In my previous post in this thread I pointed out to a different problem, one that is certainly not exclusive of Argentina. But since the direction of the debate has once again turned into a debate about American foreign policy I guess then that its popularity must merit some discussion.
There is a World Order in contrast to a free arrangement of sovereign nations. The incarnation of that World Order is the New York based United Nations.
The United Nations was created and represents the interest of the non germanic white nations of the world and later China. More to the point, it was the umbrella organization for the Allied and specifically American victory over the Axis powers in WWII and indeed of the American and Siberian victory over the whole of Europe.
Countries that have outspokenly acted against the United Nations before its creation (Germany) and after (North Korea) have been submitted to the most uncontested demonization and isolation. "They turn you into a monster and then they call you one".
Argentina did not align herself promptly with the Allied winning powers and her lack of fealty was quiet fairly not rewarded. It was supposed that Argentina had gained enough during the war by maintaining neutrality, much like Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey or Persia. All of those countries suffered different fates.
Joe's very nice post about self-responsibility still, I must admit, doesn't answer Matias' very genuine concerns about how Argentina was "punished" by the international community for remaining neutral during the white people's civil war.
Matias never addresses the fact that not all neutral countries blame the United States for their troubles. Sweden and Turkey did not suffer the same consequences as Persia/Iran. Maybe Matias chip on the shoulder is that Peronism means Argentine Sovereignty at the expense of Argentines' wellbeing. That Argentine sovereignty and the Third Reich are no different in politics, only practice and scope, and that I'm not saying that as an accusation as I see all human beings equally potentially evil. I see that the losers are demonized more than the winners, at first - which is then compensated by the underdog argument
Now out of geopolitics:
Argentina's territory is only a third apt for agriculture (which is a lot!), the rest is good for forestry, mining and even sheep grazing. The population is a unique mix of General European, Southern European and Criollo and Indian South American. 50 years under the aegis of the British Commonwealth created excellent, now crumbling, infrastructure which raised the standard for Latin America.
Argentina has the potential to become both a successful country such as Chile or Uruguay, and a promising country with potential for growth such as Paraguay.
But it must first learn to behave in the international scene with neutrality but without hostility. Swizterland has managed, if that's the standard Argentina has propped itself, then that's the challenge.
Otherwise just "give in" to the Americans (when it's obviously too late) and try to become part of Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Heck even Norway is not part of the EU but part of EFTA. so is Switzerland!
Argentina must either fully embrace or let go of its geopolitical ambitions.
(I think that contest is already lost: Chile has access to both oceans while Argentina lost that disagreement without fighting a bullet, instead fighting the British who had nothing to do with it. Argentina is no longer of Geopolitical importance).
There is a World Order in contrast to a free arrangement of sovereign nations. The incarnation of that World Order is the New York based United Nations.
The United Nations was created and represents the interest of the non germanic white nations of the world and later China. More to the point, it was the umbrella organization for the Allied and specifically American victory over the Axis powers in WWII and indeed of the American and Siberian victory over the whole of Europe.
Countries that have outspokenly acted against the United Nations before its creation (Germany) and after (North Korea) have been submitted to the most uncontested demonization and isolation. "They turn you into a monster and then they call you one".
Argentina did not align herself promptly with the Allied winning powers and her lack of fealty was quiet fairly not rewarded. It was supposed that Argentina had gained enough during the war by maintaining neutrality, much like Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey or Persia. All of those countries suffered different fates.
Joe's very nice post about self-responsibility still, I must admit, doesn't answer Matias' very genuine concerns about how Argentina was "punished" by the international community for remaining neutral during the white people's civil war.
Matias never addresses the fact that not all neutral countries blame the United States for their troubles. Sweden and Turkey did not suffer the same consequences as Persia/Iran. Maybe Matias chip on the shoulder is that Peronism means Argentine Sovereignty at the expense of Argentines' wellbeing. That Argentine sovereignty and the Third Reich are no different in politics, only practice and scope, and that I'm not saying that as an accusation as I see all human beings equally potentially evil. I see that the losers are demonized more than the winners, at first - which is then compensated by the underdog argument
Now out of geopolitics:
Argentina's territory is only a third apt for agriculture (which is a lot!), the rest is good for forestry, mining and even sheep grazing. The population is a unique mix of General European, Southern European and Criollo and Indian South American. 50 years under the aegis of the British Commonwealth created excellent, now crumbling, infrastructure which raised the standard for Latin America.
Argentina has the potential to become both a successful country such as Chile or Uruguay, and a promising country with potential for growth such as Paraguay.
But it must first learn to behave in the international scene with neutrality but without hostility. Swizterland has managed, if that's the standard Argentina has propped itself, then that's the challenge.
Otherwise just "give in" to the Americans (when it's obviously too late) and try to become part of Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Heck even Norway is not part of the EU but part of EFTA. so is Switzerland!
Argentina must either fully embrace or let go of its geopolitical ambitions.
(I think that contest is already lost: Chile has access to both oceans while Argentina lost that disagreement without fighting a bullet, instead fighting the British who had nothing to do with it. Argentina is no longer of Geopolitical importance).
Although it made sense to me, particularly in light of Matias' comments about increased consumption - any increased consumption in this economic environment, any extra spending and, therefore consumption on the part of many, is because no one sees a point in keeping their pesos and are spending them as they get them - before they devalue any farther. It sure as hell ain't healthy consumption, more as though related to a disease. And with the government continuously attacking the blue rate and its providers over the last few months, they've managed to heavily distort one of the last free markets available in this country.