Comments on: China’s Long March into Latin America http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/ Beyond the World news headlines Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:09:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: clazy http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/comment-page-1/#comment-12470 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:07:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/global/?p=5748#comment-12470 Brian — That’s hilarious. If US companies are “disgustingly corrupt”, then what are Chinese companies? Disgustingly disgustingly corrupt?

]]>
By: brian http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/comment-page-1/#comment-11975 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:51:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/global/?p=5748#comment-11975 Ahh actually the point is about South America turning to a new trade partner in China and the US worrying as usual about losing contracts and its global supremacy.
The article seems to carry a negative connotation but in reality trade options with China are a great thing for South American nations, just not for the disgustingly corrupt US companies that have traditionally plundered the region, boo hoo…. so sad!

]]>
By: Robert http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/comment-page-1/#comment-11929 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:04:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/global/?p=5748#comment-11929 The point gentleman, chinese firms are sprawling all over latin america, and it seems these think of themselves as little vaticans, where they have their own laws, separate of those of the host country, much as was american companies in the 20th century in latin america.
We are looking at 21st century cowboys.

]]>
By: brian http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/comment-page-1/#comment-11928 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:33:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/global/?p=5748#comment-11928 Ken, The paragraph you quote from does not name any anti-US states.
I think there is two kinds of anti/pro US “states”,
and you have to separate popular sentiment from governmental relationships, because there are many nations whose citizens see the US as a country whose culture and/or unilateral policies they generally strongly disagree with yet the government of that country may promote friendly ties with the US for economic and/or political reasons. There are many examples of governments going against the will of their people to protect their economies and their parties.
Many countries that joined the so called ‘coalition of the willing’ were not willing at all, including my own (Australia) where public support for the invasion of Iraq was almost non-existent, yet our government committed us against our will.
Others governments were simply given money or debt relief, they were bribed..
It all depends how you define the US in anti-US, I don’t think many would be ignorant enough to generalize a whole population but for the most part it’s bad news for US citizens either way because in trying to understand why so much of the world may be “anti-US”, you’ll eventually have to stop hiding behind your politicians WHO REPRESENT THE WILL OF YOUR PEOPLE! or admit that your democracy doesn’t work…

]]>
By: Ken http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/09/18/chinas-long-march-into-latin-america/comment-page-1/#comment-11870 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:13:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/global/?p=5748#comment-11870 In this sentence, “Meanwhile, China is growing even stronger in Latin America. As well as its ties to anti-U.S. states, it is an important partner for U.S. allies Chile, Peru and Colombia…”

That’s your opinion – that they are “anti-US”. They obviously have problems with certain policies, which, if Americans knew what they were, may also disagree with the policies. Would that make the US citizens who also disagree “anti-US”? I think not. You should tell us what the rejected policies are specifically. The way you write this only increases emotional tension without basis in argument or fact.

]]>