Should NATO deploy troops in Mexico?

[pariz]

Joelcool7 said:

pariz said:

Rath said:

 

@Pariz. Nothing has changed in Colombia? So much has changed, the state was in an existential crisis. It now has much firmer authority and even the main rebel group, FARC, is being severely beaten now. Also do you really think it's that easy to stop drug smuggling? Trust me, countries have and are trying.

You are right on each and every point. The thing is that I cannot but center my atention on the fact that US military presence persues not only non specifically to fight down the FARC. Not only that: it helps this rebel groups (which in most cases are anti-colonialism of any type) to gain more support from citizenship.

Yes the US military intervention in Columbia has turned alot of people into America haters. But that sentiment is largely outside Columbia itself. I have met pastors and missionaries who have gone to Columbia and they have told me that their is a very large support group for getting rid of the FARC and the people of Columbia love them.

Frankly who cares what some other countries think of North American's when your helping people. Like standing up to a popular bully, yes the kid is popular and when you stick up for the nerd you may not really be appretiated by the popular persons friends. But the victims sure love you and you show everyone else that you stick up for your ideals.

Hugo Chavez and the other anti-american basterds wouldn't really care if America didn't get involved. They would still find some reason to bash North America, just look at their support of Iran due to the Iraq war. Do you honestly believe that if North American countries and western european countries just stood back and let everything spiral out of control that they would be anymore loved by the rest of the world?

Oh and yes the US is only out to serve its interests but can you honestly name a single country that does not value its own interests more then the rest of the world?

 

First of all, something that's necesary to clarify: political interests make a use of ideological speaches. I mistrust a polititian just as soon as he starts speaking, cause it is what he does to try to convince you that a certain course of action is good for you or good for your country or good for humanity when it is a fact that there are some benefits for himself that he's persuing. That's how politics work all around the world, if we don't agree on this, we won't agree on much.

First you talk about ideals (that's just what goverments use in their discourses and what may motivate lots of their citizenship, but not what's really going on) and later you make a statement in form of a question with which I agree: every country, what the... every entity tries to achieve their own interests, even when that's the well being of others.

Then you name Chavez. Chavez is not really representative of the anti american feeling all around Latin America. He's just a polititian making use of a discourse. Making a lot of use and abuse.

I can clearly see you know your stuff and you are well informed, but you should try harder to understand, from different sources, why this anti american feeling spreads all around the rest of America (the continent). You would find it is about ideals: search through history how many times the US acted on the soverign and inner political affairs of many countries, revoking presidents that were choosen legitimately and financing all kinds of anti governamental movements when suited. Try to find out what happened in the first half of XX century and you'll realise that with the right oriented parties and corrupted locals, USA, France and Spain fought for neo colonies in the Caribean and South America, which politically and formaly were independent, with their own flag and anthem, but economically were just colonies in which they secured really cheap raw or source materials.

The rest of the story till our days hasn't being different at all, just more sofisticated.