Falklands / Malvinas heats up

More bluster from Cristina Fernandez in 3... 2...

 

That's what you get when you combine rampant corruption, Peronist autocratic governing style, excessive regulations, big government that overreaches, and an outdated leftist ideology that's already proven to be a failure time and time again. It's sad to see her run the land of my birth to the ground, but I do hope the rest of the world is watching her, so we don't continue to sell the same old ideas and make the same old mistakes. Then at least something good may come out of it.

 

That's exactly what leftist policies usually are.

For a change of pace, here is Diego Maradona's goal against England captured from a different angle than the one usually shown. This is originally from Brazilian TV, but it's been restored.

 

I don't disagree with you, but in this threat we are talking specifically about Cristina Kirchner, and within the context of this conversation, the "populist nonsense" that she leaned on to the detriment of my dear birthland is definitely leftist "populist nonsense". She's not quite out there with Chavez, but she's not far behind. The thing that's unique about Kirchner's leftist policies is that they she tries to frame everything primarily in Peronist terms, rather than Marxist terms, because she knows that in Argentina it's much more appealing to the masses to evoke Evita rather than Karl.

To bring the discussion back to the topic of the Malvinas, Cristina's conduct in regards to this topic also ties in with her efforts over the years to assume the mantle as the Peronist heir to Evita and Peron.

One of the many reasons for Peron's popularity among the masses was that "he stood up to the English". (Meaning that he took measures -some legitimate, others controversial- to break the stranglehold that Britain had on Argentina's economy up to the mid 20th century.)

There's some truth to the Peronist claim -and indeed British influence did wane under his regime. No doubt some of his actions did challenge Britain -like for example unilaterally nationalizing the railroads which British investors had built and continued to run in order to hold control over the distribution and exporting of raw materials from the remote corners of the country to the port of Buenos Aires.

But I believe much of Peron's "standing up to the English" was simply posturing, and cleverly using anti-English rhetoric for domestic consumption. I also believe that Peron's propaganda machine made his actions towards Britain sound bigger than they really were. Much of this was done by Evita through her speeches to the masses. (remember, I was born some time after Peron's first regime ended, so my comments are not first-hand observations. Argentines are very much divided in their views about what really happened in Peron's time.)

Either way, the idea that Peron and Evita "stood up to the English" is alive and well in Argentina to this day among the Peronists. This is why Cristina Kirchner finds it appealing and useful to fuel her claim as Evita's Peronist heir and establish equivalence with the iconic former first lady by also "standing up to the English" in a similar manner. And one of the few ways that she can do that in today's world is by bringing up over and over the issue of the Malvinas. The islands come in very handy, because it's a populist issue with little downside, at least domestically, so don't expect her posturing and rhetoric to stop.

I hope this explains a bit her behavior to our English friends in here. And don't worry, she's not going to invade the islands. Evita never did.

 

Not sure. At what number would you draw the line?

Would you say that the Argentine population was small enough back when Captain John Onslow invaded the islands with impunity on behalf of the British Crown and kicked the Argentines and the local gauchos out?

 

Then why are you talking about them?