• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US could topple my government, kill me: Argentina's Kirchner

katsung47

Banned
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
879
Reaction score
128
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An international terrorist?

US could topple my government, kill me: Argentina's Kirchner

By Daniel MEROLLA 10/2/2014

Buenos Aires (AFP) - Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner charged in an emotional address that domestic and US interests were pushing to topple her government, and could even kill her.


......

"So, if something happens to me, don't look to the Mideast, look north" to the United States, Kirchner said at Government House.
Just hours after the US embassy here warned its citizens to take extra safety precautions in Argentina, an aggravated Kirchner said "when you see what has been coming out of diplomatic offices, they had better not come in here and try to sell some tall tale about ISIS trying to track me down so they can kill me."

..............

US could topple my government, kill me: Argentina's Kirchner
 
What the hell?

And shouldn't she be worried about dealing effectively with her country's default situation or whatever it was with that NYC hedge fund firm (which she and her administration call vultures, which is like calling water wet, we all know this) and less making up f*cking nonsense.

It's just absurd.
 
Sounds like she's having a mental breakdown because her country's broke. She's already turned over every rock in Argentina looking for a leprechaun who'll give her a pot of gold, but, alas, she hasn't found one.
 
Last edited:
What the hell?

And shouldn't she be worried about dealing effectively with her country's default situation or whatever it was with that NYC hedge fund firm (which she and her administration call vultures, which is like calling water wet, we all know this) and less making up f*cking nonsense.

It's just absurd.

No it is not absurd, the US has done it before in Argentina and other countries in South America.. either directly or indirectly by supporting a military coup.
 
Maybe they should.
 
She is of same calibre as Sarah Palin.
 
No it is not absurd, the US has done it before in Argentina and other countries in South America.. either directly or indirectly by supporting a military coup.

I don't remember a direct take out other than Noriega off hand, but there were probably instances of such and the US certainly supported coups. Those were different times, however, in which there was good reason. I know the arguments against it, but it was war. It was fine. Only the fact, that lots of people only look at the occurrences without trying to understand the logic of the situation, allows it to look seedy. But Allende knew he had declared war on the US. That might have been his right, sure. But it was also okay to have him taken out.

Now? Why worry about Kirchner, other than the damage it does in people's heads. That could, in fact, become dangerous some day. By then we will hopefully have a global entity to guarantee international security, however.
 
An international terrorist?

Her policies are failing and she is playing the anti American card. That is normal in many countries. Schröder did it here to get reelected too. It happens all the time.
It is one very good reason the US should withdraw from enforcing international security. Whoever does that alone will always make enemies and deliver its foes arguments that raise the street votes and do the enforcers' country harm.
 
What a paranoid fool.

No. She is only utilizing the stupidity and/or poor level of information understanding in the population she needs to stay in power. That is quite rational.
 
She's just crowing to her political allies because she doesnt want people to realize the truth: decades of massive government combined with an attitude that debt means nothing and defaulting on that said debt thinking they could get away with it. The EU and the US should take heed of this: incurring more debt and increasing the size of government isnt the answer.
 
I don't remember a direct take out other than Noriega off hand, but there were probably instances of such and the US certainly supported coups. Those were different times, however, in which there was good reason. I know the arguments against it, but it was war. It was fine. Only the fact, that lots of people only look at the occurrences without trying to understand the logic of the situation, allows it to look seedy. But Allende knew he had declared war on the US. That might have been his right, sure. But it was also okay to have him taken out.

Now? Why worry about Kirchner, other than the damage it does in people's heads. That could, in fact, become dangerous some day. By then we will hopefully have a global entity to guarantee international security, however.

My point is, she is using an age old politicians trick to garner support. Today in the US, you see both sides using the same trick. The GOP is using the fear of the Soviets, and every other boogieman to push a security agenda and have been for a long time. This is no different in the eyes of most Argentinians and South Americans. They all remember the US backed Junta that threw people out of helicopters and made 10s of thousands disappear. It might not be true now days (who knows), but it is a very effective "propaganda tool" for the nationalist type politician, which she is.
 
My point is, she is using an age old politicians trick to garner support. Today in the US, you see both sides using the same trick. The GOP is using the fear of the Soviets, and every other boogieman to push a security agenda and have been for a long time. This is no different in the eyes of most Argentinians and South Americans. They all remember the US backed Junta that threw people out of helicopters and made 10s of thousands disappear. It might not be true now days (who knows), but it is a very effective "propaganda tool" for the nationalist type politician, which she is.

True. Anyone that fears the soviets is lost in time.
 
She's just crowing to her political allies because she doesnt want people to realize the truth: decades of massive government combined with an attitude that debt means nothing and defaulting on that said debt thinking they could get away with it. The EU and the US should take heed of this: incurring more debt and increasing the size of government isnt the answer.

Actually on this front I do feel a bit for her, as the whole situation around the Argentinian debt stinks big time. The debt was bought up by hedge funds who now are refusing to join an agreed plan to deal with the old debt... they are basically holding Argentina hostage and I suspect that the reason they are doing this, is to push Argentina into a default so the CDS on the debt can be triggered and they are using the US court system to do so which in it self is dangerous as hell. Ultimately who pays for this.. most likely the US tax payer.
 
Actually on this front I do feel a bit for her, as the whole situation around the Argentinian debt stinks big time. The debt was bought up by hedge funds who now are refusing to join an agreed plan to deal with the old debt... they are basically holding Argentina hostage and I suspect that the reason they are doing this, is to push Argentina into a default so the CDS on the debt can be triggered and they are using the US court system to do so which in it self is dangerous as hell. Ultimately who pays for this.. most likely the US tax payer.

The Argentine government wanted to devalue 70% of their debt to these hedge funds so that would have been a tremendous loss on something that wasnt their fault. Of course they refused to go along with that, nobody in their right minds would. And as far as who is going to pay for this in the end, it will be the Argentine people, not US taxpayers.
 
The Argentine government wanted to devalue 70% of their debt to these hedge funds so that would have been a tremendous loss on something that wasnt their fault. Of course they refused to go along with that, nobody in their right minds would. And as far as who is going to pay for this in the end, it will be the Argentine people, not US taxpayers.

That is not what has happened. This is what best can be categorized as predatory tactics by the hedge funds. The hedge funds did not loan Argentina the money, but bought the debt from the lender, well knowing the risk. The other bond holders all agreed to the debt reduction and it was a very small minority of predatory hedge funds that said no and caused this mess. They hold 7% of the debt and are pushing a country into default again for their own greed. I have no doubt, as I stated, that these hedge funds have insured themselves against default and hence that is why they are pushing for it. It was the same with Greece and here it was never called a default so not to trigger the CDS and pour billions into the hands of the predatory American lenders.

And you have to remember this is not recent debt, but debt taken up decades ago and the economy has recovered relatively speaking and these 7% hedge funds are now deliberately pushing for a default.

Look at this way.. with the deal they would get 30% of what is owed, without it they get "nothing".. so what is their motivation? The only thing that makes any sense is if they have insured themselves against default, and hence would get more than 30% back from the insurance.
 
That is not what has happened. This is what best can be categorized as predatory tactics by the hedge funds. The hedge funds did not loan Argentina the money, but bought the debt from the lender, well knowing the risk.
That is what hedge funds do so there is nothing predatory about it and it is legal.

The other bond holders all agreed to the debt reduction and it was a very small minority of predatory hedge funds that said no and caused this mess.
What caused this mess is the Argentine government with their military dictatorships that ran up huge amounts of debt.

They hold 7% of the debt and are pushing a country into default again for their own greed.
It is not about greed, it is about survival, a hedge that loses 70% of their holdings will not be in business for long.

And you have to remember this is not recent debt, but debt taken up decades ago and the economy has recovered relatively speaking and these 7% hedge funds are now deliberately pushing for a default.
Argentina has never fully recovered. They have been locked out of financial markets because they chose to default like a bunch of deadbeats. If you break the rules then expect markets to push back.

Look at this way.. with the deal they would get 30% of what is owed, without it they get "nothing".. so what is their motivation?
Their motivation is that Argentina will hopefully live up to their commitments and pay their debts in full just like everybody else.
 
Actually on this front I do feel a bit for her, as the whole situation around the Argentinian debt stinks big time. The debt was bought up by hedge funds who now are refusing to join an agreed plan to deal with the old debt... they are basically holding Argentina hostage and I suspect that the reason they are doing this, is to push Argentina into a default so the CDS on the debt can be triggered and they are using the US court system to do so which in it self is dangerous as hell. Ultimately who pays for this.. most likely the US tax payer.

It was Chavez that led the charge, encouraging his neighbors toward financial independence and cutting the strings to the IMF. Of course it wasn't popular up north, but it was good policy and Argentina should have listened. A straight up default isn't good.
 
They hold 7% of the debt and are pushing a country into default again for their own greed.

Why is it that seeing a business try to hold on to its assets must be termed greed. It is just business. You borrow, you have to repay.

And you have to remember this is not recent debt, but debt taken up decades ago and the economy has recovered relatively speaking and these 7% hedge funds are now deliberately pushing for a default.

A default doesn't benefit a creditor. They are most likely pushing for some payment.
 
The Argentine President appears to be breaking down under stress. She may be correct that the U.S. government hopes that her government falls, but U.S. political preferences are not the same thing as planning to topple a government, much less to cause "something" to happen to another leader. IMO, such rhetoric diverts from an issue on which she has a legitimate argument (as do the hedge funds).

How to reconcile the differences between the parties is key. Ultimately, some kind of compromise would offer the best chance to end the dispute. Imposition is not helpful and the Judge's ruling has made it less likely that there will be a settlement, as he has hardened the differences and pushed Argentina into technical default with Argentina incurring costs.

Going back to the Argentine President, her legitimate grounds are that a U.S. judge is acting in a fashion that has:
1. Violated Argentina's sovereignty.
2. Created a situation of technical default for Argentina.
3. Inflicted economic and reputational costs on Argentina that would not otherwise have occurred.

Her best strategy would entail:
1. Focusing on the sovereignty argument in making her case. That argument drew considerable sympathy at the UN General Assembly session, including from some European and Asian countries.
2. Use the Bank for International Settlements or some other international institution as the mechanism for making payments, as international institutions would fall outside the U.S. judge's purview and there would be a far higher probability that Argentina's debt payments would reach their creditors. The Judge might well try to order the creditors not to accept the payments, but such a ruling might not be legally sustainable. More importantly for Argentina, such a ruling could not place it in technical default.
3. Work to create bilateral payments agreements and facilities with the numeorus countries (including a European and Asian ones) that were sympathetic to her position at the UN to begin rebuilding access to global financial markets on a country-to-country basis.
4. Leave open the option for the hedge funds to obtain the same terms all the other creditors can attain, though she could suggest that their payments would be net of legal charges Argentina has incurred on account of their actions.
5. As the UN General Assembly for a vote to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (a binding ruling would not be feasible, as the U.S. will not agree to an International Court of Justice case to resolve the affair for complex reasons that include U.S. sovereignty with respect to its judicial system and its backing the hedge funds in question).

All said, she's not in an unsalvageable position. Her fearful rhetoric has not helped her case.
 
No it is not absurd, the US has done it before in Argentina and other countries in South America.. either directly or indirectly by supporting a military coup.

No, it's absurd.

The Cold War is over, been over.

No. She is only utilizing the stupidity and/or poor level of information understanding in the population she needs to stay in power. That is quite rational.

Are Argentinians buying it though?
 
Last edited:
The Argentine President appears to be breaking down under stress. She may be correct that the U.S. government hopes that her government falls, but U.S. political preferences are not the same thing as planning to topple a government, much less to cause "something" to happen to another leader. IMO, such rhetoric diverts from an issue on which she has a legitimate argument (as do the hedge funds).

How to reconcile the differences between the parties is key. Ultimately, some kind of compromise would offer the best chance to end the dispute. Imposition is not helpful and the Judge's ruling has made it less likely that there will be a settlement, as he has hardened the differences and pushed Argentina into technical default with Argentina incurring costs.

Going back to the Argentine President, her legitimate grounds are that a U.S. judge is acting in a fashion that has:
1. Violated Argentina's sovereignty.
2. Created a situation of technical default for Argentina.
3. Inflicted economic and reputational costs on Argentina that would not otherwise have occurred.

Her best strategy would entail:
1. Focusing on the sovereignty argument in making her case. That argument drew considerable sympathy at the UN General Assembly session, including from some European and Asian countries.
2. Use the Bank for International Settlements or some other international institution as the mechanism for making payments, as international institutions would fall outside the U.S. judge's purview and there would be a far higher probability that Argentina's debt payments would reach their creditors. The Judge might well try to order the creditors not to accept the payments, but such a ruling might not be legally sustainable. More importantly for Argentina, such a ruling could not place it in technical default.
3. Work to create bilateral payments agreements and facilities with the numeorus countries (including a European and Asian ones) that were sympathetic to her position at the UN to begin rebuilding access to global financial markets on a country-to-country basis.
4. Leave open the option for the hedge funds to obtain the same terms all the other creditors can attain, though she could suggest that their payments would be net of legal charges Argentina has incurred on account of their actions.
5. As the UN General Assembly for a vote to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (a binding ruling would not be feasible, as the U.S. will not agree to an International Court of Justice case to resolve the affair for complex reasons that include U.S. sovereignty with respect to its judicial system and its backing the hedge funds in question).

All said, she's not in an unsalvageable position. Her fearful rhetoric has not helped her case.

Her real best option would be to privatize lots of government owned businesses, adopt the US Dollar as Argentina's currency, cut down spending, and stop government intervention in the country's economy. In short, stop her Keynesian socialist policies and adopt a free market approach. Its the only way Argentina can move forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom