US congresswoman lets rip at Argentina, CFK over China ties

[NoSoyDeAqui]

The current narrative exempts the peronists of any responsibility in the violence, near civil war, and coup in the 70s. Peron riled up the left, blessed Campora to reach power, and then came back with the likes of Lopez Rega and Osinde on his side. The internal war and chaos that ensued had way more influence in the coup than any external force. Peron was a power-hungry politician that nearly destroyed the country to reach his goal.

 

[Redpossum]

The real reason that Argentina can't buy planes or tanks from many western nations is because Argentina has this habit of not paying after buying, for instance, did you know that Argentina never paid the UK for the ARA Hercules and the ARA Santisima Trinidad?two type 42 destroyers built in the UK( Hercules) and built here but equipped by UK in 1980 (Trinidad) , this among many other weapons deals gone sour with western powers.
Just leave it to an Argentine to play victim and they'll convince you the world is against them.
And yes, military coups were backed by America same as the guerrilleros were backed by Cuba and every commie known to man that wanted to dip their hands in Latam. so..... boo hoo if the commies lost, maybe just maybe that's why a republican democracy still exists around here, only God knows what would've happened if the guerrilleros had won.
Perhaps, buying and paying would be a more simple way of doing business instead of letting foreign powers build bases on their territories.

You mean like this one? But hey, it's only for "humanitarian aid"

The establishment of a U.S. military base in Neuquén, Argentina, contributes an interesting piece of information: in 2011 the YPF company discovered a giant oilfield in Neuquén, and in 2018, the U.S. announces the construction of a humanitarian aid base here.

U.S. military presence in Latin America & the Caribbean

The United States has some 800 military bases around the world, with 76 in Latin America and the Caribbean to protect its hegemonic interests in the region

en.granma.cu

 

[mc kenna]

You mean like this one? But hey, it's only for "humanitarian aid"

The establishment of a U.S. military base in Neuquén, Argentina, contributes an interesting piece of information: in 2011 the YPF company discovered a giant oilfield in Neuquén, and in 2018, the U.S. announces the construction of a humanitarian aid base here.

U.S. military presence in Latin America & the Caribbean

The United States has some 800 military bases around the world, with 76 in Latin America and the Caribbean to protect its hegemonic interests in the region

en.granma.cu

Exactly! we call it humanitarian aid, the commies call it deep space observation.
So we are clear, if i had to choose between a commie base or an allied or American base in Argie land , i think you know where i stand.....

 

[Redpossum]

Mainly I just do not want this continent turning into another theatre of proxy conflict.

South America has been a relatively peaceful place for the last 40 years. With the FARC hanging up their guns and transforming themselves into a political party, and ELN apparently on their last legs, even the 60 year guerrilla war in Colombia seems to be winding down, marking the end of LATAM's last active insurgency.

Unless you consider Jones Huala and his Mapuche a wannabe insurgency, but I think that would be gross flattery. Though now I think about it, if a certain foreign power wanted to create a "terrorist organization" in order to find casus belli to invade either or both Patagonias, they might be a strong candidate. (cough Al Qaeda cough cough ISIS).

 

[mc kenna]

Mainly I just do not want this continent turning into another theatre of proxy conflict.

South America has been a relatively peaceful place for the last 40 years. With the FARC hanging up their guns and transforming themselves into a political party, and ELN apparently on their last legs, even the 60 year guerrilla war in Colombia seems to be winding down, marking the end of LATAM's last active insurgency.

Unless you consider Jones Huala and his Mapuche a wannabe insurgency, but I think that would be gross flattery. Though now I think about it, if a certain foreign power wanted to create a "terrorist organization" in order to find casus belli to invade either or both Patagonias, they might be a strong candidate. (cough Al Qaeda cough cough ISIS).

You see, we're talking about the same thing, Mapuches or wannabes are already on the back burner at a slow simmer, if there's one thing that Argentina showed over the years is that they love killing indians, unless in all of your years living here met many Pampa indians.
For these '' Mapuches'' burning private property and hurting civilians is the perfect excuse , then when things get out of hand we come in with our ''humanitarian aid'' lol.
Proxy conflicts is how all foreign powers settle their differences, i wish it wouldn't be that way, but at the end of the day is a less horrible option than full frontal conflict between nuclear powers.
Maybe i said it before but we, as the nobodies of the world, know by now that the world was never, it is not and it will never be, a healthy, fair , clean and safe place, and the ones making the decisions how to play this game don't care or want our opinion since there's a lot more at stake than our ''simple feelings'' or our understanding of fair.

 

[dsp27]

The real reason that Argentina can't buy planes or tanks from many western nations is because Argentina has this habit of not paying after buying, for instance, did you know that Argentina never paid the UK for the ARA Hercules and the ARA Santisima Trinidad?two type 42 destroyers built in the UK( Hercules) and built here but equipped by UK in 1980 (Trinidad) , this among many other weapons deals gone sour with western powers.
Just leave it to an Argentine to play victim and they'll convince you the world is against them.
And yes, military coups were backed by America same as the guerrilleros were backed by Cuba and every commie known to man that wanted to dip their hands in Latam. so..... boo hoo if the commies lost, maybe just maybe that's why a republican democracy still exists around here, only God knows what would've happened if the guerrilleros had won.
Perhaps, buying and paying would be a more simple way of doing business instead of letting foreign powers build bases on their territories.

Sure and the UK aka the Former British Empire has the habit of occupying others territory (Malvinas), 15.000 kms away.

 

[FrankPintor]

The real reason that Argentina can't buy planes or tanks from many western nations is because Argentina has this habit of not paying after buying, for instance, did you know that Argentina never paid the UK for the ARA Hercules and the ARA Santisima Trinidad?two type 42 destroyers built in the UK( Hercules) and built here but equipped by UK in 1980 (Trinidad) , this among many other weapons deals gone sour with western powers.

Any references for this? Just curious...

Any democratic Argentinian government would have been entirely correct to repudiate payment for equipment supplied to the dictatorship. It would be a well merited token slap across the face of the UK for arming dictatorships across the world, including sending submarines to Pinochet's Chile (these were, in fact, not paid for). I'm sure the UK arms lobby made out like bandits anyway.

 

[mc kenna]

Sure and the UK aka the Former British Empire has the habit of occupying others territory (Malvinas), 15.000 kms away.

As true as that is, we can't justify actions taken by Argentina in territories much much further than 15000 km away, for instance, Bouchard's fleet raiding pillaging burning and robbing anything they deemed under Spanish domain like Manila, Hawaii, California , Mexico, and most of the central american coast , this happening way prior to the Empire usurping the Malvinas so apparently being a pirate is only ok if it's done by argies.
The empire took and held the islands developing commerce different than Bouchard that he was only interested in destroying anything on his path.
Again, being impartial about historical events can be costly to our point of view and sometimes we find out our point of view is not so cut and dry.
I don't condone usurpation or piracy just to be clear.

 

[mc kenna]

Any references for this? Just curious...

Any democratic Argentinian government would have been entirely correct to repudiate payment for equipment supplied to the dictatorship. It would be a well merited token slap across the face of the UK for arming dictatorships across the world, including sending submarines to Pinochet's Chile (these were, in fact, not paid for). I'm sure the UK arms lobby made out like bandits anyway.

Reference to what? i'm sure you can look it up.
Great Britain assisting Chile is not new, as a matter of fact there was at least one war British ship involved in the bombardment of the coast of Boliva, when that country had a coast line after they were done ,Bolivia ceased to have access to the ocean, meantime Argentina was negotiating a border dispute with Chile for the lands below the colorado river all the way down to tierra del fuego , coincidentally the one deciding that was none other than Great Britain acting as referee in border disputes.(1870s more or less)
Giving Argentina all lands south of the colorado and east of the andes , as you can see as far as Britain was concerned the falklands were paid for years later with that verdict..
Now when it comes to acquiring debt ,for whatever goods or services, it is done in the name of the country and is binding, so refusing to pay for armament sold to Argentina is not Britains concern what government did it.
If you have any doubts see how well you do when your ex wife uses your credit card , i'm sure you can swiftly slap that explanation on the banks face and no doubt that will work every time.

 

[Redpossum]

As true as that is, we can't justify actions taken by Argentina in territories much much further than 15000 km away, for instance, Bouchard's fleet raiding pillaging burning and robbing anything they deemed under Spanish domain like Manila, Hawaii, California , Mexico, and most of the central american coast , this happening way prior to the Empire usurping the Malvinas so apparently being a pirate is only ok if it's done by argies.
The empire took and held the islands developing commerce different than Bouchard that he was only interested in destroying anything on his path.
Again, being impartial about historical events can be costly to our point of view and sometimes we find out our point of view is not so cut and dry.
I don't condone usurpation or piracy just to be clear.

That's a valid point, in its way.

But the problem with historical examples is that they happened a long time ago. Yet there is a fashionable trend of judging them by modern standards. Such things did not happen in the modern world, and to judge them by modern standards and sensibilities is ridiculous. When Alexander took the city of Tyre, at the end of a long siege, he had all the men killed and the women and children sold into slavery. Does history condemn him for this? No, he is remembered as a great man. Because these things happened in the 4th century BC, (or BCE if you prefer), when such things were accepted and considered normal.

As for Bouchard, he held a "corsair patent" or "letter of marque" from the Argentine government, which was at war with Spain. This made him a privateer, not a pirate, and meant that the things he did were legal by the laws of the day. Such were the accepted practices of the time, and one could easily point out numerous Englishmen who did the same things, more or less in the same places, and in France, and French overseas territories. Do I hear you condemning Sir Francis Drake, or Sir Walter Raleigh? At least in the UK, they are remembered as heroes.

My point is that history is just that, history. Certainly there is much to learn from it, but judging is hazardous, and almost always unfair, if not downright ridiculous.