Talk:Argentina–United States relations

Untitled
I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.) Mangostar (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC) No, this article does not look ok in as much as it lacks any depth or criticism and, predictably as it was copied from a US official website, it is very biased towards a positive depiction of bilateral relations. These have been historically ambiguous and pendular, with positive peaks in the 1920s with a first wave of important northamerican investment in Argentina, and specially with close political and economical stances of both governments during Carlos Menem's presidence (1989-1999); and more critical periods like during the proven CIA support to 1976-1983 Argentine dictatorship, US fault to honor pacts of Panamerican defense in the Falklands War (favouring key NATO ally, the UK) and current ambivalence since President Néstor Kirchner has increasingly approached the sphere of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, while refusing repayment of a debt that was largely originated during the US-supported military government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.15.158 (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree that taking text from a USG website could be biased, but I think that the POV tag is an appropriate solution. Why was it removed? I disagree with much of what the last "talker" said. Without disputing the pendular relationship, those historical peaks and valleys aren't relevant on this page, which is only about current relations. The "current ambivalence" is relevant, but only if explained and supported. I'd be interested to see that.169.252.4.21 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Fact-check: "debt that was largely originated" is extremely misleading. The debt wholly originated under the military government (i.e., there was no foreign debt prior to that takeover), but it largely accrued during the Menem administration. Also, while I believe it is safe to say the military government of 76-83 was not "US-opposed," supported is an entirely different concept. If the USG had actually supported the Argentines at that time, don't you think the Falklands/Malvinas war would have turned out a bit differently?

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Afghanistan – United States relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1831 Lexington Raid
Curious why there is no mention of the raid on the Falkland Islands by the USS Lexington in 1831. It resulted in a 10 year rupture in diplomatic relations. Am I missing something? WCM email 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

1940's
" sought to sell food and will to Britain " - excuse me???
 * sell food and wool Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Public opinion toward USA: mostly negative in Argentina
Most Argentinians have a negative image towards USA (72%), and only 16% have a positive image. --190.183.247.6 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

And today the views in Argentina toward USA are still negative: https://www.minutouno.com/argentina-es-el-pais-que-mas-odia-estados-unidos-n35340... not for nothing that it's said that Argentina is the most anti-American country in all of Latin America. --190.183.23.238 (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)