[Sivad]

What situation would compel so many people to leave their homes and take the perilous journey north in the first place?

While the Trump administration talks incessantly about its favorite villain, the gang MS-13, it says nothing about the origins of the gang. MS-13 was actually incubated on the streets and in the prisons of Southern California, where so many Salvadoran migrants were incarcerated in the 1990s. Washington's deportation of former prisoners — among other Salvadorans — back to El Salvador was the context for the development of the MS-13.

The Salvadoran community that developed in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s itself emerged as Salvadorans fled a nightmarish civil war. The United States was deeply involved in that conflict, arming and supporting the Salvadoran government and right-wing paramilitary forces throughout Central America.

These death squads committed acts of unspeakable violence that still reverberate throughout the region today. Similar patterns have played out in Guatemala and Honduras, which are also countries of origin for refugees where the United States has a legacy of backing right-wing leaders past and present.

The beginning of accountability for those actions is letting these — and all — refugees in. But that cannot be the end. Let this time of anguish and outrage be one of a deep reckoning — with what the United States does at its borders, within them, and beyond them.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/21309/Y ... separation

[Sivad]

Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton discuss the bipartisan US war on immigrants, and the long history of bloody US imperialism in Latin America — with wars, coups, contras, and meddling. We provide historical context to explain why refugees and migrants are fleeing US-fueled violence, political instability, and poverty.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you think US neoliberal policies in Latin America should be opposed?

[Sivad]

No, I fully support neoliberalism.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I fully support neoliberalism.

That is not surprising.

But you can understand why Latin Americans would oppose it, I hope.

[Sivad]

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, what do you think Latin Americans do to oppose such policies?

[Sivad]

Just take your gulagism to another thread, it's stupid and nobody cares about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Just take your gulagism to another thread, it's stupid and nobody cares about it.

So you think that Latin Americans should not oppose these polices?

That to do so would be gulagist?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't get this conversation at all.

Is the argument that the U.S. inadvertently created MS-13 because of its neo-imperialist democracy making and opposition to communism in the third-world?

This is the same argument that America basically created ISIS as well because of its actions in the middle-east correct?

Also, how are we defining neo-liberalism? I've always understood the Clinton-type hawkish corporatist New Deal democrats as Neo-liberals, but they are exactly the sorts that would join with Neo-Cons in destabilizing the third world.

@Sivad So what do you mean? I assume you mean that you support libertarianism not clintonian cronyism.

I think @Pants-of-dog was assuming you supporting hawkish neo-imperialism in south America which would trigger his post-colonialist sensibilities.

You two might actually agree if you are both against U.S. interventionism in South America.

Just some thoughts.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't get this conversation at all.

Is the argument that the U.S. inadvertently created MS-13 because of its neo-imperialist democracy making and opposition to communism in the third-world?

This is the same argument that America basically created ISIS as well because of its actions in the middle-east correct?

Yes, except there was no attempt to create democracy. It was and is all about enforcing capitalism at gunpoint, specifically a capitalism that supoorts the economic interests of US companies. To this end, the Us has actually subverted democracies and caused instability.

Also, how are we defining neo-liberalism? I've always understood the Clinton-type hawkish corporatist New Deal democrats as Neo-liberals, but they are exactly the sorts that would join with Neo-Cons in destabilizing the third world.

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[12][13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

@Sivad So what do you mean? I assume you mean that you support libertarianism not clintonian cronyism.

I think @Pants-of-dog was assuming you supporting hawkish neo-imperialism in south America which would trigger his post-colonialist sensibilities.

You two might actually agree if you are both against U.S. interventionism in South America.

Just some thoughts.

@Sivad seems to think that neoliberalism is bad, but simultaneously believes that Latin American opposition to neoliberalim is bad.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, except there was no attempt to create democracy. It was and is all about enforcing capitalism at gunpoint, specifically a capitalism that supoorts the economic interests of US companies. To this end, the Us has actually subverted democracies and caused instability.

I was asking a question, I was asking if this was the point based on the U.S.'s "declared motives" (not the nefarious marxian motives you attribute).

I want to know what @Sivad 's point is, or do you have trouble reading? I am trying to understand what this conversation is about and what you two are disagreeing over, because it looks like a miscommunication to me.

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[12][13]

Once again, irrelevant, I was asking how @Sivad was defining neo-liberalism and how you were understanding it, not for a third-party definition. If this is your definition, then I am only more confused. What is the foreign policy of neo-liberals according to that source?

@Sivad seems to think that neoliberalism is bad, but simultaneously believes that Latin American opposition to neoliberalim is bad.

Yeah, you did a terrible job of explaining your position, this thread, and your disagreement with @Sivad .

Sometimes I wonder what you are trying to gain in commenting on threads......It surely isn't the establishment of truth or trying to create a mutual understanding for the issues.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was asking a question, I was asking if this was the point based on the U.S.'s "declared motives" (not the nefarious marxian motives you attribute).

I want to know what @Sivad 's point is, or do you have trouble reading? I am trying to understand what this conversation is about and what you two are disagreeing over, because it looks like a miscommunication to me.

And I answered your question.

The answer was yes.

I also clarified the role of the US in Latin America, since you seem like you do not know much about it.

Once again, irrelevant, I was asking how @Sivad was defining neo-liberalism and how you were understanding it, not for a third-party definition. If this is your definition, then I am only more confused. What is the foreign policy of neo-liberals according to that source?

As far as I can tell, both @Sivad and I are using the accepted definition of neoliberalism, which is the one I gave you.

In terms of US foreign policy in Latin America, it means enforcing things like free trade, privatisation, deregulation, etc. at gunpoint. This was and is usually done by supporting right wing dictators and guerillas and subverting leftist democracies.

Yeah, you did a terrible job of explaining your position, this thread, and your disagreement with @Sivad .

Sometimes I wonder what you are trying to gain in commenting on threads......It surely isn't the establishment of truth or trying to create a mutual understanding for the issues.

It is not my fault you are unaware of what neoliberalism is, or US foreign policy in Latin America is, or their relationship, or what Latin Americans do to oppose these practices.

If your only criticism is that I was unable to bring you up to speed on a very complex subject with only a few sentences, then so be it. It seems like you are getting mad at me because you feel confused.

My point here is to explain to anyone who cares what the effect these policies have had on Latin Americ and why Latin Americans have tried to oppose them.

[Suntzu]

Folks are coming from Latin America for the jobs. The asylum claims are just bullshit. We need to follow Australia's lead and put asylum seekers in nice, safe, austere asylum camps in some remote location with no chance for citizenship to be ultimately returned to their home country.

[Sivad]

I don't get this conversation at all.

There is no conversation, he's just trolling.

Is the argument that the U.S. inadvertently created MS-13 because of its neo-imperialist democracy making and opposition to communism in the third-world?

US imperialism is one of the primary drivers of mass immigration from Central and South America.

This is the same argument that America basically created ISIS as well because of its actions in the middle-east correct?

It absolutely did foster the rise of ISIL, I would argue that it was the deliberate intention of US planners to create a chaos that would inevitably spill over into the wider region.

Also, how are we defining neo-liberalism? I've always understood the Clinton-type hawkish corporatist New Deal democrats as Neo-liberals, but they are exactly the sorts that would join with Neo-Cons in destabilizing the third world.

Neoliberalsim is privitization, austerity, and financial liberalization. It's basically hardcore corporatism.

I've always understood the Clinton-type hawkish corporatist New Deal democrats as Neo-liberals, but they are exactly the sorts that would join with Neo-Cons in destabilizing the third world.

Neoliberal and neoconservative are not mutually exclusive ideologies, neoliberalism is a set of economic policies, neoconservatism has to do primarily with foreign policy, especially military intervention and strategic dominance of global resources.

@Sivad So what do you mean? I assume you mean that you support libertarianism not clintonian cronyism.

I'm a left libertarian, so yeah, I definitely don't support clintonian cronyism.

I think @Pants-of-dog was assuming you supporting hawkish neo-imperialism in south America which would trigger his post-colonialist sensibilities.

He knows where I'm coming from, he's just a troll.

You two might actually agree if you are both against U.S. interventionism in South America.

We definitely do not agree on anything other than maybe neoliberalism is bad, but he's a gulagist so his cure is as bad as the disease.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, what are we supposed to do to oppose US neoliberalism?

[Sivad]

Again, what are we supposed to do to oppose US neoliberalism?

Vote it out. If the government is unresponsive to democracy, overthrow the government and restore democracy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Vote it out. If the government is unresponsive to democracy, overthrow the government and restore democracy.

But muh oppression.

[Pants-of-dog]

Vote it out. If the government is unresponsive to democracy, overthrow the government and restore democracy.

Which government should we vote out?

The local one? We did that, and the US government came and installed a dictatorship.

If we try to overthrow it using rebellion and guerilla warfare, you accuse of gulagism.

Are we supposed to move en masse to the US and vote there?