Skip to comments.Lurching Towards Fascism in Argentina
Posted on 04/17/2012 6:29:13 AM PDT by InsightSur
Argentina has just lurched toward becoming a Fascist nation as Peronist president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced the nations intentions to nationalize the largest oil company in the country yesterday.
Combined with rabble rousing rhetoric dredging up the impotent claim to the Falkland Islands, and a tightened control of the press, many fear that the leadership in Argentina have finally dropped all pretenses of a democratic and free market nation as they appear to be hurtling the nation towards populist policies that wrecked the entire continent of Europe during WWII.
Cristinas party controls the government, so there is little hope that the bill will fail in Congress. The move would mean the nationalization of YPF which is the largest oil and gas company in the resource rich nation.
Experts have expressed concern for the nations industry especially over the past decade, as restrictions, regulations, and taxes intended to redistribute wealth stifled any motivation to develop the countrys energy sources. Ironically, those selfsame regulations, taxes, and restrictions have largely been the cause of higher prices, and poor efficiencies cited as justification for the government seizure of property.
(Excerpt) Read more at insightsur.com ...
How in the heck can anyone legitimize the UK’s claim to the Falkland Islands? Uh, word to the unwashed but the UK ceased being an imperial power a looong time ago. As a matter of fact they have a hard enough time running their own country never mind dealing with some insignificant islands in the south Atlantic.
Silly beyond words. As for the rest of it, whatever.
Lessee, you’re the author, you’re the poster and it’s from your website.
Sure seems strange you have to excerpt yur own work - unless, just maybe, you’re trolling for hits.
I don't know. You cut off your blog in mid-sentence for some strange reason.
What seems to have caused you to excerpt your own Wordpress blog?
“How in the heck can anyone legitimize the UKs claim to the Falkland Islands?”
I’ve often thought the same thing. Hundreds of years ago imperial England took advantage of a fishing dispute and just kind of waltzed in uninvited and claimed the islands.
The question is, do you now just kick people off their land hundreds of years after the fact?
1. The islanders have asserted their desire to be British citizens.
2. The UK has held claim to the island for nearly 200 years (far longer than any claim Argentina may have)
...as a matter of fact, what claim does Argentina have to the island other than proximity?
The Commonwealth of Nations has 135 million citizens across the world. Why are the Falklands any different than New Zealand?
Whether or not they can still be protected is simply conjecture on your part, and not relevant to sovereignty of the islands.
“How in the heck can anyone legitimize the UKs claim to the Falkland Islands? Uh, word to the unwashed but the UK ceased being an imperial power a looong time ago. As a matter of fact they have a hard enough time running their own country never mind dealing with some insignificant islands in the south Atlantic.”
The legitimacy of the UK’s claim to the Falklands is identical to the legitimacy of the US claim on Hawaii - Hawaii is and will remain American as long as the residents wish to be American. Likewise as long as the people of the Falklands want to be British, the islands will remain British.
It’s about people and freedom, not rocks that stick out of the sea.
What's next is you post the rest of your blog.
That’s quite the can of logical worms you’ve opened.
Shouldn’t Argentina therefore be returned to whatever natives are left given that Europeans simply “waltzed in uninvited and claimed the country?” Same for the US? Should Australia be returned to the aborigines?
The Irish asserted their desire to kick the Brits the hell out of Northern Ireland. Did the Brits respect that?
The Falkland Islands belong to Britain and are populated by Britons. If you check a history book you'll discover that Australia and Canada started the same way. In each case: English-speaking people turned up in a boat and made a go of the place.
But if this is still a problem for you, first remove yourself from Indian territory. Then we'll talk.
BTW your blog is practically unreadable. I recommend a pale background for text.
I'd recommend he just post the whole mess right here and quit being a scumsucking blogpimp.
1. Excerpting is an option when posting. I chose to use it.
2. If my post is some sort of violation, feel free to remove it.
3. I am writing for my own enjoyment and development, and some posts have received positive responses from Freepers in the past. Note that there are no ads on the website.
4. Sharing on FR is not incumbent upon me. My preference is “excerpting” for the sake of control over my content. As it has become apparent that use of this function is reproachable, I will refrain from posting.
Sometimes I can’t see the forest for the trees. Thanks!
No, actually, I insist you continue to post on Free Republic, and that you do so solely and exclusively here, with full text, in perpetuity.
I disagree. He should post in English.
I don't speak no perpletooty.
This is a portiong of the song SAIL by AWOLNATION, in PerpleTooty.
“Shouldnt Argentina therefore be returned to whatever natives are left given that Europeans simply waltzed in uninvited and claimed the country? Same for the US? Should Australia be returned to the aborigines?”
Apples to Oranges. Early on just prior to European settlement those continents were mostly uninhabited and sparsely populated, unestablished as nations. Argentina was an established nation at the time and had a natural claim to the nearby islands.
You make a better argument by saying it’s been nearly 200 years, generations of Brits have been settled in the Falklands for centuries under UK rule, what’s established was established a long time ago, lets leave well enough alone, instead of trying to explain away old England’s claim to the islands that was based on imperial aggressive actions, a nation we ourselves had to extract from our territory.
On the contrary, I don’t buy the argument that simply occupying territory for long enough is justification for ownership. Does that mean that Tibet will be justifiably Chinese territory in 150 more years?
You’re playing semantics, and your argument was that if it was far back enough, it doesn’t matter. Your definition of justifiable landgrabs vs unjustafiable is entirely subjective.
Should the UK give the US Bermuda? Should Chile give Bolivia land they lost after the war? Should France give Germany territory taken just 60 years ago? Should Aruba be given to Venezuela simply because of its proximity?
The UK’s claim is far more justifiable than any of those.
Outside Columbia (and maybe Chile), this is why I would not have anything to do with any resource company with the majority of its assets in South America. Venezuela is fascist. Bolivia and Ecuador are socialist. Brazil is turning socialist.