| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Summit of the Americas
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Summit of the Americas

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Summit of the Americas
    Posted: 16 Apr 2012 at 17:27
Talk about mindless dogma. The Latin American countries line up behind Argentina over the Falklands for no clear logical reason, but just because, I suppose, they feel a certain kinship. And the US and Canada single out Cuba for human rights abuses, excluding them from the summit. As though there is no history of human rights abuses (some much worse than those of Cuba) in other Latin American countries.
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2012 at 18:04
Most decisive factor for one's decision is what I called as "aidiyet" (feeling of belonging). It is foremost powerful motivation behind decisions. It's present in all societies but weaker you are, poorer you are or/and aggrieved you are, then you will most likely to make decisions according to feeling of belonging, because you will bypass logical reasoning with that feelings. But it is exists with a purpose. It is that feeling makes bound people together to archieve common good...

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 17 Apr 2012 at 01:10
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Apr 2012 at 21:01
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Most decisive factor for one's decision is what I called as "aidiyet" (feeling of belonging). It is foremost powerful motivation behind decisions. It's present in all societies but weaker you are, poorer you are or/and aggrieved you are, than you will most likely to make decisions according to feeling of belonging, because you will bypass logical reasoning with that feelings. But it is exists with a purpose. It is that feeling makes bound people together to arcieve common good...
 
 
Yes, good point. Group indentification can be a powerful factor, even among those whose job it is to try and transcend such feelings.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 01:20
Also. The rejection of colonialism is something all Latin American countries have in common, so no wonder they support Argentina.

With respect to Cuba, that country is seen as a failure, and as a former exporter of the communist revolutions. That's the negative side of cuba as seen from here. However, at the same time, Cuba is admired because it opposed the American imperialism against all odds.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 01:37
Many countries in the region have "failed" repeatedly, but Cuba is singled out because it twisted the lion's tale once, a half century ago, and the lion has a long memory for those sorts of things. Canada is looking even more foolish in this instance, as it didn't even have it's tail twisted. The Harper government is simply taking an ideological stance.
Back to Top
fusong View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 476
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fusong Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 01:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Also. The rejection of colonialism is something all Latin American countries have in common, so no wonder they support Argentina.

With respect to Cuba, that country is seen as a failure, and as a former exporter of the communist revolutions. That's the negative side of cuba as seen from here. However, at the same time, Cuba is admired because it opposed the American imperialism against all odds.


While I dont always support Castro the administration was better than what the nation had before

American Plantations
THE FORGOTTEN LATINUM-
http://www.worldhistoria.com/a-sort-of-western-rement-of-rome_topic127307.html

I do not fight for any country, I am a citizen of the world- Eugene Debs
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 01:46
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Many countries in the region have "failed" repeatedly, but Cuba is singled out because it twisted the lion's tale once, a half century ago, and the lion has a long memory for those sorts of things. Canada is looking even more foolish in this instance, as it didn't even have it's tail twisted. The Harper government is simply taking an ideological stance.


Well, if you allow me the coloquial language, Cuba not only "twisted the lion't tale" but almost "nuked the ass-off the cat!!" Confused... No wonder Americans have good memory.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 04:47
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Many countries in the region have "failed" repeatedly, but Cuba is singled out because it twisted the lion's tale once, a half century ago, and the lion has a long memory for those sorts of things. Canada is looking even more foolish in this instance, as it didn't even have it's tail twisted. The Harper government is simply taking an ideological stance.


Well, if you allow me the coloquial language, Cuba not only "twisted the lion't tale" but almost "nuked the ass-off the cat!!" Confused... No wonder Americans have good memory.
 
I tempest in a teapot really. The US was outraged at the thought of offensive forces nearby in 1962 only because they were riding high from the successes of WW2, and of having the good fortune to be geographically isolated from the unpleasantness. Having forces with ill intent within a few hundred miles has been the historical fate of both Europe and Russia. America simply couldn't stand it, and so made a life or death issue of it. The irony was that within a few short years, technology made the event more or less irrelevant anyway.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 06:01
Oh, it could be much worse. At least a state secretary isn't captured on video partying it up or the President's secret service detail aren't haggling over prices with prostitutes for services rendered. On second thought... G*d help us!
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 06:23
Let Hillary down her one beer and have her rather tame dance. You don't expect her to knit doileys to blow off steam do you?

Events like these serve as an opportunity for real power brokers to do intensive mingling. It reminds me of how during a recent APEC summit the Indonesians bought a heap of military hardware from the Russians. These are the sorts of deals that get worked out when people work face to face over an extended period in both formal and informal events.


Edited by Constantine XI - 17 Apr 2012 at 06:25
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 06:49
The comment on Hillary was only done in jest with political levity in mind. However, the comment on the Secret Service,  is nothing to joke about. 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 14:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Also. The rejection of colonialism is something all Latin American countries have in common, so no wonder they support Argentina.

With respect to Cuba, that country is seen as a failure, and as a former exporter of the communist revolutions. That's the negative side of cuba as seen from here. However, at the same time, Cuba is admired because it opposed the American imperialism against all odds.
 
Does this rejection extend to Chile's colonial rule over the Easter islands and the Bio Bio region?
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 16:24
The embargo on Cuba is still in place in order to placate the Cuban/American lobby. The time to dump it in the garbage can of history is long overdue. The only people it's hurting is Cuba's poor.

Cubans have never had Nukes. Having had them on their island has cost them dearly. I hope to see big changes after Castro's demise, both of them.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 17:41
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

The embargo on Cuba is still in place in order to placate the Cuban/American lobby. The time to dump it in the garbage can of history is long overdue. The only people it's hurting is Cuba's poor.

Cubans have never had Nukes. Having had them on their island has cost them dearly. I hope to see big changes after Castro's demise, both of them.
 
 
Foreign policy dictated by lobbbyists. Not the best way to pump up a nation's credibility and prestige in the world.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2012 at 19:14
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Also. The rejection of colonialism is something all Latin American countries have in common, so no wonder they support Argentina.

With respect to Cuba, that country is seen as a failure, and as a former exporter of the communist revolutions. That's the negative side of cuba as seen from here. However, at the same time, Cuba is admired because it opposed the American imperialism against all odds.


While I dont always support Castro the administration was better than what the nation had before

American Plantations

Batista was a crud ball. He was hand in glove with organized crime to include Kennedy senior. The poorest of the very poor are better off with the revolution. The rest of the country is not. They are mostly living from hand to mouth. A lot of that can be blamed on the embargo.


Edited by Buckskins - 17 Apr 2012 at 19:16
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 01:19
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Does this rejection extend to Chile's colonial rule over the Easter islands and the Bio Bio region?


Those territories are contiguos to Chile. In fact, Chile is the closest land to Easter Island. What would you preffer? That our island would be French or British? (colonial powers from the antipodes that has anything to do in the Pacific)



Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1318
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 03:02
Some points: First of all, Latin solidarity behind Argentina over the Malvinas is not necessarily important. Brasil supported Argentina during the Malvinas war, yet allowed British military craft to land and refuel there. Thus, they supported Argentina "in principal" but not necessarily in fact. Frankly, I felt that the U.S. should have supported Argentina in principal, while continuing our warm treaty relations with Great Britain. And as is now generally known, there was some intelligence support provided to British forces, which I assume was access to certain satellite photography that was then highly classified. We could have provided the same while supporting Argentina "in principal", but Ronald Reagan was a shameless Anglohpile.

Second, regarding Cuba, to anyone who tells me that at least the Castro government is better than Batista's, all I can say is that the Batista government was crumbling when Fidel rode into Havana. It didn't have to be replaced by a dictatorship.  Fidel was not the only Cuban with differing ideas on how Cuba should have been governed. Except for the far right wing of the Republican Party, Americans don't really give a damn who runs Cuba as long as they no longer have nuclear armed missiles on their soil. But, the U.s. is a democracy, and squeaky wheels get the grease. The right wing of the Cuban-American community is the squeakiest wheel in Miami, and Miami and Florida count for votes. So the embargo goes on long after any utility had died. That's the nature of American democratic politics. Cuban exiles have even longer memories. 

In 1962 the Canadian government was also concerned about those missiles, and the Norad Command that watched the skies during the Missile Crisis included RCAF elements. After all, and war between the US and USSR would have involved Canada, whether the Canadians liked it or not. Cuba itself was not the threat, but merely the locus of it. The Cubans never had any control over the Russian missiles, much to Guevara's disgust.  

Oh, Latin solidarity over the Malvinas has nothing to do with rejecting colonialism, and everything to do with respecting the sanctity of territorial claims inherited from the former colonial powers.


Edited by lirelou - 18 Apr 2012 at 03:06
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 09:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Does this rejection extend to Chile's colonial rule over the Easter islands and the Bio Bio region?


Those territories are contiguos to Chile. In fact, Chile is the closest land to Easter Island. What would you preffer? That our island would be French or British? (colonial powers from the antipodes that has anything to do in the Pacific)
 
Perhaps the Rapa Nui people could be allowed to rule themselves without colonial overlords? If they need any help they could get it from the international community, without having to give up their land.


Edited by Carcharodon - 18 Apr 2012 at 09:45
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 09:48
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Some points: First of all, Latin solidarity behind Argentina over the Malvinas is not necessarily important. Brasil supported Argentina during the Malvinas war, yet allowed British military craft to land and refuel there. Thus, they supported Argentina "in principal" but not necessarily in fact. Frankly, I felt that the U.S. should have supported Argentina in principal, while continuing our warm treaty relations with Great Britain. And as is now generally known, there was some intelligence support provided to British forces, which I assume was access to certain satellite photography that was then highly classified. We could have provided the same while supporting Argentina "in principal", but Ronald Reagan was a shameless Anglohpile.

Second, regarding Cuba, to anyone who tells me that at least the Castro government is better than Batista's, all I can say is that the Batista government was crumbling when Fidel rode into Havana. It didn't have to be replaced by a dictatorship.  Fidel was not the only Cuban with differing ideas on how Cuba should have been governed.
 
 
Extremism tends to promote a backlash, and one can argue this is what happened in Cuba. Given the history of US interventions in the region, and in particular in Cuba, in order to modify any and all regimes to ones favourable to US interests, it is not too surprising that a rather aggressive stance was taken by Castro to protect what he saw (rightly or wrongly) as the best course to take.
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

 Except for the far right wing of the Republican Party, Americans don't really give a damn who runs Cuba as long as they no longer have nuclear armed missiles on their soil. But, the U.s. is a democracy, and squeaky wheels get the grease. The right wing of the Cuban-American community is the squeakiest wheel in Miami, and Miami and Florida count for votes. So the embargo goes on long after any utility had died. That's the nature of American democratic politics. Cuban exiles have even longer memories. 
 
I humbly suggest a modification to your statement to say that squeaky wheels get the grease in democracies that are sliding into corruption and dysfunction. How else can one say that the wants of one tenth of one percent of the population, extremist ideology at that, can gain control of a major aspect of US foreign policy? It is a measure of how poorly the system is functioning  seeing how easily various special interest groups can hijack the agenda, and how this is laughed off as just normal by so many. It is a familiar story: small numbers with radical urges, who also enjoy financial leverage, shower money on politicians, who desparately need it in a system with few limits on campaigning, who then employ rhetoric to a larger following who are swayed without too much effort, due to a small knowledge base and short attention span. I'd say this goes beyond what most would consider normal democratic politics, at least ethical and well functioning politics.
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


In 1962 the Canadian government was also concerned about those missiles, and the Norad Command that watched the skies during the Missile Crisis included RCAF elements. After all, and war between the US and USSR would have involved Canada, whether the Canadians liked it or not. Cuba itself was not the threat, but merely the locus of it. The Cubans never had any control over the Russian missiles, much to Guevara's disgust.  
 
It was the height of the cold war, and Canada, and many other countries, would have been drawn in to a major conflict. But this is really side-stepping the point. It was the US that found itself in conflict with Cuba, because they had backed a strongman that was rotten to the core, and hence provoked popular resentment, and, eventually, revolution (where have we heard this before?). It was a pivotal moment for the US, as for once sending in a marine brigade, or a CIA team, was not going to be enough to protect commercial interests in a Latin American country. It was an uncomfortable revelation for many with rightist views in America, a discomfort that has been continually re-stoked by said group, in partnership with elements of the Cuban refugee community in Florida, to this day.
 
It was this conflict of interests that lead to missiles being placed in Cuba, something that may have been avoided with a more even handed approach to Cuba by the US. This was a second twist of the lions's tale, as the US had long enjoyed geographic isolaton from the threat of hostile forces on its doorstep. The Soviets had US missiles on their doorstep, and had to live with it, but the US was outraged at similar treatment. And so a double insult  to US sensibilities almost lead to WW3. It was all foolishness anyway of course, as technology would soon render the issue unimportant. ICBMs and effective submarine launched missiles were already being developed and deployed, making doorsteps much less valuable in strategic terms.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Oh, Latin solidarity over the Malvinas has nothing to do with rejecting colonialism, and everything to do with respecting the sanctity of territorial claims inherited from the former colonial powers.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 14:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Does this rejection extend to Chile's colonial rule over the Easter islands and the Bio Bio region?


Those territories are contiguos to Chile. In fact, Chile is the closest land to Easter Island. What would you preffer? That our island would be French or British? (colonial powers from the antipodes that has anything to do in the Pacific)



 
Did you consult the people of those islands if they want Chilean rule and white settlement/land theft or you think the nearest white country should rule over the land regardless of the wishes of the natives?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2012 at 15:42
When did the population of Chile become white.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 01:03
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Some points: First of all, Latin solidarity behind Argentina over the Malvinas is not necessarily important. Brasil supported Argentina during the Malvinas war, yet allowed British military craft to land and refuel there. Thus, they supported Argentina "in principal" but not necessarily in fact. Frankly, I felt that the U.S. should have supported Argentina in principal, while continuing our warm treaty relations with Great Britain. And as is now generally known, there was some intelligence support provided to British forces, which I assume was access to certain satellite photography that was then highly classified. We could have provided the same while supporting Argentina "in principal", but Ronald Reagan was a shameless Anglohpile.


Sure, but at those ancient times Brazil lacked nuclear subs.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Oh, Latin solidarity over the Malvinas has nothing to do with rejecting colonialism, and everything to do with respecting the sanctity of territorial claims inherited from the former colonial powers.


You can't speak on the name of Latin America.  If you knew the region the better would know that most of what ever united us is our common rejection of colonial overseas bullying.



Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 01:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
Did you consult the people of those islands if they want Chilean rule and white settlement/land theft or you think the nearest white country should rule over the land regardless of the wishes of the natives?
 
Al-Jassas


Who said we are white?
In second term, the anexation of Easter Island was by treaty. The Mapuche territory was invaded, indeed, but only after the natives broke the treaties.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 01:06
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

When did the population of Chile become white.


Indeed. We are mainly of Spanish and native descend, not White by the American standard, I am afraid.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 1616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 02:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Oh, Latin solidarity over the Malvinas has nothing to do with rejecting colonialism, and everything to do with respecting the sanctity of territorial claims inherited from the former colonial powers.


You can't speak on the name of Latin America.  If you knew the region the better would know that most of what ever united us is our common rejection of colonial overseas bullying.



My estimate is that you are both off track. The Falklands issue has nothing to do with inherited land claims, nor colonial "bullying". It has everything to do with the perennial dysfunction of the Argentine government, which has short-changed its citizens numerous times over the years, and is doing so again. It is deflecting criticism by again striking out at items it considers iconic, and hence an easy escape from harder realities. Their latest (aside from the Falklands nonsense) antic is to "bully" Repsol, the Spanish firm they nationalized, in the hope that it can buy some time, and escape reality for a bit longer. This is government by way of three ring circus.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2005
Location: Melbourne, Aus
Status: Offline
Points: 7771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 03:26
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

The comment on Hillary was only done in jest with political levity in mind. However, the comment on the Secret Service,  is nothing to joke about. 


Ah it was hard to tell with them both lumped together like that. I do wonder how the US would have turned out with Hillary at the helm instead. She's looking good for her age.

Do we have any other important news result from this summit?
Nullius in verba
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1318
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 03:50
Captain V, You of course raise some valid points, but you do realize that the United States was not backing Batista, and indeed had cut off all military aid to Cuba. At the time, no small number of Americans who cared about Cuba supported Castro, who had Ernest Hemingway in his corner.

Yes, the United States had intervened numerous time in the Caribbean and Central America, usually at the behest of one party to a local feud. Yes, it was paternalistic, even though the interventions often benefited the common people with infrastructure projects paid for by income that was not being siphoned off by local elites. Some historians note that once the Marines departed, the infrastructure soon fell apart, money dried up, and poverty got worse. But the U.S. ended its Banana Wars in 1933. 
They did send warships to Cuba that year over the Machado incident, but that would hardly justify Fidel's tenure in power. 

Is it possible that Fidel is right? That the Cubans are incapable of self-government and need a caudillo to guide them along the correct path? Hmmm.

As to the Falklands, you are correct in regards to Argentina. however I believe the original question was directed to the statements of solidarity from the other LA governments, many of whom have border disputes of their own, all of which date back to the colonial era. And taht was the question I was replying to. But yes, these nationalizations smack of the Peron era, which bankrupted a country which had been ahead of the U.S. in 1900. The lure of populism and the scent of "free" money.
 


Edited by lirelou - 19 Apr 2012 at 03:55
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 07:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Who said we are white?
In second term, the anexation of Easter Island was by treaty. The Mapuche territory was invaded, indeed, but only after the natives broke the treaties.
 
Treaties or not, chileans had nothing to do on Mapuche land in the first place. And many such treaties was just shams to trick the natives.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Apr 2012 at 18:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

When did the population of Chile become white.


Indeed. We are mainly of Spanish and native descend, not White by the American standard, I am afraid.

I know that Penguin.

It was in response to " and white settlement/land theft or you think the nearest white country should rule over the land"


May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 14945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2012 at 02:39
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

My estimate is that you are both off track. The Falklands issue has nothing to do with inherited land claims, nor colonial "bullying". It has everything to do with the perennial dysfunction of the Argentine government, which has short-changed its citizens numerous times over the years, and is doing so again. It is deflecting criticism by again striking out at items it considers iconic, and hence an easy escape from harder realities. Their latest (aside from the Falklands nonsense) antic is to "bully" Repsol, the Spanish firm they nationalized, in the hope that it can buy some time, and escape reality for a bit longer. This is government by way of three ring circus.


Your estimate is wrong.

The perennial arrogancy of Britain, which still believe it is a great superpower, it is the only obstacle for resolving the problem.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.328 seconds.