[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Sep 18, 2019 - 9:48pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 18, 2019 - 9:46pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 7:53pm
 
Chair & Posture - haresfur - Sep 18, 2019 - 6:18pm
 
Room 3a - haresfur - Sep 18, 2019 - 6:15pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - nickferrante10 - Sep 18, 2019 - 5:46pm
 
Name My Band - westslope - Sep 18, 2019 - 5:24pm
 
Player in Firefox not stable - MA - Sep 18, 2019 - 5:19pm
 
Food Texture Issues - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2019 - 4:03pm
 
Cooking for Friends.... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 12:03pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 11:59am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 11:45am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 11:39am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - westslope - Sep 18, 2019 - 11:00am
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 18, 2019 - 10:47am
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2019 - 10:04am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Sep 18, 2019 - 8:22am
 
The House I Want (Today) - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2019 - 7:01am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2019 - 6:59am
 
Brexit - Coaxial - Sep 18, 2019 - 5:55am
 
RP App for Android - gnasher328 - Sep 18, 2019 - 5:07am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Sep 18, 2019 - 12:53am
 
Trump - kcar - Sep 17, 2019 - 9:31pm
 
The Obituary Page - Red_Dragon - Sep 17, 2019 - 2:58pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 17, 2019 - 12:29pm
 
What makes you smile? - PoundPuppy - Sep 17, 2019 - 11:46am
 
Drones - R_P - Sep 17, 2019 - 11:23am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Sep 17, 2019 - 11:02am
 
The Electoral College - westslope - Sep 17, 2019 - 10:50am
 
What the world needs now is .... - Proclivities - Sep 17, 2019 - 8:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Coaxial - Sep 17, 2019 - 8:27am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Sep 17, 2019 - 7:20am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 16, 2019 - 6:40pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 16, 2019 - 3:28pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2019 - 2:56pm
 
What song is this... Yoshida Brothers ? - ryanreinike - Sep 16, 2019 - 1:32pm
 
2020 Elections - miamizsun - Sep 16, 2019 - 11:25am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Sep 16, 2019 - 11:16am
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2019 - 11:03am
 
Thoughts in the Middle of the Night - oldviolin - Sep 16, 2019 - 10:33am
 
Bear! - Proclivities - Sep 16, 2019 - 6:35am
 
9/11 - westslope - Sep 15, 2019 - 10:11pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - Isabeau - Sep 15, 2019 - 8:25pm
 
THE CARS featuring TODD RUNDGREN - kurtster - Sep 15, 2019 - 8:03pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:00pm
 
Guns - westslope - Sep 15, 2019 - 3:23pm
 
Interesting or Weird Cover Versions - SeriousLee - Sep 15, 2019 - 10:52am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Sep 15, 2019 - 10:33am
 
FLAC stream - amokbunny - Sep 15, 2019 - 4:21am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 14, 2019 - 9:23pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 6:21pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 3:45pm
 
FLAC blocks - BillG - Sep 14, 2019 - 2:53pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - SeriousLee - Sep 14, 2019 - 1:25pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - SeriousLee - Sep 14, 2019 - 11:49am
 
Saudi Arabia - R_P - Sep 14, 2019 - 11:02am
 
President Elizabeth Warren - westslope - Sep 13, 2019 - 3:00pm
 
Word of the Day - buzz - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:37pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - ptooey - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:15pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 11:38am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - R_P - Sep 13, 2019 - 10:38am
 
Back to the 70's - Proclivities - Sep 13, 2019 - 6:42am
 
Favorite Monsters - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:55am
 
OUR CATS!! - SeriousLee - Sep 13, 2019 - 12:54am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 12, 2019 - 11:10pm
 
Would you order a nuclear counter-attack? - Steely_D - Sep 12, 2019 - 2:24pm
 
HomeKit HomePod AppleTV - BillG - Sep 12, 2019 - 12:19pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - R_P - Sep 12, 2019 - 11:15am
 
PUNS - CARS - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 12, 2019 - 10:01am
 
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't... - Coaxial - Sep 12, 2019 - 8:19am
 
Republican Party - Steely_D - Sep 12, 2019 - 5:17am
 
Cause of Poverty - R_P - Sep 11, 2019 - 10:11pm
 
Pick a sport, any sport - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 6:29pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 3:29pm
 
Thorium Power - haresfur - Sep 11, 2019 - 3:17pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » Latin America » Brazil Page: 1, 2, 3  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Aug 23, 2019 - 7:12am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Endgame.
 
Ecocide.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 4:23pm



 Red_Dragon wrote:

Endgame.
 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 3:59pm

 R_P wrote:
Rainforest on Fire
On the Front Lines of Bolsonaro’s War on the Amazon, Brazil’s Forest Communities Fight Against Climate Catastrophe
(...) Scientists warn that losing another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest will trigger the feedback loop known as dieback, in which the forest begins to dry out and burn in a cascading system collapse, beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret. This would release a doomsday bomb of stored carbon, disappear the cloud vapor that consumes the sun’s radiation before it can be absorbed as heat, and shrivel the rivers in the basin and in the sky.

The catastrophic loss of another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest could happen within one generation. It’s happened before. It’s happening now. (...)
 
Endgame.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Aug 22, 2019 - 1:42pm

Rainforest on Fire
On the Front Lines of Bolsonaro’s War on the Amazon, Brazil’s Forest Communities Fight Against Climate Catastrophe
(...) Scientists warn that losing another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest will trigger the feedback loop known as dieback, in which the forest begins to dry out and burn in a cascading system collapse, beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret. This would release a doomsday bomb of stored carbon, disappear the cloud vapor that consumes the sun’s radiation before it can be absorbed as heat, and shrivel the rivers in the basin and in the sky.

The catastrophic loss of another fifth of Brazil’s rainforest could happen within one generation. It’s happened before. It’s happening now. (...)

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Aug 21, 2019 - 12:31pm

Another conspiracist...
Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro says NGOs may be setting wildfires in Amazon rainforest, gives no proof
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 13, 2019 - 3:43pm



 R_P wrote:
 

From the tweet with the kids: "The Shot Show is a place to meet important people"
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Aug 13, 2019 - 3:26pm

“I don’t think it’s nepotism”
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Aug 11, 2019 - 6:29pm



 sirdroseph wrote:


I am with you on this one. NATO was necessary initially because of Stalin's unbridled aggression, but has long outlived its usefulness and have been equally as offensive as the USSR during its run as well.

 
NATO was indeed a military alliance answer to an expansionary Soviet Union.  I am not so sure that NATO as a broad military alliance between (mostly) rich, developed countries, has completed outlived its usefulness.  

A number of recent decisions and developments have been counter-productive but the organization still has merit.  I worry not about Russia because I believe that Russia is relatively easy to co-opt.   Other emerging powers will not be so easy to co-opt.  It is sad that America cannot provide better leadership.  Worse yet, Europe looks like it is on occasion still figuring things out.  

In an ideal world, the USA would likely spend  one third of what it currently spends on the military and national defence.   In an ideal world, any military intervention would be rare, would enjoy broad citizen and ally nation support and would directly expose US soldiers to harm in order maintain strong and widespread public support.   In an ideal world, lower-cost political solutions would be seriously explored at every opportunity. 

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Aug 11, 2019 - 4:26pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:  see below
....

Is you ask the Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians if NATO membership is essential to their security you'll get a resounding "yes", as demonstrated by their petitioning for entry. History is on their side here. All have been invaded and subjugated by Russia in living memory, and Russia's continuing creeping imperialism is evident on the ground as we speak in Ukraine, Georgia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia, along with a long list of smaller conflicts.

The pattern in many of these cases is familiar: Russia asserts that ethnic Russians (or some group they are sympathetic to) are being mistreated at the hands of a neighbor and invades/finances a revolt to separate a province or region, then annexes it. In the case of Chechnya the country was taken wholesale. Does that sound familiar? It ought to: it was the German justification for annexing the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia.

That undoubtedly irritates Russia, tho it's hard to imagine this as anything but a defensive move. Maybe some of our reflexively anti-western knees could jerk on this. RP? Care to chime in?

..........................

Naturally many Poles and citizens of the Baltic states wanted NATO membership.  That does not mean that it is in NATO's interests to oblige.  

If an older adult male from Montana meets a shapely, voluptuous 14 year old and she wants to have sex with him, is it appropriate for the older adult male to oblige the 14-year old girl?

If it was up to many Latin American conservatives, American soldiers would directly help in a violent purge of Marxist militants and supporters.  Maybe 1/6 of the country in some cases.  Should the USA oblige?     

So what if there is a pattern to Russian intervention in FSU states?   It was a lot more complicated than you suggest but nonetheless.  Are you suggesting, your fellow citizens should look at these matters as a question of the 'good versus bad guy', a variation of 'us versus them'?   

And for the glaringly obvious question.  Does the presence of NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic states help Chechnyans and other ethnic minorities in violent conflict with the Russian federation?

How about a more rational collective decision making process?  How about taking in expected costs before undertaking these gratuitously aggressive and provocative measures?  Or like so many Americans patriots, do you simply discount the probability of expensive blow back to zero?    Right now, it appears that you are staring directly at the hugely costly blow back and yet fail to recognize it.

First Israel.

Yes Israel, the USA-supported nuclear weapons backed affirmative action ethnic cleansing program.  The whole ugly project is yours, it is American.  It is proof in the pudding of America's Antisemitism.   You have no moral authority.    As long as you firmly support the settlers, the Hilltop Youths, the illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and regional monopoly, the deportations from East Jerusalem, the 5:1 kill ratio, the lovely discourse of cultural superiority, etc.  Zero moral authority.    So much for secure economic property rights without ethnic, racial or some other sectarian exception.

The War on Terror,
a lovely blow back gift from Israeli nation building process, tells us a lot about Americans.   It is unusual propaganda to the extent that the USA figures among the world's great contemporary nation state killers of civilians.    It is an odd choice because without terrorism, Israel would not have been born.   It is an odd choice because the USA clinched WW II by deliberately aerial-bombing civilians.    (I would not have done anything differently.)

It is an even odder choice given that current American military intervention almost always leads to civilian deaths.  As if civilian deaths were almost as easy  to predict as the weather.  

Why the War on Terrorism?  Well, so the USA can label groups or governments as 'terrorist', thus demonizing them, creating an excuse for no dialogue and quickly earning a justification to kill their civilians.    

The War on Terror informs as to the moral bankruptcy of Americans or the willingness of elites and special interests to maliciously manipulate uninformed American views.  (Any resemblance to modern-day Russia is purely coincidental.)   It hints already at the vulnerability to outside manipulation.


Costly blowback 
 Russia 1, USA 0        It looks like Russia managed to hit back at the USA in the 2016 to 2018 presidential elections.  With stunning success.   Operating under a low budget and involving relatively few people, individuals from Russia managed to catalyze an all-out cultural and political brawl in the USA.   The always earnest and never too strategic Democrats played along beautifully.  

One has to admire the elegance of it all.   The American hegemon can only decline/fall from within.   Ultimately only the American people can rapidly reduce their ability to influence world events.    The Russian hackers sure seeded that ugly cloud to perfection.  Now sit back and watch Americans rip each other apart.  



As for any of this being anti-western (your comment for RP), I must admit confusion.  I view your politics as going against rich western country interests.    I view your politics as unnecessarily putting American citizens at risk.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Aug 9, 2019 - 10:01am

Brazil space institute director sacked in Amazon deforestation row
Far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro calls satellite data showing rise in deforestation ‘lies’
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 5, 2019 - 9:14am

westslope wrote:
Nonsense.  Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west.   Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.

Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland?  No.   Absolutely not.  

Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians?  Absolutely yes.

Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba?   After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?  

Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument.  If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.

Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.

Is you ask the Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians if NATO membership is essential to their security you'll get a resounding "yes", as demonstrated by their petitioning for entry. History is on their side here. All have been invaded and subjugated by Russia in living memory, and Russia's continuing creeping imperialism is evident on the ground as we speak in Ukraine, Georgia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia, along with a long list of smaller conflicts.

The pattern in many of these cases is familiar: Russia asserts that ethnic Russians (or some group they are sympathetic to) are being mistreated at the hands of a neighbor and invades/finances a revolt to separate a province or region, then annexes it. In the case of Chechnya the country was taken wholesale. Does that sound familiar? It ought to: it was the German justification for annexing the Sudatenland of Czechoslovakia.

That undoubtedly irritates Russia, tho it's hard to imagine this as anything but a defensive move. Maybe some of our reflexively anti-western knees could jerk on this. RP? Care to chime in?

An American president did in fact blockade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis—an act of war. It worked, the missiles were removed (as were the US missiles in Turkey that had provoked the Russians to counter that move) and the world didn't blow up. Somewhere in that keen statement of the obvious is a point, I think. Maybe you could connect it somehow to the argument at hand.

I am a fan of peaceful engagement with the world. NATO countries are not obliged to buy American weapons (and most don't, with the exception of military aircraft, which we also sell to non-NATO allies) or agricultural exports (which have faced notable resistance in Europe due to superstitions about GMOs). Maybe you had something else in mind. Hard to tell.

Not sure what Israel has to do with NATO expansion; maybe you could enlighten us. On second thought...never mind. Criminy.

I don't have time to fall down a WW2 rabbithole today, much as I'd like that, so I'll enlist a couple of scholars to help out.

The following is a discussion from 2008 between Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hansen about Patrick Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.  First a tedious disclaimer: no, I am not equating your assertions with the ravings of neo-fascist Patrick Buchanan. I doubt you have many thoughts in common—or at least I hope you don't.

The two make some carefully considered points about resistance to aggression, and how appeasement and delay in that makes the situation worse in the long run. They extend that analogy to Saddam Hussein but hear them out. It'a entertaining if nothing else, and I always enjoy seeing a blowhard like Buchanan taken down a notch.

Further tedious disclaimer: yes, I know Hansen became a Trumpalist in 2016. He's one of the reasons I don't reflexively hate Trump supporters—some of them are people I otherwise respect, just as Hitchens was a socialist I respected. Smart people can reach bad conclusions.


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 5, 2019 - 4:31am

 westslope wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make  Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens?   Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?

...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.

And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.

*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
 
Nonsense.  Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west.   Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.

Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland?  No.   Absolutely not.  

Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians?  Absolutely yes.

Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba?   After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?  

Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument.  If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.

Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.
 
I am with you on this one.  NATO was necessary initially because of Stalin's unbridled aggression, but has long outlived its usefulness and have been equally as offensive as the USSR during its run as well.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Aug 4, 2019 - 12:57pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make  Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens?   Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?

...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.

And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.

*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
 
Nonsense.  Nazi Germany posed an existential threat to the rich west; the former Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the rich west.   Modern day Russia does not pose an existential threat to the rich west just like Muslims do not pose an existential threat to the rich west.

Was NATO membership necessary for the security of the Baltic states and Poland?  No.   Absolutely not.  

Would NATO membership and NATO troops stationed in the Baltic states irritate and provoke the Russians?  Absolutely yes.

Did not an American President threaten to blow up the entire world when Russia installed missiles in Cuba?   After the USA installed missiles along the Communist block's borders?  

Now if you Comrade Lazy8 subscribe to the Neo-Marxist Baran and Sweezy view that more military expenditures are good because they are inherently wasteful and prevent the capitalist economy from going into collapse, well you might have an argument.  If you are a fan of US agricultural exports and weapons exports, then definitely you have an argument.

Frankly, I would be really careful about making analogies to WW II given the fondness of US-backed Israel to use strategies and tactics popularized by the Nazis during WW II.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 2, 2019 - 12:32pm

westslope wrote:
Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies. Which begs the question of why NATO had to make  Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens?   Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?

...or maybe it's because we remember how WW2 started, and what the cost of inaction to the early acts of aggression was. The German military* would have been easier to stop had the allies reacted forcefully to the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland instead of standing aside and wringing their hands.

And neutral Finland (and Denmark, and Norway) were invaded in WW2 by various players. Neutrality is not safety, nor is it a guarantee that a country won't be strategically useful to an antagonist. After WW2 Finland was (at least on paper) an ally of the Soviet Union and hosted a Soviet military base until 1955.

*Yes, I know Germany was allied with the Soviet Union early in the war and that the two cooperated to split Poland between them, but the Czech invasion preceded that and was an all-German affair.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Aug 2, 2019 - 11:10am



 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 westslope wrote:


 Brazil was already a major non-NATO ally before President Bolanaro was elected.
 
It's an official designation, not just an opinion:

Bolsonaro took office Jan. 1
Visited US in March
White House announces intent to declare MNNA status May 8
Official declaration yesterday


Major Non NATO Ally wikipedia
 
OK, it is "official."  Despite the recent label, Brazil has long been an ally.

Neutral Sweden and Finland have long been staunch non-Nato western allies.  Which begs the question of why NATO had to make  Poland and the Baltic states members..... Maybe the USA wanted to gloat over Russia because gloating enhances the security of American citizens?   Or because nobody in the USA has heard of the Treaty of Versailles and thought WW II was a really, good, enjoyable, family-friendly experience?  

I digress.  Where were we?  Stomping on Amazon basin natives if I recall.   

Actually, I am curious as to how Bolsonaro will address the squatter issue in the Amazon.    That one has lots of potential for ugly violence.  Squatters  apparently voted for Bolsanero in the last elections.  And are now moving into indigenous reserves.

BOLSONARO DOUBLES DOWN ON THREATS TO BRAZIL’S INDIGENOUS WITH NEW POLICY
JULY 22, 2019 BY CAROLINA ZANATTA


Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2019 - 10:29am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 Coaxial wrote:
Interesting to me that this guy said he would wipe out the Indians in the Amazon and still won the election. WTAF?
 

So he's also the Andrew Jackson of Brazil?
 
Yeah, we were not very nice, were we?
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2019 - 10:08am



 Coaxial wrote:
Interesting to me that this guy said he would wipe out the Indians in the Amazon and still won the election. WTAF?
 

So he's also the Andrew Jackson of Brazil?
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2019 - 9:52am

Interesting to me that this guy said he would wipe out the Indians in the Amazon and still won the election. WTAF?
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 1, 2019 - 9:07am



 westslope wrote:


 Brazil was already a major non-NATO ally before President Bolanaro was elected.
 
It's an official designation, not just an opinion:

Bolsonaro took office Jan. 1
Visited US in March
White House announces intent to declare MNNA status May 8
Official declaration yesterday


Major Non NATO Ally wikipedia
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Aug 1, 2019 - 8:49am



 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 miamizsun wrote:


bolsonaro is thug


 

But he's the Trump of Brazil so now he's also a Major non-NATO Ally.
 

Brazil was already a major non-NATO ally before President Bolanaro was elected.    Otherwise agreed:  he is a thug and not investment-friendly as he does not seem to care about social contract issues.  
Page: 1, 2, 3  Next