Well, if it is any consolation to Bolivians at all, I support stopping the intervention in other countries AND ESPECIALLY stopping the economic and financial support of those countries. We have too many problems at home that could use the financing and support FIRST. But obviously only 22% of Bolivian's agree with me? (According to the vote anyway). :o)*G*

Actually, I know it is a serious situation (sorry!) and I hope your country does well in all areas WHOMEVER gets elected.

Tracy

>>Very interesting stories in your news. I also read the below article:
>>
>>http://www.lostiempos.com/pna5.shtml
>>
>>and, if I understand correctly (and I may not, because I have seldom spoken or read Spanish in the last 10 years) Otto Reich made those statements because Evo Morales does not support removing coca plants in Bolivia and has in fact supported the opposite which is not in keeping the U.S. point of view stopping the drug flow into the U.S. by stopping the production. I understand the story to state that IF Evo is elected, then the U.S. will not support him or work with him because he basically supports the drug system as it exists today in Bolivia. That is a far cry from telling the people of Bolivia whom to vote for; he was in fact only stating what the U.S. international relationship with Bolivia would turn out to be with such a person as President.
>>
>>Did I interpret incorrectly? (Highly possible!)
>
>I think that this is basically what this article said - but the ambassador (NOT Otto Reich, but I don't remember his name right now) did intervene quite clearly, and stated quite clearly that he (or his country) didn't want people to vote for Evo. This was precisely what made Evo rise up so high in the popular vote. Now that the Congress has to decide whom to vote for (between the first two candidates, in the popular vote, if I understand correctly), the ambassador is again pronouncing his (or his country's) preferences.
>
>Evo's publicly stated opinion is something to the effect that the U.S. might just as well stop giving economic aid to Bolivia, since this economic aid (in his opinion) is part of the policy of oppression of the U.S.
>
>But since he only has about 22% (?) of the popular vote - and therefore people in Congress - it may count more what other political parties feel about the stopping of the U.S. support - this might affect (one way or another!) the forming of coalitions between the parties.
>
>Hilmar.
>
>>
>>UPDATE:
>>To be fair, I think it is more an economic issue (whether or not to continue growing coca) than anything else. They are basically facing the same situation as tobacco growers in North Carolina except it is not nearly as dire a situation for tobacco growers because they do not make up a large percentage of farmers in the U.S. as I think coca growers do in Bolivia and other countries. Unless the government subsidizes a new crop (or pays farmers NOT to grow it) the economy will suffer. It is a no-win situation in the short-term, but hopefully a win-win in the longterm (when different productive crops are grown and producing an income in tobaccos or cocas place).
>>
>>Yet, PERSONALLY I do not feel that the growing of coca in anyway should be an issue, but I feel the key issue is how it gets into our country to begin with. We shouldn't (but we do) tell another country that they cannot support the production of a product that is used for drug manufacturing when that is not the sole purpose of why the plant is grown. Yet that is what we do all the time as a nation. We withold our support if you don't tow the line. It some areas its reasonable, but in this, it is questionable. It is up to our country to handle and control it's means of getting into our country and being produced and sold HERE. The plant will always be grown somewhere afterall for legitamite purposes (even I though I do not support the longterm use of it in relieving high altitude sikness because after a time your body adjusts to the altitude and what is the justification of continuing its use after that?).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Tracy