lastly the latino countries are turning to be communists,slowly but this is happening:cuba(ever),venezuela,argentina,brasil,bolivia,now i heard these are close too:peru,nicaragua,mexico etc...but the chinese,cuban and arabian are coming to visits to them or they are visitting to these.
130263
I guess you've never heard of O.P.E.C.
614248
Yes, Argentina used to have a larger economy than Canada until Peronism came along. I guess people always think their problems with be solved if the "right" leader comes along. I think it's fair to say there are a lot of parallels with Chavez.
239979
Mexico has EVERYTHING it needs to be a top notch nation. except desire. These people either lack the know how or desire to do it. I sense a civil war is going to happen in Mexico soon. The people there need to find their "Neo"
248155
Latinos will be the majority in the US in 20-25 years!\n\nWhat then?  This country will have a VERY different face, tone, direction.  National security an issue?  I think so...\nNational interests re-aligned?  I think so...  Everything will be in Spanish, then English, the dollar will be incredibly LOW (look at Mexico today - look at ANY hispanic country today)...  Civil war???  Maybe...  \n\nLook at what happened to countries in Europe.  Most recently - Yugoslavia.  Quick history lesson for those that don't know, might bring a wierd, yet possible new perspective to this thing.  One that could happen.  Got me thinking anyway.  I would hate for something like this to happen:  I was in Kosovo during that whole war (and stuff leading up to it).  The whole deal was over ethnic Albanians that came to live and settle, then over-populate the southern area of Serbia (Yugoslavia).  Within 30-40 years, they completely re-populated the region (10 to 1 ratio of Albanians to Serbs), took jobs, changed the language, changed the religion, lowered living standards (dirty streets, neighborhoods, more crime).  Pissed off the Serbs something fierce!  Granted, what they did under SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC (that sick bastard) was disgusting, by deciding to "ethnically cleanse" the area - BUT it just goes to show how a MADMAN could rile up what the local people who were frustrated TRULY felt about being having their country essentially "taken over."  MILOSEVIC just played on their frustrations and nationalism to the Nth degree.  Then took the still somewhat communist style army and started whacking away at the Albanians in Kosovo.  It was pretty grim.  I'd hate to see our country ever delve into such dire territory.  YET IT IS NOT COMLETELY UNIMAGINABLE.  HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAD ABOUT WANTING THEM ALL TO JUST GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM, ya know?\n\nBad stuff.  Anyways, I'm not saying some ignorant crap like they should all go back to where they came from - casue we're all essentially related to immigrants.  Yet we have to examine what we can handle in this country.  Our principles that our forefathers read as they came to the US fresh off the boats from Europe of "Give us your poor, etc.." should be held near and dear to us as principles, but REALITY needs to kkep us in check.  How much more can we afford right now?  ESPECIALLY when old G.W. is spending BAZILLIONS on the war!  We're sorta bankrupt right now.  We need to close the doors, lock 'em, fix up our own house, ask our friends that want to visit (prospective immigrants) to wait a little longer while we clean our house up for guests, then maybe let some more in.  We should let them in on an equal basis, too.  Right now we have WAY TOO FREAKIN MANY MEXICANS (and CENTRAL AMERCIANS are quickly climbing the ranks)  Where are the CANADIANS?  Seriously?  Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the country (and ballooned to that number in record time).  We need to balance the books as far as immigrants go.  How about from the EUROPEAN continent - any takers?  ASIA?  AUSTRALIA?  ANTARCTICA (I heard it's pretty cold there)?  SOUTH AMERICA?  Once we even out our supposed "melting pot", then we can re-examine letting in some more MEXICANS.  \n\nWE NEED A GREAT WALL, NOW!!!  Vicente Fox (Mexican President) said he will SUE the US if we start to violate the rights of his people who are illegally crossing the border (that he knows about and is obviously complicit in).  This was spuured by Bush's recent decision to put National Gaurd troops at the US border as a stop-gap measure (hopefully just temporary until we get a ton of new border agents).  Dude will SUE us???  Gimme a break!  ASS!  Then he said he might start sending his troops to the border to make sure we are not hurting his people.  Why not just SEND YOUR FREAKIN TROOPS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE OR WORK WITH US SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS
103472
Rule of law from the weakest person to the strongest should be a goal of every country, unfortunately, the Chinese communist party is threatened by the "spiritual" movement Falung Gong, so it's possible these acts are condoned tacitly to "scare "citizens back into the communist fold. Any acts like these, if true, would be signs of desperation. The Chinese government will be on it's best behavior until the Olympics in '08, then I believe there may be great confrontation in China. Their economy is more and more capitalist, the people want and are getting, to a certain degree, a more free and materialistic lifestyle, yet the Communist party still holds sole political power. At some point one will have to give way to the other.
274517
First of all, you have chosen a very wide range of leaders, who though on the left, are really not that similar.  Lula (da Silva), is a center leftist leader who is very different from the others.  Though he once carried a populist message, he now is an established politician who does not spout anti-American rhetoric and conducts business friendly centrist policies.  He is probably been good for the country, economically speaking, as he has developed certain industries well, signed good trade agreements with neighbors, increased trade with MERCOSUR, and lobbied much better for Brazil and other developing nations in world economic forums.  Morally, he has had some recent scandals with corruption, but is still fairly popular.  Most people would consider the path he has taken good for the country, as it has increased economic development. \nOn the opposite end of the spectrum you have Fidel Castro.  Casto is a dictator, putting him in a different category than the rest of these democratically and fairly elected leaders.  He has tortured people, and in general held on to power so long Cuba has stagnated economically and socially.  Though initial gains in literacy and health validated his methods to some, improvements in other countries has increasingly his discredited the control he remains on power.  Though U.S. actions with regards to Cuba certainly have not been morally commendable, this does not place Castro on the moral high ground.  As for economically, given the US boycott that will remain for as long as a Castro (Raul included) in power, he has done the best for the economy he can. Since he has no possible option of keeping his government and the lifting the boycott, he has done as well as can be expected.  \nHugo Chavez is a interesting case, he is a populist leader, who does have the moral high ground over the US in Venezuela, especially with the US tacit support of the coup against him.  Economically, he has spent some of the oil money well.  But increasingly he seems to be undermining democratic institutions in Venezuela and relying instead on the military.  Therefore, he has benefited the common person at least in the short run, but the long term results remain to be seen.  \nEvo Morales is fresh into office.  He represents the poor farmers, the cocaleros, and is likely to represent their social and economic interest well.  However, though his recent moves to nationalize industries will help the people in the short run, if he creates a climate hostile to foreign investment, then he will hurt the poor in the long run, as the economy won't develop.  \nSo in each case it is slight different, and with so much of economics, it is hard to tell what the future will hold.
279090
Great idea in principle, but I would avoid Bolivia as Bebobz6 is sponsoring a child there, and might be a tad upset about it.\n\nWhy not nuke Argentina instead ?  Not even other Latin Americans like them.
306188
YIKES!!  Now I'm gettng worried. Don't scare me like that. Sometimes we seem so weak I could see it happening. If we don't get tougher it's going to be a Mexican and Muslim country. All those wars we fought to have American freedom and then the hippies grew up into weak Liberals and we get took over easily from within.
34833
its a power play. imagine a shadow coming from usa. the object is to take over inluence of all 'south america'. so, they call the shadow the 'free trade zone', its quite the opposite, orwellian.
489219
Cuba and North Korea (currently) and China (in the past).
174382
I had heard they were swapping pinky's. This is when it was still cool to be a smoking flaming Queen as a Republican, they have dropped back into the closet again a put their Neo-Nazi white supremest front out. I say deport the lot of them to Iraq and seize their assets, and free America. We should keep all the hard working Latino's problem solved.
589826
Thank the pro-hispanic lobby on this one, what it largely seems to amount to is a 'shotgun wedding' between the US and Mexico, and american taxpayers are supposed to buy off on all this garbage and not bat an eye. Since the reverse effect is happening, well it kind of shows that the GOP's head and hind-quarters aren't very well connected anymore, or one has lapped the other, something like that...what this also brings to light, though, is all these other 'programs' that give money away all over the place, Matthew Lesko's dream-come-true, and the taxpayer's worst nightmare, wealth redistribution in the worst possible sense. I think if we're going to help Mexico, it needs to be a lot more metered, and done AFTER the border's nailed shut, so as to minimize the negative impact on american communities. I think when the House finally gets around to consulting the voters on this one, there's going to be a general consensus going back to washington that basically says 'fix the border, and forget the rest of it'. It's a nice idea to try and help others, but if that 'help' is just going to get abused, there's not much point to it. Necessity's the mother of invention, and a lot of the people that originally settled the United States didn't get much 'help', because there wasn't any. Let's not have any more of this 'give away the country to appease your 3rd world business partners' garbage....Mexico could be rolling in money(some already are, they just don't share out) and feed, clothe, and educate every last one of their citizens, probably just off their oil revenues, but instead they'd like to ride the american guilt trip into a split-level condo...time for voters/taxpayers to wake the hell UP and say 'no mas' at the polls, come november...
644891
i don't think by saying they bring diseases over here with them is being racist. it's a serious problem, i have to get a tb test every year because i'm around illegals on a daily basis and a lot of people who do the same job as me do get tb and lots of other things. it's very true, not just trying to be rude. i see a lot of people with tb, not just from mexico but lots of other south american countries
196682
I personally think that we should be looking at Mexico and the other central american states very closly and hard.  Some of the things they are doing there can be taken as terroristic.  They Mexican Army escorts the drug traders accross the borders.  They out man and outgun the local authorities.  To me, they are declaring war on the USA.. Again, we are ignoring it.  Almost like we have Al Quida.
601308
Oh heck no if that was to happen it would be the ghetto of the USA. I read in an artitical a few week back where Vincente Fox of Mexico was talking to some people of Columbia saying that the Mexicans were going to over rule our government. Don't know how true the source really was but as daddy says talk is cheap.
552819
Latin America is one of the places in the world that less spend money with military. We simply don't think that's important. To state that we don't because we don't have money to is ridiculous, excuse me but only a stupid gringo like you can say something like that. We don't enter in war because we simply are not war-oriented countries. We don't like it. And everybody should be suspicious of countries that are so proud of their military power. Do you think Arabs have more money than Latin Americans? And to the stupid ones that say that Latin American countries make war agains themselfes I want to remind that Cuba is the only non-democratic country Latin America nowadays. Give me bad marks if you want, I don't need and I don't want your aproval, stupid gringo.\n\nBy the way, you are so prouded of your military, why couldn't you handle with Vietnan and why can't you handle with Iraq?
665695
We did do things like this until the democrats took over.  Once Clinton was in office, he put an end to these programs.  The reason is simple, he is a communist sympathizer and the communists in south american get most of their money from the drug trade.  Since that time, they have taken over much of south america.  If Bush wasn't such a weak president with no support for conservative issues, he would have re-instituted those programs.  He didn't. The result is the communist alliance of Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia.  They are allying themselves with Iran in a clearly hostile manner and are positioning themselves to take over Mexican politics.  All funded with drug money.