MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chavez praises Argentina’s role in UNASUR; signs ambitious trade accord
Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez underlined the significance of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) during his one day visit to Buenos Aires. Chavez is on a tour of the region that also includes Uruguay, Bolivia and Colombia. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSome pearls from this article:
Mar 30th, 2011 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cristina:
“The presumably civilized solve affairs by bombings”
......................…………….Who may she be referring to ???
Hugo:
“We don’t want outside strange elements in the region that come to alter the peace”
………..........................……..Who may he be referring to???
Does anybody actually listen to a word these two corrupt idiots say?
Mar 30th, 2011 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The US is currently the World's only Superpower and has certain responsibilities. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Be serious
Mar 30th, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mercopress cares a lot. And as a regular poster on Mercopress threads, I assume you do too. As for the US, it has no responsibilities. Drop the Captain America crap. Like any other country, it has only interests.
Hugo came to Argentina not for Cristina.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0We and Hugo know what is visit 4 countries tour ! don't we Hugo ?
whatch your step.
(3) That was a bit over the top. I wouldn't want to go that far or be that impolite.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0(4) No crap. Libya is costing a small fortune and its not in US interests to get involved in another War. Nevertheless US and coalition forces have by their actions saved the lives of many Libyan civilians. Argentina may view the World that way but its very cynical and not particularly progressive.
#6 /
Mar 30th, 2011 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27232.html
@3 Xbox, you have proof of this?
Mar 30th, 2011 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Be serious
Mar 30th, 2011 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course there's a reason for the US to intervene in Libya. Oil prices instability. If Libya plunged in a long, painful civil war, oil prices would likely skyrocket, and the already weak recovery in the First World would be adversely affected by balance of payments issues, not to mention fuel inflation. So it's perhaps safer to help the Libyans get rid of their tyrant. As for the intervention having spared civilians', I'm kind of skeptical of that and similar things Western leaders say to their constituents to boost patriotism. What we see elsewhere in the US-invaded Muslim world - that is, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - is that the West's strategy to shell a country has inadvertedly cost many innocent lives. As for my cynism, this isn't just the way Argentina sees things - btw, I'm not even Argentinean. Don't want to sound too scholarly in here, but political realism - the theory that countries' actions in the international arena are driven by self-interested calculations - is the oldest, and perhaps most adhered to, international relations school of thought.
#9 / distracter !
Mar 30th, 2011 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0go to ===== # 7 !
(9) The West had many oil contracts with Gadaffi's Libya and the oil was flowing. There are also rumors that the rebels are linked to Al Qaeda, so it could be argued that the West's best interests were in keeping the Status Quo. The US and UK public are also split with regard to this latest war with perhaps a majority against, so no particular electoral advantage there either. The French were the first to act against the tanks and artillery that were bombarding Benghazi and they also seem to be leading the diplomatic effort. I do agree however that a Country must act in its own national interest but that this should be tempered by a certain amount of principle and honor.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chavez : “From Néstor to Cristina, the Argentine Government has played a key part in creating an important block in the region of South America”. . . . . How true, how very, very true.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And how might our two pomposos help Chavez improve the Mercosur Bloc?
CFK & Chavez . . . .
Like two drunks in the gutter hanging onto a lamp-post . . . .
CFK “If we werent here to hold it up, thish lappost would falll downn”.
Chavez “Si, united we are unconquerable!” (sic.), hic.
Argentina awards Chavez with Prees Freedom Award.....it really doesnt help Argentina establish any integrity! Next they will be awarding Gadaffi with the Human Rights Award.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#12.....#13 /
Mar 30th, 2011 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172286.html
Oh look two crooks together, my what a fine couple they look.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#13 /
Mar 30th, 2011 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Qaddafi rewarded by UK before Argentina !
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42339716
@Be serious
Mar 30th, 2011 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Except for Italy, no western country depends much on Libyan oil.
- I've never heard of the rumours re rebels' links with Al Qaeda. Some time ago, a lowbrow, populist American commentator spoke of the Arab revolts as being driven by Islamist factions. That isn't at all supported by the known facts, however. What seems to be behind the Arab revolts is really economic hardships, specially youth unemployment and food inflation. Note that, not long ago, the US was supporting the Mubarak regime by saying of it that it was stable and that it was genuinely committed to respond to people's demands. The US was soon proven wrong, and now it seems convinced that the old ME autocracies are no longer sustainable. To bring stability to the region, therefore, regime changes need to occur as fast as possible. And if the people in there perceive the US helped them overthrow the old order, then that's all the better for the US in a PR perspective.
-That most British people don't support the war, is something that I can believe in: unlike the Americans, the British tend to have very sensible, very humane opinions about international issues. But most Americans do support the attacks on Libya. In fact, American majorities have supported every single US war of the last 50 years - the Vietnam war, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war - and change of opinion only occurs after they realize that winning a war isn't that simple and that they run risks of being defeated.
- That France was the first country to shell Libya, isn't really surprising. If a major humanitarian crisis swept Libya, one could expect tens of thousands of Arab Muslim refugees to flood southern France. And that, we know Sarkozy and the French wouldn't like.
ForgetIt's #17 comments are good - worth reading.
Mar 30th, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re: The Chavez Mercosur Tour.
I note that he is not visiting Paraguay . . . . . . Why not???
Because the Mercosur nations are using the Paraguay vote to keep Chavez's claws out of the Trading Bloc.
Having seen what he has done to his own country, they want him as far as possible away from the extremely precious, youthful Mercosur administration.
Venezuela will be an asset to Mercosur when it resumes democracy - and assuming it still has commodities of worth.
Oil does run out, and Venezuela's worth to Mercosur diminishes as the oil reserves diminish.
Advice to Venezuela:
The country should weight the weight of Chavez-the-Dictator against the weight of its national economy and potential.
No brainer - keep Chavez and watch the Cuba-like decline further into national penury for its people;
dispose of the rogue dictator/failed-state tag, and much becomes possible within the Mercosur fold.
Advice to Mercosur:
Don't prop up Chavez, he is a lame duck.
And whilst ducks can stand on one leg, Mercosur needs partners that can hit the ground and run, not hop around in ever decreasing circles with mouth open saying “Feed Me, Feed Me, I am your Saviour!”
And CFK says “We have a failing oil industry, we need your oil and we will kiss your arse to get it”.
18 Geo, At least we are not bombing the whole arab world to steal oil.
Mar 31st, 2011 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0read Forgetit's contribution #17, and repeat, repeat, repeat out loud until you can remember and understand what it says.
With a bit of practice you could become knowledgable and perhaps, one day, erudite - without the need of hyperbole.
PS Sorry for my rudeness in #18
Geoff.
.Going back to the top,
Mar 31st, 2011 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0does anyone know if the Falklands or the UK were actually mentioned in the talks,.............................
as for libya and the rulers of the middle east, I see a changing world that the internet [and access to] is having a massive effect on world affairs,
it seems to be that the day of the dictators-or military governments-or self appointed leaders, is slowly but surely coming to an end, many others will fall before we see or hear peace in that part of the world,
the coalition rightly or wrongly must not either get bribed or enticed into going in to far, as with troops on the ground, as this could commit us to another costly military adventure we can ill afford, we all know what politicians are like, perhaps the Arab countries must be encouraged to do more, and passably if needed the UN to something, but despite the killings, which of course are unacceptable, this is basically an internal problem, it is not the first, and certainly wont be the last,
giving help is one thing, backing it up and getting dragged in, is something else, help by all means, but Britain must not allow herself to get involved to heavy, just my opinion
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!