NationStates Jolt Archive

Whoa Nellie!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_arming_the_people

Chavez is training a civilian militia - I Imagine this will become a point of major contention with quite few US conservatives. Although perhaps they will applaud him for helping to keep their freedom from oppression by their own govt. What do you think of this action?

Edit: OH I loved this part *G*
Chavez also recently said the National Guard has even enlisted an army of 500 Indians to defend the country with poison-tipped arrows. He added: "If they had to take a good shot at any invader, you'd be done for in 30 seconds, my dear gringo."

Good job Venezuela, standing up to the bully!!

Muerte a los Gringos!!!!

Chavez also recently said the National Guard has even enlisted an army of 500 Indians to defend the country with poison-tipped arrows. He added: "If they had to take a good shot at any invader, you'd be done for in 30 seconds, my dear gringo."

And what will the Indians do when they are roasting in napalm? :p


EDIT: Another thing, what the hell would we get in invading Venezuela?

And what will the Indians do when they are roasting in napalm? :p
Pull a 1815 on the Yankees and burn down the White House

And what will those natives with the bow n arrows do when they are roasting in napalm?

screaming in pain I imagine


EDIT: Another thing, what the hell would we get in invading Venezuela?

A huge supply of oil?

It's nice to see Venezuela under Chavez standing up against America. The U.S. is throwing its weight around the globe and Chavez doesn't seem to be giving way. But, I hop it never comes to war, which it probably won't.

It's nice to see Venezuela under Chavez standing up against America. The U.S. is throwing its weight around the globe and Chavez doesn't seem to be giving way. But, I hop it never comes to war, which it probably won't.
Yeah, Chavez is the new Castro

Agreed. Oh those were the good old days. castro overthrowing Batista. Revolutions across Latin America to free the nations of American Imperialism...

And we all love Castro

Coming soon in Venezuela, more dead Venezuelan peasants and richer Fifth Republic Movement (Marxist) party members.

Yay for Castro, Guevera, and Chavez!

Coming soon in Venezuela, more dead Venezuelan peasants and richer Fifth Republic Movement (Marxist) party members.

Explain how you expect this to come about.

Coming soon in Venezuela, more dead Venezuelan peasants and richer Fifth Republic Movement (Marxist) party members.
back this up

What's with all the pro-Chavez people around here? He's a freaking dictator! He amended the constitution so he can be president for like 20 more years! We all know how well Communist latin dictators take care of countries. I mean, just look at Cuba! It's economy has collapsed! It's a global pariah! Aren't those somethings to aspire to?

I think the on-going U.S. embargo of Cuba has crippled its' economy far more than Castro himself. The embargo's been around since the sixties.

What's with all the pro-Chavez people around here? He's a freaking dictator! He amended the constitution so he can be president for like 20 more years! We all know how well Communist latin dictators take care of countries. I mean, just look at Cuba! It's economy has collapsed! It's a global pariah! Aren't those somethings to aspire to?

Cuz Chavez rocks as he helps the countries poor get better education and health care.

Dictators are not elected over and over in fair elections.

Why are you against democracy? Whats wrong with a majority of a coutnry electing a leader they want?

Yeah, you're hardly a dictator if you keep getting elected.

Yeah, you're hardly a dictator if you keep getting elected.

He's been elected, yes, but how do you think he's going to stay in power. I hate to make a reference to Hitler, but he was elected. "You're hardly a dictator if you keep getting elected."

What's with all the pro-Chavez people around here? He's a freaking dictator! He amended the constitution so he can be president for like 20 more years! We all know how well Communist latin dictators take care of countries. I mean, just look at Cuba! It's economy has collapsed! It's a global pariah! Aren't those somethings to aspire to?
The US crushed the Cuban economy

And Chavez is popular among middle and lower class people, they like him cuz he helps him. And the high-class people hate him, and have left anywyas.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times. You could almost say he was a popularly elected dictator (if that makes sense). And yes, Hitler was elected, but he didn't take over all the power until he had the Reichstad burned and claimed more executive powers.

He's been elected, yes, but how do you think he's going to stay in power. I hate to make a reference to Hitler, but he was elected. "You're hardly a dictator if you keep getting elected."
Hes been re-elected

and they tried to make a referendum to make him resign, and it failed miserably

theres also been a coup against him, but that was defeated also

He's been elected, yes, but how do you think he's going to stay in power.

popular support during elections... unless you got some information the rest of the world doesn't have.

I don't think the US is in any position to criticize another nation for arming its population, considering the saturation of firearm ownership in this nation. Heck, I own one, and I live in Massachusetts. What am I defending myself against in Massachusetts? Quebecers?

I don't think the US is in any position to criticize another nation for arming its population, considering the saturation of firearm ownership in this nation. Heck, I own one, and I live in Massachusetts. What am I defending myself against in Massachusetts? Quebecers?
The Fake Frenchmen!! They Come!

Damn those French Canadians! :upyours:

:mp5: :mp5:

It's nice to see Venezuela under Chavez standing up against America. The U.S. is throwing its weight around the globe and Chavez doesn't seem to be giving way. But, I hop it never comes to war, which it probably won't.

So, were we right not to get involved in Rwanda, or should we not get involved in Darfur? Or do you just hate the U.S.?

Believe me, partner, if it were up to me, I would just leave all these dumb-ass countries alone and let them choke on their own blood (or not, there's no guarantee they would, but Rwanda sure did). That way, when people blame the world for not getting involved, you're just as culpable as I am. Now that we've stoved in Iraq, the blame rests heavily on our shoulders. Unfortunately, people from other countries want the US to throw it's weight around, when it suits them. U.N. involvement is sometimes desirable (Ie Iraq) and sometimes not (IE Kosovo). Do you honestly think that a historian 100 years from now will be able to understand why Milosevich was more dangerous to the world than Saddam? Are you pro-interventionism, or anti-interventionism? If anti-interventionism, then sing it brother. If pro-interventionism, you're a hypocrite.

I don't think the US is in any position to criticize another nation for arming its population, considering the saturation of firearm ownership in this nation. Heck, I own one, and I live in Massachusetts. What am I defending myself against in Massachusetts? Quebecers?

I can see it being a really smart move in terms of scaring off any potential invaders. Looking at the insurgency in Iraq should give a clue as to why.

Plus, once Chavez is gone, it could possibly keep the Venezuelan govt. in check if a corrupt leader gets back in charge in the future. Perhaps they will think twice before pissing off the poor by takign away any benefits they received under Chavez.

It's a tragedy that we didn't get involved more in Darfour. And a complete tragedy that we didn't get invovlved in Rwanda. Those are geniocides, the slaughtering of an entire people. Not the ousting of an anti-American leader. How could you compare those two topics?

I don't think the US is in any position to criticize another nation for arming its population, considering the saturation of firearm ownership in this nation. Heck, I own one, and I live in Massachusetts. What am I defending myself against in Massachusetts? Quebecers?

No, we're defending ourselves against the lobsters. They want revenge, and they've gotten into our Nuclear Waste dumps. Look forward to armies of mutant lobster-men storming Boston some time soon.

So, were we right not to get involved in Rwanda, or should we not get involved in Darfur? Or do you just hate the U.S.?

Believe me, partner, if it were up to me, I would just leave all these dumb-ass countries alone and let them choke on their own blood (or not, there's no guarantee they would, but Rwanda sure did). That way, when people blame the world for not getting involved, you're just as culpable as I am. Now that we've stoved in Iraq, the blame rests heavily on our shoulders. Unfortunately, people from other countries want the US to throw it's weight around, when it suits them. U.N. involvement is sometimes desirable (Ie Iraq) and sometimes not (IE Kosovo). Do you honestly think that a historian 100 years from now will be able to understand why Milosevich was more dangerous to the world than Saddam? Are you pro-interventionism, or anti-interventionism? If anti-interventionism, then sing it brother. If pro-interventionism, you're a hypocrite.

Devoping and Third-world countries are hardly dumb.
Its just because their former colonial powers pulled out and they did not give a crap what happened. I'd liek to see what happened if your parents left you alone in the middle of the night, with no possesions, naked, in the middle of the desert.

Not getting involved in Rwanda makes us seem like we don't care about the Africans. Trying to oust Chavez makes us look like imperialists.

Muerte a los Gringos!!!!


Start with me.

No, we're defending ourselves against the lobsters. They want revenge, and they've gotten into our Nuclear Waste dumps. Look forward to armies of mutant lobster-men storming Boston some time soon.

We? You live in Panama City. I can understand you maybe owning a gun. I live in Boston. Who am I shooting?

Will they be Rock Lobsters?

So, were we right not to get involved in Rwanda, or should we not get involved in Darfur? Or do you just hate the U.S.?


You have successfully blurred the line between doing what is right for humanity, and doing what is right for yourself.

Kudos.

This looks like a job for the Fiddlebottomsian Chavez Mantra:
"He's bat shit insane, but the Venezualans seem to like him and he's willing to sell us oil."
And, Saladador, as an anti-interventionist, I can assure you that we don't all sing. Some of us play the harpsicord.

Start with me.
I'll take you

If I were President, I'd assassinate his ass and put a puppet regime in. I'd do the same to Iran and put in the Shah's son as ruler and back both of them up with plenty of military equipment, cash, and "advisors"...as long as it keeps strategic resources secure and available to the US, I'd do it.

But then again, I tend to be rather Machiavellian when it comes to international affairs. Pursue your self interest above all, I say...and a CIA with the freedom to assassinate would be a potent weapon in that aim. If it's in our interests, do it, and if it's not, don't do it.

I'll take you

Where?

Start with me.

Yes, we're all impressed with the size of your internet penis. Now put it away. You're not going to fight anyone.

We? You live in Panama City. I can understand you maybe owning a gun. I live in Boston. Who am I shooting?

The lobsters.

And by we, I meant people from Massachusetts. I'm moving back there in the Summer, so I need to be prepared...

That's what the American government's done! They supported the Shah, the CIA tried to assasinate Chavez, do you work for the government?

Thankfully no.

However, when it comes to international politics I've realized that no nation does anything without at least some benefit to themselves, and that all nations seek to advance their strategic interests regardless of whether they conflict with those of other nations.

Since Chavez/Ahmadinejad are threats to America's natural resources and security and they are pursuing actions detrimental to American interests in their respective regions, it is perfectly reasonable for us to undertake whatever actions are necessary to advance our interests and to thwart theirs.

It's not moral or right, but it's strategically beneficial and that's what matters in decisionmaking.

Someone brought kryptonite into the room...I'm too weak to argue with you...ugh :(

Yes, we're all impressed with the size of your internet penis.

Thanks!

It's not even fully engorged.

Now put it away. You're not going to fight anyone.

Why would I fight with my penis hanging out.

That's very dangerous.

Will they be Rock Lobsters?


Lord I hope so.


http://rocklobster1.ytmnd.com/

Those ARE some rockin' lobsters

Thankfully no.

However, when it comes to international politics I've realized that no nation does anything without at least some benefit to themselves, and that all nations seek to advance their strategic interests regardless of whether they conflict with those of other nations.

Since Chavez/Ahmadinejad are threats to America's natural resources and security and they are pursuing actions detrimental to American interests in their respective regions, it is perfectly reasonable for us to undertake whatever actions are necessary to advance our interests and to thwart theirs.

It's not moral or right, but it's strategically beneficial and that's what matters in decisionmaking.

So the survival of a corrupt nation is more important than the lives of innocent people because?

He uses paranoia to strengthen his political base.

It is one thing to stand up to America, but it is another to invent a mortal enemy to keep the people in line.

I can't think of anyone who has attempted the latter tactic. hmmm...

He uses paranoia to strengthen his political base.

It is one thing to stand up to America, but it is another to invent a mortal enemy to keep the people in line.

I can't think of anyone who has attempted the latter tactic. hmmm...


:D

but then again, arming and training the civilians might help keep the govt in line too

If I were President, I'd assassinate his ass and put a puppet regime in. I'd do the same to Iran and put in the Shah's son as ruler and back both of them up with plenty of military equipment, cash, and "advisors"...as long as it keeps strategic resources secure and available to the US, I'd do it.

But then again, I tend to be rather Machiavellian when it comes to international affairs. Pursue your self interest above all, I say...and a CIA with the freedom to assassinate would be a potent weapon in that aim. If it's in our interests, do it, and if it's not, don't do it.
I guess that 9 and 11 are just numbers to you?

Since Chavez/Ahmadinejad are threats to America's natural resources and security and they are pursuing actions detrimental to American interests in their respective regions, it is perfectly reasonable for us to undertake whatever actions are necessary to advance our interests and to thwart theirs.
Have you ever thought that it is the other way round?

It's not moral or right, but it's strategically beneficial and that's what matters in decisionmaking.
Might makes right huh?

Perhaps they shoud write a book about your thoughts? You could call it Robber Barons......Oh that title has already been taken. :p

Whoa Nellie!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_arming_the_people

Chavez is training a civilian militia - I Imagine this will become a point of major contention with quite few US conservatives. Although perhaps they will applaud him for helping to keep their freedom from oppression by their own govt. What do you think of this action?

Edit: OH I loved this part *G*
ROFLMAO! Silly lil Chavez. Heh! :D

ROFLMAO! Silly lil Chavez. Heh! :D


I was wondering if you thought it was silly that he was arming and training the civilian population or was it somethign else... (?)

ROFLMAO! Silly lil Chavez. Heh! :D
Why is he silly? You wholeheartedly encourage Anericans to join the military. What is the difference? Oh, I know.....he is creating an army to actually defend their country.

I'd just like to say that while amusing, his battalion of 500 Indians can't be expected to deterr the USA in any way. We currently hold the world record for killing Indians!

I was wondering if you thought it was silly that he was arming and training the civilian population or was it somethign else... (?)
Just about everything he does is silly. :p

Why is he silly? You wholeheartedly encourage Anericans to join the military. What is the difference? Oh, I know.....he is creating an army to actually defend their country.
Riiiight! :rolleyes:

Riiiight! :rolleyes:

Eut, I find it hard to see how you could imagine this militia force is going to be used for anything except defense. I mean what else, those 500 indians with poison arrows are gonna be shipped to the Middle East to invade random countries there?

I think not.

Rock on resisting those imperialists, Chavez!:cool:

I'd just like to say that while amusing, his battalion of 500 Indians can't be expected to deterr the USA in any way. We currently hold the world record for killing Indians!

*chuckle*

I imagined as the poison-tipped arrows flew at the US troops walking around in full battle armor, the troops were laughing as they tried to catch the arrows with their hands for fun :p

I think the on-going U.S. embargo of Cuba has crippled its' economy far more than Castro himself. The embargo's been around since the sixties.
True and that's what I can't stand about this admin and it's stupid, crippling adherence to ideology rather than pragmatism. Our embargo of Cuba is a relic of the Cold War and shoudl have ended when the Cold War did. Ditto Chavez. I agree that socialism and communism are bankrupt systems in and of themselves, but isn't that kinda their problem? No reason not to get along. Let them find out themselves wether or not hardline socialism and state ownership work. In the meantime we'll buy their oil, sell them some stuff we made out of it and talk about hemispheric security.

Just about everything he does is silly. :p

lets see, I'll pick some stuff from a biography and see if it is indeed silly:


Hugo Chávez was born on 28 July 1954 to an poor family... Hugo's childhood was not an easy one, and his mother cruelly beat him regularly to the extent that his grandmother Rosines would have to hide him in a cabinet to protect him from her wrath. Young Hugo earned money in his childhood by walking the streets of the town and selling homemade candy; the family stayed in Sabaneta, where both his primary and secondary schooling was completed.

hmmmm, so he was born into a poor family but still worked to support his family while going to school as a young child. Nothing really silly there. OH heres where he starts getting ridiculous:

As a teenager Chávez entered the Venezuelan Military Academy, which typically offers the opportunity of higher quality education to poorer but more ambitious young men.


What a dork! lol! And then this:

Early Career and Rise to Prominence

Chávez graduated with a Degree in Military Sciences and Engineering from the Venezuelan Military on 05 July 1975 and later went on to study for another Master's degree in political science at the Simón Bolívar University...

After graduation from the Military Academy, Chávez started his long military career as a second lieutenant, rising through the ranks steadily and holding various positions, but reportedly generally avoiding active and dangerous assignments.

In 1989, the then-president of Venezuela Carlos Andres Perez accepted a $4.5 billion IMF loan to Venezuela, but the austerity measures that were imposed due to the loan became increasingly unpopular among the population. Widespread protests ensued, which the government violently cracked down on, leaving hundreds dead. Amid charges of corruption and due to poor economic conditions in the country, sentiment against Perez began to worsen.

On 04 February, 1992, Chávez led a military coup against Perez which ultimately failed, resulting in Chávez' capture and incarceration for two years. Chávez was later released by President Rafael Caldera in 1994, and entered politics by founding the Movement for the Fifth Republic.


Caring about his country and defending their right from oppression? Maybe this biography left out the part where he went to clown college.

On 06 December 1998, running on a populist platform of anti-corruption and pro-welfare reform, Chávez won the election with a 56.2% electoral margin, which was notably one of the largest margins in decades in Venezuela...

In fact shortly after taking office, Chávez began profound reforms aimed at improving conditions for the poor, including instituting food and immunization programmes for children, as well as the symbolic move to turn part of the presidential palace into a high school for homeless children. Corporations that had once enjoyed large tax exemptions, were now compelled to pay taxes; populist Chávez styled himself as a Robin Hood figure to gain support with the impoverished.


Fulfilling his campaign promises to help the poor? I can see why you would have such a poor view of him. Guess I'll stop here because obviously practically everythign he does seems to be a complete joke.

Eut, I find it hard to see how you could imagine this militia force is going to be used for anything except defense. I mean what else, those 500 indians with poison arrows are gonna be shipped to the Middle East to invade random countries there?

I think not.


Oh Eut has a greeat imagination. Just look at his hilarious views of California and how he thinks his state could take CA in amilitary battle. Never underestimate him again.

lets see, I'll pick some stuff from a biography and see if it is indeed silly:

hmmmm, so he was born into a poor family but still worked to support his family while going to school as a young child. Nothing really silly there. OH heres where he starts getting ridiculous:

What a dork! lol! And then this:

Caring about his country and defending their right from oppression? Maybe this biography left out the part where he went to clown college.

Fulfilling his campaign promises to help the poor? I can see why you would have such a poor view of him. Guess I'll stop here because obviously practically everythign he does seems to be a complete joke.
I guess he is not so silly after all? Perhaps Eut can qualify his "silly" statement?

I guess he is not so silly after all? Perhaps Eut can qualify his "silly" statement?


The funny thing is I picked that stuff out of a biography that was meant to bash Chavez :D

But to be fair, I too think Chavez has done or said a couple silly things (like his comments about Halloween), but to say that "just about everything he does is silly" is quite a stretch that I would like to see backed up.

The funny thing is I picked that stuff out of a biography that was meant to bash Chavez :D
How ironic indeed!! :eek:

My post:

So, were we right not to get involved in Rwanda, or should we not get involved in Darfur? Or do you just hate the U.S.?

Believe me, partner, if it were up to me, I would just leave all these dumb-ass countries alone and let them choke on their own blood (or not, there's no guarantee they would, but Rwanda sure did). That way, when people blame the world for not getting involved, you're just as culpable as I am. Now that we've stoved in Iraq, the blame rests heavily on our shoulders. Unfortunately, people from other countries want the US to throw it's weight around, when it suits them. U.N. involvement is sometimes desirable (Ie Iraq) and sometimes not (IE Kosovo). Do you honestly think that a historian 100 years from now will be able to understand why Milosevich was more dangerous to the world than Saddam? Are you pro-interventionism, or anti-interventionism? If anti-interventionism, then sing it brother. If pro-interventionism, you're a hypocrite.

Replies to various and sundry replies to post above:

Devoping and Third-world countries are hardly dumb.
Its just because their former colonial powers pulled out and they did not give a crap what happened. I'd liek to see what happened if your parents left you alone in the middle of the night, with no possesions, naked, in the middle of the desert.

Firstly, which of those colonies were American, and seccondly, that's besides the point. The question is not about "who's at fault;" the culprits are likely dead anyway. The question is about "what's the best way to handle them?" and that is the question I say should be answered by letting these countries solve their own problems. Period.

Not getting involved in Rwanda makes us seem like we don't care about the Africans. Trying to oust Chavez makes us look like imperialists.

And we wouldn't have looked like imperialists at all if we had gone into Rwanda and taken over? I doubt it. We would be faced with many of the same problems as we are now in Iraq, and people accross the world would have hated us for it. Clinton was right to steer clear of that hellhole.

You have successfully blurred the line between doing what is right for humanity, and doing what is right for yourself.

Kudos.

Yes, because "doing what was right for hummanity" was oh, so clear to us before. And, of course, doing what is right for yourself can never coincide with what is right for hummanity. Or maybe you represent the entire wishes of the world, and you can dictate to us what those wishes are.

The reality: people see what happens when we don't get involved, and they don't like it. People see what happens when we do get involved, and don't like it. The bottom line is, there is no moral obligation to get involved with another country's internal affairs. I don't mind helping people out in a purely charitable way, such as post-tsunami stuff, but intervening in political struggles of any kind that pose no threat to the US is only setting us up for disaster. We become a political football that two-bit dictators, demagouges, and paramilitaries in developing countries throw around, to our detriment.

Remember, this is not about caring about what other countries are doing to themselves with dumb economic policies, racial strife, corruption, or whatever. This is about choosing not to get involved with other countries, because when we do get involved, all they do is bitch about American imperialism, and are too busy hating our tyrranny (and it is tyrranny, regardless of the reason for it) to ever learn anything.

Example: Argentina hates our guts, simply because we loaned it money it couldn't have gotten anywhere else, and as compensation attached requirements to it that meant a little painful fiscal responsibility. Had we just simply let it flounder, they might have raged at "the world," but it would have been more vague in nature. Another example, we supported the Venezuelan government before Chavez, because it was doing some good things (we thought) and yes, because it was a stable partner for oil. But the government was awash in corruption and political scumbaggery, and thus had become the face of America in that country. Hugo Chavez made our support of Venezuela a political football, and Voila! he's the president.

What people seem to forget is that we were once a colony too (thirteen colonies, as a matter of fact). Maybe, just maybe, we know a thing or two about how to get from where they are to where we are. But IMO the best way to do that is to simply lead by example, and to keep doing good by ourselves, within our internal affairs, and not worry so much about Communism, or Facism, or Populism or Authoritarianism, or whatever the hell you want to call it, that goes on in other nations. Clearly developing countries have a long, hard, bloody road to reach the western world, but as far as I'm concerned, our involvement just makes things worse.

Oh Eut has a greeat imagination. Just look at his hilarious views of California and how he thinks his state could take CA in amilitary battle. Never underestimate him again.

We have a lot of USN personnel and ships and ports, not to mention the rest of the military has a substantial presence; and of course the 9th largest economy on the planet! California pwnz!

Yay for Castro, Guevera, and Chavez!
How long ago was it you lost your tenuous grip on reality?

True and that's what I can't stand about this admin and it's stupid, crippling adherence to ideology rather than pragmatism. Our embargo of Cuba is a relic of the Cold War and shoudl have ended when the Cold War did. Ditto Chavez. I agree that socialism and communism are bankrupt systems in and of themselves, but isn't that kinda their problem? No reason not to get along. Let them find out themselves wether or not hardline socialism and state ownership work. In the meantime we'll buy their oil, sell them some stuff we made out of it and talk about hemispheric security.

Amen, brother, but to be fair, Clinton didn't do anything about it either.

Not getting involved in Rwanda makes us seem like we don't care about the Africans. Trying to oust Chavez makes us look like imperialists.
And people wonder why there's such a move toward a new isolationism within the US! Sigh. :rolleyes:

I haven't lost my grip on reality. I don't support total isolatianism. We should just choose wisely on what to get involved in. Like stopping geniocides and sending foreign aide or doing work through the UN. Those are admirable goals. Overthrowing leaders just because they won't bend to the will of America is wrong.

We have a lot of USN personnel and ships and ports, not to mention the rest of the military has a substantial presence; and of course the 9th largest economy on the planet! California pwnz!

Yeah but they have Fort Bragg about their penis size

Rock on resisting those imperialists, Chavez!:cool:
Rock on with those rocks in your head, dweeb. :D

I can see why you would have such a poor view of him. Guess I'll stop here because obviously practically everythign he does seems to be a complete joke.
Nothing like a lil selective cherry-picking of a biased, unattributed article, eh. :)

Imperialism sucks. But one thing we must remember is that America was not the only empire. The British Empire was one of the largest, prosperous (at the cost of the territories), and wide reaching empires ever. But now they co exist with their former possesions (The Commonwealth of Nations) and the Brits do plenty of good without pushing their weight around. Why can't America do the same?

Amen, brother, but to be fair, Clinton didn't do anything about it either.
No he didn't. I think its a generational thing. Congress is filled with old people who still remember the Cuban Missile Crisis and think of Communism the same way we think of Islamic militarism...

Unless they have a billion people and let us build Walmarts.

Oh Eut has a greeat imagination. Just look at his hilarious views of California and how he thinks his state could take CA in amilitary battle. Never underestimate him again.
Once again you validate my original opinion of you: a biased, opinionated twit with a total inability to separate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, and jest from the serious. I trust you'll get some help eventually, but for those of us who have to tolerate inanity, the sooner the better.

I agree with PsychoticDan.

Nothing like a lil selective cherry-picking of a biased, unattributed article, eh. :)

yeah, and if you read, you'll see that it was from an article biased against Chavez.

It's cute how you think your witty while you continue to ignore real debate in favor of making yrouself look like a mental midget with useless one-liners devoid of any real substance.

Imperialism sucks. But one thing we must remember is that America was not the only empire. The British Empire was one of the largest, prosperous (at the cost of the territories), and wide reaching empires ever. But now they co exist with their former possesions (The Commonwealth of Nations) and the Brits do plenty of good without pushing their weight around. Why can't America do the same?
Uh ... perhaps because we have neither "empire" nor "possessions?" Ya think? :rolleyes:

Once again you validate my original opinion of you: a biased, opinionated twit with a total inability to separate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, and jest from the serious. I trust you'll get some help eventually, but for those of us who have to tolerate inanity, the sooner the better.


oh a two-liner this time... did you finlly have yoru coffee? Now try to back up your insults with examples. I thought not.

You know what I meant. As in throwing our weight around in all the corners of the world. This is a new imperialism.

yeah, and if you read, you'll see that it was from an article biased against Chavez.

It's cute how you think your witty while you continue to ignore real debate in favor of making yrouself look like a mental midget with useless one-liners devoid of any real substance.
ROFLMAO! Arggg! I am cut to the quick! Verily my virtual body doth bleed from a thousand verbal cuts! Oh the pain. The PAIN! Aahahahaha!

Perhaps you have you know, like ... a link to the unattributed article? Hmm?

ROFLMAO! Arggg! I am cut to the quick! Verily my virtual body doth bleed from a thousand verbal cuts! Oh the pain. The PAIN! Aahahahaha!

Perhaps you have you know, like ... a link to the unattributed article? Hmm?


not posted? oops: http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200505040814

EDIT: btw I know there are bad things said about Chavez in that article (it's an anti-Chavez article after all), which is why I sought it out. I wanted the good things about Chavez as seen by his opponents.

SB and Eut, could you two knock it off? Look, you're both extremists on certain issues and I certainly disagree with you some of the time, but that doesn't mean we have to sit here insulting each other all day. Chill out, smoke a doob, know what I mean? :fluffle:

SB and Eut, could you two knock it off? Look, you're both extremists on certain issues and I certainly disagree with you some of the time, but that doesn't mean we have to sit here insulting each other all day. Chill out, smoke a doob, know what I mean? :fluffle:

I'm all out right now...wanna pass me summa whut yer smookin'?

I reallay should know better than to fall into the trap of retaliating to Euts insult sprees; I forget that taking the high road feels a lot better than sinking to such levels.

*Gasp* Marijuana!? I can't believe what I'm hearing! :eek:

Poison arrows?
This may have worked in the days before bullet-proof combat suits and Kevlar.
However..

Armor piercing arrows, perhaps? With poison.

EDIT: Another thing, what the hell would we get in invading Venezuela?

For the same reason USA invaded Irak: for oil.

And also because Chavez is winning south america's heart, and frightening USA supremacy there.

The one thing USA cannot allow to happen is exactly what Chavez is about to succeed in: democratic socialism. That's why the CIA supported Pinochet against Allende, that's why the CIA supported and armed the contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, that's why the CIA supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.

Poison arrows?
This may have worked in the days before bullet-proof combat suits and Kevlar.
However..
on the other hand:
- they don't cost any money
- they can be made by the 'soldiers' themselfs wich can be very usefull in guerrila warfare
- the indians don't need to learn how to work with a fireweapon
- if you shoot somebody in the hand with a gun he lives, if you shoot him with a poisoned arrow he dies
- the arrows don't make a lot of noise wich i guess can be very usefull in a dense jungle
- it is better to have 500 indians fighting with arrows than 500 indians not fighting because they didn't have guns

For the same reason USA invaded Irak: for oil.

And also because Chavez is winning south america's heart, and frightening USA supremacy there.

The one thing USA cannot allow to happen is exactly what Chavez is about to succeed in: democratic socialism. That's why the CIA supported Pinochet against Allende, that's why the CIA supported and armed the contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, that's why the CIA supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002.
I agree with everything you're saying except for one thing. The US CAN allow it. It's not going to hurt us and we'd be a lot better off if we just let them have their experiment in socialism - even if it is ultimately doomed to failure. that doesn't mean we can't have normalized trade and diplomacy with a socialist democracy. It's just the old boys network in charge that doesn't feel that way because they are holding on to teh Cold War ideology of imperial communism.

Uh ... perhaps because we have neither "empire" nor "possessions?" Ya think? :rolleyes:

Well, define "possessions". There are a number protectorates that the US controls, albeit not necessarily in the same sense as with the British Imperialism, but still they lie under US "possession".

The very idea that people could support an up and coming Marxist Dictator like Chavez is totally laughable. Yes the US is the "Great Satan", but whos economy do you think is propping up Venezuelas right now? THE US. Not to mention the fact that the gulf between the rich and poor grows daily under Chavez. Its the same old song, Yankee go home, but leave us your dollars. Total bullshit.:upyours:

Coming soon in Venezuela, more dead Venezuelan peasants

The dead Venezuelan peasants are the ones killed by the militia of land owners who refuse the Law on Land (agrarian reform), sometimes with the support of local police force, when the local governement is against Chavez.

and richer Fifth Republic Movement (Marxist) party members.

The Fifth Republic Movement is not Marxist. They have some Marxist ideas, but they are not Marxists. They are Bolivarian, something different from traditional leftish party.

And I don't understand why the "rich" is about in your sentence.

What's with all the pro-Chavez people around here? He's a freaking dictator!

A dictator facing and winning fair elections, controlled by international observers ? A dictator allowing the media (90% of them being strongly anti-Chavez) to say things you would never see anywhere else, like calling for the murder of the President ? A dictator allowing demonstrations and strikes of the opposition ? A dictator not even throwing in jails people who participated in a COUP ?

Are you joking ?!

He amended the constitution so he can be president for like 20 more years!

That's false. According to the Constitution that was written in 1999 by an elected Constitutional Assembly (Chavez did not write it) and voted at 70% by a referendum, he can be president for 2 6-years terms, allowing him to be president for 12 years.

That said, in most european countries, the Constitution allows people to be president (or price minister) for unlimited terms, and no one ever said it was not democratic. Very few manage to get reelected anyway, because they lose the trust of people...

We all know how well Communist latin dictators take care of countries. I mean, just look at Cuba! It's economy has collapsed! It's a global pariah! Aren't those somethings to aspire to?

Despite decennias of embargo, Cuba is the country of South America with the highest life exptency, the lowest illetteracy rate, the lowest childdeath rate, the lowest homeless rate, ... It can compete with western countries on most of those criteria, and it even beats USA in some of them. It's the country of the world with the highest amount of doctors per citizen, and the country of the world with the highest amount of doctors in humanitarian missions all around the world, there have even more cuban doctors helping foreign countries than WHO doctors !

Cuba is a dictatorship, and it's something I don't support at all. But you can't say Cuba economy has collapsed nor anything like that. It's the country of South America which, socially speaking, is the most successful.

He's been elected, yes, but how do you think he's going to stay in power. I hate to make a reference to Hitler, but he was elected. "You're hardly a dictator if you keep getting elected."

Chavez won around 7 or 8 elections since he was first elected in 1998. He won all the elections with between 55% and 60%. And Chavez supporters were elected as governor of 20 provinces on 22.

And for Hitler, I would remind you that first Hitler never was elected, he "only" had around 30% in the 1933 elections, but the "moderate" right wing supported him to get rid of the communists... and then it backfired. And second, that as soon as he was in power, he suppressed elections. Something Chavez definitely didn't do, since he supported the addition in the Constitution of the recall referendum (if enough people sign a petition asking for it, any elected official, at any level, will have to accept a referendum if he can stay or not). This was used against Chavez in 2003, and Chavez won the referendum with 59%.

Yay for democratic socialism!

Yay for Castro, Guevera, and Chavez!
I love this, the list of three individuals who have no respect whatsoever for democratic systems, and their names preceded by a "Yay for..." How cute and tingly.

Thanks for the criticism, but I'll take it as a complement.

Just a random anecdote but when I was on Barbados this christmas, I saw a VERY NEW and VERY EXPENSIVE looking private yaught anchored just off the beach at Sandy Beach Resort (the most expensive / exclusive hotel in the carib). I asked a member of the crew on the boat I was on what flag the boat was flying and who owned it, as it turned out he said "Oh thats the venezualan oil minister's boat, he stays here frequently". So, doesn't it seem a little strange that in a nation with a socialist government a cabinet minister (also a party member) would stay at a very bourgois hotel "frequently" and can afford such decedance as a luxury private yaught? Surely if they venezualan government were as idealistic and socialist as they would have the world believe they would do away with this sort of behaviour and redistribute the rather large amount of capital invested in this yaught to more socially important things? Chavez and his government = all hot air but no substance. What a shame!

Thanks for the criticism, but I'll take it as a complement.
Is that a response to me? Because if it is, it's one of the stranger responses I've ever gotten on these forums.

Perhaps I need to clarify.

First we have Chavez and the primary role he played in the attempted Coup d'etat during the late nineties, that sure sounds democratic.

Fidel Castro has been in office, unopposed in "elections" since Kennedy was President.

Che Guevera was known for his habit of killing anybody and everybody who didn't hold identical viewpoints to himself.

Tell me how those people are good for democratic systems?

He uses paranoia to strengthen his political base.

Knowing that he was the target of a coup d'État in 2002, which has clear support from USA, and that several people called to have him murdered both on USA and Venezuelian TV, I wouldn't call that paranoia, but wisdom.

The Bush administration wants to remove him, and doesn't hesitate to use violence to reach their end.

That said, I don't think USA will dare a direct invasion of Venezuela, but also remember that Columbia has a very long border with Venezuela, and that the Columbian governement, which is close friend with the Bush administration, is completly controlled by the right-wing drug barons militias.

The same militias from which a small group was arrested in Caracas not so long ago, planning to murder Chavez...

As you can see, the "paranoia" of Chavez is just wisdom. He has powerful foes who don't hesitate at all to use violence. His people needs to be able to protect itself. Remember that in 2002, it was the people who put Chavez back in power, two days after the coup...

I'm a strong support of guns control (even of "no guns at all") in general, but in the situation of Venezuela, I understand Chavez.

I guess that 9 and 11 are just numbers to you?

Are you speaking of September 11... 1973 ?

Are you speaking of September 11... 1973 ?
:fluffle:

But you can't say Cuba economy has collapsed nor anything like that. It's the country of South America which, socially speaking, is the most successful.
Just to nitpick, even if you follow a strictly North/South America orientation, with no Central or Carribbean...Cuba is in North America, not South.

I never said Fidel and Guevera were saints.

Just about everything he does is silly. :p

That didn't prevent him from reducing poverty in his country by between 33% and 50%, to eradicate illetterracy (one MILLION of illeterate adults learned to read since he came in power, and all Venezuelian children now go to school), to cure hundreds of thousands of people, and to win elections with close to 60% several times. I would call that a real success.

Once again you validate my original opinion of you: a biased, opinionated twit with a total inability to separate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, and jest from the serious. I trust you'll get some help eventually, but for those of us who have to tolerate inanity, the sooner the better.
WTF, over!!!??? For someone who is often posting in Moderation about others insulting you...you're sure free with the insults, Insultiman!

*chuckle*

I imagined as the poison-tipped arrows flew at the US troops walking around in full battle armor, the troops were laughing as they tried to catch the arrows with their hands for fun :p

As Sun Tzu said, war is won in your head before being won by weapons. No army, however strong and well equiped it is, can crush the resistance of a free people who has a strong determination to fight for freedom.

The US army was unable to defeat Vietnam, because it was a proud people fighting for its freedom. And Vietnam won, with hunting guns against assault helicopters and bombers.

I never said Fidel and Guevera were saints.
No, but you were saying "Yay for...". And that's generally an expression of approval. Maybe this is just coming from me, but I don't approve of bloodthirsty totalitarians. Hell, that comment is reminisicent of the famed "Yay for Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco!"

As a side note, my observations lead me to believe that Chavez has more in common with Benito Mussolini than with some mythical idealisitic left wing revolutionary.

True. The Vietnamese fought for the love of their nation. It's impossible to completely stamp out an enemy as long as they still hold on to hope.

As Sun Tzu said, war is won in your head before being won by weapons. No army, however strong and well equiped it is, can crush the resistance of a free people who has a strong determination to fight for freedom.

The US army was unable to defeat Vietnam, because it was a proud people fighting for its freedom. And Vietnam won, with hunting guns against assault helicopters and bombers.

And numbers. Never forget numbers.

The Vietnamese still held out against the mighty American military machine. At terrible costs although.

True. The Vietnamese fought for the love of their nation. It's impossible to completely stamp out an enemy as long as they still hold on to hope.

It's rather difficult to hold onto hope when there are none of you left....

In other words, it's not impossible. But it requires that you either win a propaganda war or you completely wipe out the people in question. Neither of which are easy.

But to be fair, I too think Chavez has done or said a couple silly things (like his comments about Halloween), but to say that "just about everything he does is silly" is quite a stretch that I would like to see backed up.

Well, Chavez is a very atypical character. He also does a lot of things that I feel exagerated, or even silly. But that's how he is: full of life, full of goodwill, someone coming from the "lower class" and still having a crude vocabulary sometimes, someone who loves to do things in great.

One day, after seeing how Chavez tried to speak with "common" Venezuellian, listen about their personal problems, and tried to find solution, Castro told him "hey, Hugo, you can't be the mayor of a whole country". But that's how Chavez is. He loves to speak with people about tiny things. He loves to help people. He can't support to see people suffering needlessly. He wants to fix everything.

That could look a bit silly, and maybe it is. But it allows him to "stay in touch" with reality, to know how people of his country really live, what problems they really have, and it's probably why he's doing the great job that he is doing: he does that because he loves his people, with a deep love. And yes, lovers are silly, sometimes...

Yay for Castro, Guevera, and Chavez!

Agreed!

Yeah, Go Venezuela. It's a socalist country, and a kick ass one at that. It's good to see them stand up to America and the neo-colonialist powers.

And that Native American attack force could do some damage, actually. Bow and arrows can kill well, especially with poison tips. It really depends on the level of equipment of the enemy.

He can't support to see people suffering needlessly.
No puede soportar...ay, eso es un error muy común entre los hispanos que hablan ingles...¿de dónde eres?

I agree with everything you're saying except for one thing. The US CAN allow it. It's not going to hurt us and we'd be a lot better off if we just let them have their experiment in socialism - even if it is ultimately doomed to failure. that doesn't mean we can't have normalized trade and diplomacy with a socialist democracy. It's just the old boys network in charge that doesn't feel that way because they are holding on to teh Cold War ideology of imperial communism.

Well, the USA, or at least all the USA governements since WW2, are committed to the protection of capitalism. If a single country ever manage to succeed in implementing democratic socialism, that would be the beginning of the end of capitalism. World-wide capitalism only manage to survive because of TINA, the belief spread everywhere, and expressed by Tatcher and Reagan as TINA: There Is No Alternative. People all around the world will begin to reject capitalism as soon as they will a real alternative.

That's something you can even see in the threads about "communism" or "socialism" here. The one argument that always come is: "communism is not possible" or "socialism will always lead to dictatorship" or "show me a single country which did socialism without dictatorship". That's the main, the ultimate argument in defense of capitalism.

So no, USA cannot allow the TINA belief to fail. They HAVE to crush any alternative before it begins to succeed and to spread, or capitalism WILL be overcome.

And Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution is already spreading. Bolivia elected Evo Morales as President. Polls in countries like Ecuador show that the people want a Chavez-like President. It may be already too late to stop it, or it'll soon be.

A healthy balance of democracy, socialism, and moderated capitalism is what a country should have.

I love this, the list of three individuals who have no respect whatsoever for democratic systems, and their names preceded by a "Yay for..." How cute and tingly.

Chavez' Venzuela is much, much more democratic than Venezuela ever was before.

I should remind you that the president of that time, CAF, ordered the army to open fire on the protesters during the "caracazo" of 1989; while Chavez refuses to let the loyal forces open fire during the 2002 coup (and never opened fire on any demonstration), he prefered to surrender himself (while refusing to resign) to avoid blood.

I should also remind you that it was in the "Bolivarian" Constitution of 1999 that the recall referendum was added to Venezuela, something unique in the world since Paris' Commune, AFAIK.

I should also remind you that Chavez is also doing a lot for direct democracy, like supporting local "amateur" media (without any control over the content), and making people know the content of the Constitution, and the rights they have.

So you cannot say Chavez has no respect for democracy.

For Che Guevarra, if he left Cuba's governement, it's mostly because he disagreed with Castro on the need of political repression.

And for Castro, well, if I don't agree with him on that topic, I can understand him, seeing how hard his situation is.

The very idea that people could support an up and coming Marxist Dictator like Chavez is totally laughable.

Do you have anything to back your claim of Chavez being a dictator ? He's the most democratic President of Venezuela, and probably one of the most democratic of the world. Read the other posts.

Yes the US is the "Great Satan", but whos economy do you think is propping up Venezuelas right now? THE US.

Not only, USA is not the only customer of Venezuela's oil.

Not to mention the fact that the gulf between the rich and
poor grows daily under Chavez.

That's just false. Poverty was lowered by between 33% and 50% since Chavez came in power. And the rich are the ones wanting to kick out Chavez... because they know Chavez is definitely not on their side.

As a side note, my observations lead me to believe that Chavez has more in common with Benito Mussolini than with some mythical idealisitic left wing revolutionary.

Do you have anything to back your claims ? Because they are so opposite to reality...

He can't support to see people suffering needlessly.

No puede soportar...ay, eso es un error muy común entre los hispanos que hablan ingles...¿de dónde eres?

Oh hum, sorry, it's late, and I did a litteral translation of the french words ;)

I meant "He can't whistand to see people suffering needlessly", but "support" and "whistand" are the same word ("supporte") in french in that context ;)

What did you say, btw ? ;)

Uh ... perhaps because we have neither "empire" nor "possessions?" Ya think? :rolleyes:

"vassal states"? "Lackeys" certainly would be a contender, and "sphere of influence" followed by "deep fucken pockets". Not as flagrant as the "glory days" of Ronnie the Raygun, but we still have the likes of Togo to point at, and Uzbekistan too, when it suits them


The one thing USA cannot allow to happen is exactly what Chavez is about to succeed in: democratic socialism. That's why the CIA supported Pinochet against Allende, that's why the CIA supported and armed the contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, that's why the CIA supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002..:

100% bang on there.

Oh hum, sorry, it's late, and I did a litteral translation of the french words ;)

I meant "He can't whistand to see people suffering needlessly", but "support" and "whistand" are the same word ("supporte") in french in that context ;)

What did you say, btw ? ;)
mmm...I realised after that you were probably translating from French...it's the same mistake that Spanish speakers make...which is basically what I mentioned, asking where you were from.

Are you speaking of September 11... 1973 ?
2001

2001
Oh. The only one that counts?

WTF, over!!!??? For someone who is often posting in Moderation about others insulting you...you're sure free with the insults, Insultiman!
Eut would never do that, as he is a firm believer in "freedom of speech"? :p

Oh. The only one that counts?
When considering Vetalia's comment yes.

In regards to the insurrection in Chile that is a separate but appropriate point to remember as well. ;)

When considering Vetalia's comment yes.

In regards to the insurrection in Chile that is a separate but appropriate point to remember as well. ;)
Yeah, I'll just go ahead and admit I never saw the original context of your first quote about 911. I'm just picking a fight:D Well...trying anyway:mad:

I just read an article in National Geographic about Venezuela/Chavez

Chavez is seriously cutting down on people's freedom of speech/freedom of the press.

He's taking people's land away from them...

Basic communist/socialist: The poor love him, while the middle/upper classes hate him. Venezuela has a LOT of poor people (by % of total population)...

When considering Vetalia's comment yes.

Well, I was wondering

In regards to the insurrection in Chile that is a separate but appropriate point to remember as well. ;)

Insurrection ? Hey, you're speaking about a fascist coup d'État done by a part of the army, against an elected president that leaded the country to 20 years of brutal dictatorship... you can't call that an "insurrection". An insurrection comes from the people, not from the army...

He's taking people's land away from them...


You can't have agrarian reform any other way...

He's redistributing land. Distributing land from the rich to the poor. Of coure the upper class is always going to be upset by something like that. But, you can't please everyone.

I just read an article in National Geographic about Venezuela/Chavez

Chavez is seriously cutting down on people's freedom of speech/freedom of the press.

That's just false. Give me the name of another country where you can call for the murder of the President on TV and have absolutely no problem afterward. Give me the name of another country where the media can openly support a coup attempt and still keep their right to broadcast after that.

90% the media are strongly against Chavez, and speak about him in a way that is unthinkable in most western countries. In most of western democracies, people would have end up in jail for much less than what Venezuelian media are doing.

He's taking people's land away from them...

The agrarian reform is something asked by the people of most South American countries, and has nothing to do with removing land from poor farmers. It's taking the land from the big land owners, who own the land since the colonial era, and giving it to the ones who work in it - or who want to work in it, because in Venezuela, most of the land was unused. What's wrong with that ?

I thought he was taking away land from rich dudes that hasnt been used for years and giving it to poor farmers who would use it to better there lives. If those rich dudes weren't using that land to begin with and they aren't hurt by having it taken away (which I bet you it wont take away from their quality of life at all) and it greatly improves the poor farmers families lives.. .I see nothing wrong with it.

Yes the US is the "Great Satan", but whos economy do you think is propping up Venezuelas right now? THE US.
And Venezuelan oil is propping up the US economy?

Not to mention the fact that the gulf between the rich and poor grows daily under Chavez.
Proof please?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Take that wealthy landowners :upyours:

About the whole oil thing: the chief exporter of oil to the U.S. is Canada (I'm pretty sure). So it's not like the whole Venezuelan oil is a big deal And if alternate fuel sources come into play, then it will not matter.

About the whole oil thing: the chief exporter of oil to the U.S. is Canada (I'm pretty sure). So it's not like the whole Venezuelan oil is a big deal And if alternate fuel sources come into play, then it will not matter.
Yeah, and we just pump it down south in a serious of pipelines...you'd think we'd at least refine it, rather than buy the refined product BACK from the US...sheesh...

Yeah, I'll just go ahead and admit I never saw the original context of your first quote about 911. I'm just picking a fight:D Well...trying anyway:mad:
Okay....shoot!!

*Ducks under table*

:eek: :mp5: :mp5:

The agrarian reform is something asked by the people of most South American countries, and has nothing to do with removing land from poor farmers. It's taking the land from the big land owners, who own the land since the colonial era, and giving it to the ones who work in it - or who want to work in it, because in Venezuela, most of the land was unused. What's wrong with that ?

If farmers want to own land, they should buy it from the owners.

What he's effectively done is steal it from the land owners... and give it away.

How would you feel if somebody stole your property?

How can the farmers buy the land if they're poor?

Insurrection ? Hey, you're speaking about a fascist coup d'État done by a part of the army, against an elected president that leaded the country to 20 years of brutal dictatorship... you can't call that an "insurrection". An insurrection comes from the people, not from the army...
Okay, I stand corrected. It was a coup d'etat indeed.

If farmers want to own land, they should buy it from the owners.

What he's effectively done is steal it from the land owners... and give it away.

How would you feel if somebody stole your property?
How did these "land owners" obtain the land in the first place?

How did these "land owners" obtain the land in the first place?

I would imagine that they bought it... like most people do when they want to own something.

you work to make money

you take said money to buy the things you want

If they're going to steal that land from the owners... they could at least mitigate the owners' losses by offering some money for it -- if not full value, at least something.

This attack on ownership/propriety is going to kill any chance they had at foreign investment. If they didn't have oil, they'd be screwed. They might be screwed anyway if all the business brains in the country get frustrated enough to leave.

What is the poor people have no means to make money, except from off of the farm that they recieved from the wealthy landowner?

I would imagine that they bought it... like most people do when they want to own something.
You don't know for sure? Could you supply some details?

you work to make money

you take said money to buy the things you want
Yet the majority of the wealth rested with the rich landowners, while most of the people lived in abject poverty. This is good?

If they're going to steal that land from the owners... they could at least mitigate the owners' losses by offering some money for it -- if not full value, at least something.
Did the landowners get some form of compensation or not?

This attack on ownership/propriety is going to kill any chance they had at foreign investment. If they didn't have oil, they'd be screwed. They might be screwed anyway if all the business brains in the country get frustrated enough to leave.
You base this on what?

You don't know for sure? Could you supply some details?


Yet the majority of the wealth rested with the rich landowners, while most of the people lived in abject poverty. This is good?


Did the landowners get some form of compensation or not?


You base this on what?

Whatever the case, stealing someone's land isn't right. I would imagine some staked their claims to the land soon after bolivar's work... and some later bought the land. Those who bought it have more of a claim, i suppose, than those who put a stick in the ground and said, "This is mine." At any rate, if they're not being compensated, they should be compensated.

I base that last part (killing entrepreneurialism) on the fact that Venezuela is not business-friendly, having taken an extreme socialist stance.

The problem is, when business leaves, how are they going to keep the welfare going for all the beneficiaries? They have oil... I suppose that'll help. But for how long? Communist countries traditionally have really poor economies. How will that help poor people? When all the business interests leave the country, and the oil runs out, and they no longer have anyone left to tax to fund the poor... what will happen then. I think it's much better to allow business to flourish, because business = jobs. Business competition means better products, which means the ability to compete globally... so on and so forth.

I just... arg. hehe. I just hate communism. Not you, or communists, just communism -- what it does to economic rights (rights to one's own money, for instance), to countries' economies, etc. Also, invariably there is major oppression of the freedom of speech, press, etc.

I was reading over the whole thread, unlike some who like to reply with no reading on comments whatsoever... and I must say, Eutrusca is one of the most immature beings I've seen in these boards. I must admire the elite for tolerating his random rants. Poor point-making is clear in the way he shifts focus from comment to comment when he is proven differently. Whew... good luck on that one NS.

As for the topic, I do completely agree in the reduction of intervention. I've always thought 86% of America's problems lead up to our intervention ultimately. I guess to an extent the poor standards in the nation due to the heavy military spending and borrowing relate to unnecessary international affairs.

I just hope the realization of the ever-ignorant American population broadens up and they see the reason behind some of the actions these "corrupt" leaders and foreigners take. One way or another, it usually involves The United States.

Whatever the case, stealing someone's land isn't right. I would imagine some staked their claims to the land soon after bolivar's work... and some later bought the land. Those who bought it have more of a claim, i suppose, than those who put a stick in the ground and said, "This is mine." At any rate, if they're not being compensated, they should be compensated.

I base that last part (killing entrepreneurialism) on the fact that Venezuela is not business-friendly, having taken an extreme socialist stance.

The problem is, when business leaves, how are they going to keep the welfare going for all the beneficiaries? They have oil... I suppose that'll help. But for how long? Communist countries traditionally have really poor economies. How will that help poor people? When all the business interests leave the country, and the oil runs out, and they no longer have anyone left to tax to fund the poor... what will happen then. I think it's much better to allow business to flourish, because business = jobs. Business competition means better products, which means the ability to compete globally... so on and so forth.

I just... arg. hehe. I just hate communism. Not you, or communists, just communism -- what it does to economic rights (rights to one's own money, for instance), to countries' economies, etc. Also, invariably there is major oppression of the freedom of speech, press, etc.
So basically your argument is based upon "imagination", "supposition", a "hatred" for communism, and a dearth of facts?

CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH (http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuela_2005_06.pdf)

It is sometimes asserted that Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez Frias (1999 to the present) has been an economic failure, as compared with the past. For example, a recent news article in the Washington Post referred to "Hugo Chavez, the populist Venezuelan president whose giveaways to the poor have slowed economic progress."1 Such claims are not supported by the evidence. From 1970-1998 per capita income in Venezuela fell by 35 percent.2 This is the worst economic decline in the region and one of the worst in the world -- much worse even than what happened to Africa during this period.

Since the present government took office, per capita income growth is about flat,3 and will likely be positive at year's end. So the Chavez government can at least claim credit for reversing the terrible long-term economic decline in Venezuela, according to the standard reference sources on economic growth.
But there are other considerations. First, it would not be fair to hold the government accountable for the loss of output due to opposition actions aimed at toppling the government. The oil strike of 2002-2003 caused enormous damage; one might also include the military coup and other de-stabilizing actions. If not for these efforts, economic growth would almost certainly have been substantially higher and well above the average for the region. But the first point, about reversing the country's long economic decline, holds true even if one ignores the effect of opposition actions on the economy. Also there has been a significant improvement in the lives of the poor -- the majority of Venezuelans -- in terms of access to health care and other services, as well as subsidized food.

It is therefore very difficult to construct an economic argument that the majority of Venezuelans are worse off as a result of the present government. One would have to produce a counterfactual in which this terrible 28-year economic decline that preceded the Chavez government would have reversed itself in the absence of any change in policies or government, and then the economy would have grown so much faster than the rest of Latin America that, even without any social programs for the poor, enough would have trickled down to them so that they would be better off than they are now. This is not a very plausible story.

If farmers want to own land, they should buy it from the owners.

What right do they have to own it ?

What he's effectively done is steal it from the land owners... and give it away.

Stealing to the rich, giving to the poors ? Well, I always liked robin-the-hood.

How would you feel if somebody stole your property?

If I had property that I only owned in order to exploit the work of others, and the governement wanted to redistribute it to the poor, I would be glad to.

I would be happy to pay my taxes, if it wasn't use for the army and the police before being used for the healthcare and education...

I would imagine that they bought it... like most people do when they want to own something.

No. They inherited it. If you go long enough in history, they took it by force during the colonial era.

This attack on ownership/propriety is going to kill any chance they had at foreign investment. If they didn't have oil, they'd be screwed. They might be screwed anyway if all the business brains in the country get frustrated enough to leave.

Foreign investment is expensive (they expect to take back much more than what they "give"), highly risky (as soon as things start to look bad, it turns to disaster, look at Argentina) and destroys your sovereignity (foreign powers have now a nearly veto right to any decision elected representative could take). It may be needed in some cases, but overall, it's very bad for a country. You should only ressort to it if really needed, and it's definitely not the case of Venezuela, since they have oil.

I hate that guy, he is so hypocritical.

The problem is, when business leaves, how are they going to keep the welfare going for all the beneficiaries? They have oil... I suppose that'll help. But for how long?

One of the points of the Bolivarian Revolution is using the oil money to prepare the "end of oil" era. Chavez defined it as "making oil to germinate". He is using oil money to create a new economical infrastructure allowing the country to survive without oil, something none of the previous presidents ever attempted to do. Look at food: Venezuela used to be importing 70% of its food, while having vast unused lands. Chavez does the agrarian reform, giving the land to peasants, and (with oil money) buying infrastructure and machines to work on this land. With the goal of making Venezuela self-sustended, for when oil money will be over, and when they won't be able to buy that food from outside so easily.

Communist countries traditionally have really poor economies.

That's not true. Read the rest of the thread.

Also, invariably there is major oppression of the freedom of speech, press, etc.

That was not the case during Paris' Commune, not during Allende's Chile, nor is it in Chavez' Venezuela. Your "inavriably" is therefore false.