Venezuela's Chavez One-Ups White House and U.S. Oil in Heating Oil Deal for Poor

  • News
  • Thread starter McGyver
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Heating Oil
In summary, the White House and U.S. oil companies have faced criticism for their handling of oil prices and the Iraq war. However, yesterday Venezuelan President Chavez agreed to a deal brokered by Congressman William Delahunt and supported by Massachusetts Governor Romney, to provide discounted heating oil through Citgo Oil to low-income residents in Massachusetts. This comes amidst failures by the Bush Administration and U.S. oil companies to address high oil prices. Some view this as politically driven, but it brings much needed economic relief to residents. Other states, such as New York, are also in talks for a similar agreement. Many believe this deal highlights the failure of the U.S. to provide for its own citizens in need.
  • #1
McGyver
Amid months of criticism over failed U.S. oil policy, and after suffering embarrasing setbacks in the Senate (Democrats use of rule to demand continued pre-war intelligence committee review) and in the House (Democrat Cong. Murtha's Iraq war exit proposal), the White House and big U.S. oil were "one-up'd" yesturday when Venezuela's socialist party President Chavez agreed to a deal to provide heating oil relief this Winter to thousands of poor residents of the state of Massasschusets.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/22/venezuelan_officials_to_provide_discounted_heating_oil_to_state?mode=PF

The deal was brokered by Congressman William Delahunt (D) MA, and supported by MA (R) Gov. Romney. Chavez agreed to provide discounted heating oil by nearly 40% through Houston based Citgo Oil, which operates stations across the U.S. The oil will be sold below market price and subsidized by Venezuela's state-run oil refineries. The deal comes amidst significant failures by the Bush Administration and U.S. oil companies in recent weeks to address sky-rocketing oil, gas, and heating oil prices - which disproportionately burden the poor in the U.S.

Whether one views Chavez's Agreement as politically driven, or not, is really a moot point. The reality is that it is going to provide much needed economic relief to some MA residents which the White House and Republican Administration had been unable to broker or draft. This Agreement is also another key Democrat-led initiative in recent weeks bringing fresh ideas and desperately needed policy - which may also come as a slap in the face to the White House both over its rising tensions with socialist party leader Chavez, and uncontrolled high U.S. oil prices.

Any insightful views on this deal and Chavez's new level of cooperation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
All oil companies were invited to participate. Only Citgo accepted the invitation.

The NE governors have encouraged oil companies to donate or provide heating oil at reduced cost to the various state home-heating aid programs. I don't believe the oil companies were too enthusiastic.

This time of year, some poorer families must choose between heating the home and feeding the family.
 
  • #3
I'm really speechless...

I mean, that's fantastic.

He's obviously doing it to embarass Bush, and demonstrate that American style Capitalism has it's failings, and he's doing a damned good job of at least embarassing Bush.

But wow, that's great for those people who couldn't have afforded heating otherwise.

God, I couldn't have imagined that anything like this might happen; Bush is so down, and Chavez is the taking care of America's poor this winter...

Three cheers for Socialism...
 
  • #4
Astronuc said:
All oil companies were invited to participate. Only Citgo accepted the invitation.
The NE governors have encouraged oil companies to donate or provide heating oil at reduced cost to the various state home-heating aid programs. I don't believe the oil companies were too enthusiastic.
This time of year, some poorer families must choose between heating the home and feeding the family.
A security guard makes $8.00 an hour, take home pay is approximately $1100.00 a month. $750.00 a month for rent leaves $350.00 for all the rest of a families expenses. Yes I think there are a lot of people who will be cold, and/or hungry this winter.
 
  • #5
Skyhunter said:
A security guard makes $8.00 an hour, take home pay is approximately $1100.00 a month.
What kind of piss-poor company pays their security 8$/hr?!? I do security, in a small condo in a quiet neighborhood. I get nearly twice that. Not to mention insurance plan, and all the goodies from the residents. :biggrin:
But to stay on topic, kudos to Chavez. :!)
 
  • #6
International oil prices... Suply and demand, OPEC, Big oil profits, nothing of that matters,, all that matters are people needs... that's the way it should be.
 
  • #7
Yes, it was only done to embarrass the US. Why only Massachusetts? I would think Maine would be in more dire need of help.
 
  • #8
Evo said:
Yes, it was only done to embarrass the US. Why only Massachusetts? I would think Maine would be in more dire need of help.
Then Maines representatives should take advantage of the offer.

Looks like New York City is in negotiations now.
Talks are under way to reach a similar agreement to provide discounted Venezuelan heating oil to low-income residents in the Bronx in New York City.
American oil companies were asked for help and here was their response.
Some members of Congress have asked major oil companies to use some of their industry's estimated $96 billion in record profits this year to help people having trouble paying their energy bills. Industry officials have said private funding of government aid programs would set a bad precedent.
So what if it embarrasses the US. It is an embarassment that the richest nation in the world can hand out money to oil companies, yet not provide heating oil for the poor.
 
  • #9
Skyhunter said:
So what if it embarrasses the US. It is an embarassment that the richest nation in the world can hand out money to oil companies, yet not provide heating oil for the poor.
No, I think the help is great although it was done for the wrong reasons.
 
  • #10
Venezuela's Chavez to Discount Heating Oil in Boston (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=a3i7Jw3mxo8c&refer=latin_america

Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has begun a program of discounted heating fuel sales for low-income customers in Boston, following up on promises to help the poor throughout the Americas.

The fuel will be sold for 60 cents to 80 cents less than prevailing retail prices, according to Felix Rodriguez, president of Citgo Petroleum Corp., the U.S. refining and marketing business owned by Venezuela's state oil company. Citgo will sell 12 million gallons of fuel through two nonprofit groups, he said.

"Oil companies have to help people,'' Rodriguez said at a ceremony in Boston that was carried on state television in Caracas. "Business isn't our only issue.''

November 15, 2005
Legislature - House Majority Office
By Rep. Lisa Miller
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Portal+News&id=9963&v=Article-2004
Speaking of energy...looks like the Governor will call us into a one-day special legislative session just before Christmas to deal with emergency heating assistance programs. We are trying to deal with a double whammy in our heating-oil dependent state: federal cutbacks on low-income heat subsidy programs along with a precipitous increase in oil prices. I just returned tonight from a meeting of local social service agencies and churches, who are collaborating to develop some new local resources for emergency heating assistance. If you know of an elderly or low-income person this winter who gets into a jam and needs a tank of oil or a cord of seasoned wood, let me know--I have some numbers I can call.

One problem with notices like this is that poor, including many seniors, do not have access to the internet, so they must rely on others to check on them. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
McGyver said:
The deal comes amidst [highlight]significant failures[/highlight] by the Bush Administration and U.S. oil companies in recent weeks to address sky-rocketing oil, gas, and heating oil prices - which disproportionately burden the poor in the U.S.
McGyver said:
The reality is that it is going to provide much needed economic relief to some MA residents which the White House and Republican Administration had been unable to broker or draft.
There is obviously some confusion about politics here. It is not that Republicans have been "unable to broker or draft" some economic relief for citizens - it is not on the GOP's agenda at all. Criticizing Republicans for carrying out their own agenda is akin to criticizing Republicans for being Republicans. It is just as pointless as saying that Democrats are "failures" because of their insistence upon the removal of religious objects from courthouses.

When one judges the Republican Party using the standards of the Democratic agenda, the GOP inevitably looks like a failure - it fails to execute the agenda of the other party. This is what happens when a person says the Bush administration has had "significant failures" in addressing the price of oil. The issue of the price of oil is probably higher on the Democrats' agenda than it is on the Republicans' agenda. An assumption is therefore made that the Republicans are failing because they are not executing the Democratic agenda.
 
  • #12
Futobingoro said:
There is obviously some confusion about politics here. It is not that Republicans have been "unable to broker or draft" some economic relief for citizens - it is not on the GOP's agenda at all. Criticizing Republicans for carrying out their own agenda is akin to criticizing Republicans for being Republicans. It is just as pointless as saying that Democrats are "failures" because of their insistence upon the removal of religious objects from courthouses.
When one judges the Republican Party using the standards of the Democratic agenda, the GOP inevitably looks like a failure - it fails to execute the agenda of the other party. This is what happens when a person says the Bush administration has had "significant failures" in addressing the price of oil. The issue of the price of oil is probably higher on the Democrats' agenda than it is on the Republicans' agenda. An assumption is therefore made that the Republicans are failing because they are not executing the Democratic agenda.

You seem to forget that the government should be by the people and for the people, not for the partyes political gain
-----------------------------

96 billions in profit in 1 year? wow..

Look at this... 38 millon poor in USA.

96 billion / 38 millons / 12 months = $210 per month for each poor guy (not for each family . but for each poor kid man and women in the US)

i guess that is more that enougth to fill the heating needs of the poor.
So what is the point in letting this small group of oil corporations to take 96billon dolars from society, if a lot of people is not even going to see the benefits of oil?
--------------------------------------------
A statement released on March 8 and signed by almost 400 Venezuelan journalists accused the US government and media of a campaign to prepare the ground for a US military attack on oil-rich Venezuela
http://www.energybulletin.net/4722.html
 
  • #13
Burnsys said:
You seem to forget that the government should be by the people and for the people, not for the partyes political gain
Burnsys said:
So what is the point in letting this small group of oil corporations to take 96billon dolars from society, if a lot of people is not even going to see the benefits of oil?
You are doing just as others have done: judging the Bush administration using your own standards. It is no surprise that leftists think George Bush is a failure; he has consistently "failed" to pass Left-wing legislation. It would therefore be inappropriate for you to respond by saying George Bush actually is a failure because of his tax cuts, position on gay marriage and corporation-favoring policies.

If you want to criticize Right-wingers, find a better argument than "Right-wingers are failures because they are Right-wingers." Judge political stances using standards which are more agreed upon, i.e. science, hard data, etc.
 
  • #14
Futobingoro said:
You are doing just as others have done: judging the Bush administration using your own standards. It is no surprise that leftists think George Bush is a failure; he has consistently "failed" to pass Left-wing legislation. It would therefore be inappropriate for you to respond by saying George Bush actually is a failure because of his tax cuts, position on gay marriage and corporation-favoring policies.
If you want to criticize Right-wingers, find a better argument than "Right-wingers are failures because they are Right-wingers." Judge political stances using standards which are more agreed upon, i.e. science, hard data, etc.

I am not from the us, so i have not much to say, but you have to judge by the results, not by left, right wing policy, personaly i think dems and reps are the same sh-t. And no one of them works for the people, they are paid mercenaries for the big corporations and banks. And i am not starting to make a list of all bush failures proving them with facts and hard data, this is being done all time in this forums. this is not the point of the thread
 
  • #15
Futobingoro said:
There is obviously some confusion about politics here. It is not that Republicans have been "unable to broker or draft" some economic relief for citizens - it is not on the GOP's agenda at all. Criticizing Republicans for carrying out their own agenda is akin to criticizing Republicans for being Republicans. It is just as pointless as saying that Democrats are "failures" because of their insistence upon the removal of religious objects from courthouses.
When one judges the Republican Party using the standards of the Democratic agenda, the GOP inevitably looks like a failure - it fails to execute the agenda of the other party. This is what happens when a person says the Bush administration has had "significant failures" in addressing the price of oil. The issue of the price of oil is probably higher on the Democrats' agenda than it is on the Republicans' agenda. An assumption is therefore made that the Republicans are failing because they are not executing the Democratic agenda.
You make a good point. So, let's try and evaluate Bush's performance by typical conservative standards.

Spending & the national deficit - I may be a little out of touch with current events, but by your statement I guess Bush must a done a good job of eliminating discretionary and pork-barrel spending, and cutting the deficit by the promised fraction.

Less Govt - Surely, by your suggestion, the size of govt and its interference in the way people lead their lives must be far reduced.

States' Rights - No measures (like say, an amendment to the Constitution) would have been attempted to undermine states' rights.

<gotta take off now>
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
You make a good point. So, let's try and evaluate Bush's performance by typical conservative standards.
You're only halfway there, Gokul - Bush didn't campaing on a platform of "traditional conservative standards" (regardless of how he worded his political position, he had specific issues) - again, it can't be said he's failing to do something he isn't attempting to do. Look at the things he is trying to do (ie, war on terror) and I'm sure you'll find things he's actually attempting that he's failing at.
 
  • #17
Feliz Navidad from Hugo Chavez

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/22/PM200511222.html
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has a holiday gift for Americans - discounted heating oil. Helen Palmer has more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
russ_watters said:
You're only halfway there, Gokul - Bush didn't campaing on a platform of "traditional conservative standards" (regardless of how he worded his political position, he had specific issues)
I guess you are not talking about his second campaign (where I'm sure he promised a specific reduction in the deficit - I can dig this up)...but I recall some of the key points in his first campaign as well. I don't remember hearing anything about a war on terror, but I do recall two things : (i) bringing integrity back to the White House :rolleyes: and (ii) his platform of "compassionate conservatism".

The only campaign promise, in my recollection, that he's kept, is cutting taxes.
 
  • #19
Chavez offering oil at a discount resembles a child molester luring kids into the woods with candy.

Do not trust Chavez. He is dangerous.
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
You make a good point.
My point was that little is proven when a politician is judged using polar standards.

Let's see how you responded...
Gokul43201 said:
So, let's try and evaluate Bush's performance by typical conservative standards.
Even using the standards of George Bush's own political party proves little. It is not practical to assess President Bush's accomplishments in liberal or conservative circles. It is practical to assess his accomplishments for the United States of America.

Such an evaluation would need to be based upon standards which could be applied to either liberals or conservatives. Theoretically, an increase in the abortion rate can not be attributed to conservatives, and a decrease in the number of labor unions can not be attributed to liberals. We would therefore need to find standards which could be used to judge both ends of the political spectrum at the same time. If we found that unemployment rate is a valid standard of judgment, we would then need to prove that a change in unemployment rate is actually the result of legislation from a political party. We can judge George Bush's accomplishments only after these criteria have been met.
 
  • #21
ron damon said:
Chavez offering oil at a discount resembles a child molester luring kids into the woods with candy.
Do not trust Chavez. He is dangerous.
Dangerous? To whom or what??

Chavez has attacked poverty in Venezuela is that what you mean? Or perhaps you mean it is dangerous to be in proximity to him in case you are collateral damage in a rightwing christian assassination attempt?

In pursuit of his goal to reduce poverty he nationalised his country's oil after the main oil companies Philips Petroleum and ExxonMobil refused to renegotiate their 60 year contract (given, or should that be sold, to them by previous corrupt gov'ts) whereby they paid only 1% tax on the literally billions of dollars profit they made from Venezuela's oil.

In retaliation the supporters of the big oil companies responded by trying to overthrow his gov't in 2002. Popular opinion and the loyalty of a large section of the army ensured the coups defeat. The U.S. govt are believed to have been one of the attempted coups main sponsors, a claim which doesn't seem too farfetched given this administration's affiliation to all things 'oil'.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
No, I think the help is great although it was done for the wrong reasons.
Would a right reason be to gain the goodwill of the American people?

I think that might go a long way toward preventing another pre-emptive war in Venezuela.

I am sure you would not prefer that he get the attention of the American people by blowing something up. I think Chavez may be one of the great leaders of our time.

Is he good or evil?

I don't know enough about him. He has outmaneuvered his enemies again and again. This was a very clever maneuver, makes it much harder to paint him as a tyrant.
 
  • #23
1) He gives material support to the extremely brutal Colombian Left-wing FARC terrorist group, whom Colin Powell described as being "worse than Al-Qaeda" only days after 9/11.
2) He almost went to war with neighboring Colombia, after a high-level member of the FARC that was enjoying sanctuary in Venezuela was captured by Colombian intelligence in Venezuelan territory. By the way, Colombia's Right-wing president Alvaro Uribe enjoys even higher approval ratings than Chavez, hovering between 70-80%, mainly because of his strong stance against the FARC.
3) He precipitated tensions between Chile and Bolivia, after making sensitive comments regarding a border issue.
4) He had security forces shoot at peaceful protesters, and kill several of them.
5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).
6) He personally insulted the president of Mexico for being in favor of free trade.
7) He broke relations with Panama as a way of supporting his pal Castro in the Carriles incident.
8) He halted oil shipments to Republica Dominicana after accusing its president of planning a conspiracy against him.
9) He has allegedly funded Left-wing campaigns throughout Latin America, including Brazil and Chile, in an attempt to bolster his influence in the region.
10) He is a "caudillo" and "hombre fuerte" very much in the same mold as the many who have preceded him and who have *every time* plunged Latin America into ever deeper poverty and misery.
11) He is a Communist with imperialistic ambitions, from re-forming the Gran Colombia of Bolivar, to dominance in Central America and the Caribbean, he is flushed with petrodollars, loved by every Che Guevara wanna-be, and feared by most democrats in the region, including Left-wing Lula, who recently came out in passionate defense of free-trade, presumably to distance himself from Chavez in his dispute with Mexico.
 
  • #24
5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).

Can you provide a link to this? I recall seeing maybe some similar thing on CNN where they apologized for mistranslating, but I can't find the link anymore.
 
  • #25
klusener said:
Can you provide a link to this? I recall seeing maybe some similar thing on CNN where they apologized for mistranslating, but I can't find the link anymore.

I heard the quote on the radio in the original Spanish, not on the internet. I think what he literally called her was a "negra analfabeta", a literal translation of which is "illiterate black", but the term black was expressed in a derogatory manner, which can be faithfully be translated as "n*gger".
 
  • #26
ron damon said:
1) He gives material support to the extremely brutal Colombian Left-wing FARC terrorist group, whom Colin Powell described as being "worse than Al-Qaeda" only days after 9/11.
2) He almost went to war with neighboring Colombia, after a high-level member of the FARC that was enjoying sanctuary in Venezuela was captured by Colombian intelligence in Venezuelan territory. By the way, Colombia's Right-wing president Alvaro Uribe enjoys even higher approval ratings than Chavez, hovering between 70-80%, mainly because of his strong stance against the FARC.
3) He precipitated tensions between Chile and Bolivia, after making sensitive comments regarding a border issue.
4) He had security forces shoot at peaceful protesters, and kill several of them.
5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).
6) He personally insulted the president of Mexico for being in favor of free trade.
7) He broke relations with Panama as a way of supporting his pal Castro in the Carriles incident.
8) He halted oil shipments to Republica Dominicana after accusing its president of planning a conspiracy against him.
9) He has allegedly funded Left-wing campaigns throughout Latin America, including Brazil and Chile, in an attempt to bolster his influence in the region.
10) He is a "caudillo" and "hombre fuerte" very much in the same mold as the many who have preceded him and who have *every time* plunged Latin America into ever deeper poverty and misery.
11) He is a Communist with imperialistic ambitions, from re-forming the Gran Colombia of Bolivar, to dominance in Central America and the Caribbean, he is flushed with petrodollars, loved by every Che Guevara wanna-be, and feared by most democrats in the region, including Left-wing Lula, who recently came out in passionate defense of free-trade, presumably to distance himself from Chavez in his dispute with Mexico.
So he's shaking things up, and you don't agree with him.

I don't trust him, but I don't trust you either. You will spin it one way and someone else will spin it another. I won't trust them either.

He is challenging the powers that be. Their list of crimes is just as long and heinous. The upper and middle classes are his biggest critics, but he has popular support from the poor.

If he is such a bad man, as you claim, then I would suggest that the existence of the poor is what gives him a power base. If you and others wish to eliminate socialist dictators and terrorists you must eliminate the conditions which facilitate their power, IE eliminate poverty.

As long as the policies of the corporatist are not perceived to be beneficial to the poor, like making them pay for the rain water they collect.

What do you expect?

Your hate rhetoric is what fuels the fight that keeps us from looking beyond strife, to what might be possible with a new economic paradigm that shifts the emphasis away from profit to service.

The economy should serve the people not the bottom line.
 
  • #27
ron damon said:
1) He gives material support to the extremely brutal Colombian Left-wing FARC terrorist group, whom Colin Powell described as being "worse than Al-Qaeda" only days after 9/11.
2) He almost went to war with neighboring Colombia, after a high-level member of the FARC that was enjoying sanctuary in Venezuela was captured by Colombian intelligence in Venezuelan territory. By the way, Colombia's Right-wing president Alvaro Uribe enjoys even higher approval ratings than Chavez, hovering between 70-80%, mainly because of his strong stance against the FARC.
3) He precipitated tensions between Chile and Bolivia, after making sensitive comments regarding a border issue.
4) He had security forces shoot at peaceful protesters, and kill several of them.
5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).
6) He personally insulted the president of Mexico for being in favor of free trade.
7) He broke relations with Panama as a way of supporting his pal Castro in the Carriles incident.
8) He halted oil shipments to Republica Dominicana after accusing its president of planning a conspiracy against him.
9) He has allegedly funded Left-wing campaigns throughout Latin America, including Brazil and Chile, in an attempt to bolster his influence in the region.
10) He is a "caudillo" and "hombre fuerte" very much in the same mold as the many who have preceded him and who have *every time* plunged Latin America into ever deeper poverty and misery.
11) He is a Communist with imperialistic ambitions, from re-forming the Gran Colombia of Bolivar, to dominance in Central America and the Caribbean, he is flushed with petrodollars, loved by every Che Guevara wanna-be, and feared by most democrats in the region, including Left-wing Lula, who recently came out in passionate defense of free-trade, presumably to distance himself from Chavez in his dispute with Mexico.

If he really does all this, he is not so socialist. He's more like Stalin. I believe he's a good guy, otherwise the poor in his country would not vote for him.
 
  • #28
ron damon said:
1) He gives material support to the extremely brutal Colombian Left-wing FARC terrorist group, whom Colin Powell described as being "worse than Al-Qaeda" only days after 9/11.
Apparently not;
The Herald reported in 2003 that the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency had found no evidence that the illegal sale of Venezuelan weapons to Colombian rebels had risen since Chávez was first elected in 1998. The agency, in fact, found evidence of a drop in such sales, depending on how the figures were compared.
ron damon said:
2) He almost went to war with neighboring Colombia, after a high-level member of the FARC that was enjoying sanctuary in Venezuela was captured by Colombian intelligence in Venezuelan territory.
All countries dislike having their sovreignty violated
news.bbc.co.uk
Last month, Venezuela froze links with Colombia after its neighbour admitted it paid bounty hunters who had captured a rebel chief on Venezuelan soil.
Ties have improved since Mr Uribe vowed to respect Venezuela's sovereignty.
The talks behind closed doors were expected to end with issuing a joint declaration, Colombian Foreign Minister Carolina Barco was quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.
ron damon said:
By the way, Colombia's Right-wing president Alvaro Uribe enjoys even higher approval ratings than Chavez, hovering between 70-80%, mainly because of his strong stance against the FARC.
That's nice for him but I don't see what it has to do with the subject :confused: Chavez does not support Farc and is on record as saying he has no opinion on Columbia's internal affairs.
ron damon said:
3) He precipitated tensions between Chile and Bolivia, after making sensitive comments regarding a border issue.
Chavez far from stirring things up was acting as a go between to try and facilitate a peaceful solution of a problem which goes back to the Pacific war as he wants all of S. America to unite to form a trade bloc independent of the U.S. who he believes screws them.
ron damon said:
4) He had security forces shoot at peaceful protesters, and kill several of them.
There were 14 killed during rioting between pro- and anti-Chavez supporters during the attempted coup in 2002. The fact several demonstrators were killed isn't surprising in a country where everybody has guns but to suggest Chavez is personally responsible is unsupportable nonsense. There are more shootings than that on an average weekend in L.A. Is the president of the U.S. personally responsible for them too??
ron damon said:
5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).
As in a later post you admit you have taken a huge amount of poetic license in your translation of what he actually said I'll pass on this one.
ron damon said:
6) He personally insulted the president of Mexico for being in favor of free trade.
Yes he was highly critical of the Mexican president over the tack they were taking with regard to trade for the reason I mentioned above. So what?
ron damon said:
7) He broke relations with Panama as a way of supporting his pal Castro in the Carriles incident.
Loyalty to friends is actually normally considered a virtue rather than a dangerous vice.
ron damon said:
8) He halted oil shipments to Republica Dominicana after accusing its president of planning a conspiracy against him.
If he had reason to believe this is so who would blame him? Iraq had a stream of cruise missiles fired at them when their president plotted against Bush snr.
ron damon said:
9) He has allegedly funded Left-wing campaigns throughout Latin America, including Brazil and Chile, in an attempt to bolster his influence in the region.
Wow, trying to influence sympathetic parties. That's really bad. Afterall the U.S. gov't never does that does it?? especially in S. America.
ron damon said:
10) He is a "caudillo" and "hombre fuerte" very much in the same mold as the many who have preceded him and who have *every time* plunged Latin America into ever deeper poverty and misery.
He's a good and popular leader for the vast majority of his people who is trying to alleviate poverty in his country and throughout S. America.
ron damon said:
11) He is a Communist with imperialistic ambitions, from re-forming the Gran Colombia of Bolivar, to dominance in Central America and the Caribbean, he is flushed with petrodollars, loved by every Che Guevara wanna-be, and feared by most democrats in the region, including Left-wing Lula, who recently came out in passionate defense of free-trade, presumably to distance himself from Chavez in his dispute with Mexico.
No he's not a communist, he's a socialist. There's a big difference. America's ally Tony Blair in the U.K. is also a socialist btw. Chavez' ambition is to remove the remnants and influence of the colonial past which left all the power and wealth in the hands of an elite few (who's dictatorial rule was supported by the U.S.) and to redistribute the wealth more fairly. Seems like a reasonable ambition to me.
 
  • #29
Skyhunter said:
So he's shaking things up, and you don't agree with him.
I don't trust him, but I don't trust you either. You will spin it one way and someone else will spin it another. I won't trust them either.

Beautiful. Berkeley would be proud of you.

Skyhunter said:
He is challenging the powers that be.

:smile: Strong-men exactly like him have been in power in that forsaken continent since the Europeans arrived five centuries ago.

Skyhunter said:
The upper and middle classes are his biggest critics, but he has popular support from the poor. If he is such a bad man, as you claim, then I would suggest that the existence of the poor is what gives him a power base. If you and others wish to eliminate socialist dictators and terrorists you must eliminate the conditions which facilitate their power, IE eliminate poverty.

Look, material well-being is not a universal human right; it is just a special case that arose only once in the entire human history. Nobel prize-winning economist Robert E. Lucas, Jr. once wrote that the problem of why a country like India is infinitely less developed than one like the US is enough to occupy the most formidable mind for an entire lifetime. As it is, legions of formidable minds have tackled the problem in a scientific manner for three centuries, yet for the most part we are still in the darkness as to why some peoples are able to take off, while others remain unable to advance. Poverty will continue to be a reality for much of our species, and making its solution a pre-condition for civility is like demanding people learn quantum physics before arithmetic.

Skyhunter said:
Your hate rhetoric is what fuels the fight that keeps us from looking beyond strife, to what might be possible with a new economic paradigm that shifts the emphasis away from profit to service.
The economy should serve the people not the bottom line.

Forget about the rhetoric. He allows the FARC to take kidnap victims into Venezuelan territory, and set up training camps there. The FARC has even started to kidnap Venezuelan citizens. Not long ago I spoke with a fellow who lives across the Colombian border town of Cucuta, and he told me his cousin had been kidnapped by the FARC. Like I said, a major figure of that terrorist organization had to be captured in Caracas, where he was operating unhindered by Venezuelan security, in a covert operation by the Colombians. As a result, Chavez came close to declaring war, but chickened out because he knew my former compatriots were strongly behind president Uribe in their struggle against the hated FARC.
 
  • #30
ron damon said:
Forget about the rhetoric. He allows the FARC to take kidnap victims into Venezuelan territory, and set up training camps there. The FARC has even started to kidnap Venezuelan citizens. Not long ago I spoke with a fellow who lives across the Colombian border town of Cucuta, and he told me his cousin had been kidnapped by the FARC. Like I said, a major figure of that terrorist organization had to be captured in Caracas, where he was operating unhindered by Venezuelan security, in a covert operation by the Colombians. As a result, Chavez came close to declaring war, but chickened out because he knew my former compatriots were strongly behind president Uribe in their struggle against the hated FARC.
Here's what Chavez actually said about FARC following an attack on Venezuelan troops (which is in itself peculiar if they are allies)
President Hugo Chavez also said it was unclear who committed the attack, and added what sounded like a warning: "The Colombian guerrillas are not our enemy... But if they enter our territory, from that moment they become an enemy of this country because they violate the sovereignty of our territory." (La Republica, Peru, Sept. 21)
He doesn't take sides in Columbia mainly because both sides are as bad as each other. Both make a living off drugs and both have their death squads. FARC on the left and the AUC on the right.
 
  • #31
ron damon said:
Nobel prize-winning economist Robert E. Lucas, Jr. once wrote that the problem of why a country like India is infinitely less developed than one like the US is enough to occupy the most formidable mind for an entire lifetime.
Never mind a formidable mind; anybody with even a tiny mind would realize India's late development is entirely due to Britain's colonial rule which began in 1609 with the formation of the East India Company and continued until 1947. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Art said:
Apparently not;
All countries dislike having their sovreignty violated

Yeah, especially when they grant sanctuary to organizations which kidnap your citizens, displace and massacre your peasants, destroy your fledgling infrastructure, and generally turn the country into a living hell.

Art said:
Chavez does not support Farc and is on record as saying he has no opinion on Columbia's internal affairs.

You are misinformed.

Art said:
Chavez far from stirring things up was acting as a go between to try and facilitate a peaceful solution of a problem which goes back to the Pacific war.

He literally said he would like to go swimming in a Bolivian beach. Look in a South American map and try to locate any such Bolivian beach.

Art said:
There were 14 killed during rioting between pro- and anti-Chavez supporters during the attempted coup in 2002. The fact several demonstrators were killed isn't surprising in a country where everybody has guns but to suggest Chavez is personally responsible is unsupportable nonsense.

They were killed by Chavez operatives who went unpunished.

Art said:
As in a later post you admit you have taken a huge amount of poetic license in your translation of what he actually said I'll pass on this one.

The Spanish language doesn't have an equivalent for n*gger, but you can pretty damn well tell what is meant by the manner in which someone is called a "negro/a". My grandmother was a pioneer anthropologist, and my grandfather, also an anthropologist, affectionately called her "negra" (literally, black-woman), so I always associate that word with tenderness. When Chavez referred to Condi as "negra", tenderness is the last thing that comes to mind. :smile:

Art said:
Yes he was highly critical of the Mexican president over the tack they were taking with regard to trade for the reason I mentioned above. So what?.

He was not "critical" of Fox, but insulted him out of frustration of having his domination plans for the Caribbean and central America stymied by Mexico. The entire region signed a declaration calling for the establishment of a free trade area, in opposition to Venezuela's wishes.

Art said:
Wow, trying to influence sympathetic parties.

How would you feel about foreign powers financing the campaigns of your country, especially when it is against the law?


Art said:
He's a good and popular leader for the vast majority of his people who is trying to alleviate poverty in his country and throughout S. America.

Like Castro has done? Why don't you take a trip to the island and see what it is like to live in a Socialist utopia? You could take a couple of tuna fish cans and see what those blessed souls are willing to do for such a trifle. I hear it is a favorite destination for pedophiles...

Art said:
Chavez' ambition is to remove the remnants and influence of the colonial past which left all the power and wealth in the hands of an elite few and to redistribute the wealth more fairly. Seems like a reasonable ambition to me.

Welcome to 1917. You're in for a shock.
 
  • #33
ron damon said:
Yeah, especially when they grant sanctuary to organizations which kidnap your citizens, displace and massacre your peasants, destroy your fledgling infrastructure, and generally turn the country into a living hell.
You saying they do isn't actually the same as them doing it. I quoted you a pentagon report showing there was less support for FARC since Chavez came to power which you respond to with your opinion.
ron damon said:
You are misinformed.
I provided quotes to back up my statement again you respond with your opinion.
ron damon said:
He literally said he would like to go swimming in a Bolivian beach. Look in a South American map and try to locate any such Bolivian beach.
That is what the long running dispute is about :rolleyes: Bolivia used to have a coastline until the Pacific war.
ron damon said:
They were killed by Chavez operatives who went unpunished.
More totally unsubstantiated opinion based entirely on your own preconceptions. :rolleyes:
ron damon said:
The Spanish language doesn't have an equivalent for n*gger, but you can pretty damn well tell what is meant by the manner in which someone is called a "negro/a". My grandmother was a pioneer anthropologist, and my grandfather, also an anthropologist, affectionately called her "negra" (literally, black-woman), so I always associate that word with tenderness. When Chavez referred to Condi as "negra", tenderness is the last thing that comes to mind. :smile:
I think you just argued successfully against your own contention.
ron damon said:
He was not "critical" of Fox, but insulted him out of frustration of having his domination plans for the Caribbean and central America stymied by Mexico. The entire region signed a declaration calling for the establishment of a free trade area, in opposition to Venezuela's wishes.
As I said so what?? As an ex-paratrooper he may not be as diplomatic as most professional politicians but sometimes it's actually refreshing to hear politicians say what they actually think about issues.
ron damon said:
How would you feel about foreign powers financing the campaigns of your country, especially when it is against the law?
I suppose we could canvass the dozens of countries around the world who's internal politics the U.S. meddle into see what they think. :biggrin:
ron damon said:
Like Castro has done? Why don't you take a trip to the island and see what it is like to live in a Socialist utopia? You could take a couple of tuna fish cans and see what those blessed souls are willing to do for such a trifle. I hear it is a favorite destination for pedophiles...
Sorry :confused: I thought we were discussing Chavez but you seem to have gone off on a tangent for some reason. I think you'll find Castro is being discussed in another thread. Perhaps you meant to post this piece there?? :confused:

Really unless you quote credible sources to substantiate your claims then further discussion is pointless.
 
  • #34
Art said:
Here's what Chavez actually said about FARC following an attack on Venezuelan troops (which is in itself peculiar if they are allies) He doesn't take sides in Columbia mainly because both sides are as bad as each other. Both make a living off drugs and both have their death squads. FARC on the left and the AUC on the right.

What do you want me to do, fly you down there and take you to the border so you can see with your own eyes the camps the FARC has set on the Venezuelan side?

Everyone down there knows it to be true.

About the AUC, nobody likes them either, but they arose much later, in reaction to the FARC and as a way of people to defend themselves from them. AUC stands for "Self-Defense Forces of Colombia". Later they evolved into just another warlord-like faction. They are undergoing a process of de-mobilization though, which however flawed, will mean that maybe 10-15,000 men be removed from the battlefield. The FARC were given even more generous and favorable terms, but they replied with such ferocity and brutality, that the country turned to right-wing Uribe to crush them militarily.
 
  • #35
ron damon said:
Beautiful. Berkeley would be proud of you.
:smile: Strong-men exactly like him have been in power in that forsaken continent since the Europeans arrived five centuries ago.
I don't think he is like the majority of strongmen who have come before him.

For one thing he is not supported by the US.
ron damon said:
Look, material well-being is not a universal human right; it is just a special case that arose only once in the entire human history. Nobel prize-winning economist Robert E. Lucas, Jr. once wrote that the problem of why a country like India is infinitely less developed than one like the US is enough to occupy the most formidable mind for an entire lifetime. As it is, legions of formidable minds have tackled the problem in a scientific manner for three centuries, yet for the most part we are still in the darkness as to why some peoples are able to take off, while others remain unable to advance. Poverty will continue to be a reality for much of our species, and making its solution a pre-condition for civility is like demanding people learn quantum physics before arithmetic.
I understand you now. Your like the proponents of Intellient design. You believe it is just too complex a problem to be solved, so why bother. You look for the easy way out.

What do you propose as a solution?

More right-wing coups by corporarate/capitalilst friendly strong men?
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Back
Top