Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Argentina is controlled by Venezuela/Cuba. The carrot is oil.
Cristinita needs Venezuelan oil for her demagogic campaigns.
Alba for all effects.
When Cristina leaves, another Peronista will come.
Chile is light years away from Argentina, a far more advanced country that will soon be a developed country.
Nothing to do with Argentina.
It wants the oil, but it also wants the foreign investments. It is not part of ALBA and that's it.
I think Chile would be the better choice. I have seen them described as European sometimes. Argentina was heading in the right direction, but now I think the politicians are moving the country the wrong way.
Argentina is controlled by Venezuela/Cuba. The carrot is oil.
Cristinita needs Venezuelan oil for her demagogic campaigns.
Alba for all effects.
When Cristina leaves, another Peronista will come.
Chile is light years away from Argentina, a far more advanced country that will soon be a developed country.
Nothing to do with Argentina.
are u chilean?? yo seem to be very biased against argentinian and are frankly talking nonsense.
I think Chile would be the better choice. I have seen them described as European sometimes. Argentina was heading in the right direction, but now I think the politicians are moving the country the wrong way.
The question in the topic is about Mexico being the equivalent of USA for the speaking world. In order to give an answer, we must first think about what means the USA for the world: wealthy, influent and populous. Mexico, in the context of Latin America, has all of these characteristics. Chile is, on the other hand, the fastest growing country and with the best standard of life, sharing it with Uruguay, but it's a very smaller country and not so culturally influent. Perhaps a comparison between Chile and Sweden or Finland would be more suitable.
As to Mexico...I guess that Spain has no influence in Mexico and Mexico and no influence whatsoever in Spain. Only Americans or people that don't speak Spanish would ever think of that. The question is totally anal.
Spain is the second largest source of foreign direct investment in Mexico behind USA. Spain is even ahead of Canada.
Foreign direct investment in the USA (2009 ) is #1)United Kingdom #2)Japan, and #3)Germany.
Financial influence is influence. I don't think that point is anal.
Now, I would agree that Mexico and Spain are not nearly as close as USA and UK. But that is largely because the UK remained a great world power after independence for almost a century and a half. The UK retained many colonies even after it lost the USA.
Spain quickly dwindled in global influence after it lost it's colonies. But that is mostly because it retained only relatively insignificant colonies after Latin American independence.
Spanish protectorate of Morocco (1913–1956)
Spanish West Africa (1946–1958):
Spanish Sahara (1884–1975)
Spanish Guinea (1926–1968)
I'm not even sure what this means. There is no "giving in" in the equation. You do realize that the USA does not have an official language right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yo seem to be very biased against argentinian and are frankly talking nonsense.
