> Well, programs such as Doctors without Borders
> don’t often run into much resentment.

So I’ve noticed. They aren’t much of a threat.

> I think unavoidably, you imprint a bit of your values
> of the nature and [importance] of equality onto the
> people you interact with.

*grin* Was that a general (human nature) or a specific (DLS) remark?

And, important to this discussion; I think unavoidably, you imprint a bit of your values of the nature and important of equality onto the people you interact with.

> However, I don’t think Iraq is an argument against
> that type of aid, but rather just an argument about
> militarizing that aid.

I supplied the Iraq example because it involves foreigners who are often resented, and would be even without any military presence, particularly if the foreigners were trying to raise the natives up to the foreigners’ better standard of living.

There are ethnic and historical issues to deal with when the gringos go south.

> The question is, what to do about the nation
> of Venezuela, not Chavez as a person.

For that “New Deal,” Latin America, okay.

Throwing money won’t work, nor grand projects. These were done in the 1960s and what do we see for it? “Beggars on golden stools.” Africa is similar, though now in even worse shape.

My idea of a primary Third World project would be development of clean, safe water for consumption and use. It’s tangible, it’s real, it would help immensely. Next would be electrification where this is incomplete (or absent) or substandard.

An interesting project would be a double-track Pan-American railway that includes transit of the Darien Gap and really does connect the Americas (with a paved road to one side or between the tracks for maintenance and highway travel if possible). Many environmentalists would be aghast at this as well as some interests in North America (ranchers who would fear hoof-and-mouth disease or other diseases coming from the south).

Perhaps better is distributing aid in kind rather than money — and delivering and distributing the aid ourselves. That is a double-edged sword, as Iraq as shown.

I think your right on the money that we should be putting American citizens to work on this problem, not throwing money at it.

However, I don’t think Iraq is an argument against that type of aid, but rather just an argument about militarizing that aid. Even if Venezuela wouldn’t allow large number of American aid workers into the country, some of the countries he is currently trying to court most likely would.

> To do nothing in poor coundtries …
> until wecome in via the military, …
> short sighted.

Maybe, maybe not if there are no valid alternatives.

Perhaps better is distributing aid in kind rather than money — and delivering and distributing the aid ourselves. That is a double-edged sword, as Iraq as shown.

Everything bad you want to say about Chavez I’ll agree to.
The question is, what to do about the nation of Venezuela, not Chavez as a person.

Your concerns about diverting aid money are concerns of mine. That’s whay I’m not in favor of just writing big checks. The poor in Latin America are not just poor, they are desperately poor. And why do they like Chavez? Because he installs clinics and reduced price food stores in their barios.

I would greatly support
projects for local medical aid, school supplies and teacher training. Anything that is direct to the people, not the government.

To do nothing in poor coundtries means we remain invisible until we
come in via the military, covertly or overtly. That means that the image of the US and capitalism is forever tied to an image of brute force.

I believe that this approach is short sighted. It’s hard to shoot one’s way into the hearts and minds of the locals, and the worst method for countering unwelcome ideologies.