"Throughout history there have been only four kinds of economies in the world: advanced, developing, Japan and Argentina”

@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986

5 жыл бұрын

Johnny Jonathan who are you quoting that from

@budisoemantri2303

4 жыл бұрын

@@dreihundertsiebenundzwanzi3427 what it means?

@Adrian-rb4qp

3 жыл бұрын

@@budisoemantri2303 Japan = amazing, Argentina = terrible

@philswiftreligioussect9619

2 жыл бұрын

@@Adrian-rb4qp Japan = huge economic boom then total deflation and demographic collapse Argentina = huge booms then huge downturns then huge booms then huge downturns then huge........

Argentina is amazing!!! Salutos de Brasil (: Let's grow up together!

We'll eventually get to every country in the world. Stay tuned.

@thecafcl8409

4 жыл бұрын

Do Kenya

@mrlentien5333

3 жыл бұрын

@Louis Aponte me too

The issue of the Falklands/Malvinas islands is political with limited modern strategic implications. The 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war was an attempt by a failing military regime to boost its popularity by creating a sense of hyped up nationalism. But they miscalculated both British will and capacity to defend the islands. Today, the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is attempting to revive those feelings of nationalist fervor in the face of challenging economic conditions.

South America in general and the southern half (including Argentina/Uruguay, Chile, and the Brazilian core and south) in particular is almost as isolated from global affairs as Australia/New Zealand. Also, South America's wildlife evolved in almost as much isolation over millions of years as Australia, such that South America is second (albeit a distant one) to Australia/New Guinea in terms of numbers of marsupial species. Another strong commonality between Argentina/Uruguay and Australia (and South Africa for that matter) - an even stronger love of outdoor barbecuing than in North America.

Stratfor's "Geographic Series" videos got promoted to me only recently, so it was quite a shock to find out these were published almost a decade ago. :O

Love these. What is the music used here? Soothing.

I love when english speakers hear the world "Argentina " they automatically say "Falklands" dudes here in Argentina nobody talks about those islands, calm down a little

Of course, significant oil reserves have been discovered near the Falklands. Coupled with the fact that North Sea oil production is facing declining output and more than half of the North Sea oil reserves have been extracted already, there is revived British interest in the place.

What about the Falklands as a foothold for sovereignty claims in mineral-rich Antarctica? (of course, with current technology, resource extraction doesn't make economic sense, but it will eventually). Besides, couldn't those islands be used militarily by NATO in a Diego Garcia fashion?

can you pls do the geographical challenges for bangladesh.

Pampas is too part of southern Brazil.

@Quantum122

5 жыл бұрын

Dejate de JODER!!!

@yodorob

2 жыл бұрын

Just Rio Grande do Sul state, not Santa Catarina or Parana states.

nice, very interessting

Que son Falklands? Perdonen mi ignorancia, no soy Argentina.

Thank you

Kind of disappointed with this video because intentionally excluded the threat of Falklands as projection of britsh power and any future claim over southern territories.

@Niidea1986

8 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Williams Oh, really? Tell me in what way could Argentina threaten Britain? Yeah, that's what I though. On the contrary, Britain can deploy any wapon from ships, to aircrafts, to missiles in Falkland and attack Argentina, block any trading ports, not only argentinian but also brazilian, uruguayan... Basically, it can potentially take any millitary action to impose it's wishes to many south american countries, specially Argentina if UK wishes to. To protect it's territory and pollitics, Argentina must gain control over Falklands.

@Niidea1986

8 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Williams You did not understand: I mean't the real Britain, the one that is in Europe, where british do actually live at. Not some island half world away that it took to use as arm station to impose it's pollitics at any given moment.

@Niidea1986

8 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Williams "There were only 50 soldiers" True or not, that does not change the fact that it was possible to deploy arms in any moment, as history confirmed Britain did later. Oh, you mean the few british that the government paid them to live there (because sorry, those island away from everything are not exactly the ideal place to live) just to claim the islan was populated by british? Still does not change the fact that Britain could deploy weapons at any moment to threat Argentina's mainland...and many other south american countries mainland. And yes, those island are a threat to Argentinas (and, again, many other south american countries) MAINLAND. Argentina is no threat to the real territory of UK that is half a world away, while Britain has what is basically an advanced ofensive post at their doors. And yes, Argentina attempted to take those islands by force, because it's national security depends on that. As long as those islands are under british control they were, and they continue to be a threat to Pacific South America.

@Niidea1986

8 жыл бұрын

Harry Wrightson You obviously do not understand: Advanced weapons (such as Eurofighters) deployed near other country's territory is always a threat, no matter your intentions, and that is what the country in the other side has to guard. The fact that you do not want to invade Argentina now does not mean that you won't in the future, that is what a threat means. Britain has constantly manipulated south american countries for it's own convinience, so it is a threat, and it is real. PS1: "we have regions all across the world" thanks for remind us imperial nature of Britain. It is not true that nobody cares BTW, eventually many coutries claimed back their territories, just like Hong Kong. PS2: Wars have started more suddenly for very silly reasons in the past. British peaceful mood now is no warranty, specially considering the amount of countries they have invaded.

@punishedpokemonfanboy1032

8 жыл бұрын

+Niidea1986 just Brady's the uk could launch an attack doesn't mean they will They could easily accomplish the same thing with aircraft carriers missile destroyers and transports

"however, historically weak and divided Brazil, have protected post-colonial argentina" War against Artigas (1816-1820) Victory - annexation of "Banda Oriental" Platine War (1851-1852) Victory Argentine clout over the Platine region ends Brazilian hegemony in the Platine region

@Argentvs

6 жыл бұрын

Brazil lost every war against Argentina. We expulsed you from Uruguay, we massacred your armies in Uruguay, Entre Ríos and southern Brazil. Your large Navy was defeated several times by 5 ships. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ituzaing%C3%B3 War Against the Empire of Brazil. Naval Battle of the pozos, 3 ships defend Buenos Aires from a large enemy fleet, 2 Argentine fleet arrive at the back of the Brazilians, Brazilian fleet ran in dispair. Battle of Juncal, 6 Argentine ships engage 17 brazilian ships, 2 enemy ships sank, 12 captured. Argentine Corsairs raided brazilians atlantic shores. Battle of Carmen de Patagones. 4 Brazilian ships tried an invasion to end the corsairs, flag ship hits sand bank and sink, 600 soldiers land and got massacred by a local militia of 500 soldiers. The 3 remaining ships captured. Battle of Ensenada, last fight in 1828, again a 3 times larger brazilian fleet could defeat Almirant Brown and got wrecked. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisplatine_War

@leonardogemaque8710

6 жыл бұрын

Argentvs Not really... Brazil fought against Argentina in 1851-52 in the Platine War, and won after defeating the Argentinian Army at the Battle of Caseros near Buenos Aires... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platine_War This war began after the Uruguayan Civil War, when the faction supported by Brazil (colorados) were victorious over the Blancos(supported by Argentina). However after the war, the Blancos lead by Oribe with Argentinian support tried to seize power in Uruguay and after some failures sucessed.This was considered a threat to Brazil's interests, who began to construct an alliance with some argentinian provinces against Rosas( Argentina's leader) and Rosas ultimately declare war on Brazil. The Empire and his allies then invade Uruguay and Montevideo, and at last invade Argentina and defeating her at Caseros in a crushing victory, and entering Buenos Aires with the troops, therefore winning the war.

@Argentvs

6 жыл бұрын

Hahahahaha What a crapload of bullshit. Rosas was defeated by Urquiza. Brazil didn't invaded Argentina, a small brazilian force acted as auxiliary of Urquiza Federal Forces. The Brazilian troops weren't even 10% of his Army. They didn't even fought, they were commanded by Urquiza for police duty in Buenos Aires. So laughable the brazilian propaganda. You didn't won shit, each time you faced Argentine armies you lost, remember Carmen de Patagones?, Utuizangó?. Massive brazilian armies defeated by numerically inferior improvised militias, ROFLMAO. "Platina War" didn't exist, the War Against the Empire of Brazil was in the 20s and you got your ass kicked. Almirant Willian Brown got bored defeated your retarded massive fleets with 6 ships. Brazil failed all strategical objectives. You couldn't anex Uruguay, you couldn't control the Uruguay River, you couldn't anex Entre Ríos, you couldn't anex Misiones, you couldn't get coast in the Paraná nor La Plata, you got land locked and away from the navigable rivers. That's why you kept being poor when the Argentines walked Paris and London wasting gold as fuck. Read worldview.stratfor.com/article/geopolitics-brazil-emergent-powers-struggle-geography

@michaeldelisieux

2 жыл бұрын

@Argentvs Never heard of an Argentinian Army parading on the streets of Rio de Janeiro ( where NEVER an enemy Army has entered); but I can't say the same about Argentina and Buenos Aires, respectively.

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldelisieux i do think the Brazilian army has marched through buenos aires, let me chek

there is clearly a massive difference between the situation you described and the Falkland islands dispute. The islands have been continuously and peacefully settled by the UK since 1833. Thats almost as long as Argentina has been an independent country. There was no previous indigenous population and Argentina has never had a settlement there. This isent a city block in the middle of Buenos Aires, it is an archipelago located over 250 MILES from Argentina. Your question is a strawman

And which is Uruguay's geografic challenge?

@faque5634

8 жыл бұрын

+Daniel Dufort To continue being a buffer between Argentina and Brazil.

@Dani.DDYAL100

8 жыл бұрын

+Nazi Germany Uruguay is culturally argentinian and geographically brazillian.

With all the advantages Argentina has the country should have one of the highest standards of living in the future. We shall see how it goes.

@DeclinedMercy

4 жыл бұрын

Government is a mess. Argentina was one of the wealthiest nations in the world until bad governance ruined it.

@yodorob

2 жыл бұрын

@@DeclinedMercy There's always been unequal land distribution (much sharper and more apparent than in, say, Australia or North America) and there's always been bad governance, just that before 1865 and after 1930 the governance has been worse than between 1865 and 1930.

The islands are tiny and with a population under 2000 they are clearly too small to function as an independent state. Given their ethic, language and cultural ties to the UK, and their overwhelming desire to remain a British territory, how is this imperialism? No one else has ever lived on those islanders These islanders have lived there for generations, almost 200 years, that is longer that a number of countries around the world. If they wanted to join Argentina the UK would be fine with that.

Self determination absolutely applies in this case in favour of the Falkland islanders, they have lived on those islands for nearly 200 years, they created a port and an economy which never existed prior to there settlement, moreover no other group have lived on those islands previously. Moreover, these islands are over 250miles away from Argentina, they are not on the mainland or directly connected to Argentinean territory. The island population have the right to remain a British protectorate

Love the video. Perfect for Spanish class

@michaeldelisieux

2 жыл бұрын

"History" is like the Bible : the big story ever told!

Now a days the only threat is the paraguayan will to recover their lost territories during the war of the triple alliance.. and there are rising tensions between argentina and paraguay. but paraguay is not a military threat right now

Argentina 🇦🇷

Not only because of difficult economic conditions, but because we want to finish this problem, and recover what belongs to us, also the British government in 1982, use the war for political purposes, and now does it for political, military, and economic, so who intends to continue stealing, while using the people, claiming self-determination, the same as not respect us, or the inhabitants of the island diego Garcia who sprayed and forgot his self-determination

Paraguay the agressor????????

@cryptopresident554

5 жыл бұрын

Yes

@jddonmoyer2489

5 жыл бұрын

King the King imao no

What about the Falklands?

@hejpaget

8 жыл бұрын

The Falkland islands aren't part of Argentina

@elizabethpowers7706

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah and they are pissed about it they think they are

@rashidamon2761

8 жыл бұрын

+Elizabeth Powers shut the fuck up. Malvinas are argentinians

@hejpaget

8 жыл бұрын

I believe that history has shown that not to be the case. Also the inhabitants of the islands want to be part of the UK.

@rashidamon2761

8 жыл бұрын

oh do you want history? what about when argentine revolutionaries in falklands were captured and sent to great britain to prison and the court said that "falkland are argentinians" tell me that huh?

actually ethnic and cultural ties are important considerations that are always pertinent factors in self determination cases. I dont question their governance abilities, however the falkland islands are clearly a rare case where they are too small to be an independent state. You keep avoiding the facts and attempting to relate this to completeley different situations such as the inter war period Austria or a city block. That is not the case at all. continued.

What's the origin of south American people ? Looks like White European . Guyana west Indian people . also Peru Lima looks ancient village tribe people, Amazing wish to know their brief history.😀ram ram. Many nation in S America.

they are on an island hundreds of miles away from argentina. They did not take the islands from anyone, no group lived there beforehand. The islanders have lived there for 180 years generation after generation. They want to remain a british protectorate and that is their right. If they wanted to be under argentina then that would also be their right and the UK would be fine with it.

공주님 ㅡ 모넬라 카솔라 카네티

Do not take the word of THESE people behind the clips. Conduct your independent research. Failure to report hot current issue in the region is an attempt to suppress important information.

I think the conclusion to the piece does not make sense. Am I to understand that the lack of an external threat is the cause of Argentina's inability to establish stable institutions? I don't buy it. Argentina is messed up because of its inhabitants' inability to organize anything that promotes the national good.

I always thought Argentina was in Europe near Spain

@marialujan19

3 жыл бұрын

Wtf jajaja

@Adrian-rb4qp

3 жыл бұрын

Youre thinking of Andorra?

@yodorob

2 жыл бұрын

It's like saying that New Zealand is in Europe near England.

God... The Argentinians in this comment sección makes me ashamed of my country

Not a bad video, but the argentine-Brazilian rivarly is nothing knew, the whole state of uruguay was born as a buffer state bettewn aregntina and brazil

@randowdude6847

3 жыл бұрын

Forgot to add here, but Paraguay is not by far the main military treath to argentina, the war in the triple alliance did indeed happen, but it was far for a fair fight, most of the war was fought hunting down a paraguayan dictador that didnt want to admit defeat. The video also fails to say that post-colonial argentina was definetly not protected from blockades, during the platine war Brazil blockaded the Rio de la plata, during the 1840s the british and french would do the same to secure their own interrests in the region.

Wrong. The Falklands were British before Argentina existed- then Argentines settled on the islands (which were British) then when we returned, in person, to the islands we asked Argentine's to leave- and they did. The Falklands were British before Argentina existed!

@Argentus2009

Жыл бұрын

False.

The Falklands are British. The Islanders who have lived there for longer than many Argentinians have lived in Argentina have no interest in Argentinian rule. To claim 'occupation', you have to have an area legally disputed (UK sovereignty is recognised by the UN), filled with outside settlers (the Falklanders have lived there since the 19th century) or with a displaced native population (like the Palestinians from Israel's occupied territories). NONE of those apply to the Falklands.

Messi is from Argentina than i like argentina

@KingBoooo

8 жыл бұрын

Just because of him? Damn.... That sucks

@Gezzilla123

8 жыл бұрын

Well they gotta like it for something. They cant exactly like it for the Falklands now, can they?

@KingBoooo

7 жыл бұрын

Kilaera Well not everyone commenting is British but i guess not

Chile

@Quantum122

5 жыл бұрын

Los chupa ogts y entrega culo de los ingleses!!! Verguenza para TODA America Latina!!

Hello. I am a Hispanic American. I am from Brazil and Paraguay. My mom grew up in Paraguay, so this is where I am getting my information from. Paraguay DID NOT play the role as aggressor in the War of the Triple Alliance (or in spanish, "La guerra de la triple alancia"). Paraguay was a growing economic power at the time due to their isolationist policies. Great Britain felt threatened by this, and thus called in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina to fight Paraguay to lessen their influence. The war devastated Paraguay. Almost all the men perished, and women and children had to resort to fighting too. Thousands of children were slaughtered by Argentinian forces during a battle (forgot the name). About HALF of the paraguayan population died and the demographics are still recovering today. To say that Paraguay was the aggressor in the war is a total lie and does disjustice to those who died in the war. The reason Paraguay is such a poor country today is because of that war. Paraguay was the richest country in South America for a while, but the war ruined them.

@fernando12345678966

9 жыл бұрын

Nicolas Costa Everything you said might be true, Except for the country being "the richest country" in south america. You can search this everywhere on the internet, and throughout its independence it relied heavily on Brazil and Argentina in mainly everything making it more of a puppet state rather than a rich country. In addition the first country in south america to industrialize and modernize was Argentina with its rich la Plata river giving it an easy go at Industrializing with the help of British entrepreneurs. Moreover, its important and advantageous Buenos Aires port gave it even more power over its neighbors like Uruguay and Paraguay in exporting its many riches such as its agricultural core exports. This made Argentina a regional power competing with the other regional power like Brazil that resulted in the Palatinian war for influence over the countries around the La Plata region. Though i admire your mothers Patriotism :)

@greenlaw6503

9 жыл бұрын

Nicolas Costa First. The most importan issue. Paraguaian war was the first genocide in south america. Plus it almost meant the obliteration of the whole country, if Brazil's demands were accepted by Argentina. Argentina got Formosa and until today it hasn't given it back. Second. The paraguaian war was, at the same time, a foreign and a civil war. In Argentina meant the annihilation of the federal party, in Uruguay, of the Blanco - federal Party, and in Brazil, of the 'Rio Grande' autonomous ambitions. Maybe for these reasons was so bloody and cruel. Shame on my country, Argentina, and on our brothers, Brazil

@KingBoooo

8 жыл бұрын

+greenlaw It wasn't the first genocide, indian genocides were pretty common

@KingBoooo

8 жыл бұрын

+greenlaw Argentina would NEVER give Formosa back. And Brazil got parts of Paraguay

@KingBoooo

8 жыл бұрын

+greenlaw Mainly because there are more Argentinians than Paraguayans and also dooming people to be part of a poor country isn't very nice

whether they are an independent state or choose to be under British protectorate status is irrelevant, they are the only people who have ever lived on those islands and have the self determination to have British citizenship due to their ethic and cultural ties to the uk. My english is fine its your english that is terrible your comments have been riddled with typos and errors. continued

Brasil never has been nor is it a threat to Argentina.

I cant really understand you entirely because your writing in broken english but i'll try. Firstly no i didn't make a strawman argument it was you who did when you suggested a hypothetical example completely different to what the reality of the situation it is. Secondly, yes the islands were colonised nearly 200 years ago by British people, as ive stated there was no indigenous population and no one has ever lived there before, so the islands were not taken from anyone. Continued

WTF!? No mention to the largest NATO base in Southern Atlantic in Malvinas Islands near Patagonia and stretching to Antarctica? This makes Stratford look moronic

Argentina’s geography is easy mode just like America, but the quality of people simply is not up to par with America. America would have a real challenge to power in the Western Hemisphere if they were colonized by the Brits or even the French.

@yodorob

2 жыл бұрын

A British Argentina (which would be partly Spanish-speaking anyway) would be more like Canada than the US - namely, not a real competitor to the US.

@mrniceguy7168

2 жыл бұрын

@@yodorob Argentina has better land and importantly a lot of distance. If it were inhabited by British or French people, it would be liberal and democratic, so I wouldn’t expect war but America wouldn’t be the sole hegemon of the Western Hemisphere and you can bet that they would not agree with all American decisions like Canada does.

@yodorob

2 жыл бұрын

@@mrniceguy7168 Right, of course, but the population might still be no more than 1.5 to 2 times as much as Canada and thus much less than the US. Argentina might more effectively compete with Brazil and Mexico as a collective counterweight to the US in the Western Hemisphere rather than be in the back seat as it is.

There is a difference between colonization and colonialism. Colonialism is the occupation of another groups territory. The islanders colonized land that was not inhabited by anyone else, they did not move islanders off the land or violently move people. They have settled on previously unsettled islands and have lived their for nearly 200 years. Given these facts, the Falkland islanders have the right to self determination. any legitimate grievance Argentina had was lost after the 1982 invasion

@Argenbiz

6 жыл бұрын

itsj0eyhere wrong! When the UK caught the islands by force in 1833, the Argentinian population and authorities were expelled to the continent. Plain history.

Failure to develop stable institutions? How?

@LoneWolf-wp9dn

3 жыл бұрын

several coups later...

Yerba mate is not grown in Pampas.

@Quantum122

5 жыл бұрын

Yerba Mate crece en ARGENTINA; en la MESOPOTAMIA!! IGNORANT!!

@lucasrodriguez8985

4 жыл бұрын

@@Quantum122 Misiones no es zona pampeana.

sorry but the north-east is the producer of yerva mate, and paraguay wasnt the agressor in the triple aliance war, the aliance invaded the country! and the border wasnt lined in that war

How the fuck do you know that? By latin american standards Argentina is a very good country, they are a stable and pretty succesful country compared to most in south america.

@Stefano-dd2sf

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah.........No

1:40 Speaking like a true warmonger.

Haha Uruguay is Argentina's heart. Andes protects Argentina from evil and aggressive Chileans. Paraguay is the worst enemy of Argentina and Brazil is the best friend of Argentina.

Falkland Islands

@nothinger01

4 жыл бұрын

Malvinas son Argentinas

@marialujan19

3 жыл бұрын

Malvinas, y son Argentinas

Another monotone non in-depth geopolitical "analysis" by Stratfor. You want the good stuff then read WikiLeaks.

Hey, we're not not invading them because we are weak and divided, Brazil doesn't invade Argentina because Brazil aren't barbarians.

@anondelirius3255

5 жыл бұрын

Once your countries stop being troubled by internal strifes, they probably would.

Give Falklands over on condition that English becomes a co-official language, and that Malvinas residents may take Argentinian citizenship.

@BMTHmosher

7 жыл бұрын

Rob749s or leave them as they are, British

@joaquinaugusto625

5 жыл бұрын

fair enough

I cant wait for America LOL

WTF ARE U TALKING ABOUT ?

Obligatory Argentina is white

@dantecarnevalle9457

8 жыл бұрын

Argentina is in Europe

@jaymore3201

7 жыл бұрын

and it still poor, I guess not all whites are smart

@alejandroscorsetti7392

7 жыл бұрын

Jay More Argentina is more developed than most Eastern European countries.. in fact, Buenos Aires is as developed as any first world city

@hukllankanchis1575

6 жыл бұрын

Alejandro Scorsetti: Hahaha thats funny!

@arielcler9364

5 жыл бұрын

@@alejandroscorsetti7392 argentina's aways in crisis

"Paraguay played the aggressor in the War of the Triple Alliance" This is so laughably wrong... but then again, Statfor is not nearly intelligent as it pretends it is.

@Argentvs

6 жыл бұрын

Who invaded Corrientes?, Paraguay...

@nchalt

6 жыл бұрын

Um, Brazil and Argentina when they overthrew the Uruguayan government a decade earlier. Uruguay and Paraguay were fine during the Platine War. Not allies, but Paraguay was neutral. This border disputes have literally been around since Argentina got has always been salty since Paraguay maintained it's independence since the fall of the Rio de La Plata, and the Brazilians had border disputes along that region even before that. Just looking for excuses to gain territory, open up Paraguays extremely protectionist trade, and kill natives.

@Argentvs

6 жыл бұрын

BS Paraguay attacked Argentina by invading Corrientes after Buenos Aires refused to let their army pass. Then their crazy dictator fought until the last man, 12 years old kid soldiers fought until 90% of the male population was killed. They didn't surrendered, they fought to the last man, that was completely crazy since the Triple Alliance wanted López alive and end the war. It was very unpopular in Argentina and the mass casualties worsened it, Argentina didn't wanted to fight so long and kill so many, several times they were offered to surrender and they rejected it even when they were already defeated. The only territorial gain was Formosa, and that is disputable since there were no official limits and Argentina wanted one natural one like the Pilcomayo River.

@nchalt

6 жыл бұрын

Sure, that's fair enough. Brazil attacked Uruguay, Paraguay came to assist by capturing Brazil ship/attacking them. Paraguay asked Argentina for passage. Uruguay overthrown filled with Brazilian friendlies. Lopez says fuck it, and marches through Argentina anyways. I can see how from the Argentine perspective why Paraguay would be considered belligerent; even if Paraguay was originally coming to aid of Uruguay. But then again Argentina was only marginally involved in the war compared to Brazil anyways. Argentina was all about getting more of the terrority post-war. They wanted to split with Brazil, while Brazil wanted to keep that buffer zone there (to prevent some eventual Brazilian and Argentine war). If I remember right (probably not) an American president went down to help mediate and ended up siding with Paraguay's continued existence. That being said, the 2nd Lopez was pretty fucking stupid and never did anything in particular that I'm aware of that puts him next to predecessors' diplomatic abilities. Additionally "Much of the 156,415 square kilometers (60,392 sq mi) lost by Paraguay to Argentina and Brazil was rich in yerba mate, so by the end of the 19th century, Brazil became the leading producer of the crop.[135] Foreign entrepreneurs entered the Paraguayan market and took control of its remaining yerba mate production and industry.[134]" And Paraguay was never as great as it once was.

the worst of all... a lot of wrong points...

@atic7910

7 жыл бұрын

a looot of wrong points, but all the people are complaining about malvinas

the islanders want to remain british, don't you believe in self determination?

@nothinger01

4 жыл бұрын

fueron robadas a Argentina

The issue of the Falklands/Malvinas islands is political with limited modern strategic implications. The 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war was an attempt by a failing military regime to boost its popularity by creating a sense of hyped up nationalism. But they miscalculated both British will and capacity to defend the islands. Today, the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is attempting to revive those feelings of nationalist fervor in the face of challenging economic conditions.

The issue of the Falklands/Malvinas islands is political with limited modern strategic implications. The 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war was an attempt by a failing military regime to boost its popularity by creating a sense of hyped up nationalism. But they miscalculated both British will and capacity to defend the islands. Today, the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is attempting to revive those feelings of nationalist fervor in the face of challenging economic conditions.