Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The situation between the USA and the rest of the continent (except Canada) has always been difficult. The people "south of the border", from México to Argentina, are very proud and they don't want to give up their sovereignty to the gringos that have ruined country after country.
The shared history between American countries is so messed up that ANY help from the U.S. could be seen as an attempt to take over the "lesser" country.
Here's a list of some the reasons why the LA countries are wary of the US: the embargo to Cuba; the U.S. lending forces to topple regimes when it suits them; enforcing treaties that fuck over some of the least developed countries of the region (e.g. Nicaragua and their canal); invasions to another country because they're in the middle of a revolution (México 1914); false flag operations to bring some LA countries into the war; the whole "siding with the UK" during the Falklands mess.
Were these things justified? Most of those country don't care. All they see is a powerful "ally" that will screw them over at the first opportunity. So, even though the US offers to provide more help so those countries can solve their problems, they refuse out of fear of losing what they have.
Why do you think the "Community of Latin American and Caribbean States" was founded?
If, on top of all that history of mistrust between the US and Latin American countries (especially its closest neighbour, México), you add things like the "Fast and Furious" scandal, then it's not hard to see why it's so difficult to get together to solve these problems.
![]()
Jut a couple of corrections.
1. It was the Panama Canal and the treaty was favorable more to Panama. They got paid for use of the canal zone and had it returned to them anyway.
2. Poncho Villa and his gang crossed the border and killed several americans. Pershing was sent to put him and his gang down.
3. The Cuban embargo was in response to Castro forcing some of his people into exile and nationalizing American businesses he said would be left alone. He was just a bad as Batista.
edited 27th Jul '15 4:45:30 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.![]()
It's only one of the reasons.
Generally speaking, the U.S. and Latin American countries have always been on opposite sides when it comes to ideologies, and this is older than the Cold War. For example, many LA countries thought Fascism was pretty cool and they'd have sided with the Axis if Germany had had an actual chance of winning the war.
I think there's also some resentment from the whole "America for the Americans". That is, LA wasn't happy to hear the US saying they were the only ones who could exploit the continent (which is how the doctrine was/is perceived).
Wrong.
1. Nicaragua wanted to build its own canal after Panamá got hers, they even had plans to use the Nicaraguan lakes and how much it'd cost. However, a US general helped a Nicaragua politician (read as: dictator) and in turn got the government to sign a treaty that stated that if a canal was built in the country, it'd belong to the US.
Or so the story goes.
2. Before Villa raided the US in 1916, President Wilson sent US forces to occupy the port of Veracruz, México in April 1914. México broke diplomatic relations with the US in turn and the ABC (Argentina, Brazil and Chile) and Spain had to intervene to stop a full out war between both countries.
Not to mention the shady things Henry Lane Wilson (the US ambassador in México) did, like helping Victoriano Huerta to oust the elected president of México. Which in turn triggered the revolution.
3. The LA countries that opposed the embargo (openly or otherwise) saw it as proof that the US would try to fuck them if given the chance. It might seem stupid, but it's one of the reasons for the mistrust.
The thing with Argentina was a mess. At least in my country (and the countries it influenced), it was expected of the US to remain neutral (like many did) or work with both countries to settle things diplomatically, without taking sides.
Was that expectation realistic or beneficial in the long run? Who cares. But all the Falklands mess did was create another rift between the US and the rest of the continent, and expose the Río Treaty as the joke it was.
edited 27th Jul '15 5:10:59 PM by Cid
What canal in Nicaragua? The new one that China is doing, while many in the newspapers and other places are screaming bloody murder over the thing, the government has yet to say anything about it. Also of course we take the UK's side on the Falklands dispute, it's the only sane one for reasons that will be spelled out if you go over to the Argentina thread. If anything we should favor the British more and just plain tell Argentina to fuck off,as opposed to calling for negotiations.
Edit: From what I have been told the Nazi's are ether ignored or downright popular in the parts of the world that are not the west or the former Soviet Union,with the exception of the Baltic's who prefer to focus on Soviet atrocities. I remember reading that they are particularly popular in parts of the Muslim world, due to their efforts to stir an uprising in that region, as well as the fact that they are viewed as the closest thing to the Antichrist by the Jews,the US,the USSR, and the European empress, in short everyone that the Muslim world felt,rightly in many cases, was keeping them down.
Edit 2: Though the Arab world is far front the only place Hitler is admired, in Asia he is apparently viewed as a great conquerer with a taste for snazzy uniforms and nothing more. In addition, the type of fascism practiced by the Latin American nations was apparently closer to that done by Bunio Mussolini than Adolf Hitler.
Argentina started the War with the British, I fail to see how that qualifies as an "attack" on Argentina.
edited 27th Jul '15 5:14:11 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Er... my country distributed Nazi propaganda before and during the war. Even after we declared war on Germany (and Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc).
There was a lot of admiration for Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, and not just in Argentina (although they were the least subtle of all LA regarding that).
We received a lot of German refugees after the war. And not the kind you'd received in the US.
Seriously, I know how messed up my country and its neighbours are. Do you?
Re "Argentina": As I said, it was expected that the US would remain neutral and a) let Argentina deal with it on its own, or b) be a mediator between both countries, without taking sides.
The US did take a side, and other countries thought it was the wrong decision because it didn't benefit their interests. Things don't have to make sense when Realpolitik is already involved.
Edited to add: I just noticed I'm derailing the thread. I'll stop now. Sorry.
edited 27th Jul '15 5:23:10 PM by Cid
Sorry, I was hoping not to offend you, plus I had heard the argument that the fascism expressed in Latin America wasn't related to Nazism by defenders of Juan Peron.
Obama's stance on gay rights causing awkwardness in Kenya.
Shame, I hoped that if anyone could start a conversation that could lead to more tolerance in Africa it would be Obama. Still, it feels good to actually be pissing someone off because we stand by the right moral principles. On the other hand, I will note that we have managed to piss of literally all our allies. We are to conservative for Europe, and to liberal for Africa and the Middle East,though in the case of the Middle East they have far more pressing reasons to hate us. I think now the only country left that acutely likes us is the Philippines.
Boy Scouts to allow Gay leaders
Of course their is an exemption for troops that ares sponsored by religious organizations, so pretty much all of them.
edited 27th Jul '15 5:45:54 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.The problem with gay rights and Africa is that they actually see it as a point of pride, of self-determination against decadent Western values, so chiding them on the issue is actually likely to make them pass more anti-gay laws just to prove that they can.
Not helped by David Cameron also taking an especially paternalistic tone about it (to the tune of "help your gays or no aid from us," where the response was "fuck you and your aid, we're protecting virtue!")
It especially didn't help that it was the British, their old colonial master doing the lecturing. However the US,until very recently, had a 70 percent approval rating in parts of the continent. Also the Kenyans, along with Donal Trump, regard Obama as a native son, so I had hoped they would respond better to him than to David "I'm so British" Cameron.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
After over 150 years of evangelical Baptist ministers comming over to explain how monogamy is good, polygamy bad and homosexual sex unthinkably abhorrent and Not Allowed while "uplifting" the "poor souls" from their immoral, wicked idolatry (and traditional cultures, thanks: and, since when is Islam idolatrous, anyway, for some?). Yeah: it's kind of like you guys have done a 180° on this one, but still have managed the wagging fingers and disappointed voices to go with.
Not sure about the rest, but homosexuality in these parts has been tolerated (at a surprisingly decent level) for decades.
We constantly get foreigners who are shocked (Shocked!) by how gay-friendly the Philippines is. Of course, it's probably never going to be as gay-friendly as I would prefer it to be, but hard to complain when compared to the situation in other Asian countries.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
Exactly. We're a nation of immigrants, so of course we'd be A-OK with other immigrants. We just don't want any illegal aliens is all. And if anyone calls them immigrants, we'll shoot 'em in the nuts out of our standard sense of 'hospitality'. So long as they aren't called immigrants, they aren't immigrants. Makes sense to me!
edited 27th Jul '15 9:27:11 PM by kkhohoho
As far as I know, that is completely and utterly inaccurate, and I'll thank you for not peddling this kind of slander, Jack.
Also
who in the world is that?
Islam makes a point of having no idols and fighting idolatry, hence the ban on figurative art, among other things. It's a really huge deal. Whether they were successful at it is a matter of debate.
Given what it takes to cut in front of that cue, and the precarious situation it lands one in, I say "good luck" from the comfort of my due legal process.
I know, I just like to hammer the point home. Islam isn't just non-idolatrous, it's explicitly and systematically against idolatry. Whether they've ended up elevating the Prophet to Idol status against his wishes is another discussion. But I can tell you one thing, Muslim missionaries are just as much of a problem as Christian ones, in terms of destroying local culture, and having a patronizing "we civilized and truth-knowing, you silly barbarians, we teach you how to think and how to live" attitude.
edited 28th Jul '15 12:59:11 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Basically, Trump and his team aren't taking too well to the standard opening of all aspects of their life that happens during presidential elections.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Trump was just too much of a winner for her.
I love Trump so much.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

For a party who gets riled at he thought of governmental social engineering, the Repulucans have a tendency to advocate this form of it? That's the bit that blows my mind.
edited 27th Jul '15 4:31:12 PM by Euodiachloris