Here's why I don't set foot on American soil anymore: 20 reasons to be ashamed to be American.
I especially liked reason 11: The Loss of Latin America:
Just eight years ago, the entire hemisphere save one pesky island was America's to squeeze, and squeeze we did, while they begged for IMF handouts that only pulled them deeper into serfdom on our manor. Then Bush came to power and launched the most inept coup in American history against Chavez. And now all of Latin America has turned into a bunch of Castro-loving fags, welching on our IMF loans, and even inviting Ahmadinejad over for siestas and nationalization ceremonies. The title of a recent McClatchy article says it all: "Farewell to the Monroe Doctrine?"
Even in their shame Americans still want to keep up their face in supposedly humor: ... welching on our IMF loans .... Time for a wake-up call and crunch the figures.
In Latin America, politicians go to hookers. In North America, politicians pretend they are fighting prostitution and pretend not going to hookers. The worst is, even the hooker won't have had a good time with Eliot Spitzer; this in contrast to the way Aécio Neves makes his 'raparigas' scream and giggle.
"20 Reasons Why We’re Ashamed To Be America"
By John Baeyens | Share This 
Comments
-
syckklam said:
-
John Baeyens said:
One can hardly claim that the US has been gaining influence in/on Argentina or Guatemala. The perception that the US gained influence on Colombia is also just varnish, you know that better than anyone. And Panama? When have you last been there? Just look at the companies which are winning bids in Panama: Brazilian (Odebrecht), Belgian (De Nul),... The US has simply vanished from Panama.
Latin America looking for answers? Not more than the US is looking for answers. The US is a market for Latin America, of decreasing importance; nothing more, nothing less.
As to the Latin American Union. There will never be a Latin American Union like there is a European Union. And that's good news for the continent. There's no reason why the union should be one which can be circled on a map. Rather look to: India, the middle east, South Africa, China,... the growing ties with LA are of high relevance.
Posted 17 years ago
-
syckklam said:
Ever look at the rising oil prices? Ever look at the alternative fuel options that the future holds? There is nothing with as efficient energy output as oil and alternative fuels will only cost more, until someone can figure out how hydrogen works.
How do you think LA is going to accomplish a commune with South Africa, China, India and the Middle East if they are seperated by x thousands of miles? Yes it can be done _now_ and still relatively cheaply. But we're talking about breaking off existing ties with the US and heavily taxed ties with their neighbors to rebuild them with the aforementioned. It takes time and the reliance on theorized future transportation costs.
I've heard it all before, but without a Latin American Union, with a shared port, it doesn't seem possible.
As for ties with Colombia, the government takes in a lot of dollars for very little gain. I have lived there, researched it, and done business there and still don't really understand how the system works. A lot of people hate the current president for his relationship with the US, but others praise him for finally opening up the doors to trade with them. The next president will surely be more or less pro-FARC and go in the opposite direction.
Argentina I'm sure I'm wrong about and while Panama is soliciting contracts with other countries, they still pay for them in US dollars.
I also find it funny you say you won't step foot on US soil, coming from a country with the worst track record of ruining countries with colonialism. Rwanda?
Don't get me wrong, John. I'm not pro US. I love Latin America and have invested time, resources, knowledge and capital into several countries. Far more than I have in the US. I am hopeful for a return, but I would be happier to see an economic resurgence.
I would love more than anything to see Colombia as a world power, in control of their own resources rather than constantly fighting for them. But I realize that as long as they don't have a port in Brasil or Venezuela, they will have difficulty trading with Africa and Europe. They don't have the industries that Brasil does nor the investment capital to compete. But they should.
I'm also not stupid enough to counter that the (so-called) US dominance of the world's economy is going to continue.
Hairgel.
Posted 17 years ago
Tags
American protectionism ANC Andrew Feinstein Apartamento em Niteroi Argentina argentina Azul Belgian-strike belgium biodiesel bonds borderlinx BOVESPA bovespa Brazilian_economy brazilian_real_currency_rate Brazil weekly news carbon casa casa em Florianopolis Colinas do Mar COPE credit crisis deflation dollar entrepeneurs environment ethanol EU recession exchange external_debt flights florianopolis food Gafisa GDP Brazil German_productivity global recession inflation Inga innovation interest rate Brazil interest rate South Africa keatingeconomics Latin America leisuretime Mbeki movie mozambique music national credit act Oceanair oil opportunity petrobras planning prime productivity real Real recession SAR sequoia solar South Africa south africa South_African_Economy south_africa_real_estate_2009 stagflation stocks timetracking united_states US economy 2009 US recession US_economy V-shape recession venezuela oil southafrica Zuma
Recent Comments
- LuckyLuke on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries Do you know that there is diet plan base ...
- JakeBoummaNom on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries Hi to all. Hope i'm wellcome here. ...
- Illulavop on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries http://imgwebsearch.com/35357/img0/casin ...
- fieftRopHoife on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries Hi I'm going to buy a bike. Counld someo ...
- fieftRopHoife on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries Hey I'm going to buy a bike. Counld some ...
- Domenus on Linkedin discussion on BRIC countries LetItBook.com - Books, magazines, audiob ...
I don't agree with the loss of diplomatic ties and so-called control of Latin America. While losing face with Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela, ties have strengthened with Colombia, Argentina, Guatemala and to a lesser extent Panama.
I would like to agree with that statement but a lot of what was said in the article is incorrect and unfounded.
And about the Coup attempt in 2002? Look at it this way. Chavez has support from everyone except the rich and has had a lot of outside support. Mossadegh was hated after he nationalized the oil. Even in his own country they were angry and confused, despite seeing him as a gracious national leader.
Castro is another failed attempt. Too many supporters. Even on the US side he had supporters. Sympathizers and the like.
Latin America is looking for answers while gaining their independence. They would like to get away from the US, but only the oil rich countries can manage WITHOUT a Latin American Union, which will not happen in our lifetimes. Too much bad blood. Too many machistas that don't know what a concession is. I've seen it in business and diplomacy. It's a cultural thing.
Over and out.
Posted 17 years ago