NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the events of today in both the Mexican Parliment and on the streets of Mexico City surrounding the disputed presidential election, is there a possibility of a civil war starting in Mexico?With both sides of the political debate refusing to yeild ,Lopez Obrador vowing never to recognise a government led by Calderon and even going so far as to say that he would set up a government from the streets things seem to be heating up.

Obrador really needs to just shut up. The election was free and fair, and though it was close, he lost.

I don't claim to know a lot about Mexican politics, but I think Obrador is just posturing. There was a contested election in Italy not that long ago, with Prodi winning over Berlusconi. Berlusconi and right wingers constantly said they wouldn't accept the results, but it all dissolved in the end.

I doubt this will result in civil war of all things.

Oh wouldn't it be great if it did happen, and all the floods of illegals immigrants started comming. I am sure the "minute men" would have annurisms.

I don't claim to know a lot about Mexican politics, but I think Obrador is just posturing. There was a contested election in Italy not that long ago, with Prodi winning over Berlusconi. Berlusconi and right wingers constantly said they wouldn't accept the results, but it all dissolved in the end.

I doubt this will result in civil war of all things.

True but as far as I know Berlusconi didn't threaten to set up a government of his own. This may play out somewhat differently as there are mass protests on the streets and with the disruptions in parliment being so volitile and pronounced I can imagine that this is far from over.

Well I do remember something about him refusing to dissolve his government, to not allow Prodi to take office.

Well I do remember something about him refusing to dissolve his government, to not allow Prodi to take office.
True but he could not have sat on his hands for ever.Eventually he would either have to shit or get off the pot.It technically could have split the country but it was far short of a declaration such as Obrador's.Although Obradors remarks may have been made in haste it is still worrying to hear any polititian make such a statment.

Felipe Calderon and the PAN come out on top in any situation. AMLO just seems set on making his situation continually worse.

If you think about it, setting up a socialist government from the streets...that would basically amount to an organized charity network...and then allowing the normal government to keep functioning...this could actually be a good thing!

Of course, I know that's not what they mean. As for Mexican civil war, seems highly unlikely. The US has got too much at stake in Mexico to risk it, we'll probably do everything we can to stop civil war from breaking out.

If you think about it, setting up a socialist government from the streets...that would basically amount to an organized charity network...and then allowing the normal government to keep functioning...this could actually be a good thing!

Of course, I know that's not what they mean. As for Mexican civil war, seems highly unlikely. The US has got too much at stake in Mexico to risk it, we'll probably do everything we can to stop civil war from breaking out.

True that the US would do everything in its power to stop it and would not want a war on its own doorstep but with a socialist government movement you can imagine the likes of Chavez hopping on the band wagon and stiring all kinds of shit.

If you think about it, setting up a socialist government from the streets...that would basically amount to an organized charity network...and then allowing the normal government to keep functioning...this could actually be a good thing!

Of course, I know that's not what they mean. As for Mexican civil war, seems highly unlikely. The US has got too much at stake in Mexico to risk it, we'll probably do everything we can to stop civil war from breaking out.

The only thing i think they have at risk is the fact of what i said, immigrants fleeing the warzone.. Other than that the bush administration really hasn't cared about Latin America too much.

I don't claim to know a lot about Mexican politics, but I think Obrador is just posturing. There was a contested election in Italy not that long ago, with Prodi winning over Berlusconi. Berlusconi and right wingers constantly said they wouldn't accept the results, but it all dissolved in the end.

I doubt this will result in civil war of all things.

except, of course, there has already been a bit of gunfire and occupying of government buildings and major strikes, etc. when you're already putting up blockades and barricades, it's just a bit more than posturing.

The only thing i think they have at risk is the fact of what i said, immigrants fleeing the warzone.. Other than that the bush administration really hasn't cared about Latin America too much.

Except that this is Mexico we're talking about, and while we may not care much about conditions there/their economy, we care quite a lot about our investments there. Maquiladoras, etc. There's a lot of American investment in Mexico. Plus, a civil war to your southern border is never a very nice thing. Violence tends to spread.

The government mechanisms in Mexico have recognised Calderon as the victor. The US likes Calderon. If things get out of hand Calderon can simply request aid from his closest ally.

And even before that, I would expect covert intervention from the US. That's what the CIA is for, isn't it?

Great, now millions of refugees will pile on to the immigrants. Then they'll fight over thier civil war here, in America. Either in gang wars or something bigger and worse.

The only thing i think they have at risk is the fact of what i said, immigrants fleeing the warzone.. Other than that the bush administration really hasn't cared about Latin America too much.

Besides declaring that Mexico was possibly our most important ally, pushing for CAFTA and the FTAA, continuing the support of the Colombian government against the leftist narcoterrorists? Not only that, but taking a relatively hands off approach when dealing with Latin American domestic policies? I'd almost say that he's taken one of the most enlightened paths of any president when dealing with Latin American issues.

Besides declaring that Mexico was possibly our most important ally, pushing for CAFTA and the FTAA, continuing the support of the Colombian government against the leftist narcoterrorists? Not only that, but taking a relatively hands off approach when dealing with Latin American domestic policies? I'd almost say that he's taken one of the most enlightened paths of any president when dealing with Latin American issues.

Haiti and Venezuela?

Haiti and Venezuela?

Venezuela: Following an attempted coup against Hugo Chavez the US rapidly recognized the government that had been set up by the coup plotters. There is no evidence that the US played an active role in the coup, though the evidence presented by the Chavez government claims that the Bush administration knew in advance. of course, the Chavez government is a hypochondriac whenever anything involving the US is brought up. He's made constant claims that the US is about to invade, that there are American warships steaming off of the coast of Venezuela preparing to bombard landing sites and plenty of other tomfoolery. The credentials of the Chavez government on this matter are in serious question. If the US wanted Hugo Chavez out of the picture, he would be out of the picture by now.

Haiti: In the midst of a bloody civil war, the US deployed troops in an attempt to alleviate the violence that was shattering the country. Since then those US troops have been mostly replaced by a French-led UN force. Since then the situation has slowly been improving in Haiti. Primarily a humanitarian mission.

It couldnt have been easy to wrest power from a party that has ruled for, was it 50 years? I think it was possibly the best thing the mexico could do however, they needed to shake thing up. I hope this doesnt end in a civil war, but unrest is not uncommon in middle and south America.

Civil war would make some good primetime programming.

Why don't they just recount all the votes and that will clear the mess up. As far as I know that’s all Lopez wants. So far they have only agreed to recount a very small number of votes but the opposition feel that there was wide spread inaccuracies. Surely a full recount is easier than a duel state been set up and constant strikes and political unrest.

Calderon is offering to adopt some of Lopez's policies if he calls off the protest but Lopez still wants a full recount. I don't think it is an unreasonable demand considering how close the vote was. It's never good to have a court appoint a leader of a democratic country.

What's easier, a full recount or a stalled nation which can't function?

Why don't they just recount all the votes and that will clear the mess up. As far as I know that’s all Lopez wants. So far they have only agreed to recount a very small number of votes but the opposition feel that there was wide spread inaccuracies. Surely a full recount is easier than a duel state been set up and constant strikes and political unrest.

Calderon is offering to adopt some of Lopez's policies if he calls off the protest but Lopez still wants a full recount. I don't think it is an unreasonable demand considering how close the vote was. It's never good to have a court appoint a leader of a democratic country.

What's easier, a full recount or a stalled nation which can't function?

A full recount is not provided for by Mexican Law, only in certain contested districts. Even beyond that, multiple foreign observers came away with the conclusion that this was one of the cleanest in mexican history.

Venezuela: Following an attempted coup against Hugo Chavez the US rapidly recognized the government that had been set up by the coup plotters. There is no evidence that the US played an active role in the coup,

Except for the US meeting with the coup plotters before they launched the coup. At the very least, the US knew beforehand; certainly, the Bush Administration had been concerned about Chávez for years, and there is no reason they would not have seized the opportunity if they saw it. Their swift recognition also indicates a rather abominable contempt for democracy.

If the US wanted Hugo Chavez out of the picture, he would be out of the picture by now.

They do. He isn't. US power in Latin America is not as absolute as it once was.

Haiti: In the midst of a bloody civil war, the US deployed troops in an attempt to alleviate the violence that was shattering the country. Since then those US troops have been mostly replaced by a French-led UN force. Since then the situation has slowly been improving in Haiti. Primarily a humanitarian mission.

The US not only "encouraged" Aristide to leave, but was likely supporting the rebels throughout; they certainly made no attempt to hide their pleasure at the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected leader at the hands of a bunch of thugs.

Well he recently lost alot of his moderate allies and the fanatics are actually beginning to disobey him, they are talking Civil War while he pleds to keep their cool.

I see two Worst case endings
We could have 10 Thousand insane Mexicans assaulting the capital with pistols and Moltov Cocktails.

But if that happens I'm sure Lopez would drop the whole thing if he realized that people were going to die in his name. He wants a peaceful changeover, not a Haiti style Uprising. I have to admire him for that.

Or we could have it that eventually their disruption in Mexico city, (Lopez's hometown so to say) would force Calderon to send in troops... And if even they refuse to move peacefully, Can you say Tiananmen square 2???

Except for the US meeting with the coup plotters before they launched the coup. At the very least, the US knew beforehand; certainly, the Bush Administration had been concerned about Chávez for years, and there is no reason they would not have seized the opportunity if they saw it. Their swift recognition also indicates a rather abominable contempt for democracy.


Yes, and in a way this action backfired because now Chávez believes Bush is personally out to get him, which is why he supports everyone that Bush hates or fears. By supporting the Coup, Bush's Administration made it a personal vendetta.


The US not only "encouraged" Aristide to leave, but was likely supporting the rebels throughout; they certainly made no attempt to hide their pleasure at the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected leader at the hands of a bunch of thugs.

A corrupt Democratically-elected leader. The 'Thugs' didn't need US help. And there really wasn't much help that the US could give them that would be useful. There wasn't any real fighting so weapons were no good, at most maaaybe they gave them food and general supplies.

Besides Haiti has an uprising at least once a decade, By now people should expect it.