The US version of an improved economy for Latin American countries begins and ends with fat land grants to US companies who then use locals as virtual slaves whose wages are paid with company housing and food. Food that is causing malnourishment in the workers by inhibiting nutrient absorption. These big business agricultural companies are ruining the land and water in these countries with their round-up proof plants. The super plants become virtual indestructible "weeds" that encroach the local crops making it difficult for family gardens or small farms to thrive. Polluted waters are causing horrible defects.

Yes, the governments appear smiley-faced with our politicians as they are the beneficaries of our official care and concern for their countries. Things aren't so great at the level of the average citizen. Citizens struggling to survive after the so-called good government policies confiscated professional businesses with threats and terror tactics. Ask your neighbors who are refugees from these countries just how great the governments are.

No doubt it was an audacious rescue, but methinks it was engineered to spin some sort of positive light on McSame's visit to Colombia. Why?

The Democrats talk a big game when it comes to working poor but when the rubber hits the road they seem to slither into the shadows. Columbia is our best hope in Latin America in combating rampant the socialism/communism in Venezuela and Bolivia and Nancy Pelosi will not even allow the House to vote on a free trade agreement with Columbia! Maybe because the Democrats are owned by the Trade Unions ( and China)
Congrats to the Columbian military- they're whuppin' FARC's behind like we're doing to AL Qaida and methinks the Democrats don't like victories for Freedom.
Oh, and your boy Obama is beginning to backtrack a little on pulling out of Iraq. You got fooled again!

Anonymous 10:27
I'm not pleased with Pelosi and company. But you also make my stomach churn. Backing US actions in messing with the free election outcomes in other countries simply because its "us" spending the money is uninformed at the least. Chavez isn't the first to want the US to butt out where we don't belong. Ask the overthrown, duly elected Panamanian government ousted for US gain regardless of the will of the Panamanian people.

Sure, I would like the US to secure our borders and support our interests, but NOT by overthrowing freely elected governments, not by supporting regimes that trade for their benefit while their people suffer. Apparently our policy has become government our way or no way. How arrogant that we usurp the will of the people in other nations because we don't like how it looks or affects the interests of our huge corporations. It's disgusting.

@ playing pattycake : where in my comments did I say anything about interfering with elections? But at any rate why should we support that Communist in Venezuela or Bolivia after they basically stole infrastructure that American and British companies had invested capital into?

@3:33
You'd didn't say that, but your comments imply you support what the US policy is towards these countries. I don't think you are saying that when we offer aid to nations as they get self-sufficient that they then are beholden to us forever more to govern at our bidding, but that's how we operate.

I hate the process of having my naive view of the US turned on its head. As I learn more about how nations interfere for the sake of greed, I am ashamed that I looked at the world with blinders on for so much of my life. It is a pain in the tush to have to read multiple media sources to try and get an inkling of the true nature of world politics and our government's part in them. However, I'm determined to no longer stick my head in the sand and cheer our policies just because they are our policies.

One book that started opening my eyes, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." It addresses the very infrastructure "investment" of which you speak. From there it's studying global agriculture and pharmaceauticals for two then following the money trail.

@ 4:58 - I understand that American companies have not necessarily ever had the best interests of the Country they are operating in in mind but America is succesful primarily because of private property rights. They seem to have a difficult time ensuring private property rights when you go south of our border. They would get a lot more capital investment in their countries if they could do that.
Chavez may help his people in the short term by nationalizing oil but in the long run it will kill his country because no one is going to invest there and a government can't maintain or develop the infrastructure needed to drill oil.Watch what happens there in the next twenty years.
Columbias products can already come into America (I think) tariff free so the free trade agreement would allow America's products to go to Columbia tariff free - I understand why their trade unions oppose it , even though they are wrong, but I can't figure out why the Democrats won't support it.
Free trade always, always, always improves living standards

The economies in latin american countries isn't as it is here. It is close to a rigid class system if you are born poor, not much chance as here to lift yourself.

This is why there is rebellion down there to fight this injustice.

America in order to protect its economic interests has fought those trying to overturn this unfairness, this is why our citizens are being caught in the middle.

What these rebels did was wrong no question, I hope they are punished.

However their cause is just. We ought to recognize this and use our influence to right their society rather than oppose just change.