4 ms·

This is where years of bad governance gets you. Not to mention, the previous government kind of set some time bombs before passing the government over to Milei

This is where years of bad governance gets you. Not to mention, the previous government kind of set some time bombs before passing the government over to Milei. https://www.ambito.com/opiniones/las-bombas-que-le-dejan-javier-milei-n5890679 https://www.ambito.com/opiniones/las-bombas-que-le-dejan-jav...

theossuary 3y ago
Or maybe from the CIA overthrowing your elected leader in favor of a military dictatorship? I feel like that'd leave scars on any country 50 years deep.
- mancerayder 3y ago
  What's the causal relationship between that military dictatorship in the 70s and mismanagement and overspending today? What does scar mean here?
  - mancerayder 3y ago
    Downvoted for asking to dig deeper into the metaphor: scar.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Except the decline of Argentina started with the 1930 coup, which the US had nothing to do with. Then there were four other coups the US wasn’t involved in.
  - theossuary 3y ago
    Yes, but all sides were roughly equal in power until the US came in and provided support to the far right faction, leading to 30000-50000 deaths from state sponsored terrorism, known as the dirty wars. Of course Kissinger was involved, he always seemed to be, saying "If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly." Maybe you'd think that's all it was, tacit approval. But the final set of US military documents were finally declassified in 2020, showing the alliance between the far right dictators in the southern cone was brought together by the USA to murder their political enemies (Plan Condor). This was part of US's foreign policy of stopping communism no matter the cost. But in the process they completely threw the balance of power out of wack, and destroyed an entire generation of students, professors, and political opponents. It's sad that we know all of this now, no government is denying it. But for some reason there's still a huge group of people who refuse to believe the fucked up things the US did during its Banana Republic years. You could throw a dart as south America and find a fucked up thing the US did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/americas/argentina-dictatorship-cia-documents.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/americas/argentina-... https://unredacted.com/2019/04/12/u-s-completes-historic-transfer-of-47000-declassified-documents-to-argentine-government-frinformsum-4-12-2019/ https://unredacted.com/2019/04/12/u-s-completes-historic-tra...
    - blovescoffee 3y ago
      I agree with your premise that the US did substantial harm in LATAM including Argentina. I reject the notion that the issues and history in Argentina are so simple that we can pin its poverty rate on the CIA. Can you at least substantiate how the Peron government leads to the poverty rates that currently exist in Argentina?
      - theossuary 3y ago
        I feel like I covered that pretty well with the links I added? Argentina definitely stumbled in the early twentieth century, but were still in a decent position due to large immigration from Europe and early century gains to be a powerhouse economically. Then Peron took over, and over the next few decades he, and the puppets he put in power did many awful things, you really have to read about it if you haven't. He saw the middle class as politically dangerous and tried to surpress them; for example he fired thousands of university professors from every major university in the country. It was in the years following the Argentinian economy actually began to tank. After Peron was finally expelled, there was an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging he caused, but sadly Peron was able to come back after a coup. Finally he died in the early the 70s and his wife took over, continue his legacy (for example she signed an order to kill leftists). So it should be obvious at this point that Peron fucked everything up royally, and took a good economy and wrecked it. Then the US gets involved. Operation Condor in part helped execute the overthrow of the wife, which would have been a good thing; except they replaced her with someone worse. After the coup, the courts were shut down, Congress disbanded, political parties barred. This was when the systematic state sponsored terrorism began in earnest, and the final nail in Argentina economically. So at this point you either are convinced, or not; but I'm tired of doing your research for you. If you disagree, please include the relevant context to back it up, at least.
        southernplaces7 3y ago
        So pray tell, how is it that Chile, which suffered the same sort of counterproductive and ultimately idiotic CIA meddling, ended up being a prosperous Latina American country after the decades passed? Argentina and a number of other states in the region suffered certain consequences of US intervention, sure, but it's idiotically simplistic to blame their complex multi-decade economic woes on this alone, while ignoring these same decades of leftist populism, corruption in general and government mismanagement and all its consequences. If anything, the boogeyman of the CIA/military industrial complex has been a persistently convenient, singular scapegoat of ideologically charged arguments for such failures for far too long, and it's ridiculous that some people who should know better with more modern evidence continue to take it so seriously.

theossuary 3y ago

Or maybe from the CIA overthrowing your elected leader in favor of a military dictatorship? I feel like that'd leave scars on any country 50 years deep.

mancerayder 3y ago
What's the causal relationship between that military dictatorship in the 70s and mismanagement and overspending today? What does scar mean here?
- mancerayder 3y ago
  Downvoted for asking to dig deeper into the metaphor: scar.
rayiner 3y ago
Except the decline of Argentina started with the 1930 coup, which the US had nothing to do with. Then there were four other coups the US wasn’t involved in.
- theossuary 3y ago
  Yes, but all sides were roughly equal in power until the US came in and provided support to the far right faction, leading to 30000-50000 deaths from state sponsored terrorism, known as the dirty wars. Of course Kissinger was involved, he always seemed to be, saying "If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly." Maybe you'd think that's all it was, tacit approval. But the final set of US military documents were finally declassified in 2020, showing the alliance between the far right dictators in the southern cone was brought together by the USA to murder their political enemies (Plan Condor). This was part of US's foreign policy of stopping communism no matter the cost. But in the process they completely threw the balance of power out of wack, and destroyed an entire generation of students, professors, and political opponents. It's sad that we know all of this now, no government is denying it. But for some reason there's still a huge group of people who refuse to believe the fucked up things the US did during its Banana Republic years. You could throw a dart as south America and find a fucked up thing the US did. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/americas/argentina-dictatorship-cia-documents.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/americas/argentina-... https://unredacted.com/2019/04/12/u-s-completes-historic-transfer-of-47000-declassified-documents-to-argentine-government-frinformsum-4-12-2019/ https://unredacted.com/2019/04/12/u-s-completes-historic-tra...
  - blovescoffee 3y ago
    I agree with your premise that the US did substantial harm in LATAM including Argentina. I reject the notion that the issues and history in Argentina are so simple that we can pin its poverty rate on the CIA. Can you at least substantiate how the Peron government leads to the poverty rates that currently exist in Argentina?
    - theossuary 3y ago
      I feel like I covered that pretty well with the links I added? Argentina definitely stumbled in the early twentieth century, but were still in a decent position due to large immigration from Europe and early century gains to be a powerhouse economically. Then Peron took over, and over the next few decades he, and the puppets he put in power did many awful things, you really have to read about it if you haven't. He saw the middle class as politically dangerous and tried to surpress them; for example he fired thousands of university professors from every major university in the country. It was in the years following the Argentinian economy actually began to tank. After Peron was finally expelled, there was an attempt to stop the hemorrhaging he caused, but sadly Peron was able to come back after a coup. Finally he died in the early the 70s and his wife took over, continue his legacy (for example she signed an order to kill leftists). So it should be obvious at this point that Peron fucked everything up royally, and took a good economy and wrecked it. Then the US gets involved. Operation Condor in part helped execute the overthrow of the wife, which would have been a good thing; except they replaced her with someone worse. After the coup, the courts were shut down, Congress disbanded, political parties barred. This was when the systematic state sponsored terrorism began in earnest, and the final nail in Argentina economically. So at this point you either are convinced, or not; but I'm tired of doing your research for you. If you disagree, please include the relevant context to back it up, at least.
      - southernplaces7 3y ago
        So pray tell, how is it that Chile, which suffered the same sort of counterproductive and ultimately idiotic CIA meddling, ended up being a prosperous Latina American country after the decades passed? Argentina and a number of other states in the region suffered certain consequences of US intervention, sure, but it's idiotically simplistic to blame their complex multi-decade economic woes on this alone, while ignoring these same decades of leftist populism, corruption in general and government mismanagement and all its consequences. If anything, the boogeyman of the CIA/military industrial complex has been a persistently convenient, singular scapegoat of ideologically charged arguments for such failures for far too long, and it's ridiculous that some people who should know better with more modern evidence continue to take it so seriously.