Hi Kakki >>It's easy to sit back now from an armchair view and discuss something that happened 30 years ago in the present context. I doubt any of us are experts as to why the U.S. took the stance it did at the time or whether it was wise or not. I just mean this generally and am not looking to discuss the past situation in Chile.<< I'm not looking to discuss the past in Chile either. It was just an example of another viewpoint. End of story. One need not, however, be an expert to see why the US took that stance. It was a continuation of its 'Manifest Destiny' policy that dates back to the 1840s and was the ideological basis for the 'annexation' of between 33% and 50% of Mexican land which was later to become 10 of the states (or parts of them) of the USA. >>The way we handled the situation in Chile was dissented in the U.S. at the time as was our involvement in Vietnam.<< I was especially proud of the role of the (mostly) young people at the time of the Vietnam war. It just seems (maybe only 'seems') such a contrast to a lot of present day US attitudes to operations 'Desert Storm' and 'Infinite Justice' (sic) for instance. >> There is a certain smugness in non-Americans that irritates us because it always acts like we are completely clueless and unknowing about our effect on the world.<< I know what you mean and to a large extent I agree with you, and accept that smugness is easy to succumb to (myself included). That doesn't justify it. I would say, however that I believe the smugness is not (only) about US citizens being clueless, it is also (or even more so) about the fact that we (the smugees) suspect that the USA is NOT clueless and unknowing but rather is too knowing and too little caring. This opinion may be unfair too but it is, I think, closer to the reason for the smugness. >> All the refugees who have come here from Communist countries have been given special aid, interest-free grants to start businesses or attend college, housing, and public assistance.<< I think this is wonderful and should be imitated more by many other countries, including my own and my adopted country (Wales and Spain, respectively). >> They [Latinos] have a better chance because they have an opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their families and break out of the cycle of poverty.<< Agreed. How did they get into the cycle of poverty? >> The Latinos who come to California are given free school education for their children and free medical care. << Fantastic, admirable. So what happened to California Proposition 227 and other 'anti-immigrant' legislation and/or proposals? (A genuine question, not an ironic or rhetorical one). >> The Bush administration has legislation on the board to give all undocumented workers in American amnesty, like Reagan did back in the 80s. This will give them the chance for citizenship and all the protections as far as wages, public assistance if they need it, etc.<< Do you think this will happen? (A genuine question, not an ironic or rhetorical one). Kakki, we obviously disagree on many points but debate should always be respectful. I will always respect your opinions. Thanks for replying to my points politely and not getting into abuse. Later. Regards, Mike. NP: 'Across the Borderline' Ry Cooder (and Harry Dean Stanton).
