[Pants-of-dog]

Everything is "partly responsible" for everything or "probably signficant " in terms of everything . It's still largely irrelevant in the great scheme of things.

As I showed with Haiti above, the debt seems to be associated with European imperialism, or US neo-imperialism in the guise of supporting right wing dictators.

I used those specific phrases in order to avoid someone claiming that my argument is that colonialism is the only factor. It is not. Racism and the legacy of the class system are also significant factors.

———————————

I want my country to conduct itself honorably and ethically. The US has never enforced good governance, the US enforces submission to private capital. If the US ever did attempt to enforce good governance it would be wildly successful at it due to its enormous power and influence.

This is not a realistic plan. There is no reason to think the US policy makers will work against their own economic interests.

——————————

@Victoribus Spolia

You are not presenting arguments or rebuttals to my arguments. If you do, I will be more than happy to address them.

Until then, there seems to be no argument that US residents are not doing anything significant about holding US policy makes responsible for the interventions that are causing the aforementioned migration.

Nor does there seem to be any argument about the fact that Latin Americans have a rational self interest in doing what we can in order to limit the effect of these policies.

[Sivad]

No it wouldn't, because good governance cannot be enforced from the outside.

The same conditionality they use to enforce neoliberalism could just as easily be used to enforce good governance. Why would it work for one and not the other?

Wrong. It does want its money back. It usually advocates hair cuts, as long as its own money isn't part of it of course.

It's cancelled something like $100 billion in outstanding debt in the last couple decades. The IMF does offer debt relief if a country complies with its SAPs.

[Sivad]

This is not a realistic plan. There is no reason to think the US policy makers will work against their own economic interests.

It's not a plan at all, it's just a goal and that goal is just as realistic as your goal of world gulagism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You are not presenting arguments or rebuttals to my arguments. If you do, I will be more than happy to address them.

You first need to present an argument for me to rebut. I have yet to see one.

Until then, there seems to be no argument that US residents are not doing anything significant about holding US policy makes responsible for the interventions that are causing the aforementioned migration.

No one denies this, but acting like that makes them responsible is naive. Most Americans couldn't point out 1/2 of the countries in South America on a map, what makes you think they are aware of CIA operations in the jungles of Colombia? 90% of these issues were pursued by the state without the knowledge or consent of the American people and you act like they are just being dicks because they are racist against hispanics. Thats almost conspiratorial its so dumb.

If the American people knew 1/2 the stuff that went on south of the border by their government they would oppose it in a new york minute.

nor does there seem to be any argument about the fact that Latin Americans have a rational self interest in doing what we can in order to limit the effect of these policies.

No one disagrees with this either. Everyone should act in their self-interest.

@Sivad and I would just disagree that socialism is ever in anyone's best interests.

[Sivad]

@Sivad and I would just disagree that socialism is ever in anyone's best interests.

gulagism certainly isn't, but it's dishonest to conflate the two.

[Victoribus Spolia]

gulagism certainly isn't, but it's dishonest to conflate the two.

Yeah, but they tend to run together....sooner or latter.

Its like gulagism is that crazy bitch ex-girlfriend that loves cum guzzling.

You try to avoid her and pretend she doesn't exist, but sooner or later you letting her gobble the knob and she's back ruining your life and reputation.

Socialism always goes back to gulagism, no matter how much it tries to dress itself up like a sophisticated white-collar professional thats open to ideas. It can't help itself.

[Sivad]

Socialism always goes back to gulagism, no matter how much it tries to dress itself up like a sophisticated white-collar professional thats open to ideas. It can't help itself.

I don't know of any gulag that started off socialist? They were all gulags from jump. I don't think it's the socialism that's the problem, it's the statism. That happens in every system though, people start trusting the state too much, looking to it to solve every last problem, people just luv to gobble on that state apparatus.

[Victoribus Spolia]

people just luv to gobble on that state apparatus.

I don't think it's the socialism that's the problem, it's the statism. That happens in every system though, people start trusting the state too much, looking to it to solve every last problem,

WORD.

you're starting to sound a bit like an An-Cap.....in spite of your sig.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not a plan at all, it's just a goal and that goal is just as realistic as your goal of world gulagism.

I agree, since both of these things only exist in your head.

————————

No one denies this, but acting like that makes them responsible is naive. Most Americans couldn't point out 1/2 of the countries in South America on a map, what makes you think they are aware of CIA operations in the jungles of Colombia? 90% of these issues were pursued by the state without the knowledge or consent of the American people and you act like they are just being dicks because they are racist against hispanics. Thats almost conspiratorial its so dumb.

If the American people knew 1/2 the stuff that went on south of the border by their government they would oppose it in a new york minute.

Since I never claimed that the average US citizen was responsible, I am going to ignore that criticism.

As for the claim that US residents would do someyhing about if they knew, I doubt that as well. @Sivad seems to know about it, but he feels that any opposition to these neolieral practices is “gulagism”.

I would love to be proven wrong about this, but I doubt it.

No one disagrees with this either. Everyone should act in their self-interest.

@Sivad and I would just disagree that socialism is ever in anyone's best interests.

Yes, well, you guys have the privilege of not being affected by this at all. Those of us who are affected by it need to look at historical realities and actually find workable solutions.

[Rugoz]

The same conditionality they use to enforce neoliberalism could just as easily be used to enforce good governance. Why would it work for one and not the other?

The IMF does crisis management, the loans are temporary and so are the SAPs (a few years). Needless to say prescribing reforms and implementing them properly are two completely different things.

It's cancelled something like $100 billion in outstanding debt in the last couple decades. The IMF does offer debt relief if a country complies with its SAPs.

To my knowledge this was only done for some very poor countries, mostly in Africa. It's not general policy.

[Drlee]

This is not a realistic plan. There is no reason to think the US policy makers will work against their own economic interests.

We do it all of the time. The US sends aid to countries that can never really repay us. Not even their "good will" is worth what we send. If they did not limit this expenditure we would fire them. US foreign policy is supposed to benefit the US. Right? If it doesn't, what is the point?
——————————

You are not presenting arguments or rebuttals to my arguments. If you do, I will be more than happy to address them.

Until then, there seems to be no argument that US residents are not doing anything significant about holding US policy makes responsible for the interventions that are causing the aforementioned migration.

On the contrary. I have previously presented several arguments that you have ignored. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that US "interventions" are causing this migration. You just state it as fact and expect us to accept it. It is a hard left meme.

The US does business with all kinds of repressive regimes. Some would say China fits the bill for example. Certainly Egypt, Palestine and Saudi Arabia do. Is it your contention that we ignore them? Or should we invade? We could easily take Egypt, Palestine and/or Saudi Arabia. China not so much. Or should we engage and work for incremental change? Even at the risk that some idiot will accuse us of "supporting repressive regimes".

China is a good example. We could have kept them isolated and out of world markets. Nixon opened trade with China. The result of that trade (which many would say is definitely not in our enlightened self interest) is that China is becoming less repressive and certainly wealthier. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are "supporting" a regime in China that, by our standards, is repressive. True in Saudi Arabia too but there is little doubt that the US is a moderating influence in the still draconian actions of the House of Saud.

It is very easy to blame the US for every backwater dictator. I freely admit that we could invade and kick them out. Something will fill the vacuum and perhaps we could install a liberal democracy that lasts. Certainly we could at the point of a bayonet. What are a few thousand bombing deaths in Guatemala so they can share their meager wealth through a kinder and gentler government. I was a soldier for 20 years. I am not inclined to sacrifice my life so that the Honduran men who would rather flee than fight can have a better government, which, even at its best, has a very small pie to divide.

I support the president in not accepting these economic migrants into the US. At some point men need to turn and fight. Perhaps we should train them, arm them, and send them home.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee

Who are you talking to?

[Rancid]

We do it all of the time. The US sends aid to countries that can never really repay us. Not even their "good will" is worth what we send. If they did not limit this expenditure we would fire them. US foreign policy is supposed to benefit the US. Right? If it doesn't, what is the point?

The repayment isn't in money, but we certainly get paid back for our aid. The so called aid is really just a bribe to get these counties in line with American interests.

It's called "aid", but it's really just bribery. All countries engage in this.

[Drlee]

I think that is too cynical by half. Take, for example, US HIV aid to Africa. The US has spent well over 50 billion dollars to fight HIV in Africa. Though I am certain some of this money found its way into the wrong hands, it is unfair to say that this purchased it worth in good will. It save countless lives and continues to do so.

I could give other examples. As I said above. I want US aid to serve US interests. That is the purpose. But it is not correct to say that it is all bribery. It is not.

You may prefer that we support our interests by military force. That is another option always available to the world's only superpower. But I would rather send dollars than troops. But in the end....whatever.