed the democrats of the Yucatan, which had willingly joined Texas in revolt and was supported by the Texas Navy. Instead, Houston threatened to try the Navy commodore for treason. Houston won, the Yucatan is now part of Mexico's corruption.

The Texas Navy was the only sailing navy on Earth to defeat steamships (supplied to MX by Britain). Look it up.

Bot

[peragro]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The terms liberal and conservative have completely different meanings in MX. Conservatives own everything and control everything and have succeeded in keeping democracy from the people since their independence from the equally corrupt, royalist Spain. Mexico merely shifted to local masters. That is, except for Texas (and the Yucatan), which willingly and forcefully rejected dictatorship and embraced the concepts of liberal democracy. Sam Houston betrayed the democrats of the Yucatan, which had willingly joined Texas in revolt and was supported by the Texas Navy. Instead, Houston threatened to try the Navy commodore for treason. Houston won, the Yucatan is now part of Mexico's corruption.

The Texas Navy was the only sailing navy on Earth to defeat steamships (supplied to MX by Britain). Look it up.

Bot

Interesting, I will look it up. Admittedly I'm looking at it through Northern glasses. I saw Obrador on TV last night and have read a few stories about him. He seems quite the sore loser and doesn't seem to possess much in the way of dignity, at least he doesn't act as such. Again, I saw the parallel I mentioned before.

[Botnst]

Oh, I understand, Peragro. I meant no offense. I just can't resist pontification at any opportunity.

IMO, Mexico's "left" offers a solution to MX's problem that is no better than the problem they already have. The answer to oligarchy is not socialism and nationalized industry. The answer to both is liberal democracy and free markets.

[peragro]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Oh, I understand, Peragro. I meant no offense. I just can't resist pontification at any opportunity.

IMO, Mexico's "left" offers a solution to MX's problem that is no better than the problem they already have. The answer to oligarchy is not socialism and nationalized industry. The answer to both is liberal democracy and free markets.

Essentially the people that live there have to get disgusted enough with how things are run to make a change. A story as old as history.