NationStates Jolt Archive

HAVANA - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, receiving a U.N. prize handed over by Fidel Castro on Friday, said Washington was right to be concerned by Latin America's tilt to the left because it represents a threat to the U.S. "empire."

ADVERTISEMENT

Chavez was visiting Havana amid an intensifying propaganda war between Washington and Latin America's leftist leaders. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld compared Chavez to Adolf Hitler and warned darkly Thursday about populist leadership in Bolivia and Cuba.

"They are right to be worried, because they know what's happening here," Chavez said in a speech lasting more than 2 1/2 hours after accepting his prize. "They will forever try to preserve the U.S. empire by all means, while we will do everything possible to shred it."

Some 200,000 Cubans crowded Revolution Plaza for Friday night's ceremony granting Chavez UNESCO's 2005 Jose Marti International Prize. Cuban President Castro himself handed over the framed certificate to Chavez, a close ally.

The forum gave Castro and Chavez a chance to pat each other on the back and promote regional solidarity while bashing the U.S. government. Thousands of young Venezuelans, Bolivians and other Latin Americans studying medicine for free in Cuba attended the ceremony, screaming their support for both leaders.

Marti, who died in 1895 during Cuba's war of independence with Spain, has been glorified in Cuba as the ultimate anti-imperialist, a label both Chavez and Castro have embraced for themselves in their struggles with the United States.

Far from seeing them as regional heroes, the Bush administration considers the men to be populists who threaten democracy and individual rights.

Rumsfeld expressed the same fears about Bolivia's new leftist president, Evo Morales, during a National Press Club appearance Thursday. "We've seen some populist leadership appealing to masses of people in those countries. And elections like Evo Morales in Bolivia take place that clearly are worrisome."

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."

Chavez downplayed Rumsfeld's Hitler comparison.

"Let the dogs of the empire bark, that's their job," he said. "Ours is to battle to achieve the true liberation of our people."

Castro also rejected Rumsfeld's comments, defending populism in his hour-long speech before Chavez took to the podium.

"Populist leaders are those who concern themselves with their people, with health, with education," said the Cuban leader.

"More dangerous are those who possess dozens of thousands of nuclear weapons," added Castro, referring to the U.S. government.

Earlier in the day, Venezuelan Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel also hit back, calling President Bush "the North American Hitler" and comparing his administration to the Third Reich.

The Marti prize was created by UNESCO in 1994 on the initiative of Cuba to recognize an individual or institution contributing to the unity and integration of countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

It is awarded by UNESCO on the recommendation of a seven-member international jury that includes Nadine Gordimer, the South African winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. Earlier recipients of the $5,000 prize include the Mexican sociologist Pablo Gonzalez Casanova and the Ecuadorean painter Oswaldo Guayasamin.

The Cuban government finances the prize, but does not always host the awards ceremony.

Marti is a hero both for Cubans on the island and exiles living overseas. The politician and poet himself spent 15 years in exile in New York, where he is honored by a statue at the entrance to Central Park.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060204/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_venezuela;_ylt=Av3SWLxkxWRbSX9RL9Tc6AVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

About time. Down with the rightist government in America.

agreed. The united states is entirely too big and powerful.

*dances happily if over-optimistically*

Latin American populism will go out of style soon enough.

"I mean, we've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He's a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally

Chavez has a lot of oil money? Want to look at Bush and friends?

Also you can't say how great democracy is and then complain when it doesn't go your way. He's just undermined the entire installing democracy in Iraq argument with that 'Hiter was legally elected' comment.

Uh....

The US is not an Empire

The US is not an Empire
Very good point.

And the Latin American populists aren't really doing anything other than remaining popular by following every whim of the people. Which is, in general, bad.

HAVANA - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, receiving a U.N. prize handed over by Fidel Castro on Friday, said Washington was right to be concerned by Latin America's tilt to the left because it represents a threat to the U.S. "empire."
I'm not sure what's funnier - Chavez receiving an award from the UN (the last bastion of liberty :rolleyes: ), or the fact that Castro is presenting it.

ROFLMAO

Uh....

The US is not an Empire
They just don't CALL it one. I guess US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are just happy-fun imperialist territorial holdings, then. Amongst other places.

They just don't CALL it one. I guess US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are just happy-fun imperialist territorial holdings, then. Amongst other places.

I see that someone has no idea what an empire is.

FYI: Puerto Rico does its own thing. They are semi-autonomous.

Uh....

The US is not an Empire
Well, it is, but not in the traditional sense.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400061326/102-2722547-4867342?v=glance&n=283155

I see that someone has no idea what an empire is.

It's a six-letter word for a geopolitical entity ruled over by a single authority.

Smart guy.

You know what's kind of an amusing question? when you squander all your oil money on gaining support and consolidating power, what happens to it all when your supply of oil runs out? The answer in international, diplomatic terms is: you get screwed. Venezuela needs the United States more than The United States needs Venezuela anyway. The sad thing is that Latin America was just starting to come out of the severe slump it has been in since like the 80s. Just let them fall back into the mire that is socialist/communist society and soon they will be begging for our help. Its gonna be tough for teh Venezuelans in a bit if Chavez keeps taking the Castro road. Way harder than for the Cubans. You can't get to America from Venezuela on a raft.

Also, why is America being an emire such a bad thing? The world needs a stabilizing force such as a superpower, or an uber-power. Multi-lateral entities aren't exactly doing a lot to help reign in the chaos, so why can't one nation with the means and good-intentions to help do so? And in return for keeping the peace, it is only natural that we retain a large amount of influence. If other people dont like it.

It's a six-letter word for a geopolitical entity ruled over by a single authority.

And undemocratic which the US most certainly IS NOT!

Smart guy.

I'm a girl actually.

Well, it is, but not in the traditional sense.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400061326/102-2722547-4867342?v=glance&n=283155

uh...

Its a link to a book!

Well, it is, but not in the traditional sense.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400061326/102-2722547-4867342?v=glance&n=283155
Ah, the younguns. :D

But you're right--the US is an empire, just not a traditional one. We've used not just our military might, but our economic might to dominate the world since the end of WWII in many respects. Since the US escaped that war with its infrastructure intact, especially in comparison to most of Europe and Asia, we've been able to exercise undue influence over global politics. We've meddled in the internal affairs of other, ostensibly soveriegn nations with impunity (especially in Latin America). We've toppled governments in order to install puppet regimes more favorable to our interests all over the world. If that doesn't describe an empire, what does?

And undemocratic which the US most certainly IS NOT!
Well, whether the US is still democratic is up for debate, but there's no requirement that an empire be undemocratic. Britain was democratic--had a Parliament, Prime Minister, etc.--and yet was undoubtedly an empire.

Ah, the younguns. :D

But you're right--the US is an empire, just not a traditional one. We've used not just our military might, but our economic might to dominate the world since the end of WWII in many respects. Since the US escaped that war with its infrastructure intact, especially in comparison to most of Europe and Asia, we've been able to exercise undue influence over global politics. We've meddled in the internal affairs of other, ostensibly soveriegn nations with impunity (especially in Latin America). We've toppled governments in order to install puppet regimes more favorable to our interests all over the world. If that doesn't describe an empire, what does?

Hegemony.

Just as vile, really...

I just hope that, when the day comes and the US is humbled like most of you Euro-trash and your supporters want to see happen, we go out in a blaze of glory and take most of your worthless countries with us. :sniper:

Well, whether the US is still democratic is up for debate, but there's no requirement that an empire be undemocratic. Britain was democratic--had a Parliament, Prime Minister, etc.--and yet was undoubtedly an empire.

But a monarchy none the less.

And there is no debate. The US is a democratic nation.

we go out in a blaze of glory and take most of your worthless countries with us.
What's glorious about being a sore loser, pally?

But a monarchy none the less.

And there is no debate. The US is a democratic nation.

There is debate. It entirely depends on one's definition of democracy.

My answer would be that "Representative Democracy" is a contradiction; one can either have rule by the people or they can have representation.

And there is no debate. The US is a democratic nation.
That we're debating it tends to negate your supposition.

But a monarchy none the less.

And there is no debate. The US is a democratic nation.A monarchy in name only--the Queen has no power outside that of ceremony. Governance--the important part--is handled by elected officials.

And a true discussion of whether or not the US is still democratic in anything other than name may be above you, if this is the level of argument you're going to stick to.

They just don't CALL it one. I guess US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are just happy-fun imperialist territorial holdings, then. Amongst other places.
Look another dumb European. If you knew a damn thing about America you would know that the Puerto Ricans vote on their status. They overwhelmingly chose to be in their current state because they don't have to pay income taxes.

And a true discussion of whether or not the US is still democratic in anything other than name may be above you, if this is the level of argument you're going to stick to.
Sigh. Can you not discuss without demeaning? :(

And a true discussion of whether or not the US is still democratic in anything other than name may be above you, if this is the level of argument you're going to stick to.

No need to be harsh :(

*gets very emotional*

"They are right to be worried, because they know what's happening here," Chavez said in a speech lasting more than 2 1/2 hours after accepting his prize. "They will forever try to preserve the U.S. empire by all means, while we will do everything possible to shred it."

...

Far from seeing them as regional heroes, the Bush administration considers the men to be populists who threaten democracy and individual rights.

Well, at least the US do have an excuse now to say that Chavez is a threat, considering that he says he will do everything possible to shred it.

But last time I checked, democracy was based on populism. That is, what the people want. To say that populists threaten democracy seems like an oxymoron to me. Individual rights maybe, but they haven't Always been important.

No need to be harsh :(

*gets very emotional*
My dear, this is nowhere near harsh. In fact, I'm showing you respect because I'm expecting you to take part in an adult discussion as an adult. If you want to be treated as a child, that's fine, but if we're talking about whether or not the US is an empire, I expect you to back up your claims with something more that discussion on the level of "is so, yuh huh."

And Eutrusca, you know damn well I wasn't being demeaning. Demeaning is what I do to you when you baselessly slam the left.

*puts on popcorn*

Who needs the Super Bowl, anyways?

Uh....

The US is not an Empire


I strongly suggest you expand your vocabulary with the word international corporation(s).

You are blind if you do not see that the U.S. is an empire.

My dear, this is nowhere near harsh. In fact, I'm showing you respect because I'm expecting you to take part in an adult discussion as an adult. If you want to be treated as a child, that's fine, but if we're talking about whether or not the US is an empire, I expect you to back up your claims with something more that discussion on the level of "is so, yuh huh."

I'm sorry The Nazz. Its just I get emotional alot lately. I can't help it :(

But still, I know that we are not an empire. We do not go around conquoring nations and adding them to our flag.

I strongly suggest you expand your vocabulary with the word international corporation(s).

You are blind if you do not see that the U.S. is an empire.

I maybe a teenager however, even i know the difference between the Foreign Relations and economics.

I strongly suggest you expand your vocabulary with the word international corporation(s).

You are blind if you do not see that the U.S. is an empire.


Being as the U.S. runs on a free market economy the term international corporation really has as much value as you calling them "mean".

Also besides the point is if you consider the U.S. an empire because of the virgin islands and Puerto rico then You should have a list including some of your dear European countries that are also to be labeled as empires.

I'm sorry The Nazz. Its just I get emotional alot lately. I can't help it

But still, I know that we are not an empire. We do not go around conquoring nations and adding them to our flag.

America is an empire, and if not an empire, a colonial power because when you dabble in another one's affairs, and you think you are better than them so you instill dictators for your own personal purpose and not the people than you are at least a colonial power.

Now same goes with France, Britain, Russia, and other European and Iran you could make the claim.

And someone made mention about the socialist in the 1980s actually, they are going socialist because of the free-market capitalist crap that made them go into debt.

But i love you right wing, capitalist people who love to blame everything on socialist even though it is you and America that screws up the world.

Look at Hussein, Bin Laden and Pinochet, all CIA boys. Aren't you proud.

My dear, this is nowhere near harsh. In fact, I'm showing you respect because I'm expecting you to take part in an adult discussion as an adult. If you want to be treated as a child, that's fine, but if we're talking about whether or not the US is an empire, I expect you to back up your claims with something more that discussion on the level of "is so, yuh huh." .

The entire world depends upon your economy.
You've got troops stationed across the globe.
You can wipe out any city on the planet at the touch of a button.
Anybody within your sphere of influence who threatens your interests finds themselves either bankrupt or faced with a sudden change of government or war
(Nicaragua, Brazil, many other south American countries)
Except those with the guts to stand up to you
(Cuba)

Nah, you're just minding your own business, aren't you? A democratic country looking after its own interests... take a couple of steps back and look at the panorama, and suddenly everything seems rather ugly...

The US is not an "empire" in the most literal sense, but it is if we extend it to economic and cultural affairs. We possess a massive influence on the world, and one that is becoming increasinly entrenched with each passing decade. However, the same is true for the EU or Japan, or anywhere in the developed world; they also possess highly influential and economically viable corporations and cultural institutions.

There's nothing wrong with this so long as they do not use their influence to restrict the competition of other nations' cultures and economic offerings on the free market; unfortunately, there is still entrenched and backward protectionist sentiment in the developed world that has provided a considerable amount of economic hardship for South America, which does explain to a degree the popularity of socialism.

However, given the miserable failiure of socialist economics in other parts of the world, it is likely that this recent rash of populist sentiment will ultimately worsen the condition of South American nations that embrace it.

The entire world depends upon your economy.
You've got troops stationed across the globe.
You can wipe out any city on the planet at the touch of a button.
Anybody within your sphere of influence who threatens your interests finds themselves either bankrupt or faced with a sudden change of government or war (Nicaragua, Brazil, many other south American countries)
Except those with the guts to stand up to you
(Cuba)

That's not really a bad thing; the US's economic dominance has provided an incredible degree of improvement in many fields of technology, science, medicine, and their related fields. The only time this is a bad thing is when the US uses its economic clout to prevent other nations from freely competing on the world market.

MAD was what kept the Soviets from rolling in to Western Europe and Alaska. If we didn't have nukes, and they did...suffice to say the Cold War would have been decided in their favor. The US military presence in other nations provides a valuable component of regional defense forces, so there's nothing wrong with it.

Right. Time to haul out the online dictionaries again. Let's see if we can't inject some degree of reference to this debate. I don't really care for which side...

Webster Online has this to say.

Pronunciation: 'em-"pIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion


Here's Wiki!

An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. Land-based empires (such as Mongol or Achaemenid Persia) tend to extend in a contiguous area; sea-borne empires, also known as thalassocracies (the Athenian and British empires provide examples), may feature looser structures and more scattered territories.

The actual political concept predates the Romans by several hundred years: empires began to appear soon after the first cities made the necessary administrative structures possible. The Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad furnishes one of the earliest known examples. Compare the concept of "empire" with that of a federation, where a large, multi-ethnic state — or even an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or a small area like Switzerland — relies on mutual agreement amongst its component political units. Also, one can compare physical empires with potentially more abstract or less formally structured hegemonies, which add cultural influences to their power repertory within their spheres of influence, compare empires with superpowers.



Dictionary dot com.

em·pire
n.

A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
The territory included in such a unit.
An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: “There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians” (James Traub).

And I got a couple definitions from Cambridge Dictionaries Online.

Empire

noun [C]
a group of countries ruled by a single person, government or country:
the Holy Roman Empire


Imperial

imperial (EMPIRE) Show phonetics
adjective
belonging or relating to an empire or the person or country that rules it:
Imperial China
Britain's imperial past
the Imperial palace
imperial grandeur


Imperialism

imperialism
noun [U] OFTEN DISAPPROVING
1 a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them:
the age of imperialism

2 when one country has a lot of power or influence over others, especially in political and economic matters:
She accused the United States of economic imperialism.

agreed. The united states is entirely too big and powerful.
I would argue we arent big or powerful enough

I would argue we arent big or powerful enough
Big and powerful, eh? Just keep consuming the added Bovine Growth Hormones in your food...

Many political scientists see the United states as a hegemon over the entire world due to being a hyperpower (uncontested Superpwer since the fall of the Soviet Union). By being a hegemon and hyperpower, the US has the ability to affect and control the political and economic dealings of many nations around the world. Many nations around the world, due to trying to modernize since WW2, have racked up major ammounts of debt with many nations and organizations around the world, including the US and many of its banking and investment organizations. In order to allow the nations to pay off this debt over time (rather than calling it in right now), the US extracts political favors: votes in the UN, intel, military bases (see basically all of central asia, eastern europe, etc), new investment opportunites, assurance of leaders' positions of power (remember, we take out world leaders like its nothing; see Iran, Panama, Panama again, Iraq, and many other nations), and passing of legislations (see NAFTA).

As a hegemon, we have this power, and need to use it in order to hold our position at the top of the world. Without it, our closes competetors (Europe, Russia, China) may be able to pass us in power. And with our massive debt (which is still growning thanks to the latest administration), we would be at the whim of our debtors.

Look another dumb European. If you knew a damn thing about America you would know that the Puerto Ricans vote on their status. They overwhelmingly chose to be in their current state because they don't have to pay income taxes.

The Algerians and Vietnamese ruled by the French empire (aka the French Republic) voted on their own status in the early 20th century too. It is easy for an occupying power to get the vote results it wants when it has control of the military-police apparatus. To advocate independence for Puerto Rico means to run the risk of being murdered like Filiberto Ojeda Rios and the victims of the Ponce massacre--or at least locked up for a few hours at election time.

America is an empire, and if not an empire, a colonial power because when you dabble in another one's affairs, and you think you are better than them so you instill dictators for your own personal purpose and not the people than you are at least a colonial power.

Now same goes with France, Britain, Russia, and other European and Iran you could make the claim.

And someone made mention about the socialist in the 1980s actually, they are going socialist because of the free-market capitalist crap that made them go into debt.

But i love you right wing, capitalist people who love to blame everything on socialist even though it is you and America that screws up the world.

Look at Hussein, Bin Laden and Pinochet, all CIA boys. Aren't you proud.


Free market capitalism didn't make Latin American countries go into debt. These countries didn't go bankrupt until the debt crisis of 1982, when they then implemented "Washington Consensus" reforms. Prior to that, most of these countries practised populism à la Juan Peron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Peron