> I've been wondering why the US doesn't get more involved (somehow) with local
> politics in southern LDCs. I suppose we can't force them to give up
> corruption, but maybe give them incentives for getting their people to stay?

Back in time we used to try that.  Problem is that the US guvvyment is not
too great at picking the folks who should lead the local politics in the
places in question.  IIRC, we helped Manuel Noriega take power, and then
later had to help topple him when he started driving his country into the
ground.  IIRC, Sadam and Osama were a couple of others (not in Latin
America, but elsewhere) that we threw moneny at to regret later.  We
supported Castro, at first, too.

If you have an original, hardcover copy of Hillary Clinton's book, you can
find a few pages which are full of her patting herself on the back for
helping get the leader of one of those countries (Honduras, I think... the
one where most of the caravan came from) ousted.  IIRC, she labeled it as
one of her biggest accomplishments in the SoS office.  Oddly, the paperback
versions that came out later leave all that out... they were printed after
the country started going to Hell in a hand-basket.  Officially it was to
abridge the book for paperback publication, but one has to wonder if she
was no longer so proud of helping to destablize the country by not backing
the officially-elected President and instead encouraging his ouster.

The US does not have a very good track record when it comes to getting
involved in the local politics in other countries.

Mike

---
 � SLMR 2.1a � He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)