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

  • News
  • Thread starter McGyver
  • Start date
  • #26
Skyhunter
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
30
0
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
Art
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 licence 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
17
0
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.
:rofl: 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
Art
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
Art
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 realise 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
17
0
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 licence 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 refered to Condi as "negra", tenderness is the last thing that comes to mind. :rofl:

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
Art
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 refered to Condi as "negra", tenderness is the last thing that comes to mind. :rofl:
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 in to 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
17
0
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
Skyhunter
ron damon said:
Beautiful. Berkeley would be proud of you.
:rofl: 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?
 
  • #36
17
0
Skyhunter said:
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.
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?
So we're now blaming the US... what a novelty :rolleyes:. It may come as a shock, but not everything is a consequence of the US existing.

Chavez fits in Latin American culture like the rodeo in Texas, or the latte in Manhattan. Many like him have come before, and failed in everything but enriching themselves. In a couple of years there will be yet another coup, and Chavez will be replaced by another clown.

And about economics, I'll let you know when I submit my paper to the AEA. :wink:
 
  • #37
Skyhunter
ron damon said:
So we're now blaming the US... what a novelty :rolleyes:. It may come as a shock, but not everything is a consequence of the US existing.
The US has a tremendous amount of influence in South America. And since the US administration is so vehemently opposed to Chavez I see them supporting any formidable challenger to Chavez, regardless of their ideals, as long as they let Exxon Mobile have access to the oil.
ron damon said:
And about economics, I'll let you know when I submit my paper to the AEA. :wink:
Yes, please do link it to a post. :smile:
 
  • #38
alexandra
ron damon said:
So we're now blaming the US... what a novelty :rolleyes:. It may come as a shock, but not everything is a consequence of the US existing.
Chavez fits in Latin American culture like the rodeo in Texas, or the latte in Manhattan. Many like him have come before, and failed in everything but enriching themselves. In a couple of years there will be yet another coup, and Chavez will be replaced by another clown.
And about economics, I'll let you know when I submit my paper to the AEA. :wink:
Yes, ron, there'll definitely be a 'coup'. Chavez is hated by right wing Americans who froth at the mouth at his humanitarian approach. Anyway, here is an article hinting strongly at what's to happen to such a bad humanitarian person such as Chavez who helps out the poor in the US (see, all, I'm on topic - the topic is about Chavez' humanitarian actions towards the poor in the US- so I expect, because I'm sticking to forum rules, that this post will not be removed/moved/deleted) :
Venezuela: Fumbling a Pop Up
By William M. Arkin
Washington Post
November 1, 2005
The Pentagon has begun contingency planning for potential military conflict with Venezuela as part of a broad post-Iraq evaluation of strategic threats to the United States.
More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2005/1101venezuelaplans.htm
 
  • #39
57
0
About the killing in the riots in 2001, there is a video (not shown by the media) where one can see that almos all killed or wounded where shoot in the head by snipers, most of the wounded where Pro chavez people (including his personal driver) the media used one image from a group of 5 or 6 people shotting with hand guns acros a bridge, the media sayd they where chavez people firing on unarmed manifestators. but from another video taken from a diferent angle you can see that the streets at were they where shotting (like 4 blocks away) were empty, there was no one single person in their line of fire, they were shotting at the snipers.. obviusly this images where never shown by the media. Even the producer of Globovision (on of the antichavez media in venezuela) later resigned and confesed they manipulated the images to show chavez people as the killers.
 
  • #40
kat
26
0
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/11/22.html#a2595" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
57
0
kat said:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/11/22.html#a2595" [Broken]
Pictures like those are very comon in almost every country here in latin america, especialy those closer to the US in central america.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401546.html
Under the U.S.-sponsored "Washington consensus," or "neoliberal," model, poverty rose in Venezuela from 28 percent in the early 1980s to 85 percent when Mr. Chavez took office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Skyhunter
Burnsys said:
Pictures like those are very comon in almost every country here in latin america, especialy those closer to the US in central america.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401546.html
Under the U.S.-sponsored "Washington consensus," or "neoliberal," model, poverty rose in Venezuela from 28 percent in the early 1980s to 85 percent when Mr. Chavez took office.
I give the Washington Times a little more credibility than a right-wing blog.

Your post became suspect Kat when they accused Chavez of giving away their wealth.

This is not the case. He is selling the oil directly to Massachusetts at cost.

[edit]Well maybe not the Washington Times, but the Washington Post is more credible than a right-wing blog site with some pictures that could be from anywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
17
0
alexandra said:
Yes, ron, there'll definitely be a 'coup'. Chavez is hated by right wing Americans who froth at the mouth at his humanitarian approach.
-sigh- couldn't it be rather that those "rabid" Americans have a little more insight about the nature of Chavez, and the threat he poses to the entire region? It never ceases to amaze me how easily deluded Left-wing people are... would you indulge me and do a search on Alan Garcia, of whom Chavez is but a clone, and tell me why do you think the experience should be repeated?

alexandra said:
see, all, I'm on topic - the topic is about Chavez' humanitarian actions towards the poor in the US- so I expect, because I'm sticking to forum rules, that this post will not be removed/moved/deleted) :
We're not automatons here. No lively or wothwhile discussion can ever stay strictly "on topic".
 
  • #44
221
0
-sigh- couldn't it be rather that those "rabid" Americans have a little more insight about the nature of Chavez, and the threat he poses to the entire region?
Nope... Those "Rabid" Americans dont seem to have any insite anywhere outside of the US, judging by there recent endevours across the globe. They dont and cant understand the culture of the rest of the world..

I think there track record speaks for itself.

Perhaps you could change my mind by giving examples of there so called insite?
 
  • #45
McGyver
International Agendas are Always Political

ron damon said:
-sigh- couldn't it be rather that those "rabid" Americans have a little more insight about the nature of Chavez, and the threat he poses to the entire region? It never ceases to amaze me how easily deluded Left-wing people are... would you indulge me and do a search on Alan Garcia, of whom Chavez is but a clone, and tell me why do you think the experience should be repeated?
We're not automatons here. No lively or wothwhile discussion can ever stay strictly "on topic".
You should not paint members of this list with a wide liberal brush. On an earlier POLITICAL SURVEY - I hit dead center. I am also the author of this thread. I wanted to share this "news story" as it demonstrates how other (sometimes radically viewed) political leaderships has their favorable qualities. The Bush White House has demonized Chavez - yet look at the White House's close ties to Saudia Arabia. Yeah, they are the ones who provided most of the terrorists participants for the 911 attack. One could spend pages comparing Chavez to Bush, but it's not worth the effort at this juncture.
The reality is that the Bush White House has exhausted nearly all of its goodwill capital around the world. The U.S. oil companies had plenty of opportunity, and were even begged to step up with charitable relief - but with the U.S. shift being so far to the Right, they didn't get it! In the end, it was a "foreign company" and White House foe that made the gesture. But, if you look around the world, the Bush White House has a lot of foes.
I regret that I was mistakenly lured into voting for Bush in 2000, in that he had already assembled experieced staff, and was sold as a "unite-er." But, the Bush White House has failed miserably in this role. Diplomacy is invaluable in both foreign and domestic relationships. It was Chavez, here, that rose above Bush to be the "unite-er." As I said earlier, the Bush White House and big U.S. oil really got one-up'd. Perhaps this lesson may lead to U.S. oil companies following suit.
If there were horrific motivations by Chavez, as you claim, I really doubt that the MA governor and representatives, including both Democrats and Republicans, would have brokered such a deal.
Diplomacy is everything in building relationships.
Stephen Dolle
Dolle Communications
www.diaceph.com
 
  • #46
17
0
Anttech said:
Perhaps you could change my mind by giving examples of there so called insite?
McGyver said:
The Bush White House has demonized Chavez
Forget about Bush or the US. As far as the region and its interests are concerned, Chavez is a threat. I have already mentioned why, but since no one listened, I'll succinctly re-state that charismatic leaders such as Chavez have repeatedly seized power in almost all Latin American countries, and the results have been invariably disastrous.

These despicable men bribe the poor with Left-wing rhetoric and a mercado, and then rob them of any chance of escaping poverty by severely constraining economic growth, investment, technological change, and job creation through their socialistic policies and extremely corrupt cronyism.

None of them ever fail at enriching themselves though, and leave their countries descending into yet more revolution and poverty. Castro, "Crazy" Bucaram, Alan Garcia, Peron... so many others I don't care to remember.

There was once a man who won the presidency of his country by claiming to be a champion of the poor. He taunted the rich elites, welcomed their insults and promised to end corruption and injustice. During his campaign, he put on a show where he sang, dance and cracked jokes -- usually against the oligarchs.
When he won, he packed groceries into bags with his name and gave them to the poor. He also packed the government with cronies and family members and gave them the treasury. In a few months they plundered up to $100 million.
The above description applies equally well to them all.

It is pathetic how the region keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. But like I said, the mixture of Catholicism and Leftism leaves virtually no room in Latin American culture for the kind of ethics that would lead them to pursue a different path. They love their Chavezes, their Castros, their Perons, and no matter what experience tries to teach them, cannot resist their populist's siren calls...
 
  • #47
221
0
You quoted me, but didnt show me any insite from the "Rabid(s)"
 
  • #48
McGyver
Demonized Leaders vs. Intelligence vs. Stupidity vs. History

Though it appears that some in the U.S. have tried to demonize Venezuela's Chavez - he remains a source of "Intelligence," as he did one-up the Bush oil machinery. I won't claim to have expert knowledge of all of his reported misgivings and treachery - as some claim.

But, one can measure a leader in many ways. They can be termed a dictator, a humanitarian, a brilliant policy planner, great dreamer, a demon, and even in some cases, an idiot. Often times, you must pick your poisen! But, as a rule, when a chastized individual or leader extends a courtesy or gesture of good will - I'd suggest saying "Thank You."

Germany's Hitler, as history revealed, became a dangerous dictator who came very close to taking over the world. Yet, his leadership and efforts have been unmatched by any notable leader of the last several hundred years. Just allow yourself to wonder, that if Germany hadn't been under so many turmulous years of economic sanctions following WWI, what good and advancements he might have contributed to the world. It was his vision that led to our highways of today, and Germany's technological advancements astounded the world. What I'm trying to point out, is that the entire world, and especially the West, has never accepted any responsibility for its falied "Diplomacy" that led to the rise and actgions of Hitler.

Similarly, the West failed in "Diplomacy" to more wisely address the concerns posed by Saddam Hussein, and he became a demon.

I could go on with a list of many leaders who later became so called demons. But probably in almost each and every case, there was failed Diplomacy that allowed a brilliant and Intelligent leader to turn bad.

When one now examines President Bush, one will find it very difficult to identify instances/proof of his greatness or Intelligence - which leaves me to believe that history will not be kind to him. History may describe him as having much "Stupidity." He may even be demonized. He already has been demonized by many countries around the world.

True leadership is a very complex trait to describe - as there are so many ever changing conditions and events. History seems to be the best judge of true leadership. So I suppose we'll have to wait to read what is eventually written about President's Bush and Chavez.
 

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

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
8K
Replies
94
Views
8K
Top