NationStates Jolt Archive

You could always sell them to the United States of America. We'd hold a referendum for the inhabitants if they wanted to be a US territory or be their own nation and what not. Would Chavez do that?

I think they'd be happier with independance, even happier than being part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands...

I think they'd be happier with independance, even happier than being part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands...

And the Dutch could always give them to the Belgians to try and improve relations... *chuckles* or not.

Which is a load of bull, seeing as Netherlands would not sell it, the US would not buy it and you have no idea whatsoever what Chavez would do. Chavez never attacked other countries under false pretenses though, so that already makes him just a bit more trustworthy than Bush.
Well, that a nice and contradictory statement you just made.

Attacking me by saying I don't know what Chavez would do. Even though I indicated in my original post that I didn't know. I believe my exact words regarding Chavez were: "Would Chavez do that?" Not exactly claiming to know what Chavez would do now is it?

Then in the same sentence you claim to know exactly what the Netherlands and the US would do.

Bush, unlike Chavez, is not dictator of America. He also has term limits and has no plans to be running the US in 2021, unlike Chavez in Venezuela.

The Iraq is not even relevant and has no bearing on whether the US should buy the antilles or even whether Netherlands should sell it. I personally don't think they should cause whoever they give it to, they would be throwing away centuries of history.

I personally don't think they should cause whoever they give it to, they would be throwing away centuries of history.

Shame that you don't take that attitude to Palestine, really.

But anyway, Chavez seems to be perfectly competent, as opposed to Bush, who is, for want of a less insulting term, a total cretin.

Well, that a nice and contradictory statement you just made.

Attacking me by saying I don't know what Chavez would do. Even though I indicated in my original post that I didn't know. I believe my exact words regarding Chavez were: "Would Chavez do that?" Not exactly claiming to know what Chavez would do now is it?

Then in the same sentence you claim to know exactly what the Netherlands and the US would do.

Bush, unlike Chavez, is not dictator of America. He also has term limits and has no plans to be running the US in 2021, unlike Chavez in Venezuela.

The Iraq is not even relevant and has no bearing on whether the US should buy the antilles or even whether Netherlands should sell it. I personally don't think they should cause whoever they give it to, they would be throwing away centuries of history.

If you make a rethorical question, expect it answered as the rethorical question it is. You have no evidence (again!) to declare Chavez a dictator. And I severely doubt that the US would, with its economy and army stretched thin, buy the Antilles, but this is just a deduction based on considerations that you neglected to make on your country's current economical standing. And the Netherlands have no need whatsoever to sell them, either. The president that, so far, seems willing to attack harmless, innocent countries, is Bush, not Chavez. The president that, so far, has wanted the most rights abolished (4th Ammendment for starters) is Bush, not Chavez. The president that got elected with the largest majority of the vote for his first term was Chavez, not Bush (who didn't even get a majority in his first term). So, face it, you're not crying foul because Chavez is a "dictator", you're crying foul because Chavez is left-wing.

If you make a rethorical question, expect it answered as the rethorical question it is. You have no evidence (again!) to declare Chavez a dictator. And I severely doubt that the US would, with its economy and army stretched thin, buy the Antilles, but this is just a deduction based on considerations that you neglected to make on your country's current economical standing. And the Netherlands have no need whatsoever to sell them, either. The president that, so far, seems willing to attack harmless, innocent countries, is Bush, not Chavez. The president that, so far, has wanted the most rights abolished (4th Ammendment for starters) is Bush, not Chavez. The president that got elected with the largest majority of the vote for his first term was Chavez, not Bush (who didn't even get a majority in his first term). So, face it, you're not crying foul because Chavez is a "dictator", you're crying foul because Chavez is left-wing.
The question was not rhetorical. You only assumed it was.
The US economy is much much better shape than the Venezuelan economy. In fact analysts are saying the US economy is booming right now. The fact we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has no bearing on whether we should purchase the Antilles.
And I would note that your hatred of Bush has no bearing on it either really since US Presidents are limited to only 2 terms. Bush has only 2 more years left in office. Chavez has stated his intent to stay until 2021 at the latest.

Further, Bush was elected with a majority. Albeit a small majority. Otherwise he would never have gained Florida or won.

why o why isnt this tread dead yet?

whittier we disagree with you and you need to become more open minded about things and not blindly follow where bush points.

apart from that...

@ yootopia (i think its you) whats the TA like generally? im 16 and bored so...

You could always sell them to the United States of America. We'd hold a referendum for the inhabitants if they wanted to be a US territory or be their own nation and what not

Which of course has great precedent. Just look at the way they've respected electoral mandates in Chile and Venzuela. And isnt it true that South Vietnam was never offered a vote on reunification by the US?

why o why isnt this tread dead yet?

Because whittier thinks if he lies often enough and boldly enough, somebody might believe him.

You could always sell them to the United States of America. We'd hold a referendum for the inhabitants if they wanted to be a US territory or be their own nation and what not

Which of course has great precedent. Just look at the way they've respected electoral mandates in Chile and Venzuela. And isnt it true that South Vietnam was never offered a vote on reunification by the US

Not applicable. Better comparison is Philipines and Puerto Rico. Phillipines voted for indepence, we gave it to them. Cuba, voted for independence and we gave it to them. Puerto Rico voted against independence, hence it is still part of the US.

What Reagan did to overturn south american elections has no bearing today.

Further, the reference to south vietnam is false also, as the Antilles were never part of Venezuela.
South Vietnam along with North Vietnam were actually part of China at one point. That's a big difference.

Even I have problems sometimes with the colorscheme. I haven't logged into that website since like about 4 and a half years just about.

I just copypasted that speech to put here to make it more readable.
Thanks, Bob! There is so much to work with in this thing, but my favorite part is the part Cat-Tribe pulled out, the part at the end:

Now I must ask you where in the can you find a man so extroardinaire. Look no further. The man in whome these qualities dwell is me.
In love and romance a Congressman should be unimpeachable and his heart and mind as pure as the morning dew. With a heart and a self restraint that is the envy of every saint he can easily work a miracle or two. In love and desire the ways of the flesh should offer no allure to him. But where in this nation or in the world can you find a man who is so untouched and pure?
Again I say to you, look no further. The man in whome these qualities bloom is me. I have never strayed from all I believe. God has given me an iron will. If I was the partner of Eve we would all still be in Paradise. And today I offer my services to my community and my nation as their next Representative in the US Congress. God bless America."

In other words: Vote for me because if I had been Adam, there would be no humans now because I never would have touched that impure slut -- and if there were no humans, then there would be no humans with problems. Cleanse the morals of our great nation by voting for a man who claims to be free of moral imperfections and sexual temptations, but who posts long poems advocating violent rape on the internet. Restore the compassion and care of our great nation by voting for a man who prays for the economic collapse of other nations that have never done us any harm and the violent deaths of people he doesn't like. That man is me, Robert Canales, and you can know that I am fit to be your leader, because I say so.

Oh, Bob, when, oh when, are you going to learn to think before you say these things? :D

Phillipines voted for indepence, we gave it to them. .

Under a US backed dictator and conditionally.


Cuba, voted for independence and we gave it to them. . .

Under a US backed dictator, likewise.

What Reagan did to overturn south american elections has no bearing today.
.

Chile was Nixon, Ven. was Bush Jr. Think, then type.


Further, the reference to south vietnam is false also, as the Antilles were never part of Venezuela.
South Vietnam along with North Vietnam were actually part of China at one point. That's a big difference.

No, because its another example of America not being fond of elections when they won't go the way they want them. Which was the point I was making.

I get invaded by Mexicans once a month in the summer..they do a nice job on my lawn and i give them money then they go away .

I dont buy gas at Citgo . Chavez has to do what he has to do to stay in power and hating the US is popular ..the crazy Iranian dude is up to the same crap only he wants a few nukes ....the other nut in North Korea says you mess with him and he blows up Japan ...and South Korea...

At the same time millions of illggal immigrants who have escaped these same countries or countries just like them are marching around begging to be allowed to stay here ....instead of with their OWN crazy fucks ....


Did I mention I have a nice lawn ? I also have three cars four computers two playstations and abunch of other crap laying around . along with the guns to keep others from taking it .

It so nice to be an American .. We get stuff .

what do the crazy bastards get ??? rice and beans ??? a few roach motels ??? A camel in a cave ???

Why complain ???

The question was not rhetorical. You only assumed it was.
The US economy is much much better shape than the Venezuelan economy. In fact analysts are saying the US economy is booming right now. The fact we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has no bearing on whether we should purchase the Antilles.
And I would note that your hatred of Bush has no bearing on it either really since US Presidents are limited to only 2 terms. Bush has only 2 more years left in office. Chavez has stated his intent to stay until 2021 at the latest.

Further, Bush was elected with a majority. Albeit a small majority. Otherwise he would never have gained Florida or won.

Right, so you're asking what Chavez would do instead of outright accusing him? Who are you and what have they done to the real Whittier?

In the 2000 election, Bush had no majority in the US, only, and that's disputed, in Florida. Get your most basic facts straight. Regardless, Chavez's majority was bigger than Bush's. Venezuela doesn't have a limit on how many reelections a president can have. So, even IF Chavez said that (and considering your previous record for truthfulness I doubt it), it's within the law of the land if he's reelected enough times. I was pointing out that Chavez is much more trustworthy than Bush on the "not attacking random hapless countries" issue. So far, Chavez has yet to invade a country, kill a good part of its civilian population, turn the place into a civil war hole, and sell the profits of the war to big corporations. And I never said Venezuela would buy the Antilles, I only said the US is really unlikely to, given its trillion-dollar defcit.

Your president spends like a drunken sailor addicted to crack, though, so, yes, I might be wrong on that point, and the US might buy the Antilles.

Right, so you're asking what Chavez would do instead of outright accusing him? Who are you and what have they done to the real Whittier?

In the 2000 election, Bush had no majority in the US, only, and that's disputed, in Florida. Get your most basic facts straight. Regardless, Chavez's majority was bigger than Bush's. Venezuela doesn't have a limit on how many reelections a president can have. So, even IF Chavez said that (and considering your previous record for truthfulness I doubt it), it's within the law of the land if he's reelected enough times. I was pointing out that Chavez is much more trustworthy than Bush on the "not attacking random hapless countries" issue. So far, Chavez has yet to invade a country, kill a good part of its civilian population, turn the place into a civil war hole, and sell the profits of the war to big corporations. And I never said Venezuela would buy the Antilles, I only said the US is really unlikely to, given its trillion-dollar defcit.

Your president spends like a drunken sailor addicted to crack, though, so, yes, I might be wrong on that point, and the US might buy the Antilles.
1. Yes that is what I was doing.
2. Florida was not the only state Bush got a majority in. No he did not get a majority of American votes at the time. The fact he became President is because of the way our Constitution is written. It gives the electoral college the right to overrule the people when the people make an unwise decision. Also, not in the constitution but a fact of life, almost all states have laws that say whoever wins the most votes in their state gets all that states delegates regardless of how small their margin of victory in the state is.
Hence in either case, you don't need a popular majority to win the White House. The US is not ruled by mob rule. This is how we prevent Hitlers, Saddams, Khamieni's, Chavez's and the like from taking over the US through the electoral process.
3. According to Venezuela's current constitution, and according to Chavez' own admission, Venezuela does have Presidential term limits. Chavez wants to get rid of them. You're his neighbor, you should know this already.
4. Your accusation against Bush is totally baseless.
5. A deficit is not the same thing as a debt. A deficit is an imbalance in trade. A debt is something you owe to another person.

1. Yes that is what I was doing.
2. Florida was not the only state Bush got a majority in. No he did not get a majority of American votes at the time. The fact he became President is because of the way our Constitution is written. It gives the electoral college the right to overrule the people when the people make an unwise decision. Also, not in the constitution but a fact of life, almost all states have laws that say whoever wins the most votes in their state gets all that states delegates regardless of how small their margin of victory in the state is.
Hence in either case, you don't need a popular majority to win the White House. The US is not ruled by mob rule. This is how we prevent Hitlers, Saddams, Khamieni's, Chavez's and the like from taking over the US through the electoral process.
3. According to Venezuela's current constitution, and according to Chavez' own admission, Venezuela does have Presidential term limits. Chavez wants to get rid of them. You're his neighbor, you should know this already.
4. Your accusation against Bush is totally baseless.
5. A deficit is not the same thing as a debt. A deficit is an imbalance in trade. A debt is something you owe to another person.

A president here also altered term limits to benefit himself. But he was from the Right, so, nobody in the US complained. And he did that here with the full backing of the elected congress, too. A dictatorship doesn't work under the law. The only reason Chavez has a majority in the congress right now is that the right wing of Venezuela quit the election in an attempt to de-legitimize it. Also, would you be kind enough to link to Chavez's statements in which he said any such thing? My accusation is baseless how exactly? Did he not attack a country for no reason? Iraq had no WMDs, and he went ahead and gave the order to murder people anyways. Popular vote is not mob rule, sonny. Get your facts straight. LOTS of countries work by popular vote. But they have checks and balances, just like the ones the US is losing. For that matter, nice attempt at false association. Need I remind you that Nixon got elected by electoral college? And that Bush jr, who is WAY more similar to Nixon than Chavez is to Saddam or Hitler, did too? Also, regardless of the difference between defcit and debt, the fact is the US can't afford the Antilles.

Not applicable. Better comparison is Philipines and Puerto Rico. Phillipines voted for indepence, we gave it to them. Cuba, voted for independence and we gave it to them. Puerto Rico voted against independence, hence it is still part of the US.
Or Hawai'i.

Or Hawai'i.
Actually Hawaii was an unjustified conquest by dirty greedy businessmen.

Actually Hawaii was an unjustified conquest by dirty greedy businessmen.

So was Iraq.

Actually Hawaii was an unjustified conquest by dirty greedy businessmen.
Exactly.

A president here also altered term limits to benefit himself. But he was from the Right, so, nobody in the US complained. And he did that here with the full backing of the elected congress, too. A dictatorship doesn't work under the law. The only reason Chavez has a majority in the congress right now is that the right wing of Venezuela quit the election in an attempt to de-legitimize it. Also, would you be kind enough to link to Chavez's statements in which he said any such thing? My accusation is baseless how exactly? Did he not attack a country for no reason? Iraq had no WMDs, and he went ahead and gave the order to murder people anyways. Popular vote is not mob rule, sonny. Get your facts straight. LOTS of countries work by popular vote. But they have checks and balances, just like the ones the US is losing. For that matter, nice attempt at false association. Need I remind you that Nixon got elected by electoral college? And that Bush jr, who is WAY more similar to Nixon than Chavez is to Saddam or Hitler, did too? Also, regardless of the difference between defcit and debt, the fact is the US can't afford the Antilles.
In the US the President and the Congress cannot change the constitution without the permission of 3/4 of the states.
Which nation did he attack for no reason.
You consider terrorists to be innocent people? You consider people attacking US troops to be innocent?
Popular vote rule gets you Hitler, Khamieni and Chavez.
Nixon, aside from Watergate, actually did a lot of good things as President. If not for him, the US and China would not be such good trading partners right now. Before his presidency relations between the two were cold. He thawed them. Also, he started the negotiations with the Soviets that were continued by later Presidents, that eventually led to the end of the cold war.

So was Iraq.
lol

We are not annexing Iraq. Whereas we actually annexed Hawaii.

So was Iraq.
i think iraq was finishing off daddy's little misadventure in the gulf.

In the US the President and the Congress cannot change the constitution without the permission of 3/4 of the states.
Which nation did he attack for no reason.
You consider terrorists to be innocent people? You consider people attacking US troops to be innocent?
Popular vote rule gets you Hitler, Khamieni and Chavez.
Nixon, aside from Watergate, actually did a lot of good things as President. If not for him, the US and China would not be such good trading partners right now. Before his presidency relations between the two were cold. He thawed them. Also, he started the negotiations with the Soviets that were continued by later Presidents, that eventually led to the end of the cold war.

Bush attacked Iraq unprovoked. Need I spell that out for you?
Don't play the victim here, there are LOTS of innocent people that got caught in the whole chaos. Indeed, most of the victims are civilians. Furthermore, you're creating MORE terrorists. The son of the guy you mistakenly shot? Future terrorist. The husband of the woman your fellow soldiers gang-raped? Future terrorist as well. The list goes on.
Electoral college gets you Bush jr. and Nixon, both of which made a mockery of the Constitution your forefathers wrote. Popular vote also gets you Juscelino Kubitschek, who industrialized Brazil, Nelson Mandela and Hugo Chavez (see? I can also group the man into the group that fits my interests, so cut it out).

i think iraq was finishing off daddy's little misadventure in the gulf.

Ah, sorry, my bad.

lol

We are not annexing Iraq. Whereas we actually annexed Hawaii.

Ah, so that's the difference, in Hawaii you actually succeeded.

What do you propose that I should do then?
Yes my faith is important but it took a hit when one day, I realized there were people being hypocrites in the church I was a deacon at, pointed it out, was reprimanded by church officials for pointing it out and threatened with expulsion from the church.

People were using the church not as a place for worship and prayer, but as a place to hook up with members of the opposing gender for sex. They were sitting there every Saturday saying amen to the sermons and then turning around and doing the shit they said, while in church, people should not do.

The Bible says not have anything to do with such people, so I stopped going and I've never been to church since.

And later, they had the gall to claim I owed them an apology. What about the apology they owed me?
Sex during mass can be quite pleasant, actually.

Sex during mass can be quite pleasant, actually.

Sex en masse? I've heard about that...

why o why isnt this tread dead yet?

whittier we disagree with you and you need to become more open minded about things and not blindly follow where bush points.

God gave him an iron will, or so it would seem from what his website says. Sadly it's been channeled into mindlessly defending the USA.

@ yootopia (i think its you) whats the TA like generally? im 16 and bored so...

I really, really wouldn't join the TA simply because you're bored.

If you think it's a good idea, then join the TA officer corps. It's what I plan on doing at Uni (as you don't have to pay tuition fees, I'd have a few quid in my pocket and I've always had an interest in the army).

Joining that TA at sixteen is a bit foolish, you don't really want to get sent out to Iraq at this moment in time (or at any point).

And are you in/are you planning to go to college?

meh, just wondering, not really that interested in the army, more of the navy

thanks for your advice, by the way im going to sixth form at wyedean next year after doing the dreaded gcses...

God gave him an iron will, or so it would seem from what his website says. Sadly it's been channeled into mindlessly defending the USA.

Considering he prays (as he stated here) for death and hurt, was it really God?

meh, just wondering, not really that interested in the army, more of the navy

thanks for your advice, by the way im going to sixth form at wyedean next year after doing the dreaded gcses...

The navy's safe as houses at this point in time, that's probably your best bet, but I have no idea about if there's a Territorial Navy or similar type force.

And you're in the same boat as me, then. I'm not actually in the TA, but I do know a fair bit about it (hopefully you realised that the whole cereal numbers thing was a joke) and will probably join the Officer Corps at university.

And good luck with your GCSEs, by the way.




@ Heikoku


Considering God's record of letting the devil have his way with people, I'd personally consider God quite evil, so yeah, he might as well be praying to God.

Considering God's record of letting the devil have his way with people, I'd personally consider God quite evil, so yeah, he might as well be praying to God.

I find God to be neutral, really, with multiple sides. But - assuming a dualistic religion in which one side stands for life and well-being and the other stands for death and misery, Whittier has stated on which side he stands.

I find God to be neutral, really, with multiple sides. But - assuming a dualistic religion in which one side stands for life and well-being and the other stands for death and misery, Whittier has stated on which side he stands.

Can we avoid not making this yet another Whittier bashing thread? It's tiresome.

i think iraq was finishing off daddy's little misadventure in the gulf.
you know, that's what I was thinking cause Bush Jr. always felt that Bush 1 wrongly called off desert storm too early. He was one of the guys lobbying his dad to push all the way to Baghdad.
We already know which decision Bush 1 made cause it's history.

Bush attacked Iraq unprovoked. Need I spell that out for you?
Don't play the victim here, there are LOTS of innocent people that got caught in the whole chaos. Indeed, most of the victims are civilians. Furthermore, you're creating MORE terrorists. The son of the guy you mistakenly shot? Future terrorist. The husband of the woman your fellow soldiers gang-raped? Future terrorist as well. The list goes on.
Electoral college gets you Bush jr. and Nixon, both of which made a mockery of the Constitution your forefathers wrote. Popular vote also gets you Juscelino Kubitschek, who industrialized Brazil, Nelson Mandela and Hugo Chavez (see? I can also group the man into the group that fits my interests, so cut it out).
I got you figured out. This is just another of one of your "I hate Bush" posts. Do you actually believe all that crap?

I got you figured out. This is just another of one of your "I hate Bush" posts. Do you actually believe all that crap?

I dunno. Do you believe all that crap you posted on the first page?

Chavez is a nut-job. The author of the original article is 100% accurate.

Chavez is a nut-job. The author of the original article is 100% accurate.

No, no he obviously isn't. We've been discussing this for however many pages now, and it's been proved pretty well that Chavez isn't a nutjob, and the real nutjobs are people who defend their country for no reason other than to attack leftists.

It sickens me that there is so much anti-Americanism among people today. It seems that it is only the leftist Americans and terrorists that perpetuate this sentiment.

Viva Augusto Pinochet!

It sickens me that there is so much anti-Americanism among people today. It seems that it is only the leftist Americans and terrorists that perpetuate this sentiment.

Did you look through all 539 posts and come up with that or merely glance at say... 4?

It sickens me that there is so much anti-Americanism among people today. It seems that it is only the leftist Americans and terrorists that perpetuate this sentiment.

You needn't bother seperating them, to be honest, PATRIOT sticks them both together. What disgusts me is right-wing Americans who can't accept that maybe capitalism at the sacrifice of a country's citizens is completely wrong.

It sickens me that there is so much anti-Americanism among people today. It seems that it is only the leftist Americans and terrorists that perpetuate this sentiment.

I'm thinking of a word that starts with p and ends with uppet.

I'm thinking of a word that starts with p and ends with uppet.

My word's similar, but it starts with an 'm' instead. And Kyle - you're not one of the cooler ones like Miss Piggy.

I got you figured out. This is just another of one of your "I hate Bush" posts. Do you actually believe all that crap?

Considering you are the one attacking a president that was actually elected with a majority and never attacked another country unprovoked, I'm STILL winning this argument. Way to sidestep ALL POINTS I made besides the one about Bush, by the way. Answer them.

I'm thinking of a word that starts with p and ends with uppet.

I'm thinking of one that starts with a p and ends with sychopath.

But yeah, he's a puppet too.

I dunno. Do you believe all that crap you posted on the first page?
yes I do.

Did you look through all 539 posts and come up with that or merely glance at say... 4?
I don't think he's serious. did you see post 540?

yes I do.

Behold, ladies and gentlemen, Whittier finally admitting he believes in crap! :p

My word's similar, but it starts with an 'm' instead. And Kyle - you're not one of the cooler ones like Miss Piggy.

Judging by the evidence on the regional board here:

http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_region/region=conservative_republican_states

I would suggest that the m-word is more plausible than the p-word, unless quite a lot of prep has gone into this one.

Considering you are the one attacking a president that was actually elected with a majority and never attacked another country unprovoked, I'm STILL winning this argument. Way to sidestep ALL POINTS I made besides the one about Bush, by the way. Answer them.
Dude you just don't get it. I'm laughing in your face. :D

Countering your arguments is like trying to counter the arguments of some conspiracy theorists who insists that aliens are visiting earth and adducting people to sexually abuse them.

LMAO

have fun with your little conspiracy theory.

Judging by the evidence on the regional board here:

http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=display_region/region=conservative_republican_states

I would suggest that the m-word is more plausible than the p-word, unless quite a lot of prep has gone into this one.

Perhaps I am revealing too much ignorance, but is there a difference between a muppet and a puppet?

Dude you just don't get it. I'm laughing in your face. :D

Countering your arguments is like trying to counter the arguments of some conspiracy theorists who insists that aliens are visiting earth and adducting people to sexually abuse them.

LMAO

have fun with your little conspiracy theory.

Okay, folks. This guy claims Venezuela is under some big coup that nobody, even in Fox News, said anything about, and that Chavez plans to attack the Antilles and basically go Stalin on South America, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up...

And I'M the conspiracy theorist.

All of you that find this funny and sad say "Salmon!"

Salmon!

Dude you just don't get it. I'm laughing in your face. :D

Countering your arguments is like trying to counter the arguments of some conspiracy theorists who insists that aliens are visiting earth and adducting people to sexually abuse them.

LMAO

have fun with your little conspiracy theory.

You realize you're the one espousing a conspiracy theory about Chavez, right? I mean, Heik does espouse conspiracies about the US, but you do the same thing about Chavez. You guys can't get along because you're two sides of the same coin.

Perhaps I am revealing too much ignorance, but is there a difference between a muppet and a puppet?

The term 'muppet' is also used as a light indicator of incompetence or a touch of foolishness.

You realize you're the one espousing a conspiracy theory about Chavez, right? I mean, Heik does espouse conspiracies about the US, but you do the same thing about Chavez. You guys can't get along because you're two sides of the same coin.

In case you have anything I wrote to back up your claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist, I'd be interested to find out. Whit, though, set up a whole thread to talk about his own paranoia...

I can't believe that a news network would waste time talking or even reporting about Chavez. I can't believe we've wasted this many posts talking about him.

Just another tinpot dictator (this one of the We Love the Left variety, instead of We Love the Right).

Meh.

In case you have anything I wrote to back up your claim that I'm a conspiracy theorist, I'd be interested to find out. Whit, though, set up a whole thread to talk about his own paranoia...

I'm not going to go back and quote all of your statements about the US. Both of you guys exaggerate to make your points. Claim wild levels of corruption on the opposing person's side and pretty much ignore everything that goes against your point. I don't know why you're even talking to each other, it's not like you're actually listening to one another.

I can't believe that a news network would waste time talking or even reporting about Chavez. I can't believe we've wasted this many posts talking about him.

Just another tinpot dictator (this one of the We Love the Left variety, instead of We Love the Right).

Meh.

You see, Chavez was elected. Twice. He was sent back to power after a brief US-sponsored coup by the population of Venezuela. He may be populist, but he's not a dictator.

You see, Chavez was elected. Twice. He was sent back to power after a brief US-sponsored coup by the population of Venezuela. He may be populist, but he's not a dictator.

With all the legislative changes he's made, he might as well be Dictator for Life.

If Bush made the same changes to the electoral process and Constitution here, you would be out in the street with a rifle.

Bush was elected. Twice.

Perhaps I am revealing too much ignorance, but is there a difference between a muppet and a puppet?

It's a colloquial English term for "fool", as well as being one of the puppets that appeared in The Muppets. No problem at all about not knowing the difference, you live in Montreal (I presume), which is quite a long way both in distance and culturally from French Canada :)

I'm not going to go back and quote all of your statements about the US. Both of you guys exaggerate to make your points. Claim wild levels of corruption on the opposing person's side and pretty much ignore everything that goes against your point. I don't know why you're even talking to each other, it's not like you're actually listening to one another.

That one I'll answer, since it's in my field. You don't always argue for the other to be convinced by you, you sometimes (most of the times) argue for EVERYONE ELSE to be convinced by you.

And, for style, based on The Two Towers, by Stephen King: :D

"You do not listen with your ears. He who listens with his ears has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You listen with your mind."

"You do not retort with your voice. He who retorts with his voice has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You retort with your discourse."

"You do not win with your point. He who wins with his point has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You win with your reason."

:p

With all the legislative changes he's made, he might as well be Dictator for Life.

If Bush made the same changes to the electoral process and Constitution here, you would be out in the street with a rifle.

Bush was elected. Twice.

Chavez was elected twice as well. As for said changes, I have yet to see the one in which he abolishes elections. Or any other civil right, like Bush, for that matter (4th ammendment anyone?).

That one I'll answer, since it's in my field. You don't always argue for the other to be convinced by you, you sometimes (most of the times) argue for EVERYONE ELSE to be convinced by you.

And, for style, based on The Two Towers, by Stephen King: :D

"You do not listen with your ears. He who listens with his ears has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You listen with your mind."

"You do not retort with your voice. He who retorts with his voice has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You retort with your discourse."

"You do not win with your point. He who wins with his point has forgotten the face of Aristotle. You win with your reason."

:p

The point is that you're not doing any of these things. Most people have tuned out because at this point you two are just bickering and slinging mud at each other's countries.

Some of your points are good, but most people are going to skim through what you write, go, "oh, he's one of those" and move on. You both do a disservice to yourselves by being so insulting and so extreme.

Chavez was elected twice as well. As for said changes, I have yet to see the one in which he abolishes elections. Or any other civil right, like Bush, for that matter (4th ammendment anyone?).
At this point, Chavez has effectively eliminated any chance that the opposition has for getting elected, so he has effectively abolished elections.

He's certainly talked long enough about staying in power.

My point, however, is that whatever Chavez does will never amount to a hill of beans outside of Venezuela. Why we're wasting breath on him is beyond me. The only people he's going to screw are the Venezuelans.

The point is that you're not doing any of these things. Most people have tuned out because at this point you two are just bickering and slinging mud at each other's countries.

Some of your points are good, but most people are going to skim through what you write, go, "oh, he's one of those" and move on. You both do a disservice to yourselves by being so insulting and so extreme.

Oh, I never claimed to be doing any of these things (right now at least, cuz I actually tend to fence really well in an argument). I just added that flavor text for STYLE! :D

For that matter, I never slinged (slung?) mud at America, I insulted Dubya, which, as we speak, represents about 30% of America. And Nixon, which represented just a little less at his time. Whittier isn't really attacking my country either, he's just proposing the murder or couping-out of the legally elected leader of a country next to mine to set up a Dubya-friendly leader.

Check this out:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702065.shtml

published just an hour ago.

"The impunity that exists in cases of extrajudicial executions is one of the most serious problems that confronts Venezuela, since it is a problem that involves the activity of private vigilante groups."

Groups that Chavez supporters claim he isn't supporting. Yet he refuses to stop their murder spree.

"The human rights institution particularly regretted the fact that "the Venezuelan State continues to consider that the Commission's decisions are not binding upon its internal legal system."

It reminded "the duty of States to comply with their international obligations in good faith, and the duty of States to implement and comply with resolutions emitted by the supervisory organs of the treaties to which they are parties," in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court."

Apparently the paranoid leader of Venezuela has decided he is NOT going to abide by the international treaties his government signed and ratified.

It doesn't look like Chavez is going to have difficulty getting Peru to join his South American Alliance of Evil

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702063.shtml

looks to me he is interfering in Peru's internal affairs.
notice that Peru has recalled its ambassador from Caracass. Peru is not the first nation to do so I must note.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3833664.html

Chavez came and straight out attacked Peru's democratically elected President.

"The two South American nations have been in an escalating war of words over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's endorsement of Ollanta Humala in Peru's upcoming presidential runoff and his criticism of Toledo's free-trade pact with the United States."

"On Saturday, Peru withdrew its ambassador from Venezuela to protest what it called Chavez's "persistent and flagrant" interference in its presidential election."

Who was it that claimed that Chavez was not interfering in his neighbors' internal affairs?

Looks like Peru is getting ready to expel Venezuela's ambassador.

"In November, Chavez struck out at conservative Mexican President Vicente Fox, calling him a "puppy" of the United States. After Chavez refused to apologize, the countries withdrew their respective ambassadors and have not returned them since."

Mexico was the first country to withdraw it's ambassador from Venezuela.
Chavez has also condemned and threatened Colombia.

This guy has a record of trying to destabilize and interfere in the internal affairs of pro-american nations in latin america.

At this point, Chavez has effectively eliminated any chance that the opposition has for getting elected, so he has effectively abolished elections.

He's certainly talked long enough about staying in power.

My point, however, is that whatever Chavez does will never amount to a hill of beans outside of Venezuela. Why we're wasting breath on him is beyond me. The only people he's going to screw are the Venezuelans.

The opposition decided to quit the elections, in an attempt to delegitimize them. I could point out Bush's "If I were a dictator" quote too, as well as his "wiretapping is legal" events, PATRIOT act and so on, as well...

Check this out:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702065.shtml

published just an hour ago.

"The impunity that exists in cases of extrajudicial executions is one of the most serious problems that confronts Venezuela, since it is a problem that involves the activity of private vigilante groups."

Groups that Chavez supporters claim he isn't supporting. Yet he refuses to stop their murder spree.

"The human rights institution particularly regretted the fact that "the Venezuelan State continues to consider that the Commission's decisions are not binding upon its internal legal system."

It reminded "the duty of States to comply with their international obligations in good faith, and the duty of States to implement and comply with resolutions emitted by the supervisory organs of the treaties to which they are parties," in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court."

Apparently the paranoid leader of Venezuela has decided he is NOT going to abide by the international treaties his government signed and ratified.
It doesn't look like Chavez is going to have difficulty getting Peru to join his South American Alliance of Evil

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702063.shtml

looks to me he is interfering in Peru's internal affairs.
notice that Peru has recalled its ambassador from Caracass. Peru is not the first nation to do so I must note.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3833664.html

Chavez came and straight out attacked Peru's democratically elected President.

"The two South American nations have been in an escalating war of words over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's endorsement of Ollanta Humala in Peru's upcoming presidential runoff and his criticism of Toledo's free-trade pact with the United States."

"On Saturday, Peru withdrew its ambassador from Venezuela to protest what it called Chavez's "persistent and flagrant" interference in its presidential election."

Who was it that claimed that Chavez was not interfering in his neighbors' internal affairs?

Looks like Peru is getting ready to expel Venezuela's ambassador.

"In November, Chavez struck out at conservative Mexican President Vicente Fox, calling him a "puppy" of the United States. After Chavez refused to apologize, the countries withdrew their respective ambassadors and have not returned them since."

Mexico was the first country to withdraw it's ambassador from Venezuela.
Chavez has also condemned and threatened Colombia.

This guy has a record of trying to destabilize and interfere in the internal affairs of pro-american nations in latin america.
You know what? When you (the US) give back the entirety of the 5,3 billions you stole from Canada in breach of the Free-trade treaty you signed, you can whine about other people not keeping their part of international treaties. And then we'll lambast you for ignoring the UN and starting an illegal war (under international treaty) in Iraq.

You know what? When you (the US) give back the entirety of the 5,3 billions you stole from Canada in breach of the Free-trade treaty you signed, you can whine about other people not keeping their part of international treaties. And then we'll lambast you for ignoring the UN and starting an illegal war (under international treaty) in Iraq.

You didn't hear? Bush is a god that doesn't need to respect international treaties. Chavez is a demon for daring disrespect them. :p

Hugo Chavez sending his nation into the gutter:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1160080.php/Oil-rich_Venezuela_paying_billions_for_oil

The upshot of these increasing obligations and decreasing production has forced Chavez to agree to pay $2 billion to Russia for that nation`s crude oil.

My point, however, is that whatever Chavez does will never amount to a hill of beans outside of Venezuela. Why we're wasting breath on him is beyond me. The only people he's going to screw are the Venezuelans.

Could not the equivalent have been said about Saddam?

Venezuela is important as it controls large oil reserves. No one is saying a damn thing about what is happening in Ecuador or Uruguay, but Venezuela is on the global map.

This guy has a record of trying to destabilize and interfere in the internal affairs of pro-american nations in latin america.
Yup. And he's isolating his country thanks to that. By the way, that article attacking Chavez, is from El Universal of Caracas. You know, where freedom of the press doesn't exist?

There was a march of protest against insecurity in Venezuela a couple of weeks ago or so, and if it continues it can seriously affect Chavez popularity.

Now, he will survive at least for a while thanks to Latin America's inclination towards cults of personality, but he's going to start losing followers, probably soon. Maybe even starting this year, although I doubt it'll be enough to make him lose the election.

As that starts to happen we'll see what he really is made of.

This is just righteous lmao:

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B2C89516A-A9FD-4BA7-B5AB-AC2591E9EDFC%7D&language=EN

"As the last example, the official cited a possible regional conflict, by which international bodies could internally destabilize Venezuela and lead to an invasion."

All of sudden legitimate international bodies are now a threat to Chavez' control of Venezuela.

"Recently, President Hugo Chavez warned that Washington´s maneuvers in the Caribbean threaten his country and Cuba, and criticized that strategy as US intervention."

Wow. Hey if holding a training exercise in international waters is intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs, what do you call it when Chavez blasts Mexico, Colombia and Peru for signing trade agreements with the US then using it as an excuse to stalk out of the Andean nations trade treaty? Or for that matter what is it called when Chavez gets involved in Peru's internal elections?

Hugo Chavez sending his nation into the gutter:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/article_1160080.php/Oil-rich_Venezuela_paying_billions_for_oil

The upshot of these increasing obligations and decreasing production has forced Chavez to agree to pay $2 billion to Russia for that nation`s crude oil.

Bush sending his nation into the gutter:

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0123/p02s02-uspo.html[url]

Now, you're ok with assassinating Bush and staging a coup in the US?

Didn't think so.

Check this out:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702065.shtml

published just an hour ago.

"The impunity that exists in cases of extrajudicial executions is one of the most serious problems that confronts Venezuela, since it is a problem that involves the activity of private vigilante groups."

Groups that Chavez supporters claim he isn't supporting. Yet he refuses to stop their murder spree.

"The human rights institution particularly regretted the fact that "the Venezuelan State continues to consider that the Commission's decisions are not binding upon its internal legal system."

It reminded "the duty of States to comply with their international obligations in good faith, and the duty of States to implement and comply with resolutions emitted by the supervisory organs of the treaties to which they are parties," in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court."

Apparently the paranoid leader of Venezuela has decided he is NOT going to abide by the international treaties his government signed and ratified.

The original article is much longer, and shows that the discussion concerning respecting international treaties has to do with the high number of provisional judges in the higher courts of Venezuela, and people being tried in military courts, even if they are no longer part of the military. It has nothing to do with the paramilitary groups that are targetting poor rural workers who are involved in the agrarian reform. I hopeyou are not claiming that these paramilitary groups that are supported by Chavez, seeing as how they are attacking his supporters.

http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/pol_ava_02A701973.shtml

It doesn't look like Chavez is going to have difficulty getting Peru to join his South American Alliance of Evil

Peru is in the middle of a presidential campaign, it seems, and one of the candidates is a leftist. Therefore it will be up to the Peruvians to decide if they want to go in the same direction as Venezuela.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/05/02/en_pol_art_02A702063.shtml

looks to me he is interfering in Peru's internal affairs.
notice that Peru has recalled its ambassador from Caracass. Peru is not the first nation to do so I must note.

The extent of his interference was to publicly support a candidate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4583268.stm
If only the western democracies limited their interference to such actions.

Since the candidate that Chavez likes is running in opposition to the current regime, I would assume that their reaction of bringing the ambassador home has more to do with electioneering than anything Chavez may have done.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3833664.html

Chavez came and straight out attacked Peru's democratically elected President.

"The two South American nations have been in an escalating war of words over Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's endorsement of Ollanta Humala in Peru's upcoming presidential runoff and his criticism of Toledo's free-trade pact with the United States."

"On Saturday, Peru withdrew its ambassador from Venezuela to protest what it called Chavez's "persistent and flagrant" interference in its presidential election."

See above.

Could not the equivalent have been said about Saddam?

Venezuela is important as it controls large oil reserves. No one is saying a damn thing about what is happening in Ecuador or Uruguay, but Venezuela is on the global map.

(Claro que o Whittier nunca viveu numa ditadura patrocinada pelos EUA, mas quer que os venezuelanos vivam. Tou dando um pau nele por isto.)
For that matter, Bush has begun a tradition of calling countries with oil "dangerous dictatorships"...

Peru is in the middle of a presidential campaign, it seems, and one of the candidates is a leftist. Therefore it will be up to the Peruvians to decide if they want to go in the same direction as Venezuela.

You didn't hear? Left groups are automatically evil. That's Whittier's democracy.

Yup. And he's isolating his country thanks to that. By the way, that article attacking Chavez, is from El Universal of Caracas. You know, where freedom of the press doesn't exist?

There was a march of protest against insecurity in Venezuela a couple of weeks ago or so, and if it continues it can seriously affect Chavez popularity.

Now, he will survive at least for a while thanks to Latin America's inclination towards cults of personality, but he's going to start losing followers, probably soon. Maybe even starting this year, although I doubt it'll be enough to make him lose the election.

As that starts to happen we'll see what he really is made of.
A nationstates name generator?

A nationstates name generator?
Maybe he'll want to have his own country here, if he gets ousted. The name generator can help him pick a name.

...Ok then. lol

Well I don't think Chavez is a larger threat than terrorism...
The US has almost 2 Million Active members of its military, so I dont think 1.5 million is too frightening..
And Chavez hasn't said he wants to DESTROY the US as you put it...if so, link please.
Im not defending him, but i dont think hes as bad as youre saying.

Some info from: www.wikipedia.org

...Ok then. lol

Well I don't think Chavez is a larger threat than terrorism...
The US has almost 2 Million Active members of its military, so I dont think 1.5 million is too frightening..
And Chavez hasn't said he wants to DESTROY the US as you put it...if so, link please.
Im not defending him, but i dont think hes as bad as youre saying.

Some info from: www.wikipedia.org

You see, that's the beauty of Whittier's ideology, he doesn't have to care about the facts. :p

This is just righteous lmao:

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B2C89516A-A9FD-4BA7-B5AB-AC2591E9EDFC%7D&language=EN

"As the last example, the official cited a possible regional conflict, by which international bodies could internally destabilize Venezuela and lead to an invasion."

All of sudden legitimate international bodies are now a threat to Chavez' control of Venezuela.

"Recently, President Hugo Chavez warned that Washington´s maneuvers in the Caribbean threaten his country and Cuba, and criticized that strategy as US intervention."

Wow. Hey if holding a training exercise in international waters is intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs, what do you call it when Chavez blasts Mexico, Colombia and Peru for signing trade agreements with the US then using it as an excuse to stalk out of the Andean nations trade treaty? Or for that matter what is it called when Chavez gets involved in Peru's internal elections?

What the article actually said:

Caracas, May 2 (Prensa Latina) Referring to the US military exercises afoot in the Caribbean, Venezuelan Army Commander in Chief Raul Isaias Baduel reiterated Monday that his nation is prepared to face any aggression.

Baduel said that the National Armed Forces have been analyzing potential dangers over the country´s security and determined four possible strategies.

The first one deals with the concept of a fourth generation war that includes includes any conflict in which one of the major participants is not considered a state, rather a violent ideological network.

The second one has to do with domestic destabilization and disarticulation such as coups and subversive actions, while the third one could be a military intervention.

As the last example, the official cited a possible regional conflict, by which international bodies could internally destabilize Venezuela and lead to an invasion.

Recently, President Hugo Chavez warned that Washington´s maneuvers in the Caribbean threaten his country and Cuba, and criticized that strategy as US intervention.

So, the Commander in Chief of the Venezuelan armed forces, who is not Chavez, has summarised what he views as threats. That must mean Chavez is a dictator?

And Chavez thinks that a country that supported a coup against him and then did maneuvers off the Venezuelan coast may be a threat? He must be into self-preservation or something!

You see, that's the beauty of Whittier's ideology, he doesn't have to care about the facts. :p
Are you still around? How are those conspiracy theories going? You know they had one on the radio the other day about how Bush was really a greenlizard man from the planet Necoron. They were saying the intent of the lizardmen was to destroy the human race.

LMAO

Does anybody remember Chavez surviving a coup, and more specifically how he survived that coup?

The coup was by a small military junta of the type that had been in control of Venezula before Chavez obtained power. These are the types of people we are used to whining about from the safety of the west, but they did (for their complete disregard for civil liberties) allow the growth of a rich upper class who controlled the countries oil reserves and adopted a pro-western culture. The coup was aimed at putting these people back in power and, suspiciously quickly after the coup appeared successful, the US came out in full support of the new military dictatorship despite the presence of the military on the streets, curfews and widespread repression of the majority (pro-Chavez) of ordinary citizens. The coup, though, was short lived, and overthrown by sheer weight of popular force. Chavez returned to power, the state took back the oil and reinstituted his socialist government.

To me it is impossible to make this a clear cut moral case. You have, on the one hand, a dictator who wishes to bully the United States into providing his country with more money by raising oil prices. That dictator, however, enjoys popular support and has managed to provide freedoms such as that of the press and of movement that we are used to in the west. On the other hand you can go for the dictatorship of the old upper classes of Venezula who are more pro-US and have overtly pro-'western' values, and yet who limit the actual freedoms of the majority. Perhaps a return to Woodrow Wilson's theory of national self determinism would provide the fairest answer, if not for America?

Does anybody remember Chavez surviving a coup, and more specifically how he survived that coup?

The coup was by a small military junta of the type that had been in control of Venezula before Chavez obtained power. These are the types of people we are used to whining about from the safety of the west, but they did (for their complete disregard for civil liberties) allow the growth of a rich upper class who controlled the countries oil reserves and adopted a pro-western culture. The coup was aimed at putting these people back in power and, suspiciously quickly after the coup appeared successful, the US came out in full support of the new military dictatorship despite the presence of the military on the streets, curfews and widespread repression of the majority (pro-Chavez) of ordinary citizens. The coup, though, was short lived, and overthrown by sheer weight of popular force. Chavez returned to power, the state took back the oil and reinstituted his socialist government.

To me it is impossible to make this a clear cut moral case. You have, on the one hand, a dictator who wishes to bully the United States into providing his country with more money by raising oil prices. That dictator, however, enjoys popular support and has managed to provide freedoms such as that of the press and of movement that we are used to in the west. On the other hand you can go for the dictatorship of the old upper classes of Venezula who are more pro-US and have overtly pro-'western' values, and yet who limit the actual freedoms of the majority. Perhaps a return to Woodrow Wilson's theory of national self determinism would provide the fairest answer, if not for America?except that Wilson was American and American means evil.

Are you still around? How are those conspiracy theories going? You know they had one on the radio the other day about how Bush was really a greenlizard man from the planet Necoron. They were saying the intent of the lizardmen was to destroy the human race.

LMAO

Again with the "conspiracy theorist"? Again, whittier, YOU are the one claiming Chavez wants to attack the Antilles and create an "alliance of evil" in South America with no evidence whatsoever.

And you claim I make conspiracy theories?

I'm not one of your personalities, Whittier.

except that Wilson was American and American means evil.

Yeah, only that not only has nothing to do with what he said, it also fails to address his points and responds them with the old "you disagree with me so you hate America" vitriol, trying to silence opposition by claiming they hate the country.

You must really hate the freedoms America stands for, Whittier.

i may be wrong but didnt you (whittier) say that bolivia would never join venezuelas madness or something like that?

The joined their (venez & cuba) trading bloc and they nationalised their gas industry.

GUTTED



whittier: (in girlish voice) everyone, run for the hills, a leftist movement is coming, ill hold them off with my god who i pray to to kill people and my skewed politaicla views!!!

As long as the military is trained dually for civilian critical roles such as medical, infrastructure maitence and agriculture the bigger the better it is for the militarized state. I highly doubt that it is building it to 'threaten' anyone. Realistically war can't exist on a scale with world powers where it is realistic for either party.

There is a syndrome called 'american control the americas hemisphere syndrome' people not in the US have at times resented the US for this syndrome.

So what you give people guns and tell them they can do what they feel like.. geuss what.. they might use the guns. The thing is though do they feel like using the guns? My gosh just look to iraq for american freedom... or afghanstan, as vietnam or japan or china or africa or italy or germany or panama or cuba or phillipines or britain or the caribean or latin america or africa ect...what american freedoms means to them, you may get mixed responses.. in some cases they may even claim that the influence was undesired, or even 'warlike', and even 'criminal'. Of course in many instances the infleunce could have been incouraged. Chavez may simply be saying eh if brazil can get a seat on the UN security council may be can too? but first we need to be big and tough.. maybe not... what is the big deal about a 1.5 million person army for a country teetering on internal collapse? The military is simply a way of getting more people to support the government rather than anarchy .. imo.. I could be mixing it up with venezuela / argentina I seem to mix the two up as far as internal collapse and economic debt goes. as long as he doesn't need to buy new guns and stuff to arm them no biggie.

I'm not going to go back and quote all of your statements about the US. Both of you guys exaggerate to make your points. Claim wild levels of corruption on the opposing person's side and pretty much ignore everything that goes against your point. I don't know why you're even talking to each other, it's not like you're actually listening to one another.
Jocabia, I have to quibble with you here. I think Whittier is way more outre than Heikoku.

Heikoku expresses what some may think are extremely negative views of the US, but nothing that I would call a "paranoid conspiracy theory." I've seen him often claim that the US government is doing dishonest things, but nothing out of keeping with the actual history of the US government. He may often be wrong, but his scenarios are neither unrealistic nor paranoid, in my opinion. Also, Heikoku uses hyperbole and melodrama deliberately, as his preferred style, and acknowledges this.

Whittier on the other hand, makes up conspiracy theories out of whole cloth and then cherrypicks "evidence" to try and back himself up, often in direct contradiction of both history and current news, let alone logic. In addition, Whittier says the most outrageous things and then denounces anyone who challenges him on his claims as paranoid or out to get him (ironically), or else he tries to deny he said this or that.

When it comes to which of them counts more as a debate forum train wreck, I say Whittier wins hands down -- as evidenced by the fact that you can't stay away from him, even after your vow to stop posting. The only reason I tuned into this thread was that I saw your name in it and laughed. I knew you couldn't resist him. :p

Jocabia, I have to quibble with you here. I think Whittier is way more outre than Heikoku.

Heikoku expresses what some may think are extremely negative views of the US, but nothing that I would call a "paranoid conspiracy theory." I've seen him often claim that the US government is doing dishonest things, but nothing out of keeping with the actual history of the US government. He may often be wrong, but his scenarios are neither unrealistic nor paranoid, in my opinion. Also, Heikoku uses hyperbole and melodrama deliberately, as his preferred style, and acknowledges this.

*Imitates Bill McNeal, Phil Hartmann's character from "Newsradio"*
Thank you... *Smug*

And now, for your enjoyment, back from Saturday Night Live hall of fame...

Mr Subliminal!

Unlike some people (neocons) think (imply to discredit me), my negative views are of the US government (Cheney), not of the US itself, but some people (neocons) are unable (unwilling) to make that (obvious) distinction. They seem to think (libel) that criticizing a government (free speech) equals hating a country (treason). They are misguided (proto-dictators) about that, and it seems they overlook (try to abolish) the Constitution when they act in a way that's "support the government, right or wrong" (sycophants) and "criticizing equals hating" (fascists). I do not claim Muravyets (nice guy) is one of those people (morons).

Whittier on the other hand, makes up conspiracy theories out of whole cloth and then cherrypicks "evidence" to try and back himself up, often in direct contradiction of both history and current news, let alone logic. In addition, Whittier says the most outrageous things and then denounces anyone who challenges him on his claims as paranoid or out to get him (ironically), or else he tries to deny he said this or that.

When it comes to which of them counts more as a debate forum train wreck, I say Whittier wins hands down -- as evidenced by the fact that you can't stay away from him, even after your vow to stop posting. The only reason I tuned into this thread was that I saw your name in it and laughed. I knew you couldn't resist him. :p

In conclusion, I'm nuts, but I'm FUNNY nuts. I'm harmless nuts. Whittier is "the Left is under my bed and they want to attack the US to make it into a dictatorship in which you CAN criticize the president, and everyone that disagrees is a conspiracy theorist" nuts. :D

*Imitates Bill McNeal, Phil Hartmann's character from "Newsradio"*
Thank you... *Smug*

And now, for your enjoyment, back from Saturday Night Live hall of fame...

Mr Subliminal!

Unlike some people (neocons) think (imply to discredit me), my negative views are of the US government (Cheney), not of the US itself, but some people (neocons) are unable (unwilling) to make that (obvious) distinction. They seem to think (libel) that criticizing a government (free speech) equals hating a country (treason). They are misguided (proto-dictators) about that, and it seems they overlook (try to abolish) the Constitution when they act in a way that's "support the government, right or wrong" (sycophants) and "criticizing equals hating" (fascists).
Cool. :) (EDIT re your edit: I got the joke. All good.)

In conclusion, I'm nuts, but I'm FUNNY nuts. I'm harmless nuts. Whittier is "the Left is under my bed and they want to attack the US to make it into a dictatorship in which you CAN criticize the president, and everyone that disagrees is a conspiracy theorist" nuts. :D
You just made yourself sound way too nuts, imo (and if you think you get complained about, you should hear what some people say about me). And you made Whittier sound nowhere near nuts enough, also imho. ;)

You just made yourself sound way too nuts, imo (and if you think you get complained about, you should hear what some people say about me). And you made Whittier sound nowhere near nuts enough, also imho. ;)

That's because of my liking for hyperbole. In the first part I was hyperbolizing my own madness. In the second part I was hyperbolizing (by much) Whittier's normalcy.

That's because of my liking for hyperbole. In the first part I was hyperbolizing my own madness. In the second part I was hyperbolizing (by much) Whittier's normalcy.
;) ;)

;) ;)

Anyways, glad that you made it. Wanna join me in beating the crap out of Whittier in the discussion? The guy may be (well, he IS) totally unskilled at arguing (except when it comes to handpicking faux evidence and twisting it, but everybody has a strenght), but he's like a Timex, takes a licking and keeps on ticking, so I'm guessing we'll be here having fun at his expense for a while yet. :)

Anyways, glad that you made it. Wanna join me in beating the crap out of Whittier in the discussion? The guy may be (well, he IS) totally unskilled at arguing (except when it comes to handpicking faux evidence and twisting it, but everybody has a strenght), but he's like a Timex, takes a licking and keeps on ticking, so I'm guessing we'll be here having fun at his expense for a while yet. :)
Sadly, it's hardly worth it. Whittier has no sense of humor about himself or his threads. I try to get him to recognize how outlandish his statements are and to lighten up his attitude with little jokes -- like the time I told him I could love him like a pet squid and named him "Squidlems" -- but he just ignores me. His arguments are way too easily debunked, and he's one of those guys who will never concede even the most minor points, no matter how overwhelming the proofs against him. I mean, look at his arguments -- how could he possibly be swayed by actual proof? I like to jump in and tweak his nose every so often (cheap shots are tasty), but for substantive debate, I do better to argue with my cat.

Sadly, it's hardly worth it. Whittier has no sense of humor about himself or his threads. I try to get him to recognize how outlandish his statements are and to lighten up his attitude with little jokes -- like the time I told him I could love him like a pet squid and named him "Squidlems" -- but he just ignores me. His arguments are way too easily debunked, and he's one of those guys who will never concede even the most minor points, no matter how overwhelming the proofs against him. I mean, look at his arguments -- how could he possibly be swayed by actual proof? I like to jump in and tweak his nose every so often (cheap shots are tasty), but for substantive debate, I do better to argue with my cat.

Oh, but it's not about proving a point to your opponent...

It's for the AUDIENCE! :)

The roar of the crowd, the standing ovation, none of these things exist here but I couldn't care less, because what I want is to make sure people know how very superior I am in relation to my opponents - or, when they are good opponents, how skilled each one is! I'm a gladiator, a showman, a lucha libre fighter, if you will. Watch it as some people come towards agreeing with you, or as someone that had not posted in the thread offers you a cookie. THIS is the thing, this is the whole point. I don't come here to try to change his mind, I come here to put up a good show and to know that people know how dangerous an opponent I am, how close a match it is or what a comic excuse for an arguer the other side is. I do it like I'd fight with a rapier. A named weapon, I name it "wit"! :)

As far as South American dictators go, I would have to say that I like Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet did the world a favor by rounding up a bunch of socialists and killing them.

By the way, to all those Bush-haters out there, if I were in charge of the US, you would be PRAYING to have Bush as president. (I am sure that under enough pressure, even Godless leftists would turn religious)

Pinochet did the world a favor by rounding up a bunch of socialists and killing them.

So, you're anti-abortion (http://blog.kylebristow.com/2006/02/25/feminists-are-evil.aspx), but pro-murder?

Oh, but it's not about proving a point to your opponent...

It's for the AUDIENCE! :)

The roar of the crowd, the standing ovation, none of these things exist here but I couldn't care less, because what I want is to make sure people know how very superior I am in relation to my opponents - or, when they are good opponents, how skilled each one is! I'm a gladiator, a showman, a lucha libre fighter, if you will. Watch it as some people come towards agreeing with you, or as someone that had not posted in the thread offers you a cookie. THIS is the thing, this is the whole point. I don't come here to try to change his mind, I come here to put up a good show and to know that people know how dangerous an opponent I am, how close a match it is or what a comic excuse for an arguer the other side is. I do it like I'd fight with a rapier. A named weapon, I name it "wit"! :)
Mucha Lucha!! Slash away, Zorro, I'll back you up. :)

As far as South American dictators go, I would have to say that I like Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet did the world a favor by rounding up a bunch of socialists and killing them.

By the way, to all those Bush-haters out there, if I were in charge of the US, you would be PRAYING to have Bush as president. (I am sure that under enough pressure, even Godless leftists would turn religious)

1- I dare you to become president one day.

2- I dare you to (as you'd like) ignore the Constitution.

3- I dare you to make me pray to any god but the one in which I believe.

4- I dare you to post anything constructive here as opposed to the trolling you're doing.

Unless you can achieve these, shut your pie hole and get the hell out of my sight, you despicable little troll. You don't deserve life, much less attention, and you're not toroughly humiliated yet because you found me in a merciful mood. Now shoo.

So, you're anti-abortion, but pro-murder?

I support retro-active abortions. For example, I would support abortion in the cases of Castro, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Chavez (just to name a few). Abortion is only ok when leftists are being purged from society.

It is wrong to abort a baby before it is born, because we can't be sure whether or not it will grow up into a leftist. Only time will tell. So, we must let all babies live and if they end up turning into a leftist, abort them.

One of my friends is from Venezula and he said the Chavez might not be great, but he is the best hope Latin Americans and South Americans have.

might not be great, but he is the best hope.

The Germans said that about Hitler, too.

The Germans said that about Hitler, too.
You lose! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

You lose! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

No, no, no! Let him have at it! I'm giving him a chance to cut it out, but I'm really itching to obliterate him. I thereby declare an exception and allow little Kyle to ignore Godwin this once!

It is wrong to abort a baby before it is born, because we can't be sure whether or not it will grow up into a leftist. Only time will tell. So, we must let all babies live and if they end up turning into a leftist, abort them.

And exactly where do you draw the line which determines who is a leftist (and thus should die) and who is not (and thus should be spared)?

And exactly where do you draw the line which determines who is a leftist (and thus should die) and who is not (and thus should be spared)?

I call it!

Kyle's mind: "Anyone that is to the left of me."

Kyle's keyboard: "Extreme leftists."

Nazis are socialists anyways. Leftists if you ask me.

Nazis are socialists anyways. Leftists if you ask me.

Yes, that's why nobody asks you, because you don't have a clue.

You lose! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

Be a darling and point out to me the part of Godwin's law which makes mention of winning or losing, would you?

Be a darling and point out to me the part of Godwin's law which makes mention of winning or losing, would you?

As I said, Autopsy, let him have at it. Three more posts by him and I'll enjoy myself at his expense.

I can't continue out this conversation any longer. I have to go and oppress some minorities. That will cheer me up. It always does.

By the way, would you guys support legislation so that only 21-year old, white, men, who own land, can vote?

Pinochet did the world a favor by rounding up a bunch of socialists and killing them.

So you thought the events of September 11th were a good thing?

I can't continue out this conversation any longer. I have to go and oppress some minorities. That will cheer me up. It always does.

By the way, would you guys support legislation so that only 21-year old, white, men, who own land, can vote?

Ah, right, this guy is being ironic here.

Sorry, Kyle, for a moment I thought you were a complete and utter moron that deserved a slow, painful death. :)

Edit: Unless you ACTUALLY support these things, in which case you're likely typing from a cushioned room and are really leaving to get your medicine, so you're insignificant and can be ignored, though I still would think you a complete and utter moron that deserves a slow, painful death.

Is Hugo Chavez as much of a threat to America as Saddam Hussein?

(i.e. none)

Well there was always doubt about Saddam, since he made poison gas and was (at the very least) researching nukes (as the Iranians are doing now)

Chavez is much closer to home, and is endorsing violence and terrorism.

Are you completely desensitised to violence or something, or does the beheading of live human beings not faze you at all?

Well there was always doubt about Saddam, since he made poison gas and was (at the very least) researching nukes (as the Iranians are doing now)

Chavez is much closer to home, and is endorsing violence and terrorism.

Are you completely desensitised to violence or something, or does the beheading of live human beings not faze you at all?

False linking. Not only you have yet to prove that Chavez "supports terrorism", but he also doesn't behead people. Try again with facts and logic to back you up, lest I stop being lenient.

Well there was always doubt about Saddam, since he made poison gas and was (at the very least) researching nukes (as the Iranians are doing now)

Chavez is much closer to home, and is endorsing violence and terrorism.

Are you completely desensitised to violence or something, or does the beheading of live human beings not faze you at all?

Chavez does what now? Proof?

Chavez does what now? Proof?

Wait, you're talking to THIS GUY and you call YOURSELF psychotic?

Wait, you're talking to THIS GUY and you call YOURSELF psychotic?

Meh.
I'm having a slow day ;)

Meh.
I'm having a slow day ;)
Oh, then wait for Whittier and the other nutcases. I'm having a blast here! In fact, I think my next retort to one of these dimwits will be on a HAIKU! :D

1- I dare you to become president one day.

2- I dare you to (as you'd like) ignore the Constitution.

3- I dare you to make me pray to any god but the one in which I believe.

4- I dare you to post anything constructive here as opposed to the trolling you're doing.

Unless you can achieve these, shut your pie hole and get the hell out of my sight, you despicable little troll. You don't deserve life, much less attention, and you're not toroughly humiliated yet because you found me in a merciful mood. Now shoo.
blah blah blah. You are just full of it. You just admitted a couple posts back that you were an airhead.

Its not your place to tell him to shut up.

blah blah blah. You are just full of it. You just admitted a couple posts back that you were an airhead.

As promised, in haiku!

I'm not an airhead
Never said I was either
You twist words again.

Its not your place to tell him to shut up.

You support murder
He, your puppet, does so too
Shut up both of you.

False linking. Not only you have yet to prove that Chavez "supports terrorism", but he also doesn't behead people. Try again with facts and logic to back you up, lest I stop being lenient.
he doesn't realize that according to YOU, neither FARC nor HAMAS are terrorists groups. So according to YOU it's perfectly ok for Chavez to support those groups. Because like him, they are anti Bush and anyone who is anti-bush is always good.

You support murder
He, your puppet, does so too
Shut up both of you.

Why does Whittier's alleged puppet have a more coherent blog than the pupeteer?

he doesn't realize that according to YOU, neither FARC nor HAMAS are terrorists groups. So according to YOU it's perfectly ok for Chavez to support those groups.

You don't provide proof
that Chavez supports these groups
so you attack me.

Oh, then wait for Whittier and the other nutcases. I'm having a blast here! In fact, I think my next retort to one of these dimwits will be on a HAIKU! :D
As much as I do not like Whittier's take on Chavez, nor his resolutions, I do not see how your outspoken comments add anything positive to this thread.

Why does Whittier's alleged puppet have a more coherent blog than the pupeteer?
anyone who posts agreeing with is my puppet according HEIKOKU.

Why does Whittier's alleged puppet have a more coherent blog than the pupeteer?

Maybe Whittier was supposed to be the puppet and it ended up the other way around?

You don't provide proof
that Chavez supports these groups
so you attack me.
I posted proof
but according
to your inflated brain
US News and World Report
is a tabloid
even though
it is the most
unbiased news magazine
in the states

No that's no haiku. I was just making fun of you.

anyone who posts agreeing with is my puppet according HEIKOKU.

Not really. Starship (or whatever the guy's name is, I'm not paying attention) isn't, but the other guy sounded like it...

I posted proof
but according
to your inflated brain
US News and World Report
is a tabloid
even though
it is the most
unbiased news magazine
in the states

No that's no haiku. I was just making fun of you.

That's because you lack the creativity to produce a haiku. You invested it all in handpicking and de-contextualizing any report from any source to fit your skewered opinion. However, I'm more versatile. I can prove you wrong AND I can haiku at the same time.

Maybe Whittier was supposed to be the puppet and it ended up the other way around?
hey Poncho, habla inglés?

Face it, Chavez is an evil psychotic, paranoid madman who is leading his nation into the gutter.

He is making extravagant offers of cheap oil to his neighbors for one thing and one thing only: that they convert to socialism and join an Anti American Alliance of Evil.

Under Chavez: Venezuela currently has one the highest crimes rates in all of South America.

While he makes extravagant offers of oil, even claiming that Venezuela had more oil than the entire middle east, the experts, both inside and outside of Venezuela, report that Venezuela's production capacity is actually declining as he empties the nation's oil reserves to support his socialistic ideological war against freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Hell, you must have missed that article I posted earlier where Chavez is now forced to buy billions of dollars worth of oil just to prevent from having to break his "free oil" deals that he's been making all over the place. Deals his own nation does not have the resources to keep.

You must have missed the protests a week or so back where the people were demanding that he do something about violent criminals, but he acted and continues to act like he's ignoring the pleas of his people

You must have missed the fact that he is interfering in Peruvian elections by endorsing the socialist candidate. And before anyone says anything, while the US President might make a comment on another country's election, the US President has at the same time refrained from endorsing candidates in other nation's elections. Chavez was not just commenting, he was endorsing. He was sending money to the socialist guy. He is interfering and trying to make Peru to go socialist and join this evil alliance he is setting up.

To YOU anyone whose opposes George W Bush is automatically a good guy, even if it was Hitler, you would still support them against America.

If you can't see all that you must be as ideologically blind as a fruit bat. But then that would make sense as some of your posts are a bit fruity.

I got the perfect solution to the immigration problem. Let's let all the Mexicans stay but keep all the Heicuckoos out.


Word Life

What this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/ap/world/mainD8H4I5QO3.shtml

How about some highlights:

Wave of Violent Crime Sweeps Venezuela

While crime has long bedeviled Venezuelans, particularly the poor, some protesters say there's a new element to the danger now _ class tensions incited by Chavez himself.

Dos Santos' son accused Chavez of virtually ignoring crime while also inciting the poor: "The president is always saying it's OK to steal in order to eat."

Venezuela's murder rate ranked third in Latin America in a recent report by the Pan American Health Organization,

An underlying cause of the violence is the stark gap between rich and poor, which remains despite Chavez's talk of bringing equality

Angry protests broke out in Caracas earlier this month after kidnappers executed three young brothers _ ages 17, 13 and 12. The protesters also cited the killings of a prominent businessman and a newspaper photographer who was shot just as he arrived at one of the protests.


Yeah, Chavez promised equality but he never delivered.

He hasn't done shit about the murders.

And it looks to me like his popularity is on the decline.

hey Poncho, habla inglés?

Si, hablo inglés.
Yes, I speak English.
Hai, eigo ga dekimasu.
Sim, eu falo ingles.

And Poncho is a piece of clothing, not my name. But keep that up and I'll point out the racial slurring. For that matter, I'm not Mexican either. But given your knowledge of geography, I might as well be, as far as you're concerned.

Face it, Chavez is an evil psychotic, paranoid madman who is leading his nation into the gutter.

He is making extravagant offers of cheap oil to his neighbors for one thing and one thing only: that they convert to socialism and join an Anti American Alliance of Evil.

Under Chavez: Venezuela currently has one the highest crimes rates in all of South America.

While he makes extravagant offers of oil, even claiming that Venezuela had more oil than the entire middle east, the experts, both inside and outside of Venezuela, report that Venezuela's production capacity is actually declining as he empties the nation's oil reserves to support his socialistic ideological war against freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Hell, you must have missed that article I posted earlier where Chavez is now forced to buy billions of dollars worth of oil just to prevent from having to break his "free oil" deals that he's been making all over the place. Deals his own nation does not have the resources to keep.

You must have missed the protests a week or so back where the people were demanding that he do something about violent criminals, but he acted and continues to act like he's ignoring the pleas of his people

You must have missed the fact that he is interfering in Peruvian elections by endorsing the socialist candidate. And before anyone says anything, while the US President might make a comment on another country's election, the US President has at the same time refrained from endorsing candidates in other nation's elections. Chavez was not just commenting, he was endorsing. He was sending money to the socialist guy. He is interfering and trying to make Peru to go socialist and join this evil alliance he is setting up.

To YOU anyone whose opposes George W Bush is automatically a good guy, even if it was Hitler, you would still support them against America.

If you can't see all that you must be as ideologically blind as a fruit bat. But then that would make sense as some of your posts are a bit fruity.

You offered no evidence whatsoever of your claims. You claim that Chavez causes crime and that he can actively prevent crime as if he were a dictator. You claim he IS a dictator and then point out demonstrations against him (what a dictatorship, eh?). You claim he's creating an "alliance of evil" and offer no evidence either. Look, I know it must be fine for a guy that helped invade a country and kill many innocents over no evidence of WMDs, but it doesn't work like that in the real world. And Bush actually SAID HE WOULD WITHDRAW HELP IF THE PALESTINIANS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE HE CHOSE. IF Chavez sent his guy money, and that's a big-ass if, he didn't hold the country hostage to "vote for my guy or get no cash". Again, Bush isn't America. You're the one that hates America, considering your hatred for freedom of expression.

I got the perfect solution to the immigration problem. Let's let all the Mexicans stay but keep all the Heicuckoos out.

I will go to the US if I want to. There's nothing you can do about that.

What this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/ap/world/mainD8H4I5QO3.shtml

How about some highlights:

Wave of Violent Crime Sweeps Venezuela

While crime has long bedeviled Venezuelans, particularly the poor, some protesters say there's a new element to the danger now _ class tensions incited by Chavez himself.

Dos Santos' son accused Chavez of virtually ignoring crime while also inciting the poor: "The president is always saying it's OK to steal in order to eat."

Venezuela's murder rate ranked third in Latin America in a recent report by the Pan American Health Organization,

An underlying cause of the violence is the stark gap between rich and poor, which remains despite Chavez's talk of bringing equality

Angry protests broke out in Caracas earlier this month after kidnappers executed three young brothers _ ages 17, 13 and 12. The protesters also cited the killings of a prominent businessman and a newspaper photographer who was shot just as he arrived at one of the protests.


Yeah, Chavez promised equality but he never delivered.

He hasn't done shit about the murders.

And it looks to me like his popularity is on the decline.

How about some OTHER highlights:

Sociologist Luis Damiani argues Chavez is making progress through gradual reforms and programs aimed at reducing poverty.

Now, will you quit playing the "selective edition" card or should I simply use all links you use and prove you a fool?

Si, hablo inglés.
Yes, I speak English.
Hai, eigo ga dekimasu.
Sim, eu falo ingles.

And Poncho is a piece of clothing, not my name. But keep that up and I'll point out the racial slurring. For that matter, I'm not Mexican either. But given your knowledge of geography, I might as well be, as far as you're concerned.



You offered no evidence whatsoever of your claims. You claim that Chavez causes crime and that he can actively prevent crime as if he were a dictator. You claim he IS a dictator and then point out demonstrations against him (what a dictatorship, eh?). You claim he's creating an "alliance of evil" and offer no evidence either. Look, I know it must be fine for a guy that helped invade a country and kill many innocents over no evidence of WMDs, but it doesn't work like that in the real world. And Bush actually SAID HE WOULD WITHDRAW HELP IF THE PALESTINIANS DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE HE CHOSE. IF Chavez sent his guy money, and that's a big-ass if, he didn't hold the country hostage to "vote for my guy or get no cash". Again, Bush isn't America. You're the one that hates America, considering your hatred for freedom of expression.



I will go to the US if I want to. There's nothing you can do about that.
Good God In Heaven, you must have been the person that they based the movie Forrest Gump on.

I already know your not from Mexico. Mexicans have brains and moral values and they don't support dictators or terrorists.

You are so enthralled that Chavez hates Bush as much as you do that you are blind to the evidence. Several people besides myself have pointed out the fact that there have protests because Chavez failure to stop violent criminal thugs.

You condemn Bush's actions as regards to Palestine while praising Chavez' regarding Peru. The only difference between the two is that in the former the group that won is one of the world's worst terrorist organizations and has vowed, with Iran, to wipe Israel off the map. Whereas in the other, the guy who seems to be winning is only doing so because his entire campaign is funded by Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

Freedom of expression only goes so far.

Good luck in your extremist support of terrorists.

How about some OTHER highlights:

Sociologist Luis Damiani argues Chavez is making progress through gradual reforms and programs aimed at reducing poverty.

Now, will you quit playing the "selective edition" card or should I simply use all links you use and prove you a fool?
hey have a cookie. You just proven yourself capable of taking one sentence out of an entire news article and twisting it to make the article say what YOU want it to say instead of what the article actually says.

Good God In Heaven, you must have been the person that they based the movie Forrest Gump on.

I already know your not from Mexico. Mexicans have brains and moral values and they don't support dictators or terrorists.

You are so enthralled that Chavez hates Bush as much as you do that you are blind to the evidence. Several people besides myself have pointed out the fact that there have protests because Chavez failure to stop violent criminal thugs.

You condemn Bush's actions as regards to Palestine while praising Chavez' regarding Peru. The only difference between the two is that in the former the group that won is one of the world's worst terrorist organizations and has vowed, with Iran, to wipe Israel off the map. Whereas in the other, the guy who seems to be winning is only doing so because his entire campaign is funded by Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

Freedom of expression only goes so far.

Good luck in your extremist support of terrorists.

Show me proof that I support terrorists. Show me proof that Chavez does. Show me proof that I praised his actions regarding Peru, which you have yet to show me proof that he did. Show me proof that he vowed to take Israel off the map.

But, since you're willing to personally invade a country and kill its inhabitants over no proof, I guess I shouldn't expect different.

hey have a cookie. You just proven yourself capable of taking one sentence out of an entire news article and twisting it to make the article say what YOU want it to say instead of what the article actually says.

I was making a point about what YOU are doing.

Both of you should knock off the flaming.

If you can't make an argument without insulting your opponent, your argument lacks merit.

Take a "time out."

Both of you should knock off the flaming.

If you can't make an argument without insulting your opponent, your argument lacks merit.

Take a "time out."

Check how many times in the last 20 messages I insulted him and check how many times he insulted me.

You must have missed the protests a week or so back where the people were demanding that he do something about violent criminals, but he acted and continues to act like he's ignoring the pleas of his people

What this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8H4I5QO3.shtml

How about some highlights:


"The government has pledged sweeping police reforms and also put up $4.6 million for a gun buyback program that will offer people money to hand in revolvers and pistols."

What this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8H4I5QO3.shtml

How about some highlights:


"The government has pledged sweeping police reforms and also put up $4.6 million for a gun buyback program that will offer people money to hand in revolvers and pistols."

Yeah, really sounds like a dictator that outlaws protests and doesn't listen to them when they happen. :rolleyes:

Coming fro colombia, I think that Chavez gives Uribe (the Bushito of latin america) a run for his money as the worst south America Dictator of the new Millenium.

Difference is, Chavez goes around aiding terrorists and killing people outside of his own country.
While Uribe goes around aiding terrorists and killing innocents within his own country.

Sad state of affairs.

Coming fro colombia, I think that Chavez gives Uribe (the Bushito of latin america) a run for his money as the worst south America Dictator of the new Millenium.

Difference is, Chavez goes around aiding terrorists and killing people outside of his own country.
While Uribe goes around aiding terrorists and killing innocents within his own country.

Sad state of affairs.

It has yet to be proven that Chavez aids terrorists.

Cual es la capital de Tolima?

It has yet to be proven that Chavez aids terrorists.

Cual es la capital de Tolima?

Ibagué, of course.
And no, since you're going to ask, I have never been in Ibagué, and only once in my life in Tolima ( I have family that owns some Land in Villahermosa)

Ibagué, of course.
And no, since you're going to ask, I have never been in Ibagué, and only once in my life in Tolima ( I have family that owns some Land in Villahermosa)

No iba a perguntar, pero Whittier tiene usado clones para tentar aumentar su fuerza en los "números", entonces...

hey everyone have a look at this little website that our little friend must have missed:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html

All forigners must pay $50 to the government if they want to leave the territory of the Chavez dictatoship

oh but the bestest part:

The Embassy has received multiple, credible reports that individuals with what appear to be official uniforms or other credentials are involved in facilitating or perpetuating these crimes.

It is no longer possible to rely on the fact that a taxi driver presents a credential or drives an automobile with official taxi license plates marked “libre.”

Cross-border violence, kidnapping, smuggling and drug trafficking occur frequently in areas along the 1,000-mile border between Venezuela and Colombia. Some kidnap victims have been released after ransom payments, while others have been murdered. In many cases, Colombian terrorists are suspected

Colombia 's National Liberation Army (ELN) have had a long history of kidnapping for ransom, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are active in the kidnapping trade. Common criminals are also increasingly involved in kidnappings, either dealing with victim's families directly or selling the victim to terrorist groups.

Demonstrations tend to occur at or near university campuses, business centers, and gathering places such as public squares and plazas
(I suppose our little friend is going to claim those are all pro Chavez demonstrations)

The city of Merida is the site of frequent violent student demonstrations

anti-American sentiment, expressed by Venezuela’s most senior leaders, including President Chavez, in harsh political rhetoric, as well as in graffiti, newspaper advertisements and rally pamphlets, exists in some segments of Venezuelan society.

Venezuela is an earthquake-prone country
(wow, I didn't know that, thanks for telling me. Now I know just what to pray for)

occasionally subject to torrential rains
(ha ha ha, something else to pray for)

Caracas has one of the highest murder rates in Latin America. Most murders go unsolved. The poor neighborhoods that cover the hills around Caracas are very dangerous. These areas are seldom patrolled by police and should be avoided
(again Chavez is doing nothing to fight crime)

The Department has received reports of robberies during nighttime and early morning hours on the highways around and leading to Caracas. Reports have specifically involved cars being forced off the La Guaira highway leading from Caracas to the Maquetia International Airport, and the "Regional del Centro" highway leading from Caracas to Maracay/Valencia, at which point the victims are robbed.

"Express kidnappings," in which victims are seized in an attempt to get quick cash in exchange for their release, are a problem in Venezuela's capital, Caracas. Kidnapping of US citizens and other foreign nationals, from homes, hotels, unauthorized taxis and the airport terminal has occurred.

Police responsiveness and effectiveness in Venezuela varies widely from municipality to municipality, but does not rise to the level of efficiency expected of police forces in the U.S. Travelers have reported robberies and other crimes committed against them by individuals wearing uniforms and purporting to be police officers or National Guard members.

There have been a number of confirmed incidents of piracy and armed robbery of pleasure craft off the coast of Venezuela. Some of these incidents have involved a high degree of violence, including the severe beating of a U.S. citizen in 2002 and the fatal shooting of an Italian citizen in January 2004
(holy shit, you mean that Chavez, in addition to supporting terrorists, also gives haven to pirates? You got to be shitting)

Medical care at private hospitals and clinics in Caracas and other major cities is generally good. Public hospitals and clinics generally provide a lower level of care and basic supplies at public facilities may be in short supply or unavailable
(you mean you still have to be rich to get good medical care? that's just not fair. Oh wait, didn't Chavez say he fixed that already? What the hell?)

night driving can be dangerous because of unmarked road damage or repairs in progress, unlighted vehicles and livestock

Even in urban areas, road damage is often marked by a pile of rocks or sticks left by passersby near or in the pothole or crevice, without flares or other devices to highlight the danger.
(hey I got an idea, how about instead of wasting his nation's resources bashing America and forming Anti America alliances, Chavez actually use those resources to fix his country's infrastructure and provide quality healthcare to his people)

The government of Venezuela implemented rigid foreign exchange controls in early 2003, including a fixed official rate of exchange
(well holy shit. You mean to say Venezuela's been doing the Beijing dance on the currency markets? Now that's just plain cheating)

Wow. I had no idea. All these problems in his own country and Dictator Chavez wastes all his country's resources on building Anti American alliances with rogue terrorist nations, interfereing with other nation's internal affairs, and buying cool new toy weapons for his vigilante army people.

You know, I've really changed my mind. We shouldn't go to war with Chavez. Hell, we shouldn't even impose sanctions on Venezuela. Man, I was really wrong about what I said. What can I say? You were right Heikoku.

We can't embargoe these poor people...


















Unless we make an exception so we can ship in the quality medical services that Dictator Chavez refuses to give his own people and impose a ban on him ever leaving his country.

You're right that I was wrong on a couple of things, but I'm still calling your candy ass out.

No iba a perguntar, pero Whittier tiene usado clones para tentar aumentar su fuerza en los "números", entonces...
Por favor, no sugiera q mis pocisiones son parecidas a las de whittier.

Its a rarity. A once-in a lifetime thing. It wont happen again

It has yet to be proven that Chavez aids terrorists.

Cual es la capital de Tolima?
What do you call Hamas. His aid to Hamas isn't exactly a secret you know.

hey everyone have a look at this little website that our little friend must have missed:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html

All forigners must pay $50 to the government if they want to leave the territory of the Chavez dictatoship

'All'? Only those travelling by sea or air: there is no exit tax for crossing the border by land.

Freedom of expression only goes so far.
"One's free to do whatever one wishes, as long as this doesn't ruin another persons freedom" or something like that is said. I find this view to be a wise one (even neccessary), not exactly in an in ethical theory, but in a democratic society.

To YOU anyone whose opposes George W Bush is automatically a good guy, even if it was Hitler, you would still support them against America.

If you can't see all that you must be as ideologically blind as a fruit bat. But then that would make sense as some of your posts are a bit fruity.
This does infringe on another persons freedom of speech as it prohibits the one that's been aswered of making a reply, or rather is inteded for that purpose. The goal of comments like these are not to do debate or win arguments, but rather to verbally attack the debater to shed doubt about him/threat him/or other things to restrict his freedom of speech. It's usually the last (in my opinion rather pathetic) option of a person in a debate who knows he's loosing, however the strange thing is that you started doing this from the first post you even posted in this thread, and have things like this in every post on out.

In my opinion I find it a bit hypocritical that you accuse Chavez (as I don't have any clear opinion as of yet) of having no respect for the freedom of speech, but at the same time as writing that completely disrespects that freedom yourself. And furthermore have no regards as of how to behave in a debate.

Por favor, no sugiera q mis pocisiones son parecidas a las de whittier.

Its a rarity. A once-in a lifetime thing. It wont happen again
of course not, you think a think a terrorist is a terrorist. That is a respectable position to have.

'All'? Only those travelling by sea or air: there is no exit tax for crossing the border by land.
now who would be foolish enough to try that with all roving bands of violent thugs roaming the country and forcing people off the road?

of course not, you think a think a terrorist is a terrorist. That is a respectable position to have.
Of course, the general difference between us is simple;

Whittier hates chavez' backing of terrorists because he hates commies. Thats why he wont even know if you mention the name AUC or any other paramilitary forces.

I hate chavez' support of terrorism because I hate terrorism (though I, too, hate commies). thats why I am just as disgusted by uribe's backing of brutal paramilitary forces, even though I agree with his economic policies much more.

"One's free to do whatever one wishes, as long as this doesn't ruin another persons freedom" or something like that is said. I find this view to be a wise one (even neccessary), not exactly in an in ethical theory, but in a democratic society.


This does infringe on another persons freedom of speech as it prohibits the one that's been aswered of making a reply, or rather is inteded for that purpose. The goal of comments like these are not to do debate or win arguments, but rather to verbally attack the debater to shed doubt about him/threat him/or other things to restrict his freedom of speech. It's usually the last (in my opinion rather pathetic) option of a person in a debate who knows he's loosing, however the strange thing is that you started doing this from the first post you even posted in this thread, and have things like this in every post on out.

In my opinion I find it a bit hypocritical that you accuse Chavez (as I don't have any clear opinion as of yet) of having no respect for the freedom of speech, but at the same time as writing that completely disrespects that freedom yourself. And furthermore have no regards as of how to behave in a debate.
1. It goes 'your rights end at my nose.'

2. It does no such thing. Comments like these are meant for theatrics. I often use it in speeches and oral debates to keep the audience awake.
But you're right that I seek to shed doubt about him and his credibility. A legitimate tool of debate. He was the one who said it was ok for Chavez to support to support Hamas and Iran, both of which have sworn to wipe Israel off the planet. But hey, who am I to judge?

Of course, the general difference between us is simple;

Whittier hates chavez' backing of terrorists because he hates commies. Thats why he wont even know if you mention the name AUC or any other paramilitary forces.

I hate chavez' support of terrorism because I hate terrorism (though I, too, hate commies). thats why I am just as disgusted by uribe's backing of brutal paramilitary forces, even though I agree with his economic policies much more.
?
Does he now?

I believe the paramilitary forces in Latin America are terrorists. When I hate Chavez for supporting terrorism, I wasn't just talking FARC or Hamas, those are just the two most well known and easiest to get documentation for. There is also the paramilitaries he's been supporting in his own nation.

I was not aware of Uribe's support for such groups though. If what you say is true, it is not good for the US to back him.


I agree with you that a terrorist is a terrorist.

While I hate commies, the reason I hate his support of terrorists is the same as yours.
As long as he stays in his own country he is free to do what he wants and I'm free to criticize him.

But when he starts supporting terrorism, it goes a whole football field beyond it just being me criticizing him for being a commie. Cause now he's supporting the deaths of innocents and no one, whether a capitalist or a socialist can do that and still claim the higher ground.

I have family that owns some Land in Villahermosa.

Well that explains your position quite nicely thank you. A member of the ex ruling elite class that has been effectively kicked out ands had their excessive priveleges removed by Chavez. No, you and yours are not going to like him, but he is not a dictator, he is the elected representative of the people of Venezuela.

Well that explains your position quite nicely thank you. A member of the ex ruling elite class that has been effectively kicked out ands had their excessive priveleges removed by Chavez. No, you and yours are not going to like him, but he is not a dictator, he is the elected representative of the people of Venezuela.
erm..Villahermosa is in Colombia....:p
My opposition to chavez has noting to do with personal interests. He doesnt affect me personally

erm..Villahermosa is in Colombia....:p
My opposition to chavez has noting to do with personal interests. He doesnt affect me personally

Oops - sorry. :headbang:

As much as I do not like Whittier's take on Chavez, nor his resolutions, I do not see how your outspoken comments add anything positive to this thread.
The only way to add anything positive to a Whittier thread is for us all to chat amongst ourselves and leave Whittier out of it. He's that closed-minded.

Sorry, Whittier, but you really are. I have yet to see you give the slightest credence to any opposing opinions on even the smallest details. It's either 100% your way or else we're all terrorist-loving USA-haters. I don't know why you even start threads, since you will brook no disagreement of any kind. It's hardly an invitation to a free exchange of ideas.

The only way to add anything positive to a Whittier thread is for us all to chat amongst ourselves and leave Whittier out of it. He's that closed-minded.

Sorry, Whittier, but you really are. I have yet to see you give the slightest credence to any opposing opinions on even the smallest details. It's either 100% your way or else we're all terrorist-loving USA-haters. I don't know why you even start threads, since you will brook no disagreement of any kind. It's hardly an invitation to a free exchange of ideas.
Whoa whoa whoa. Did you just call the world's one and only God's Gift To Women closed minded?

Do you deny that Chavez is supporting FARC? Do you deny that Chavez is supporting Hamas? Do you deny that Chavez is supporting Iran's quest for nuclear weapons? Even after all the coverage its gotten in the news?

Do you deny that he pulled Venezuela out the Andean Community of Nations trade block, not because he wanted something better, but because he wanted to punish Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador for continuing trade with the US.

Do you deny that Chavez has paranoid delusions that Bush wants to kill him?

Do you deny that under Chavez, Venezuela has the third highest murder rate in Latin America.

Cause Heikoku denies all of those things are even happening.


No matter what source you use, he denies it.
To him, Bush is a criminal and Hitler is a hero. That's how extremist he is.

Check how many times in the last 20 messages I insulted him and check how many times he insulted me.
how many times did I insult you? once.
how many times you insult me? 50

I posted proof
but according
to your inflated brain
US News and World Report
is a tabloid
even though
it is the most
unbiased news magazine
in the states

No that's no haiku. I was just making fun of you.
I just finished re-reading all 45 pages of this thread, and not once -- nowhere -- did you ever post a link to the US News & World Report article you claimed "inspired" your OP diatribe, or any other USNWR article on Venezuela or Chavez. Why is that, since your entire claim to legitimacy is based on their legitimacy?

The fact is, W, you made outrageous claims and accusations against Chavez. You claimed you got them from USNWR, but you have only posted links to other sources and have quoted from them extremely selectively. Every one one of your claims has been countered with reasonable arguments and proofs, often using your own sources against you. And you never once resort to the source that you claim put you on this track.

I suspect it's because USNWR did not put you on this track at all. It's your own track, entirely of your own making, and just as with all these other sources, you just selectively pulled a few comments out of an article that you used to spin a fresh installment in your ongoing series of rants about how the world is out to get "us" (meaning you). You probably didn't even bother to save the original article -- and that's why you can't find it now or even tell us what issue it was in -- because what they had to say is so much less important to you than what you want to say.

You have proved nothing of your claims. Your argument is flying all over the place, willy-nilly from Chavez to Stalin to Hitler to Hamas to Bolivia to abortion, even the Garden of Eden, and back again, saying a lot, but telling us nothing. The only thing we have learned from you is that you don't like Chavez and you won't listen to what anyone else has to say on the matter. Ho-hum.

Well that explains your position quite nicely thank you. A member of the ex ruling elite class that has been effectively kicked out ands had their excessive priveleges removed by Chavez. No, you and yours are not going to like him, but he is not a dictator, he is the elected representative of the people of Venezuela.
so basically you support Chavez cause he's going after those evil rich people who dared to succeed in life.
How dare they violate the laws of socialism by succeeding and getting rich.

The government should create paramilitaries and vigilantes to go out and shoot them all.

I just finished re-reading all 45 pages of this thread, and not once -- nowhere -- did you ever post a link to the US News & World Report article you claimed "inspired" your OP diatribe, or any other USNWR article on Venezuela or Chavez. Why is that, since your entire claim to legitimacy is based on their legitimacy?

The fact is, W, you made outrageous claims and accusations against Chavez. You claimed you got them from USNWR, but you have only posted links to other sources and have quoted from them extremely selectively. Every one one of your claims has been countered with reasonable arguments and proofs, often using your own sources against you. And you never once resort to the source that you claim put you on this track.

I suspect it's because USNWR did not put you on this track at all. It's your own track, entirely of your own making, and just as with all these other sources, you just selectively pulled a few comments out of an article that you used to spin a fresh installment in your ongoing series of rants about how the world is out to get "us" (meaning you). You probably didn't even bother to save the original article -- and that's why you can't find it now or even tell us what issue it was in -- because what they had to say is so much less important to you than what you want to say.

You have proved nothing of your claims. Your argument is flying all over the place, willy-nilly from Chavez to Stalin to Hitler to Hamas to Bolivia to abortion, even the Garden of Eden, and back again, saying a lot, but telling us nothing. The only thing we have learned from you is that you don't like Chavez and you won't listen to what anyone else has to say on the matter. Ho-hum.
1. I haven't linked to US News yet. If you notice where you qouted me, I said I was making fun of him.

2. Nothing is proved to anti Bush liberals who refuse to listen but instead insist on destroying America so they can destroy Bush.

so basically you support Chavez cause he's going after those evil rich people who dared to succeed in life.
How dare they violate the laws of socialism by succeeding and getting rich.

The government should create paramilitaries and vigilantes to go out and shoot them all.

No.

I do not oppose Chavez because he was elected to his position by the people of his country.

I have found through experience that the only Venezuelans that complain about Chavez are those that were in the ruling elite prior to his being elected. These few have lost a lot of power and wealth that they did nothing themselves to obtain. Those that have worked hard and made a success of their lives are not those that complain about Chavez.

Or are you saying that the Magna Carta in 1215 was a socialist document, or the 1668 Bill of Rights? You fail to understand the feudal nature that Venezuelan society had prior to Chavez. It was nothing like the free enterprise economy that you seem to praise. It was endemically corrupt and nepotistic. Is that how you think it should have stayed?

As I have said, much earlier in this thread. I am politically opposed to Chavez's ideology, but at least his ideology is one that treats all people as equal before the law, unlike the previous Venezuelan governments. That is some progress toward a modern society at least.

Whoa whoa whoa. Did you just call the world's one and only God's Gift To Women closed minded?
The only -- and greatest -- gift you ever gave to women was deciding not to have sex anymore -- or have you changed your mind about that and decided to go back to seducing us with those so-romantic rape poems?

Do you deny that Chavez is supporting FARC? Do you deny that Chavez is supporting Hamas? Do you deny that Chavez is supporting Iran's quest for nuclear weapons? Even after all the coverage its gotten in the news?
As much as I may disagree with Chavez's political maneuverings, they seem to be in harmony with the overall political environment in South America, and they also seem to be producing very good results for our Hugo. It should be obvious to all that Chavez is making a bid to be a major player in SA politics and a future SA Union if such ever happens -- a regular 21st century Bolivar. It's 50-50 whether he will succeed or not -- he may be the man of the era, or he may fizzle out like most political blowhards -- or go down in a hail of bullets, like many South American political blowhards. I don't see any evidence that Chavez has done anything that the US hasn't done, or that he has done everything that his critics say he's done, or even that he has done everything he says he's done.

But he poses no real threat the US and has made no threats against the US. The US could easily make a friend of him, if we were not led by political morons.

Oh, and by the way, everyone is going to have to figure out a way to cope with Hamas, as long as they control Palestine. Yay, democracy, eh?

Do you deny that he pulled Venezuela out the Andean Community of Nations trade block, not because he wanted something better, but because he wanted to punish Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador for continuing trade with the US.
I don't have to deny specious accusations for which no proof has been offered. This is nothing but an opinion about him. I don't care about it.

Do you deny that Chavez has paranoid delusions that Bush wants to kill him?
Yes, I do. I don't think he's paranoid at all. Everything he says is politically calculated. And Bush probably would like him to be dead. Chavez probably sits around with Castro, drinking rum and making jokes about exploding cigars.

Do you deny that under Chavez, Venezuela has the third highest murder rate in Latin America.
What was the murder rate before Chavez? I heard Venezuela was a rough place even then.

Cause Heikoku denies all of those things are even happening.
Heikoku is completely within his rights to disagree with your interpretation of Venezuelan politics.

No matter what source you use, he denies it.
To him, Bush is a criminal and Hitler is a hero. That's how extremist he is.
As I pointed out in another post, none of your sources proves your argument and some have been used to good effect to counter your argument. When did Heikoku say Hitler was a hero? Perhaps I missed it in the general falderol of this pointless thread.

Oh, and Bush is a criminal.

1. I haven't linked to US News yet. If you notice where you qouted me, I said I was making fun of him.
You've had 45 frigging pages to link to your original source, boyo. When were you planning to get around to it?

Until you do, nothing you say on this topic has any validity.

And I warn you, if you use it the way you've used your other sources, USNWR won't give you any validity, either.

2. Nothing is proved to anti Bush liberals who refuse to listen but instead insist on destroying America so they can destroy Bush.
"How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Dale Q. Squidlems. :p

No.

I do not oppose Chavez because he was elected to his position by the people of his country.

I have found through experience that the only Venezuelans that complain about Chavez are those that were in the ruling elite prior to his being elected. These few have lost a lot of power and wealth that they did nothing themselves to obtain. Those that have worked hard and made a success of their lives are not those that complain about Chavez.

Or are you saying that the Magna Carta in 1215 was a socialist document, or the 1668 Bill of Rights? You fail to understand the feudal nature that Venezuelan society had prior to Chavez. It was nothing like the free enterprise economy that you seem to praise. It was endemically corrupt and nepotistic. Is that how you think it should have stayed?

As I have said, much earlier in this thread. I am politically opposed to Chavez's ideology, but at least his ideology is one that treats all people as equal before the law, unlike the previous Venezuelan governments. That is some progress toward a modern society at least.
fuedal nature of Venezuelan society? when did they ever go through the dark ages?

btw, I was looking for that article since Mur. asked and I happened to find this one showing that Chavez is supporting terrorism.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031006/6venezuela.htm

fuedal nature of Venezuelan society? when did they ever go through the dark ages?

Learn some history and politics - feudalism is not about dark ages. It is about priveleged classes and serfdom.

As to any claims of this leader or that leader supporting terrorism, they are mostly just empty rhetoric and sabre rattling. I will go and look at your referenced source, if and only if, you will also try to learn something about Feudalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism). OK.

fuedal nature of Venezuelan society? when did they ever go through the dark ages?

btw, I was looking for that article since Mur. asked and I happened to find this one showing that Chavez is supporting terrorism.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031006/6venezuela.htm
I'm disappointed, W -- in you and in USNWR. This article is long on claims and short on facts. It states vehemently that this-and-that is happening, but the only quotes it cites are officials (mostly unnamed) expressing opinions, not confirming facts. Unfortunately the map and photo illustrations did not display, so I can't say whether they would have been convincing. This article is not. It reads like a blog. I think the following quote sums the article up pretty well:

Originally posted by Article
The bottom line, when it comes to terrorism so close to U.S. shores, says the official: "We don't even know what we don't know."

If this is the sort of thing USNWR has been printing lately, then they have let me down. This is not the quality of journalism I expect from them.

btw, I was looking for that article since Mur. asked and I happened to find this one showing that Chavez is supporting terrorism.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031006/6venezuela.htm

That article is dated 2003! Almost every claim it makes has since been disowned by the US administration in one way or another. Noriega is a laughing stock. The only truth there is that Venezuela is working closely with Cuba and other 'leftist' Latin American countries.
Chhavez has eliminated the FARC camps that had been in existence in Venezuela for decades. How is that supporting terroism? Association with Arabic movements is ridiculous. That there are arabs that live in Venezuela is no more a sign of his being associated with middle eastern terrorist groups than the fact that arabs live in Washington is a sign the the US administration is still involved with them.

That article is dated 2003!
Good catch. Your eyes are sharper than mine. :)



Try again, Whittier.

US News & World Report finds Chavez link to terrorism:

again the link:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031006/6venezuela.htm

The oil-rich but politically unstable nation of Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists, say senior U.S. military and intelligence officials. Bush administration aides see this as an unpredictably dangerous mix and are gathering more information about the intentions of a country that sits 1,000 miles south of Florida

One thing that's clear is that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is fast becoming America's newest nemesis, U.S. officials say. He has forged close ties with Cuba's Fidel Castro and has befriended some of America's other notorious enemies, traveling to Saddam's Iraq and Qadhafi's Libya. Now, after surviving an attempted coup and a nationwide petition demanding his recall, Chavez is flirting with terrorism, and Washington is watching with increasing alarm

Middle Eastern terrorist groups are operating support cells in Venezuela and other locations in the Andean region. A two-month review by U.S. News, including interviews with dozens of U.S. and Latin American sources, confirms the terrorist activity. In particular, the magazine has learned that thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Lebanon.

Venezuela is supporting armed opposition groups from neighboring Colombia; these groups are on the official U.S. list of terrorist organizations and are also tied to drug trafficking. Maps obtained by U.S. News, as well as eyewitness accounts, pinpoint the location of training camps used by Colombian rebels, a top rebel leader, and Venezuelan armed groups.
(his direct interference in colombian internal affairs)

The Venezuelan government denies supporting Middle Eastern terrorist groups and says that no Cubans are operating inside its intelligence agencies. Venezuela has long denied providing aid to the Colombian guerrilla groups
(evidence says otherwise)

Venezuela is providing support--including identity documents--that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups, say U.S. officials. U.S. News has learned that Chavez's government has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia, and Middle Eastern nations that play host to foreign terrorist organizations

The suspicious links between Venezuela and Islamic radicalism are multiplying. American law enforcement and intelligence officials are exploring whether there is an al Qaeda connection--specifically, they want to know if a Venezuelan of Arab descent named Hakim Mamad al Diab Fatah had ties to any of the September 11 hijackers. The United States deported Diab Fatah to Venezuela for immigration violations in March 2002. A U.S. intelligence official says that Diab Fatah is still a "person of interest" and that his family in Venezuela is "a well-known clan associated with extremist and illicit activity" in northern Venezuela. But when U.S. officials sought Diab Fatah for further questioning, they were told by Venezuelan officials that he was not in the country. Diab Fatah may also be tied to the Caracas mosque of Sheik Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz, which has caught investigators' attention. One of the mosque's officials, also a Venezuelan of Arab descent, was recently arrested in London for carrying a grenade on a Caracas-London flight.

In addition, support "cells" for the groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamiyya al Gammat are active on Margarita

Venezuela's support for terrorist organizations isn't limited to those based in Lebanon or Egypt. Colombia's complaints that Venezuela is actively aiding two Colombian armed groups on the U.S. State Department's terrorist list--the FARC and the ELN--have been met by heated Venezuelan denials. But U.S. News has obtained detailed information demonstrating that camps used by the Colombian rebels exist inside Venezuela; maps actually pinpoint the location of the camps, and firsthand reports describe visits by Venezuelan officials. The armed Colombian groups, though they have waged no attacks on U.S. soil, are among the most active terrorist groups in the world, and several of their leaders have been indicted in the United States for the killings and kidnappings of Americans and for drug trafficking

U.S. News has also obtained documents that offer firsthand accounts--from people inside the camps--that illustrate the extent of Venezuela's backing of the Colombian rebels. According to debriefings of former rebels, some 60 Venezuelan soldiers, plus two Venezuelan officers, provide training to the FARC rebels at the Resumidero camp. Visitors to the camp have included Venezuelan civilians and Europeans. A 31-year-old FARC deserter who spent seven months at FARC camps inside Venezuela, says he witnessed Venezuelan officers arrive by helicopter. He says his unit twice ambushed the Colombian Army and then fled to sanctuary in Venezuela. He also asserts that "abundant ammunition"--a cache in April included 2,500 rounds of 7.62mm and .223-caliber ammunition for automatic rifles--has been shipped across the border to Colombia. Another guerrilla who turned herself in last July says she saw FARC leaders heading for a camp called Rio Verde in Venezuela. And a former guerrilla, a 32-year-old man, says he fled from battle to a camp called Sastreria in Venezuela.



The Chavez government's support of the Colombian guerrillas is no act of charity. After he was elected in 1998, Chavez vowed to bring about a "Bolivarian revolution" in Venezuela; the movement is named for Simon Bolivar, the 19th-century hero who defeated the Spanish in South America. But Chavez's popularity has plummeted, and Venezuela's economy is troubled. In April 2002, he survived a military coup--one that the United States prematurely applauded. Chavez has since purged the military.

The armed Colombian groups are helping Chavez create a force loyal to his regime. The FARC and ELN were "instrumental" in the formation and training of a 200-man Venezuelan armed group called the Frente Bolivariano de Liberacion that operates in western Venezuela, according to U.S. officials. The FARC has also provided training to the so-called Bolivarian Circles, an urban organization that Chavez set up to defend and promote his revolution.



The Venezuelan government is allowing armed Colombian insurgents--considered terrorist organizations by the United States--to operate inside its borders. And Islamic radical groups have gained a foothold within Venezuela's Arab community; local "cells" provide support to groups based in the Middle East

Venezuela has denied aiding Colombian rebel groups like the FARC. But exclusive information pinpoints the location of a remote camp inside Venezuela used to train Colombian guerrillas.

Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, obtain millions of dollars from money-laundering and drug-trafficking operations here, say American officials




That's not the whole article. But it's most of it. 4 pages. If you still think it was taken out of context read the original link and show me where it says that Chavez IS NOT supporting terrorism.

So he supports a group. We have the IRA hanging out here. I can take you to a couple pubs to prove it.

If you still think it was taken out of context read the original link and show me where it says that Chavez IS NOT supporting terrorism.

Show me where it proves anything. It is an opinion piece, not a piece of news journalism.

US News & World Report finds Chavez link to terrorism:

again the link:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031006/6venezuela.htm
<snip>

That's not the whole article. But it's most of it. 4 pages. If you still think it was taken out of context read the original link and show me where it says that Chavez IS NOT supporting terrorism.
I read all 4 pages, Squidlems, and long version or short version, it's still crap. Show me were it actually proves that Chavez is supporting terrorism. And after you've done that, show me where this opinion piece dated 2003, proves that Chavez poses a current and ongoing threat to the US in 2006.

(I had no idea US News & World Report was published by the Psychic Friends Network.)

the validity of the election that put Chavez in power is questionable:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820_2.htm

EDIT: This one is from 2005

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050214/14edit.htm

the validity of the election that put Chavez in power is questionable:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820_2.htm
So is the validity of the election that put Bush into power.

//www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820_2.htm

Does this word mean anything to you Whittier?

Now some proof please of what you are claiming, rather than just concurring opinion.

So is the validity of the election that put Bush into power.
what about these?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1barone.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060130/30venezuela.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060130/30venezuela.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050110/10geo_3.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1126425,00.html



Bush has never invaded any latin countries. The Latins are just paranoid.

what about these?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1barone.htm

Barone is a columnist, not a reporter. This is opinion, not fact. I reject it as proof of your argument.


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060130/30venezuela.htm

This article says none of the things you have claimed against Chavez. In fact, it makes him seem much less important than you apparently think he is. In further fact, it agrees with my take on Chavez, which is that he is a blowhard politician out to take a leadership role in his continent and that his position is nowhere near as solid as he claims it is. It gives him points for providing real benefits to the poor of his country while implying (correctly, imo) that he does it to cement a populist base of support by exploiting, rather than resolving, the intense class and economic gaps that plague Venezuela. It points out that while his efforts have resulted in verbal support, this does not translate into high voter turnout, so his continued leadership is far from guaranteed. It also points out the dangers he faces, especially from his own military, as he continues to piss off the rich. Hence my earlier reference to him going down in the traditional hail of bullets. As for his anti-Bush rhetoric and his melodramatic gestures of "good will" towards the American people, the article points out (again correctly, imo) that this is just more of his politicking. It makes him look good to the South American poor and working classes that he courts so aggressively.

This article does not mention terrorism or supposed human rights abuses or civil liberties abuses at all. Why did you post it to support your claims?


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060130/30venezuela.htm

This is a duplicate post of the article above.


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/050110/10geo_3.htm
This is a quickie rundown of output from oil producers from the business section -- a fast reference for investors who, presumably, will go on to do further research. The single paragraph about Venezuela only says that Chavez's government is not managing oil production to international satisfaction. It says nothing at all about terrorism or supposed human rights abuses or civil liberties abuses. Like your other article, it does not support your claims. Why did you post it? Do you actually read these things beyond the headlines?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1126425,00.html



Bush has never invaded any latin countries. The Latins are just paranoid.
The article you linked to and your statement under it have nothing to do with each other.

The article clearly describes the source of the hostile rhetoric as being the shift towards leftism in South American politics and the resistance to policies that the US favors. It also mentions certain embarrassing incidents that have given credence to negative claims about US attitudes towards Latin America. I have said several times already that Chavez is exploiting the differences between left and right and poor and rich in order to build himself up politically. This article seems to support my position.

The article, however, does not support your position. It says nothing at all about Latins fearing a US invasion. It says nothing at all about terrorism or abuses. It says nothing at all about a state of threat between us and them. It's starting to look like you are just making all this up.

The article you linked to and your statement under it have nothing to do with each other.

The article clearly describes the source of the hostile rhetoric as being the shift towards leftism in South American politics and the resistance to policies that the US favors. It also mentions certain embarrassing incidents that have given credence to negative claims about US attitudes towards Latin America. I have said several times already that Chavez is exploiting the differences between left and right and poor and rich in order to build himself up politically. This article seems to support my position.

The article, however, does not support your position. It says nothing at all about Latins fearing a US invasion. It says nothing at all about terrorism or abuses. It says nothing at all about a state of threat between us and them. It's starting to look like you are just making all this up.
The statement under it referred to the part where it said that Latins blame Bush for the US military interventions that happened before he was in office, that his premature support the Venezuela coup had cemented that view in the eyes of most Latins. They were saying that was why there were mass violent anti US protests at the summit of the americas meeting.

The statement was just saying that their delusions of a Bush invasion were groundless. As long as South America does not get involved in or support terrororism or seek nuclear weapons, they have nothing to worry from the US.
But Chavez is supporting Iran, Chavez is supporting Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group. Chavez is giving them money for their cause. Even the Palestinians President has said that if they continue, he will get rid of them, which the Palestinian Constitution allows him to do. I think he should cause since they've been in office, attacks against Israeli and threats to eliminate Israel have increased markedly.


EDIT: I saw your other posts. I didn't say they stated anything about terrorism or human rights abuses. I said, "how about these?". That's grasping at straws.

The article you linked to and your statement under it have nothing to do with each other.

The article clearly describes the source of the hostile rhetoric as being the shift towards leftism in South American politics and the resistance to policies that the US favors. It also mentions certain embarrassing incidents that have given credence to negative claims about US attitudes towards Latin America. I have said several times already that Chavez is exploiting the differences between left and right and poor and rich in order to build himself up politically. This article seems to support my position.

The article, however, does not support your position. It says nothing at all about Latins fearing a US invasion. It says nothing at all about terrorism or abuses. It says nothing at all about a state of threat between us and them. It's starting to look like you are just making all this up.

Meh. You know what? It's not fun anymore. Now, let's have a meaningful discussion that may or may not be punctuated by my breaking into haikus, but will surely be punctuated by Whittier's paranoid delusions (in his breaks from murdering people in Iraq) and might be punctuated by Eutrusca's ones.

Anyhoo.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10889738#post10889738

The statement under it referred to the part where it said that Latins blame Bush for the US military interventions that happened before he was in office, that his premature support the Venezuela coup had cemented that view in the eyes of most Latins. They were saying that was why there were mass violent anti US protests at the summit of the americas meeting.

The statement was just saying that their delusions of a Bush invasion were groundless. As long as South America does not get involved in or support terrororism or seek nuclear weapons, they have nothing to worry from the US.
it's called political rhetoric. Where's the threat?

But Chavez is supporting Iran, Chavez is supporting Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group. Chavez is giving them money for their cause. Even the Palestinians President has said that if they continue, he will get rid of them, which the Palestinian Constitution allows him to do. I think he should cause since they've been in office, attacks against Israeli and threats to eliminate Israel have increased markedly.
And where is the threat to the US?

EDIT: I saw your other posts. I didn't say they stated anything about terrorism or human rights abuses. I said, "how about these?". That's grasping at straws.
You're right, it is grasping at straws, and you're the one doing the grasping. I pointed out that none of those links supports you either. We're done here, W. As usual, you can't even back up your own arguments. Have fun talking to yourself. If you happen to trip over an actual point, I'll come back in.

But Chavez is supporting Iran, Chavez is supporting Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist group. Chavez is giving them money for their cause. Even the Palestinians President has said that if they continue, he will get rid of them, which the Palestinian Constitution allows him to do. I think he should cause since they've been in office, attacks against Israeli and threats to eliminate Israel have increased markedly.

The USA supports Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA. Please tell me how that's any better than Chavez supporting Hamas.

The USA gave arms to Saddam and the Muhaj'adeen. Please tell me how that's worse than Chavez supporting Iran.

And actually, attacks against Isreal have decreased massively since Hamas have been in power. Possibly politics is a calming influence for them, just like the IRA.

2. It does no such thing. Comments like these are meant for theatrics. I often use it in speeches and oral debates to keep the audience awake.
Democracy is based on the right to free speech for everyone. Therefore a _legitimate_ democratic coutry would HAVE to follow that rule to have the right to call itself democratic.

But you're right that I seek to shed doubt about him and his credibility. A legitimate tool of debate. He was the one who said it was ok for Chavez to support to support Hamas and Iran, both of which have sworn to wipe Israel off the planet. But hey, who am I to judge?
Shedding doubt about someone, and the opinions that person utters, is not a legitimate tool of debate. It would be the same as punching someone who doesn't agree with yourself in a debate, just not equally serious.

Shedding doubt about someone, and the opinions that person utters, is not a legitimate tool of debate. It would be the same as punching someone who doesn't agree with yourself in a debate, just not equally serious.

Whilst it may not be legitimate, at least it is in keeping with the role play of ruler of your own nation. Its a fact of life that modern democratic politicians spend far more time undermining each others characters than putting forward any policies. The relevence of this to Chavez is this: don't you think that the US would be on better ground if it could say that political and civil rights have been hugely curtailed, there is mass genocide in the country etc etc (i.e. policies) rather than saying that Chavez is a nasty man who has links to evil organisations; boo hiss?

Y'know, there's another thread in general in which people are actually there to discuss the issue of Chavez, rather than ranting paranoid insanities and slandering those that disagree...

Ooo really? Link? I think this thread did hit that note for a while, well on and off in the middle, but it is amazing how little own thought some people have.

Ooo really? Link? I think this thread did hit that note for a while, well on and off in the middle, but it is amazing how little own thought some people have.

My pleasure:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10891852&posted=1#post10891852

*sigh*

This'll just be yet another mess for us to pick up after, having to restore democracy to central America.

:rolleyes:

*sigh*

This'll just be yet another mess for us to pick up after, having to restore democracy to central America.

:rolleyes:

Yes. By OVERTHROWING ELECTED GOVERNMENTS.

Now get off my lawn.

By the way, folks, by now, it's noticeable that the only people that will stay here are Whittier, Quibs and their inner demons. Let's move to the other thread, there's something meaningful over there.

*sigh*

This'll just be yet another mess for us to pick up after, having to restore democracy to central America.

:rolleyes:

So far, America has had a track record of installing dictatorships, not democracies in South America. When it does install a real democracy there that isn't a puppet, that'll be a first.

It’s the same old line. One side says one thing, the other side says another and they end up being the same thing. For all of you commenting on this issue regardless of your position, does anyone really have an idea of what constitutes accurate news? The writer complains about fixed elections (I certainly won’t deny that could be the case. So how does the writer feel about the fact that the 2000 and 2004 U.S. Presidential elections were fraudulent?) And for one of the respondents: if Jimmy Carter’s group only counted 1% of the vote, is that really going to matter? I’ve seen more flagrant charges made against right wing dictatorships with much less evidence.

Here’s the deal: in the whole left-wing/right-wing conundrum it becomes very clear that “liberalism” and “conservatism” are two sides of the same coin, same with Capitalism and Communism. Deep down, they pretty much believe the same things, only they express them within the framework of different issues. I laugh my ass off every time a right-winger expounds on how great and beautiful the guy before Castro was (Battista was a demonstrable dictator, thug, and murderer) and at the same time I equally laugh when some left-winger thinks the real deal is Castro (an actual dictator, thug and murderer, and yes, I have actually met some of the people he tortured)....same goes whenever some war occurs south of our borders-one side wants to vilify the other without actually thinking that “their” side could be as bad.

Here are some new rules for dealing with the above situations:

-decide what constitutes real and accurate news. Hint: automatically discard anything with a headline of any kind that seems to take a side, on way or the other. If it does, it is by definition opinion and should never be treated as news. Oh, and no matter how reliable the source, always question it until it is verified. Another hint: ALL news is, to some extant biased. It was written by humans. We are all imperfect. Just do the best you can.

-deal with what you know is fact, especially if it disagrees with your own philosophy. Do you think left wing dictatorships are rigging elections? Then admit it when it happens here in the U.S. (regardless of your politics, the last 2 Presidential elections were fraudulent. This is demonstrable. Deal with it.) By the same token, if you think right-wing capitalist regimes are fascist (many of them by definition are just that and yes, that sucks the big one) then get a grip on reality and admit it when many left-wing regimes are dictatorial and oppressive like the right wing dictatorships you bitch about (we’re talking no free speech, political prisoners being tortured and murdered, yadda yadda yadda all in a left wing paradise).

-Learn how to present your ideas. Don’t give the other guys unnecessary ammo. For example, if you’re a Reagan Republican and you like to spout such gems as “keep the government off the backs of the American people” ( I happen to like this one), then don’t turn around and try to mandate the same govt. get into my bedroom (hint: um, this is a form of the govt getting on the backs of the American People. Same thing with privacy: don’t bitch about left wingers who want privacy and then support Corporate Fascists who want the right the right to spy on you in the workplace but wouldn’t dare give up their precious privacy). Or, if you’re a left-winger who waxes eloquently about the Good Old Days of The Sixties when we had free love and told the repressive govt to go to hell (as we should have) and you’re a vehement supporter of the ACLU especially on issues of privacy, then don’t piss and moan every time some right-wing wacko bitches about his Social Security number being used or when he bitches about cookies on his computer (if you are under the impression that we have nothing to be afraid of privacy-wise, I would refer you to the January 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface as well as a little book by George Orwell called “1984”). Just remember, every idea you spout can come back to bite you on the ass. Form your opinions well.

This whole right wing/left wing thing doesn’t have to be that way. It is not a choice between two options.

*sigh*

This'll just be yet another mess for us to pick up after, having to restore democracy to central America.

:rolleyes:

You? Pick up something?

That's the funniest damn thing I've read today.

Have you considered a career in comedy writing?

So far, America has had a track record of installing dictatorships, not democracies in South America. When it does install a real democracy there that isn't a puppet, that'll be a first.


Guatamala is the only real fuck up in the region as far as dictator installing. The rest of the time it was legitimate choice between communist and dictators.

Look at what our actions in chile and pannama have caused great prosperity in the current years.

You have to look at each intervention on a nation by nation basis.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice princibles for protection. Realism vs idealism are necisary parts in world polotics

Guatamala is the only real fuck up in the region as far as dictator installing. The rest of the time it was legitimate choice between communist and dictators.

Look at what our actions in chile and pannama have caused great prosperity in the current years.

You have to look at each intervention on a nation by nation basis.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice princibles for protection. Realism vs idealism are necisary parts in world polotics

Ah, right, so you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to achieve your goals.

Y'know, like a dictatorship.

Ah, right, so you're willing to sacrifice innocent lives in order to achieve your goals.

Y'know, like a dictatorship.

I didnt say i believe in killing innocent lives im simply stating sometimes thier is no good decision. Communist and dictators both kill innocence, dictators are more isolationist while communist were more of a spreading force hence domino theory and my belief that communism spreads misery, dictators contain it and democracies destroy it.

I didnt say i believe in killing innocent lives im simply stating sometimes thier is no good decision. Communist and dictators both kill innocence, dictators are more isolationist while communist were more of a spreading force hence domino theory.

Oh yeah, the US has a great track record of killing innocents and starting wars. Vietnam, anyone? Invasion of Cuba? Manifest Destiny? Roosevelt Doctrine?

I didnt say i believe in killing innocent lives im simply stating sometimes thier is no good decision. Communist and dictators both kill innocence, dictators are more isolationist while communist were more of a spreading force hence domino theory and my belief that communism spreads misery, dictators contain it and democracies destroy it.

Allende was elected, so was João Goulart, neither of them had done anything remotely violent yet. And they got couped out.

Oh yeah, the US has a great track record of killing innocents and starting wars. Vietnam, anyone? Invasion of Cuba? Manifest Destiny? Roosevelt Doctrine?

Wasn't it Monroe Doctrine? Or Roosevelt too? o_O

Ah well. I'll post less here and more in the thread that ACTUALLY discusses Chavez. (As opposed to this mess Whittier did).

Oh yeah, the US has a great track record of killing innocents and starting wars. Vietnam, anyone? Invasion of Cuba? Manifest Destiny? Roosevelt Doctrine?

You need to stay in one time period...You also need to understand CIVILIANS DIE IN WAR, in war people die, its simple the question is weather those civilians were targeted for illigitimate or lagitimit reasons ( most deaths are acidents and do happen)

Now if we Jump to the indian issues of Manifest destiny, I happen to believe and am shamfull for the breaking of treaties to which we should have honored. Many actions by military units such as the slaughtering of civilians i find deplorable. But, you cannot claim sole evil upon the americans in the situation, look at most indian cultures based on a worriors tradition with the belief in the race tribe mentality. Hence conflict was inevidable as well as atrocities because of the diffrent psychologies of war and land.

If i can jump to vietnam.... Yup we whent to vietnam to kill innocent civilians because we just love it:D . Lost 58,000 men just to kill civilians.
We fought in nam to prevent the spread of communism which killed millions after we left. In vietnam the enemy hid among a population of civilians hence the deaths of civilians. It was not Us policy to kill civilians but to move them to strategic Hamlets so that they do not get in the way of the war and fighting. (vietnam is too big of an issue to take now)

Roosevelt Doctrine???? Do you mean the Roosevelt Collary or the Monroe Doctrine?

Next the invasion of Cuba... WHICH??? the one where we aided Cuban dissidents and democratic revolutionaries to overthrow castro in the bay of pigs????

Allende was elected, so was João Goulart, neither of them had done anything remotely violent yet. And they got couped out.

violent yet:p key word...theft of propery is also another reason

violent yet:p key word...theft of propery is also another reason

You had no evidence that it would turn violent either. Allende nationalized the copper mines and that was it. Goulart didn't even do THIS, his only "crime" was being a leftist, and, lo and behold, my country is turned into a fascist dictatorship for the next 20 years.

you from brazil?

you from brazil?

Yup. And I got "pleased" to see, right before Lula got elected, the editorial in Washington Times that suggested turning my country into an accursed military dictatorship AGAIN in case he did.

you will have to excuse me then.. im not all that familiar with Us intervention in brazil or brazillian history. My focus is more twoard latin and central america and a little chile

Yup. And I got "pleased" to see, right before Lula got elected, the editorial in Washington Times that suggested turning my country into an accursed military dictatorship AGAIN in case he did.

I have to leave for the night now, but remember never to claim "well, WE had to make this choice" unless your country was the one raped by said choice.

the worlds a fucked up place.. I wish people could just get along... but thiers evil ideaolgies out thier and sometimes you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils... rather raped then dead yes?

If i can jump to vietnam.... Yup we whent to vietnam to kill innocent civilians because we just love it:D . Lost 58,000 men just to kill civilians.

I point you to the My Lai Massacre and the idea of "victory by bodycount" mentality. The United States may not have gone there to explicitly massacre civilians, but military planning at the time devolved to just that. Kill them all and let somebody else sort it out.


We fought in nam to prevent the spread of communism which killed millions after we left. In vietnam the enemy hid among a population of civilians hence the deaths of civilians. It was not Us policy to kill civilians but to move them to strategic Hamlets so that they do not get in the way of the war and fighting. (vietnam is too big of an issue to take now)

A rosy picture that doesn't account for cases where entire villages were wiped out without discrimination. Men, women and children, young and old were mown down without bothering to find out whether they really were enemy combatants. Similarly, inciendary airstrikes on villages were also done with the same level of care for civilians.

To equate this to American terms, it would be like flattening Manhattan because there happened to be some soldiers around.

America as an ideal may be all nice and whatnot, but the people who run it have dipped her hands in enough blood to drown nations.

If any end justified the means, which you don't seem to mind, then you have no reason to complain when others do the same to you. Like the use of civilian airliners as weapons of war.

As for evil idealogies, the US only saves the good parts of it's idealogies for itself. Nowhere else where it has it actually spread the benefits of its idealogies in the last 50 years when it has intefered with other governments.

About being better raped than dead, I will have you know that generally, prisoners regard rapists lower than murderers. I dare you to find a rape victim and tell her that it was better that than being dead. You will find yourself in a shallow grave soon enough.

Guatamala is the only real fuck up in the region as far as dictator installing. The rest of the time it was legitimate choice between communist and dictators.

Look at what our actions in chile and pannama have caused great prosperity in the current years.

You have to look at each intervention on a nation by nation basis.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice princibles for protection. Realism vs idealism are necisary parts in world polotics
What did you sacrifice your spelling for? I know that's a cheap shot, but seriously, if you stopped to read what you post, you might not post such cavalier crap. Sacrifice principles? No, principles are what self-respecting people choose to fight and die for.

I didnt say i believe in killing innocent lives im simply stating sometimes thier is no good decision. Communist and dictators both kill innocence, dictators are more isolationist while communist were more of a spreading force hence domino theory and my belief that communism spreads misery, dictators contain it and democracies destroy it.
And what do you base this belief on?

Communist and dictators both kill innocence, dictators are more isolationist while communist were more of a spreading force hence domino theory and my belief that communism spreads misery, dictators contain it and democracies destroy it.

Any chance of a thread of evidence to support the domino theory?

So far, America has had a track record of installing dictatorships, not democracies in South America. When it does install a real democracy there that isn't a puppet, that'll be a first.
Well it is our perogative. After all, the whole hemisphere belongs to us to do with as we see fit.

Monroe Doctrine

Well it is our perogative. After all, the whole hemisphere belongs to us to do with as we see fit.

Monroe Doctrine

The sad thing is, this probably isn't a joke on your part.

Well it is our perogative. After all, the whole hemisphere belongs to us to do with as we see fit.
Erm... No, it's not, and it doesn't.

I point you to the My Lai Massacre and the idea of "victory by bodycount" mentality. The United States may not have gone there to explicitly massacre civilians, but military planning at the time devolved to just that. Kill them all and let somebody else sort it out.



A rosy picture that doesn't account for cases where entire villages were wiped out without discrimination. Men, women and children, young and old were mown down without bothering to find out whether they really were enemy combatants. Similarly, inciendary airstrikes on villages were also done with the same level of care for civilians.

To equate this to American terms, it would be like flattening Manhattan because there happened to be some soldiers around.

America as an ideal may be all nice and whatnot, but the people who run it have dipped her hands in enough blood to drown nations.

If any end justified the means, which you don't seem to mind, then you have no reason to complain when others do the same to you. Like the use of civilian airliners as weapons of war.

As for evil idealogies, the US only saves the good parts of it's idealogies for itself. Nowhere else where it has it actually spread the benefits of its idealogies in the last 50 years when it has intefered with other governments.

About being better raped than dead, I will have you know that generally, prisoners regard rapists lower than murderers. I dare you to find a rape victim and tell her that it was better that than being dead. You will find yourself in a shallow grave soon enough.
So you admit supporting 911 because the people who carried it out were anti american.


You conveniently leave out the fact that it was commies who were deliberate targeting civilians. We only killed the ones that got between us and the commies and it was never deliberate except for Mai Lai and that was not even US govt. sanctioned. That was some local commander losing his mind and going psycho.

Erm... No, it's not, and it doesn't.
Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.

A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america. Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.

A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america. Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.
So if we come up with the Psycho doctrine that states that we are justified in commiting acts of terrorism on US citizen, then it would all become alright as if by magic?

Is that what you are saying?

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.

A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america. Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.

ROFLMAO :headbang:

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.

A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america. Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.

And with this post, I have decided that you do not deserve to have intelligent responses to your ideas anymore. I have tried to answer your posts in an intelligent and polite manner. You are either a troll who says stupid things to get a rise out of people, or you are an ignorant, borderline racist, small minded bigot. Either way, you have lost the right to intelligent discourse.

Idiot.

So now we get the real reason you hate Chavez so much...he dares to commit the crime of running his country the way he and the people want, instead of bending over to accept the Monroe Doctrine. Imagine how enraged you right wing facsists would become if Venenzuela had a piece of paper claiming all of the Western Hemisphere as their right, and they can invade whenever they want.

A dictator? Chavez has survived 8 different elections that were internationally monitered and recognized. Where's your stupid purple finger at? Pull it out of your ass.

Venenzuela wants to invade the US? Can you really take this seriously? Are they going to walk up for a week through Mexico? Maybe he's creating an army because the US, with its Monroe Doctrine and constant threats, and history of invading any country it wants to, is performing massive military exercises in the Carribean right of the coast of Venenzuela.

No freedom of speech? All the major newspapers in the country are against Chavez and are constantly attacking him. They are still in business.

Talking with rebels? Good for him! Their are ways to solve problems other than Napalm.

Meanwhile the poor have received free health insurance and education. The econonmy is skyrocketing. Venenzuela's future is bright and promising, as long as we can keep Corporate power and our government from interfering.

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.



What about the other side of the bargain? You know, the bit where the US was supposed to remain neutral in future European wars?



Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.


In the opinion of US leaders 100 years ago, yes, you had the right to do so. In the opinion of all of South & Central America and practically the rest of the world today, no, you don't have that right.



A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america. Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.


I'm assuming that, as the USA declines in influence and power over the next few decades, you would not be adverse to other states in the American continent coming in and sorting out your messes too..?

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.
I think the British had a similar doctrine involving the whole world, waay before you came up with yours. Besides, that's just a doctrine that drove foreign policy during the 19th Century, not a law or even an internationally recognized anything. It even didn't hold up when Mexico asked for a European emperor, and sure as hell didn't hold up when Argentina invaded the Falklands.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.
No, you have no such right. The US will do it, being assholes and all that. But it's not a right.

Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.
And that gives us the right to move to the US to look for jobs and vote for your president or occupy government positions. Yeah, I agree with that.

Well it is our perogative. After all, the whole hemisphere belongs to us to do with as we see fit.

Monroe Doctrine
With this type of attitude, perhaps Canada should start building some nuclear weapons facilities, to protect us from our neighbours? Why do have the technology.

So now we get the real reason you hate Chavez so much...he dares to commit the crime of running his country the way he and the people want, instead of bending over to accept the Monroe Doctrine. Imagine how enraged you right wing facsists would become if Venenzuela had a piece of paper claiming all of the Western Hemisphere as their right, and they can invade whenever they want.

A dictator? Chavez has survived 8 different elections that were internationally monitered and recognized. Where's your stupid purple finger at? Pull it out of your ass.

Venenzuela wants to invade the US? Can you really take this seriously? Are they going to walk up for a week through Mexico? Maybe he's creating an army because the US, with its Monroe Doctrine and constant threats, and history of invading any country it wants to, is performing massive military exercises in the Carribean right of the coast of Venenzuela.

No freedom of speech? All the major newspapers in the country are against Chavez and are constantly attacking him. They are still in business.

Talking with rebels? Good for him! Their are ways to solve problems other than Napalm.

Meanwhile the poor have received free health insurance and education. The econonmy is skyrocketing. Venenzuela's future is bright and promising, as long as we can keep Corporate power and our government from interfering.
I don't know where you got the idea the Venezuelan economy was skyrocketing. At the moment its tanking.

Only if you watch Fox news.

I don't know where you got the idea the Venezuelan economy was skyrocketing. At the moment its tanking.
So you say:

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=50581

More:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/grandin/2

But whereas Lula started with high expectations only to disappoint, Chávez has moved in the opposite direction. He has rebounded from the recall fight to quicken the pace of reform. With the economy booming, unemployment falling, the opposition in disarray and his Fifth Republic Movement in control of Congress and regional posts, he has accelerated the distribution of expropriated land, nationalizing industries and diverting Central Bank reserves to diversify the economy.

For Washington, the most immediate threat posed by Venezuela is not the spread of "false populism" in Latin America but Chávez's emergence as the motor behind the left's attempt to advance economic and political multilateralism.

Monroe Doctrine: Western hemisphere belongs to the US. Europeans and other outsiders can't get involved without US permission.

Roosevelt Corrallary: If shit happens in Latin America we have the right to send in troops to clean it up. Even if it means installing dictators.
This is wrong because: The fault of "I am the world"
Example: I don't like Country music therefore Country music is not popular.


A dictatorial latin america is much preferable to a communist latin america
You are wrong because: The fault of "The few is the same as the whole."
Example: Some Americans are animal right's activists, some Americans were fur coats, therefore Americans are hyprocrites.

Example2:
Some so called Communist countries are bad for the people, some dictatorships are okay for some people, therefore a Dictatorship is a better government.


Though we should have just gone in and annexed the whole place. The whole world would be much better if South America was part of the United States.
Which technically they due to the fact that they ARE in OUR sphere of inluence. And that gives us the right to get into their internal affairs and fix their messes cause they won't do it themselves.
No it isn't just because someone says it doesn't make it true. And if we Annexed South America we would still be fighting them. You are a complete loser if you just think that everything in the World Revolves around the US.

You again fall under "I am the world" Falsehood.

The US doesn't like Communism\Socialism therefore Everyone doesn't like Communism\Socialism.

Listen I'm sorry but someone has to break this to you...

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE

*snip*

You know that Whittier is just going to blame some liberal media conspiracy to try and make Venezuela not look like it's everything he believes it is.

Whittier, for whatever reason, believes that the US is always right, much as he thinks that some of us think the US is always wrong. I think he views it as a black/white go/nogo proposition. Nothing anyone says will ever convince him otherwise

I didn't know my post ended up at the bottom of the page so I'll sum it up.

I repeat

Whittier--- it's time for you to learn this, let this get through your thick skull please:

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!

THE UNITED STATES ISN'T EVEN THE CENTRE OF AMERICA!

ah but America IS the center of the world.

ah but America IS the center of the world.

America is the Earth's core?

ah but America IS the center of the world.

No, the centre of the world is composed mainly of a nickel-iron alloy and some lighter elements, is very hot (5,000 to 6,000 °C) and is under extreme pressure.

America is the Earth's core?
You're not thinking big enough. Everyone knows the world encompass the moon, the sun, Mars and everywhere else we might go.

No, the centre of the world is composed mainly of a nickel-iron alloy and some lighter elements, is very hot (5,000 to 6,000 °C) and is under extreme pressure.

One out of three does not qualify the USA as the centre of the world.

No, the centre of the world is composed mainly of a nickel-iron alloy and some lighter elements, is very hot (5,000 to 6,000 °C) and is under extreme pressure.

Fucking joke-thief. Myrth-stealer.

JOY-RIDER.

No, the centre of the world is composed mainly of a nickel-iron alloy and some lighter elements, is very hot (5,000 to 6,000 °C) and is under extreme pressure.

And you really think that Whittier believes in the Spherical Earth Theory?

Fucking joke-thief. Myrth-stealer.

JOY-RIDER.

I takes what I gets.

And you really think that Whittier believes in the Spherical Earth Theory?

THIS THREAD HAS A WINNER!!!

:D

You know that Whittier is just going to blame some liberal media conspiracy to try and make Venezuela not look like it's everything he believes it is.

Whittier, for whatever reason, believes that the US is always right, much as he thinks that some of us think the US is always wrong. I think he views it as a black/white go/nogo proposition. Nothing anyone says will ever convince him otherwise
Oh, I fully understand his tainted worldview. I just try and chip in a few facts to counter his propaganda. The sad part, is that some people much further up the food chain than him, share his sentiments, except for entirely different reasons.

One out of three does not qualify the USA as the centre of the world.

Damn... I was going to say that.

speaking as someone who live's here....HALF the assholes cant even FIND America..never mind the US on a fucking map..We are rapidly becoming a country of morons...no history ...no geography..I get my money from my MTV....


No shit ..for ..real..

Someone save us .