NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll incoming soon. I just wanted to know how other people felt about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Personally, I'm skeptical, and am troubling over whether his leftism is legitimate (in the sense that it isn't a populist ploy to win votes to disguise a hidden agenda.)

He's restricted the political and economic freedoms of his people, handed over the oil industry to incompetent cronies and aligns himself with some of the most oppressive and backward regimes in the world, ones that are the enemy of freedom, religious acceptance, and personal liberty. I don't even care about the anti-US stuff, it's his support of places like Iran or NK that bothers me.


Chavez is using these social programs as a "bread and circuses" diversion while he sets up the apparatus necessary for a dictatorship.

The latest in a long line of South American tinpot dictators. Nothing new, nothing threatening. He can grandstand all he wants (and he seems to want to a lot), but hes no threat to anyone except his own people.

Chavez has made it his personal mission to piss off the US. He's made some good PR moves, he's made some good gestures but overall I don't like how he is handling his nation.

Opinions of Hugo Chavez? Well, I don't think he likes the US...

Oh, you wanted my opinion of him...

Yeah... Socialist... Good idea, but I'm not holding my breath for it to work.

A minor crazy compared to Ahmadinejad but still... an insane person.

Poll incoming soon. I just wanted to know how other people felt about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Personally, I'm skeptical, and am troubling over whether his leftism is legitimate (in the sense that it isn't a populist ploy to win votes to disguise a hidden agenda.)
The OP shouldn't ever contain any bias if there's a poll... but that's rather beside the point.

He's fairly elected, he's resisted a US-backed coup, and I think he's an alright chap.

Anyone who calls him a tinpot dictator is watching too much Fox News, he's not a dictator in the slightest, he was fairly elected.

He's a power-hungry lunatic who has no interest in the welfare of his people.

Why are there no good dictators anymore? Like Pinochet.

He's a power-hungry lunatic who has no interest in the welfare of his people.

Why are there no good dictators anymore? Like Pinochet.
Pinochet?

Good?

What the hell have you been smoking?

Pinochet is one of the most despicable political leaders I have ever had the unpleasant honour of reading about. He was instated by a US-backed coup too. Hmmm...

Pinochet?

Good?

What the hell have you been smoking?
Everything good that's happening in Chile now is because Pinochet rebuilt their economy from the socialist shambles it had been before him.

Pinochet had, overall, a tremendous positive impact on his people.

Chavez is a inconsequential leader of a backward South American country and is seeking to take it back another 20 years through his disastrous social and economic policies. He compensates for his obvious shortcomings by raving about the US until he's foaming at the mouth, at which point he visits equally inconsequential, dying leaders of other backwards Latin American countries. It is hard to name one good policy of his, or one way in which he was improved his country's standing. Perhaps he and Ahmadinejad come from the same inbred family.

Pinochet is one of the most despicable political leaders I have ever had the unpleasant honour of reading about. He was instated by a US-backed coup too. Hmmm...
Yeah, indeed, the US has a history of doing that.

See most of South America and Haïti.

Pinochet had, overall, a tremendous positive impact on his people.

Mabey I'd take away the credit from Pinochet and give it to hmm Friedman perhaps.

Everything good that's happening in Chile now is because Pinochet rebuilt their economy from the socialist shambles it had been before him.
Please, tell me what's good in Chile right now.
Pinochet had, overall, a tremendous positive impact on his people.
The ones left alive, you mean.

I'm torn on Chavez. To say that Venezuelan and US media coverage of him is slanted is the understatement of the century, and a lot of my early thoughts about him were affected by the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." The shit the Venezuelan media pulled then makes Fox News look like a bunch of rank amateurs.

But I think Vetalia has a point. He's gone beyond simply tweaking the nose of the bully to the north lately, and it looks like he's trying to set himself up to be the next Fidel in some ways. It worries me a bit.

I have little doubt that the people on the bottom of the economic chain are faring better with Chavez than they did before his ascent, but how much better is a good question, and how much better they'll do in the long run is an even more important one.

Please, tell me what's good in Chile right now.
It's the most prosperous and economically free nation in South America, for a start.

The ones left alive, you mean.
And since they vastly outnumber the dead, that's an overall positive impact (especially when you consider future Chileans who continue to benefit over time).

You know what? The more I look at Hugo Chavez the more I'm reminded of Mayors Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley. That is certainly NOT a good thing.

He's a corrupt human rights abuser who distracts his public with anti-US rhetoric.

Mabey I'd take away the credit from Pinochet and give it to hmm Friedman perhaps.
But Pinochet's the guy who let Friedman implement his ideas. Friedman's work is freely available to the world, but Pinochet is the one who decided to put it to work in Chile.

It's the most prosperous and economically free nation in South America, for a start.
Economically free, maybe, prosperous, no.
And since they vastly outnumber the dead, that's an overall positive impact (especially when you consider future Chileans who continue to benefit over time).
Killing thousands to further capitalism is out of order. Absolutely out of order.

Hitler turned Germany into an economic powerhouse - does that make the holocaust OK?

What about Apartheid - terrible, but South Africa was made a fair bit richer!

Economically free, maybe, prosperous, no.

Killing thousands to further capitalism is out of order. Absolutely out of order.

Hitler turned Germany into an economic powerhouse - does that make the holocaust OK?

What about Apartheid - terrible, but South Africa was made a fair bit richer!
And no one's saying that it was okay that Pinochet killed a bunch of people. But just because a leader does despicable things doesn't mean you can ignore all the good he also did.

edit: And I just checked - Chile ranks just behind Argentina in per capita GDP, but they're both well ahead of the rest of the continent.

And no one's saying that it was okay that Pinochet killed a bunch of people. But just because a leader does despicable things doesn't mean you can ignore all the good he also did.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can.

It doesn't matter what people have done that's great if they've killed thousands of people for ideological reasons.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that you can.
But that's insane. Just because you didn't like his methods, you're unwilling to examine the causes of the positive outcomes.

"Good" is the wrong word.

"Better than the likely alternatives," absolutely.

Chavez has made it his personal mission to piss off the US. He's made some good PR moves, he's made some good gestures but overall I don't like how he is handling his nation.

He too obsessed with Bush, I swear he thinks Bush Personally started the coup or something, his paranioa is hurting his nation and his people. If he would shut up and get back to helping the country that voted for him he might actually pull it off.
If he stopped trying to start something with the US he could be a great leader.

But that's insane. Just because you didn't like his methods, you're unwilling to examine the causes of the positive outcomes.

Sorry Killing thousands of people is worse than ANY economic plus you can have.

Despite what the world says Morally: People>Money.

http://www.bartcop.com/rob-wwjd.gif

:D

Anyone who practically gives away free heating oil to poor families for winter heat gets a good mark in my book. Don't forget that he also brought up what was essentially a third world country to the brink of becoming a first world country. And besides, his people love him. Remeber the whole "coup" that ousted him from power? Remeber who ousted him? The military. Remeber who got him back into power? The people.

He's a power-hungry lunatic who has no interest in the welfare of his people.

Why are there no good dictators anymore? Like Pinochet.

What the hell? He has helped out his people. The literacy rate has raised incredibly since he's taken power. Unemployment is down. Poverty is down. Starvation is down. You call him not caring about his people?

Begoner21;11626760']Chavez is a inconsequential leader of a backward South American country and is seeking to take it back another 20 years through his disastrous social and economic policies. He compensates for his obvious shortcomings by raving about the US until he's foaming at the mouth, at which point he visits equally inconsequential, dying leaders of other backwards Latin American countries. It is hard to name one good policy of his, or one way in which he was improved his country's standing. Perhaps he and Ahmadinejad come from the same inbred family.

What the hell? Firstly, that last statement is just a pure flame. Secondly, he has taken his country from a third world country to a first world country in an INCREDIBLE speed. Hell, I would move there myself if I spoke the language and had the money.

He's a power-hungry lunatic who has no interest in the welfare of his people.

Why are there no good dictators anymore? Like Pinochet.

Because roving death squads are good for a country.

Pinochet was a monster, on par with Pol Pot and that lovely senator from Naboo.

What the hell? He has helped out his people. The literacy rate has raised incredibly since he's taken power. Unemployment is down. Poverty is down. Starvation is down. You call him not caring about his people?

The problem is, he's also creating the seeds of economic collapse. Hugo Chavez is destroying his oil industry and has done nothing to diversify his economy away from the very resource that caused such poverty in the first place during the 1980's and 1990's; Venezuelan oil production is down by a third from when he took office and he is failing to meet OPEC quotas with domestic production.

I honestly have no problem with him raising taxes on foreign and domestic producers to better fund social programs; however, that's not even the problem he has created for his country. He's turned the state oil company from a professional, experienced and transparent company in to one that is so shrouded with secrecy that it's impossible to tell truth from fiction. To make matters worse, he has removed the talented and experienced managers and engineers and replaced them with totally incompetent cronies and has placed ideology above merit within the organization.

PDVSA is in such poor shape that I would not be surprised if it collapsed in the next few years. It is selling off its US assets not because of business reasons but because of ideological ones, and that is costing them a hell of a lot of money; in fact, it's so bad that Citgo (its US subsidary) can no longer afford to supply gasoline to its stations in the US profitably.

. I just wanted to know how other people felt about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

You know, let's just say that I thought Pat Robertson would never say anything intelligent.
Guess when you have as big of a mouth as he does, you get something right once in a while.

You know, let's just say that I thought Pat Robertson would ever say anything intelligent. Guess when you have as big of a mouth as he does, you get something right once in a while.


If you've got a giant net, you're bound to catch at least one fish...

The problem is, he's also creating the seeds of economic collapse. Hugo Chavez is destroying his oil industry and has done nothing to diversify his economy away from the very resource that caused such poverty in the first place during the 1980's and 1990's; Venezuelan oil production is down by a third from when he took office and he is failing to meet OPEC quotas with domestic production..


emmm....the problem wasnt the oil, the problem was where the money was (and wasn't) going.


He's turned the state oil company from a professional, experienced and transparent company in to one that is so shrouded with secrecy that it's impossible to tell truth from fiction. To make matters worse, he has removed the talented and experienced managers and engineers and replaced them with totally incompetent cronies and has placed ideology above merit within the organization. ..

You mean he took it away from the same group of not-his-cronies that has been running it since day one, who have managed to keep the wealth, experience and jobs in a very small circle....?

You know what? The more I look at Hugo Chavez the more I'm reminded of Mayors Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley. That is certainly NOT a good thing.

He's a corrupt human rights abuser who distracts his public with anti-US rhetoric.

Coming from somebody who uses the name IDF thats rather an Ironic comment in many ways....

He's restricted the political and economic freedoms of his people, handed over the oil industry to incompetent cronies and aligns himself with some of the most oppressive and backward regimes in the world, ones that are the enemy of freedom, religious acceptance, and personal liberty.

That could describe every American president of the last 40-50 years......

That could describe every American president of the last 40-50 years......
Or even "ever", really.

That could describe every American president of the last 40-50 years......

I whole-heartedly agree with that.

Why are there no good dictators anymore? Like Pinochet.Wrong and Wrong.

Skeptical and pessimistic. The workers in Venezuela certainly don't seem empowered; Chavez seems like yet another populist leader cementing his own political position quite well by claiming to pander to the working classes. I hardly think he's a dictator in the classic sense of the word, however.

Economically free, maybe, prosperous, no.

Killing thousands to further capitalism is out of order. Absolutely out of order.

Hitler turned Germany into an economic powerhouse - does that make the holocaust OK?

What about Apartheid - terrible, but South Africa was made a fair bit richer!

Here's the problem, though...

People WANT the issue to be black and white, and it isn't... sometimes, 'bad' people do 'good' things, and you aren't going to get the 'utter dominion of evil' perspective that would make it comfortable.

Yes - Hitler did bad things. There is no point arguing that. But her DID do a lot of good, both for the short-term and the long-term for Germany.

We can argue about these things.. about whether the things were worth the high cost, but we shouldn't just pretend the silver linings on clouds don't exist.

Poll incoming soon. I just wanted to know how other people felt about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Personally, I'm skeptical, and am troubling over whether his leftism is legitimate (in the sense that it isn't a populist ploy to win votes to disguise a hidden agenda.)

Well - none of the poll options work for me.

Chavez is an iconoclast... he is a voice of opposition to the big machines, in an arena in which most are afraid to be heard.

For that - if for nothing else - he has made himself 'important'.

Well - none of the poll options work for me.

Chavez is an iconoclast... he is a voice of opposition to the big machines, in an arena in which most are afraid to be heard.

For that - if for nothing else - he has made himself 'important'.

I just thought he was good at shameless self-promotion, which makes him a great politician, but not much else.

He's good at raising a boogeyman. While many will question whether or not the boogeyman of radical Islam exists, Chavez has everyone convinced that the US is sitting a few miles offshore of Venezuela, with more men and equipment than the US possesses, ready to invade at any minute.

If I had to characterize him, I'd say he was the living incarnation of Elmer Gantry.

I just thought he was good at shameless self-promotion, which makes him a great politician, but not much else.

He's good at raising a boogeyman. While many will question whether or not the boogeyman of radical Islam exists, Chavez has everyone convinced that the US is sitting a few miles offshore of Venezuela, with more men and equipment than the US possesses, ready to invade at any minute.

If I had to characterize him, I'd say he was the living incarnation of Elmer Gantry.

He has portrayed the US as a powerhungry, fiscally rapacious tyrant, on the verge of trying to carve an empire out of the world, by blood and fire if necessary.

Which makes it odd to see such venom against him. After all, G.W.Bush has done much the same.

Sorry Killing thousands of people is worse than ANY economic plus you can have.

Despite what the world says Morally: People>Money.

Are you sure? Worldwide 17 million people a year die of malnutrition and easily treatable diseases. If some people dying improves economic conditions then fewer will die due to poverty, with Pinochet it becomes a balancing act, the number of poeple he kill versus the number he saved by sorting out Chiles' economy.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/globalissuesoverview/overview2/BriefOverview.htm

I'm concerned about all of his deliberately public alliances with Syria, Cuba and Iran. Has he warmed up to North Korea yet? If he did- I missed that one, but I'm not surprised.
None of these people are our friends.

I dont like or trust any of these guys.

Chavez is the best thing that could have happened to Venezuela and South America in general.

His social policies have benefited the vast majority of his population. Education, housing and health have vastly improved under his leadership. He has secured a place for Venezuela in the Mescur trading bloc and has made many alliances with many countries from all over the world. China, Russia, Argentina, the Mescur countries and a whole host of countries in the Middle East, Europe and Africa have all said they will vote for Venezuela to be on the U.N. Security Council. Chavez has managed to gain all this support by engaging with nations diplomatically and through trade agreements. He understands the strategic importance of oil and of having oil nations on his side as energy rich countries are going to be tomorrow’s world leaders. The new Venezuelan constitution one of the best, most fair and equal constitutions I’ve read.

To say that Chavez is a dictator is nothing more than Fox news far right propaganda and I question the intelligence of anyone who believes Chavez is a dictator. He was been democratically elected time after time in landslide victories. He has more of a mandate than almost any other leader because of the amount of elections he has won in so short a time and also by the margin he has won them.

Chavez is empowering the people of Venezuela through the co-operatives.
Participatory democracy is far more democratic that simply having representative democracy which more or less excludes the ordinary person from decision making. He is a very intelligent leader and plays the international game very well, much much better than the neo cons in Washington. Chavez makes friends through diplomacy and promotes a bi polar world where the U.S. is not the sole dictator in international affairs. Most countries want this bi-polar world to become a reality as they see the U.S. under the neo-cons as being a negative force in world affairs and a rouge superpower.

The alternative to Chavez seems to be the U.S. under the republicans who are busy starting wars, pissing people off, lying to the world and it’s own citizens, revoking it’s citizens rights, damaging the environment, war mongering, turning more and more authoritarian and big brother like, forcibly pushing a failed neo-liberal economic agenda on regions who don’t want it, interfering in other countries affairs, subverting democracy, supporting dictators and so on,.

I find it ironic when the U.S. tries to call Chavez a dictator and undemocratic. Who is it that subverts democracy all over the world in order to install puppet governments friendly to U.S. business interests? The U.S. government doesn’t care about democracy, they only care about who they can do business with and if that means installing a right wing dictator or supporting military coups or terrorist mercenaries then so be it.

And really, Bush talking about freedoms, democracy and civil rights, is that a joke or something? I just hope the American people realise what a failure the neo-con adventure has been and eject the republicans from the white house next election.

Chavez ftw!

That could describe every American president of the last 40-50 years......

True...

I'm concerned about all of his deliberately public alliances with Syria, Cuba and Iran. Has he warmed up to North Korea yet? If he did- I missed that one, but I'm not surprised.
None of these people are our friends.

I dont like or trust any of these guys.

This is the only problem I have with Chavez. He does everything possible to piss off the U.S., including allying their worst enemies. I can understand Cuba, as he's probably trying to get it onto the right track of Socialism. Iran may not be just to piss off the U.S., maybe just trying to form an oil monopoly (Which I doubt, but is possible). But there's no point to ally with Syria and the such. So most of the time he's doing this just to piss off the U.S. He'll grow out of it eventually, and realize neutrality is the best option.

I just thought he was good at shameless self-promotion, which makes him a great politician, but not much else.

He's good at raising a boogeyman. While many will question whether or not the boogeyman of radical Islam exists, Chavez has everyone convinced that the US is sitting a few miles offshore of Venezuela, with more men and equipment than the US possesses, ready to invade at any minute.

If I had to characterize him, I'd say he was the living incarnation of Elmer Gantry.

So maybe he is shamelessly self-promoting. But do you know how he is doing it? By, third time I've said this in a thread, bringing a third world country up to a first world. Improving life conditions in it faster than any other country has been able to in their countries. If it's all for self-promotion, fine by me as long as he continues it.

This is the only problem I have with Chavez. He does everything possible to piss off the U.S., including allying their worst enemies. I can understand Cuba, as he's probably trying to get it onto the right track of Socialism. Iran may not be just to piss off the U.S., maybe just trying to form an oil monopoly (Which I doubt, but is possible). But there's no point to ally with Syria and the such. So most of the time he's doing this just to piss off the U.S. He'll grow out of it eventually, and realize neutrality is the best option.

I think the US foreign policy has unfortunately fostered a certain worldwide feeling of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

Does Chavez want to be friends with Iran and Syria? Maybe... but more likely, we are just seeing the little kids in the playground grouping together every time a certain big kid comes swaggering by.

to follow
like him so far.
Go to his friend while democrate can not.
The people will get what they want.
Under circumstances.
"hightly pro"
Go Chavez go!!!!!!

I just thought he was good at shameless self-promotion, which makes him a great politician, but not much else.

He's good at raising a boogeyman. While many will question whether or not the boogeyman of radical Islam exists, Chavez has everyone convinced that the US is sitting a few miles offshore of Venezuela, with more men and equipment than the US possesses, ready to invade at any minute.


that theory would be a lot stronger if the CIA hadn't twice tried to have him overthrown

that theory would be a lot stronger if the CIA hadn't twice tried to have him overthrown

And both times by his own military. And twice put back into power by his own people. The latter without help from the CIA.

emmm....the problem wasnt the oil, the problem was where the money was (and wasn't) going.

An economy 80% dependent on oil is going to collapse if oil prices take a steep drop like they did in 1986 or 1998; a fall in oil prices from $40 to $12 within a couple years is going to cause your oil revenues to plunge and


You mean he took it away from the same group of not-his-cronies that has been running it since day one, who have managed to keep the wealth, experience and jobs in a very small circle....?

PDVSA was actually a very well run company that had been significantly reformed and modernized during the 1980's and 1990's; the engineers, management, geologists and rig operators were all experienced and many of them had experience working for international oil companies. Their only failure was that they didn't embrace Chavez and he sacked them to replace them with incompetent but ideologically sound cronies.

Oil production is down by 32% since Chavez took office and the Orinoco oil-shale project is in jeopardy. In fact, it's so bad that Venezuela has had to purchase Russian oil in order to meet its OPEC quotas several months a year.

Chavez is a moron. He is one of the top 3 threats to the west with his alliances with enemies to the west. Theres an idea that he should be assinated, and you know what? I say we go head and do it.

Chavez is a moron. He is one of the top 3 threats to the west with his alliances with enemies to the west. Theres an idea that he should be assinated, and you know what? I say we go head and do it.

So besides his alliance with the Western World's enemies (Which is largely just to piss off the U.S.[who firstly tried to oust Chavez from power twice, and he was reinstalled by his own people, twice], not in an attempt to destroy the western world), is there anything wrong with Chavez?

Chavez is a moron. He is one of the top 3 threats to the west with his alliances with enemies to the west. Theres an idea that he should be assinated, and you know what? I say we go head and do it.

I'm sure you enjoyed my cartoon on pg 2 then? ;)

Chavez is a moron. He is one of the top 3 threats to the west with his alliances with enemies to the west. Theres an idea that he should be assinated, and you know what? I say we go head and do it.

I've always wondered why it is moral to invade a country but immoral to assassinate the leaders who are threatening our interests. Honestly, the prohibition against assassination is only upheld by an Executive Order and could easily be repealed by another one legalizing assassination.

So besides his alliance with the Western World's enemies (Which is largely just to piss off the U.S.[who firstly tried to oust Chavez from power twice, and he was reinstalled by his own people, twice], not in an attempt to destroy the western world), is there anything wrong with Chavez?

Yes, he says alot of mean things about the US which isn't nice and he's a commi with the whole nationalizing the oil.

I've always wondered why it is moral to invade a country but immoral to assassinate the leaders who are threatening our interests. Honestly, the prohibition against assassination is only upheld by an Executive Order and could easily be repealed by another one legalizing assassination.


by that logic you will have no problem then with an iranian gunman dealing with Bush?

I've always wondered why it is moral to invade a country but immoral to assassinate the leaders who are threatening our interests. Honestly, the prohibition against assassination is only upheld by an Executive Order and could easily be repealed by another one legalizing assassination.
It's not immoral the only reason we don't do it is because we aren't very good at it.

Yes, he says alot of mean things about the US which isn't nice and he's a commi with the whole nationalizing the oil.

What the hell has happened to NSG while I was away? Why are people like this actually allowed in NSG? People who assume just because he's a socialist, he's the boogyman. "He says a lot of mean things about the US which isn't nice." No really... What the hell? You have to realize sonny... Politics aren't nice. And please, PLEASE use proper grammar.

Pure indifference for me.

I hold neither positive nor negative feelings for Hugo Chavez.

It's not immoral the only reason we don't do it is because we aren't very good at it.

We aren't good at it? WE AREN'T GOOD AT IT?!?! We've assassinated, what? About ten of our own presidents? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to get the actual number) I think we can assassinate someone elses president.

by that logic you will have no problem then with an iranian gunman dealing with Bush?

Yeah, because he's the leader of my country...it would be detrimental to the US and would weaken us temporarily. All that matters is that our interests are protected and the interests of our enemies worldwide are thwarted in order for us to retain economic stability and power projection.

Assassination is simply more convienent than invasion and costs nowhere near as much.

What the hell has happened to NSG while I was away? Why are people like this actually allowed in NSG? People who assume just because he's a socialist, he's the boogyman. "He says a lot of mean things about the US which isn't nice." No really... What the hell? You have to realize sonny... Politics aren't nice. And please, PLEASE use proper grammar.

No, in all seriousness his values are directly opposed to that of the US. He taking many power grabs and is dangerous with the way he controls the oil. I've heard reports that he allows terrorist organizations to operate inside his country while he allies himself with the likes of Iran and Castro. This is dangerous and threatens US interests. We have a say with what goes on in our hemisphere and he needs to be dealt with.

We aren't good at it? WE AREN'T GOOD AT IT?!?! We've assassinated, what? About ten of our own presidents? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to get the actual number) I think we can assassinate someone elses president.

We couldn't kill Saddam, Castro, or Chavez. We just aren't good at.

No, in all seriousness his values are directly opposed to that of the US. He taking many power grabs and is dangerous with the way he controls the oil. I've heard reports that he allows terrorist organizations to operate inside his country while he allies himself with the likes of Iran and Castro. This is dangerous and threatens US interests. We have a say with what goes on in our hemisphere and he needs to be dealt with.

Firstly, actually read my posts please. I have said MANY times that the only reason Chavez allies himself with Iran and Castro is to piss off the U.S. (Which, once again, was only because the U.S. ousted him from power twice, and his people got him back into power, twice.), not in order to threaten the U.S. And he's probably allying with Castro in an attempt to get Cuba back on the true Socialist track. Iran, MAYBE, MAYBE to form an oil monopoly (which I doubt). He only allies himself with the U.S.'s enemies in order to piss the U.S. off, nothing more, nothing less. And he does NOT allow terrorist organizations to operate inside his country. If he does, I want PROOF. Un-biased news stories, etc. And just because his values are different than the U.S. doesn't mean that he is necessarily an enemy. And he does not take power grabs. He already has his hands making Venezuela a good place to live (Which he is doing). He wouldn't risk wars. And, according to you, since we're the U.S., we get to decide which countries prosper, which leaders live, etc? Really man, what the hell? Also, he's in the southwestern hemisphere. We're in the northwestern. :p And finally, STOP ASSUMING WE ARE ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE U.S. ON HERE! Thank you.

Firstly, actually read my posts please. I have said MANY times that the only reason Chavez allies himself with Iran and Castro is to piss off the U.S. (Which, once again, was only because the U.S. ousted him from power twice, and his people got him back into power, twice.), not in order to threaten the U.S.
If you want to believe that to let you sleep at night fine. Keep in mind in a report released earlier this year the US listed Venezuela as well as Cuba as the 4th biggest threat to the US.


And he's probably allying with Castro in an attempt to get Cuba back on the true Socialist track.

ROFL, true socialist track please. What are you, a commi?


And he does NOT allow terrorist organizations to operate inside his country. If he does, I want PROOF. Un-biased news stories, etc.
show me where it says he doesnt because the US stop arm sales to him because he not doing enough to crackdown on terrorists in his country. This is a clear sign.
And, according to you, since we're the U.S., we get to decide which countries prosper, which leaders live, etc? Really man, what the hell? Also, he's in the southwestern hemisphere. We're in the northwestern. :p
er, the Monroe Doctrine says all countries in the western Hemisphere are in our sphere of influence, this includes Venezuela.

And finally, STOP ASSUMING WE ARE ALL SUPPORTERS OF THE U.S. ON HERE! Thank you
So you live in the US but you don't support it? You take advantage of what you have and don't give anything back. Nice, real nice.

Yeah, because he's the leader of my country...it would be detrimental to the US and would weaken us temporarily. All that matters is that our interests are protected and the interests of our enemies worldwide are thwarted in order for us to retain economic stability and power projection.

Assassination is simply more convienent than invasion and costs nowhere near as much.

so you dont extend the same freedoms to defend their interests to other countries?

is that not facism?

If you want to believe that to let you sleep at night fine. Keep in mind in a report released earlier this year the US listed Venezuela as well as Cuba as the 4th biggest threat to the US.



ROFL, true socialist track please. What are you, a commi?


show me where it says he doesnt because the US stop arm sales to him because he not doing enough to crackdown on terrorists in his country. This is a clear sign.

er, the Monroe Doctrine says all countries in the western Hemisphere are in our sphere of influence, this includes Venezuela.


So you live in the US but you don't support it? You take advantage of what you have and don't give anything back. Nice, real nice.

1. And where is that information coming from? The U.S. Of course the U.S. would label any powers that can possibly become more powerful than them as a threat, and thereby wish to destroy them before they can become more powerful than the U.S.

2. Democratic Socialist is a more appropriate term.

3. And why should we still listen to that piece of Imperialistic propaganda? All Monroe was trying to do was to get America to be able to control all countries within the western hemisphere. So if you support that, you are nothing more than an Imperialistic dog.

4. For the second time, GIVE ME PROOF that he supports terrorists ! I don't just want your word for it. I want PROOF!

5. I would move to Finland if I could, but I'm only 13.

1. And where is that information coming from? The U.S. Of course the U.S. would label any powers that can possibly become more powerful than them as a threat, and thereby wish to destroy them before they can become more powerful than the U.S.
lol at Venezuela becoming more powerful than the US anytime soon.

2. Democratic Socialist is a more appropriate term.
yeah, so commi

3. And why should we still listen to that piece of Imperialistic propaganda? All Monroe was trying to do was to get America to be able to control all countries within the western hemisphere. So if you support that, you are nothing more than an Imperialistic dog.
I'm a big fan of imperialism actually.

4. For the second time, GIVE ME PROOF that he supports terrorists ! I don't just want your word for it. I want PROOF!
Don't take my word for it, take the Governments
5. I would move to Finland if I could, but I'm only 13.
oh, right. Well have fun in finland when you can go

so you dont extend the same freedoms to defend their interests to other countries?

is that not facism?

No, it's just realpolitik. I really don't think we should give Iran or North Korea the power to pursue their interests freely because those interests are really detrimental to us and pretty much everyone else in the world; in many cases our interests are similar to those of other nations and we cooperate to advance our mutual interests for maximum benefit. And in many cases when they do conflict we can negotiate to work out our differences; violence is always the last option in international affairs because it can leave lasting scars and can hurt the interests of the aggressor in the long term.

When our interests conflict with other nations', we have to take actions necessary to protect ours even if it comes at their expense.

An economy 80% dependent on oil is going to collapse if oil prices take a steep drop like they did in 1986 or 1998; a fall in oil prices from $40 to $12 within a couple years is going to cause your oil revenues to plunge and.

Thats true, However the greater problem was that the oil revenue be it great or small was not circulating through Venezuelan society.




PDVSA was actually a very well run company that had been significantly reformed and modernized during the 1980's and 1990's; the engineers, management, geologists and rig operators were all experienced and many of them had experience working for international oil companies. Their only failure was that they didn't embrace Chavez and he sacked them to replace them with incompetent but ideologically sound cronies.

Oil production is down by 32% since Chavez took office and the Orinoco oil-shale project is in jeopardy. In fact, it's so bad that Venezuela has had to purchase Russian oil in order to meet its OPEC quotas several months a year.

See above.

lol at Venezuela becoming more powerful than the US anytime soon.

yeah, so commi

I'm a big fan of imperialism actually.


Don't take my word for it, take the Governments

oh, right. Well have fun in finland when you can go

1. You never know.

2. And? What's wrong with following Marxist ideals with a dash of Democracy?

3. Really then? Expect many enemies

4. Well, can you show me the government's word?

Soviestan grow a brain.

If he is a commie as you claim, he would be fundamentally oppsed to religious extremism, so wouldn't support al-quada.

the us dont like him and want him out, so why would they arm him and help him hold power? its that simple.

leave the thinking to the grown ups fox boy

Thats true, However the greater problem was that the oil revenue be it great or small was not circulating through Venezuelan society.

But how much of that was due to PDVSA and how much was due to corruption in the government and lack of taxation on oil companies?

I've always wondered why it is moral to invade a country but immoral to assassinate the leaders who are threatening our interests. Honestly, the prohibition against assassination is only upheld by an Executive Order and could easily be repealed by another one legalizing assassination.


And its that kind of mentality that buried Allende. I suppose you'd send the usual begging letter too.....

'Dear America help us. Our poor do not know what is good for them and think they have a right to something. Please assist us anglo-loving pro-Americans in dragging the trouble-makers from their beds in the dark of the night so we can help mold our country in the ways of freedom and democracy"

And? What's wrong with following Marxist ideals with a dash of Democracy?
The fact that they don't work, at all.

3. Really then? Expect many enemies
America will destroy her enemies where ever they are.
4. Well, can you show me the government's word?
look it up

And its that kind of mentality that buried Allende. I suppose you'd send the usual begging letter too.....

'Dear America help us. Our poor do not know what is good for them and think they have a right to something. Please assist us anglo-loving pro-Americans in dragging the trouble-makers from their beds in the dark of the night so we can help mold our country in the ways of freedom and democracy"

Why not? The Soviets did the same thing in Eastern Europe, Africa and South America all the time; if we didn't do it, we would have had another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest that could serve as an accessory to weakening American-backed regimes in the region. The risk to our interests made it necessary to put someone in power who was friendly to us rather than the USSR.

Either way, leaders are going to be killed and deposed in proxy wars between world powers. I would prefer that the leaders killed back the Soviets and the leaders installed back the US.

Soviestan grow a brain.

If he is a commie as you claim, he would be fundamentally oppsed to religious extremism, so wouldn't support al-quada.

the us dont like him and want him out, so why would they arm him and help him hold power? its that simple.

leave the thinking to the grown ups fox boy

you Grow a brain. He allies himself with Iran for christ's sake(a theocracy). What makes you think he wouldn't tolerate terrorist elements to operate within his country. The enemy of your enemy is your friend you know

Why not? The Soviets did the same thing in Eastern Europe, Africa and South America all the time; if we didn't do it, we would have had another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest that could serve as an accessory to weakening American-backed regimes in the region. The risk to our interests made it necessary to put someone in power who was friendly to us rather than the USSR.

"Friendly to us"? Didnt you imply you were Venezuelan?

"Friendly to us"? Didnt you imply you were Venezuelan?

No; I mean friendly to the US and its interests. I'm only looking at Venezuela from an external perspective; chances are, I would be in a lot of trouble if I were talking about assassinating Chavez in Venezuela.

The fact that they don't work, at all.


America will destroy her enemies where ever they are.

look it up

1. Russia wasn't following Marxist ideals. Neither was China or Cuba. Venezuela, on the other hand, is. And look what's happened. It's come from a third world country to a first world country (fourth time I've said that in this thread).

2. Misguided nationalism... Dear god...

3. No. I want YOU to prove it to ME. Not ME having to prove it to myself.

you Grow a brain. He allies himself with Iran for christ's sake(a theocracy). What makes you think he wouldn't tolerate terrorist elements to operate within his country. The enemy of your enemy is your friend you know

ONCE AGAIN! He is only allied for Iran for the sake of pissing off the U.S., NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS! (It's possible he's trying to create an oil monopoly, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that.)

Read my posts, PLEASE!

Everything good that's happening in Chile now is because Pinochet rebuilt their economy from the socialist shambles it had been before him.

Pinochet had, overall, a tremendous positive impact on his people.

socialist shambles? a democratically elected government wasn't in power long enough to have much effect before it was ousted in a US backed coup. If Pinochet was so great why are Chileans so determined to bring to trial? Yeah you're right he did have a impact on his people, they dispise him and his regime.

ONCE AGAIN! He is only allied for Iran for the sake of pissing off the U.S., NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS! (It's possible he's trying to create an oil monopoly, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that.)

Read my posts, PLEASE!

You know, typing in all caps and making it bold doesnt make what you say any more true.

1. Russia wasn't following Marxist ideals. Neither was China or Cuba. Venezuela, on the other hand, is. And look what's happened. It's come from a third world country to a first world country (fourth time I've said that in this thread).
They aren't close to being a 1st world country, where are you getting this from?


2. Misguided nationalism... Dear god...
theres no such thing as misguided nationalism

3. No. I want YOU to prove it to ME. Not ME having to prove it to myself.
:confused:

you Grow a brain. He allies himself with Iran for christ's sake(a theocracy). What makes you think he wouldn't tolerate terrorist elements to operate within his country. The enemy of your enemy is your friend you know

you are stating as a fact he is backing terrorists. prove it or stop.

as has been reapeated ad nauseum he met, no alliance as of yet btw, the iranian president as an act of defiance and support in face of obstinate neo-con aggression.

twice the CIA have failed in overthrowing him, i think his anti-bush rhetoric has been remarkably restrained in the circumstances.




theres no such thing as misguided nationalism

now i know you are a WUM or 14.

either too young or stupid to remember the balkans, rwanda, facism in the 30's etc.

go away, the adults are talking

No; I mean friendly to the US and its interests. I'm only looking at Venezuela from an external perspective; chances are, I would be in a lot of trouble if I were talking about assassinating Chavez in Venezuela.

So you're just a fat assed "gringo" wanting to beat them into line - you want a few rooms blocked off in fort benning for the death squads of Tommorrow. I'm not entirely sure thats a less morally reprehensible line to take than if you were Venzuelan asking for intervention.

What made you people the final arbiter of right and wrong and fit to decide the fate of a people, btw? I missed the divine announcement (drunk or up to no good at the time, no doubt).

You know, typing in all caps and making it bold doesnt make what you say any more true.

I'm only typing in all caps and bolding it because you are not listening to me. You may or may not have noticed, but Chavez only supports them verbally. He doesn't send aid. He just says he's allied with them. If he was really allied with them, he would be sending aid over. But he's not. It's obvious it's just a publicity stunt to piss of the U.S.

So you're just a fat assed "gringo" wanting to beat them into line - you want a few rooms blocked off in fort benning for the death squads of Tommorrow. I'm not entirely sure thats a less morally reprehensible line to take than if you were Venzuelan asking for intervention.

What made you people the final arbiter of right and wrong and fit to decide the fate of a people, btw? I missed the divine announcement (drunk or up to no good at the time, no doubt).

Right and wrong don't matter in international affairs. They're words that are wonderful for personal virtue but meaningless when it comes to power politics. All that matters is that your interests are the ones on top when the dust settles, and if you have to use force to achieve it then so be it.

After all, if we don't do it then someone else will, and that someone might be the last nation you want holding the dominant position in the region or the world.

They aren't close to being a 1st world country, where are you getting this from?


theres no such thing as misguided nationalism

:confused:

1. Lets see here. They are the LEADING Hispanic (excluding Spain) country in literacy, health care, education, etc. rates. They have the lowest poverty and unemployment rates of any Hispanic country (once again excluding Spain). I would think the leader of the Hispanic world would be a first world country, don't you think?

2. No such thing?!?! NO SUCH THING?!?! Look at the national socialists of 1930's and 40's era Germany. Their misguided nationalism led them to kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables". Look at the genocides happening in Africa. All because of misguided nationalism.

3. And what's to be confused about? I want to see if you actually had information supporting those facts when this debate started, and aren't just a pretensious asshole.

Why not? The Soviets did the same thing in Eastern Europe, Africa and South America all the time; if we didn't do it, we would have had another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest that could serve as an accessory to weakening American-backed regimes in the region. The risk to our interests made it necessary to put someone in power who was friendly to us rather than the USSR.

Either way, leaders are going to be killed and deposed in proxy wars between world powers. I would prefer that the leaders killed back the Soviets and the leaders installed back the US.that's a one sided twisting of the facts.

Eastern europe was liberated by the soviets from the Nazi's and they naturally put governments in place that were like their own. The USA and Britian did the same in western europe. The Soviets in their history only invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia against their will (Afgan socialist government asked for their intervention I believe) I've lost track of how many countries the USA has invaded.

"another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest"who the F*** gave the USA the right to have shere of influence?

What it comes down to is economics, which super power gets to control resources, it has nothing to do with liberty or democracy because the powers that be care nothing about that. Those are only fancy words to justify economic exploitation of third world countries.

now i know you are a WUM or 14.

either too young or stupid to remember the balkans, rwanda, facism in the 30's etc.

go away, the adults are talking

Nationalism is an ideology [1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief; above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, and that each nation is entitled to its own state. Nationalism also refers to the specific ideologies of various nationalist movements, which make cultural and political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history, since the nation-state has become the dominant form of state organization. Most of the world's population now lives in states which are, at least nominally, nation-states. Historians also use the term 'nationalism' to refer to this historical transition, and to the emergence of nationalist ideology and movements.- quoted from wiki.

As I said, nationalism is healthy.

that's a one sided twisting of the facts.

Eastern europe was liberated by the soviets from the Nazi's and they naturally put governments in place that were like their own. The USA and Britian did the same in western europe. The Soviets in their history only invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia against their will (Afgan socialist government asked for their intervention I believe) I've lost track of how many countries the USA has invaded.

"another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest"who the F*** gave the USA the right to have shere of influence?

What it comes down to is economics, which super power gets to control resources, it has nothing to do with liberty or democracy because the powers that be care nothing about that. Those are only fancy words to justify economic exploitation of third world countries.

just off the top of my head I can add Poland, finland, estonia, and latvia. Afganistan's "socialist" gov't came about due to a Soviet sponsored overthrow to create a puppet gov't that failed and needed Soviet military support.

So guess your "facts" aren't really complete. Shock.

1. Lets see here. They are the LEADING Hispanic (excluding Spain) country in literacy, health care, education, etc. rates. They have the lowest poverty and unemployment rates of any Hispanic country (once again excluding Spain). I would think the leader of the Hispanic world would be a first world country, don't you think?
er, no. 1st Spain is not hispanic. 2nd they can lead the latin world all they want they are still not part of the global north.

"another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest"who the F*** gave the USA the right to have sphere of influence?

No one did. But apparently, misguided nationalist and Imperialistic dogs like Soviestan believe someone did.

Nationalism is an ideology [1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief; above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, and that each nation is entitled to its own state. Nationalism also refers to the specific ideologies of various nationalist movements, which make cultural and political claims on behalf of specific nations. Nationalism has had an enormous influence upon world history, since the nation-state has become the dominant form of state organization. Most of the world's population now lives in states which are, at least nominally, nation-states. Historians also use the term 'nationalism' to refer to this historical transition, and to the emergence of nationalist ideology and movements.- quoted from wiki.

As I said, nationalism is healthy.

Yes, liberal guided nationalism is healthy, for the nation only. Misguided conservative nationalism is unhealthy for everyone. It causes wars, world wars some times.

that's a one sided twisting of the facts.

Eastern europe was liberated by the soviets from the Nazi's and they naturally put governments in place that were like their own. The USA and Britian did the same in western europe. The Soviets in their history only invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia against their will (Afgan socialist government asked for their intervention I believe) I've lost track of how many countries the USA has invaded.

That's right, the US and Soviets did the same things in their spheres of influence. Neither was more moral than the other; it all boiled down to who was the stronger economic and military power. I don't think the US was any more right or moral than the USSR, it's just that they are the superpower whose political and economic beliefs are closest to my own.

"another pro-Soviet regime in our sphere of interest"who the F*** gave the USA the right to have shere of influence?

We created it ourselves, much like the Soviets considered Eastern Europe and Asia their spheres of influence.

What it comes down to is economics, which super power gets to control resources, it has nothing to do with liberty or democracy because the powers that be care nothing about that. Those are only fancy words to justify economic exploitation of third world countries.

Everyone exploits the resource rich nations.

The key is to be the exploiter rather than the exploited. The US is rich in resources, but it has avoided exploitation because it is powerful and can resist it. China knows this, Russia knows this, and India knows this, and that's why they are working to transform their economies in to world superpowers instead of repositories of cheap labor and natural resources.

As I said, nationalism is healthy.

no shithead, you said there is no such thing as misguided nationalism.

and does nationalism in your world extend to the palesntinan people?

er, no. 1st Spain is not hispanic. 2nd they can lead the latin world all they want they are still not part of the global north.

Technically, Spain is a Hispanic country since their national language is Spanish. Secondly, if a country is leading an entire hemisphere of the world, I would think that it deserves toe be called a first world country.

We created it ourselves, much like the Soviets considered Eastern Europe and Asia their spheres of influence.

So you're saying we get to say who we get to control, even if those people don't agree with us?

No one did. But apparently, misguided nationalist and Imperialistic dogs like Soviestan believe someone did.

whoa, Im a dog now.

no shithead, you said there is no such thing as misguided nationalism.

and does nationalism in your world extend to the palesntinan people?

I think in his small little world of his, he thinks it means the same thing.

Technically, Spain is a Hispanic country since their national language is Spanish. Secondly, if a country is leading an entire hemisphere of the world, I would think that it deserves toe be called a first world country.

Well, technically, 1st world is the US and it's allies. 2nd world, was the USSR and it's allies. 3rd world were independant and/or undeveloped used for proxies.

whoa, Im a dog now.

I'll probably call you a pig, too. And also, I called you a dog long before that post. But Imperialistic dogs sounds better than Imperialistic pigs.

Technically, Spain is a Hispanic country since their national language is Spanish. Secondly, if a country is leading an entire hemisphere of the world, I would think that it deserves toe be called a first world country.

First world is an economic term (albeit a biased one since it originally only applied to Western capitalist nations); for example, Liechtenstein is a first world nation but hardly a world power or even a major force within Europe.

Venezuela is a regional power that is trying to become a world power by aligning itself with Iran.

just off the top of my head I can add Poland, finland, estonia, and latvia. Afganistan's "socialist" gov't came about due to a Soviet sponsored overthrow to create a puppet gov't that failed and needed Soviet military support.

So guess your "facts" aren't really complete. Shock.Poland was occupied as was needed becuase the Soviets knew the treaty with Germany was temporaray-Finland was an Axis power-estonia, latvia lithuania were liberated.
The afghan govt is no different that the USA and S Viet Nam.

Well, technically, 1st world is the US and it's allies. 2nd world, was the USSR and it's allies. 3rd world were independant and/or undeveloped used for proxies.

And do you know who decided what "First world" "Second world" and "Third world" countries were? The U.S. I perfer the U.N. designation of the said categories, which is based on literacy and the such rates.

no shithead, you said there is no such thing as misguided nationalism.

and does nationalism in your world extend to the palesntinan people?

Oh, now I'm a shithead. Funny cause I was dog a few posts ago and thought someone could think of something better. Now you have, thanks. And just a question, how the fuck did the Palestinians get into this conversation about Venezuela?

First world is an economic term (albeit a biased one since it originally only applied to Western capitalist nations); for example, Liechtenstein is a first world nation but hardly a world power or even a major force within Europe.

Venezuela is a regional power that is trying to become a world power by aligning itself with Iran.

Once more, only aligning itself with Iran to piss off the U.S.

Also, I hate the economic term. It's so biased. I perfer the term designated by the U.N., as stated in my above post.

So you're saying we get to say who we get to control, even if those people don't agree with us?

We're the most powerful, so yes. If they become powerful enough, they can carve out their own sphere of influence and try and undermine our power in the region; that's why Chavez is aligning himself with Iran and brokering energy deals with China. He wants to become the negotiating power for South America, and he's going to do what he has to do to achieve that.

Oh, now I'm a shithead. Funny cause I was dog a few posts ago and thought someone could think of something better. Now you have, thanks. And just a question, how the fuck did the Palestinians get into this conversation about Venezuela?

No idea about Palestine. And also, I think we've earned the right to call you "a dog" and "a shithead", since no matter what evidence we present to you, you still deny everything.

I'll probably call you a pig, too. And also, I called you a dog long before that post. But Imperialistic dogs sounds better than Imperialistic pigs.
Your funny, heres a cookie *pats naliitr on the head*

1. Lets see here. They are the LEADING Hispanic (excluding Spain) country in literacy, health care, education, etc. rates. They have the lowest poverty and unemployment rates of any Hispanic country (once again excluding Spain). I would think the leader of the Hispanic world would be a first world country, don't you think?

2. No such thing?!?! NO SUCH THING?!?! Look at the national socialists of 1930's and 40's era Germany. Their misguided nationalism led them to kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables". Look at the genocides happening in Africa. All because of misguided nationalism.

3. And what's to be confused about? I want to see if you actually had information supporting those facts when this debate started, and aren't just a pretensious asshole.in literacy I thought Cuba led the way 97% or something like that

We're the most powerful, so yes. If they become powerful enough, they can carve out their own sphere of influence and try and undermine our power in the region; that's why Chavez is aligning himself with Iran and brokering energy deals with China. He wants to become the negotiating power for South America, and he's going to do what he has to do to achieve that.

So what? The big kid on the block get to decided who gives him his lunch money every day? If Venezuela is trying to become the new big kid, yet with the little kids willingly standing by him, by all means, I will support them.

No idea about Palestine. And also, I think we've earned the right to call you "a dog" and "a shithead", since no matter what evidence we present to you, you still deny everything.

You haven't presented any evidence at all.

Your funny, heres a cookie *pats naliitr on the head*

I have to send out snazzy remarks ever so often, otherwise they will grow into one huge flame.

And do you know who decided what "First world" "Second world" and "Third world" countries were? The U.S. I perfer the U.N. designation of the said categories, which is based on literacy and the such rates.

Those terms were pretty much Cold War organizers; they're useless now except as a way of referring to the superregions of the Cold War Era.

HDI numbers are the best for overall well being. The UN numbers are best when measuring overall changes in wellbeing or economic conditions for people while terms like "developing world" are primarily economic in nature.

in literacy I thought Cuba led the way 97% or something like that

(pistt Cuba has lower unemployment than Venezuela too but I didnt want to burst his bubble, shhh)

in literacy I thought Cuba led the way 97% or something like that

No, that number is exaggerated. It's more like 80 something. Venezuela is in the low 90's.

You haven't presented any evidence at all.

To put it in a better way, no matter how much we prove your evidence is false, you still believe it is true.

Oh, now I'm a shithead. Funny cause I was dog a few posts ago and thought someone could think of something better. Now you have, thanks. And just a question, how the fuck did the Palestinians get into this conversation about Venezuela?

you said all nationalism is good. all nationalist groups are entitled to a nation. remember typing that?

but both isreali and palestinain nationalism cannot both be correct over the same plot of land. ditto the balkans, northern ireland, the kurds, the american indians.

qed, you are talking through your hoop.

so stop. you are polluting the internet with your childinsh k101 drivel

So what? The big kid on the block get to decided who gives him his lunch money every day? If Venezuela is trying to become the new big kid, yet with the little kids willingly standing by him, by all means, I will support them.

That's up to you. If you feel that Chavez's policies are the best, then by all means support him because it is beneficial to your interests and your worldview; honestly, you're no less moral or "right" then I am when it comes to international affairs because in the end the person who is right is the one who wins.

Remember, history is always written by the winner and moral judgements are always made by the winner. This is the first time since the Middle Ages that world power is not concentrated in Western hands.

You know, typing in all caps and making it bold doesnt make what you say any more true.

Its actually helpful though, as shrieking is so often lost in this medium.

I have to send out snazzy remarks ever so often, otherwise they will grow into one huge flame.

So by flaming me you prevent it from turning into a huge flame? I like the way you think cause its irrational, which makes me smile.

(pistt Cuba has lower unemployment than Venezuela too but I didnt want to burst his bubble, shhh)

Actually, there's been a substantial increase in Cuban unemployment in the past few years.

We're the most powerful, so yes. If they become powerful enough, they can carve out their own sphere of influence and try and undermine our power in the region; that's why Chavez is aligning himself with Iran and brokering energy deals with China. He wants to become the negotiating power for South America, and he's going to do what he has to do to achieve that.you just don't get it-you're really stuck on this imperialistic sphere of influence thing-people around the world are tired of that S***, they don't want a spere of influence. They want to be left alone, to develop their societies and economies as they want, not as the USA wants.

That's up to you. If you feel that Chavez's policies are the best, then by all means support him because it is beneficial to your interests and your worldview; honestly, you're no less moral or "right" then I am when it comes to international affairs because in the end the person who is right is the one who wins.

Remember, history is always written by the winner and moral judgements are always made by the winner. This is the first time since the Middle Ages that world power is not concentrated in Western hands.

True as hell man, true as hell.

So by flaming me you prevent it from turning into a huge flame? I like the way you think cause its irrational, which makes me smile.

No... I'm not flaming you. I'm sending out funny remarks, which may seem out of place, for the sake of keeping my cool so that I will NOT flame you.

you just don't get it-you're really stuck on this imperialistic sphere of influence thing-people around the world are tired of that S***, they don't want a spere of influence. They want to be left alone, to develop their societies and economies as they want, not as the USA wants.

But the U.S.A. simply does not understand that. They feel like the Romans felt, that they must decide what goes on the the world, that they are destined to control the world. And they actually believe it's for the better.

you just don't get it-you're really stuck on this imperialistic sphere of influence thing-people around the world are tired of that S***, they don't want a spere of influence. They want to be left alone, to develop their societies and economies as they want, not as the USA wants.

If we leave, China steps in instead. Or maybe Russia, or maybe Venezuela, or maybe anyone else who wants to build up their power. We have nothing to gain by abandoning our sphere of influence and nothing to lose by keeping it.

In fact, we have expanded our sphere to include the Middle East now that we have US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. If Iraq turns out stable or at least gets a pro-US dictator we will be in total control of the region's main oil producers.

(pistt Cuba has lower unemployment than Venezuela too but I didnt want to burst his bubble, shhh)

Yeah and I didn't add that Cubans as poor as they are have 100% medical coverage where as 44million americans have none.

No, that number is exaggerated. It's more like 80 something. Venezuela is in the low 90's.

So you deny evidence because it doesnt fit your world view which is what I thought. By the way literacy has little to do with being 1st world despite what the UN(which is nothing more than an organisation that allows small countries to oppress powerful countries) wants to believe. Being rich is what being 1st world is all about, and guess what my country is rich and I live comfortably here. Can't really say that about Venezuela.

But the U.S.A. simply does not understand that. They feel like the Romans felt, that they must decide what goes on the the world, that they are destined to control the world. And they actually believe it's for the better.

Its far better than the alternative.

If we leave, China steps in instead. Or maybe Russia, or maybe Venezuela, or maybe anyone else who wants to build up their power. We have nothing to gain by abandoning our sphere of influence and nothing to lose by keeping it.

In fact, we have expanded our sphere to include the Middle East now that we have US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. If Iraq turns out stable or at least gets a pro-US dictator we will be in total control of the region's main oil producers.

And then China, or Russian, or Venezuela will leave, opening up a space for a new world leader. And so on and so forth until we destroy ourselves.

And then China, or Russian, or Venezuela will leave, opening up a space for a new world leader. And so on and so forth until we destroy ourselves.

Every nation rises and falls. Some nations are better at managing the period after the decline than others, and they're the ones that avoid destruction. If the US isn't so lucky, then we should preserve our peak for as long as possible because we're not going to last for very long after it ends.

If we leave, China steps in instead. Or maybe Russia, or maybe Venezuela, or maybe anyone else who wants to build up their power. We have nothing to gain by abandoning our sphere of influence and nothing to lose by keeping it.

In fact, we have expanded our sphere to include the Middle East now that we have US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. If Iraq turns out stable or at least gets a pro-US dictator we will be in total control of the region's main oil producers.
yep. In fact these policies are vital in maintaining US hegemony and interests.

If we leave, China steps in instead. Or maybe Russia, or maybe Venezuela, or maybe anyone else who wants to build up their power. We have nothing to gain by abandoning our sphere of influence and nothing to lose by keeping it.

In fact, we have expanded our sphere to include the Middle East now that we have US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE. If Iraq turns out stable or at least gets a pro-US dictator we will be in total control of the region's main oil producers.american cold war paranoia-it's all based on economic greed you care nothing for the people of those regions so long as you have gas for your SUV's.

US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE-well done all dictatorships, Venezuela-democracy and you don't like them because they say screw you it's our resources and will do what we like with them.

So you deny evidence because it doesnt fit your world view which is what I thought. By the way literacy has little to do with being 1st world despite what the UN(which is nothing more than an organisation that allows small countries to oppress powerful countries) wants to believe. Being rich is what being 1st world is all about, and guess what my country is rich and I live comfortably here. Can't really say that about Venezuela.

Hey man, I'm just saying what I've been told. I trust what I've been told more than what I'm being told now. And what's wrong with the little kids being able to keep the big kids from beating the shit out of them? And America is rich? Really, WHERE IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION?!?! America has one of the largest debts in the world! You call that rich?! And along your line of thought, a country can be the richest in the world, yet have 0 literacy, 0 health care, 100 percent unemployment, 100 percent inflation, 100 poverty, 0 education, yet still be a first world country?

Every nation rises and falls. Some nations are better at managing the period after the decline than others, and they're the ones that avoid destruction. If the US isn't so lucky, then we should preserve our peak for as long as possible because we're not going to last for very long after it ends.

That's what Soviestan doesn't understand. The U.S. will eventually fall, like the rest of the world leaders.

american cold war paranoia-it's all based on economic greed you care nothing for the people of those regions so long as you have gas for your SUV's.

Yes, that's correct. It is beneficial to the US economy to maintain a stable flow of moderately priced oil and in order to preserve that benefit we need to keep the oil market stable through whatever means are necessary. After all, if we don't buy that oil then someone else will and they are going to be just as willing to keep it flowing as we are through whatever means possible.

US-friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE-well done all dictatorships, Venezuela-democracy and you don't like them because they say screw you it's our resources and will do what we like with them.

That's correct. Superpowers don't like nations challenging their hegemony, especially when those nations control such a vital resource.

Its far better than the alternative.

For the time being. Eventually, the U.S.A. will be come entirely like Rome, and they will attempt to conquer as much as they can get their hands on. Then the "barbarians" (metaphor for the middle east, South America, and Asia) will slowly crumble the American empire. And it will fall. And a new leader will rise. And it will fall. Then a new leader will rise. And it too will fall. And so on and so forth.

That's what Soviestan doesn't understand. The U.S. will eventually fall, like the rest of the world leaders.

And that's why our foreign policy is designed to continue our ascent and prevent a decline for as long as possible. We will not last forever; even the mighty British Empire, arguably the greatest empire and economic power in pre-US world history only had a run of 200 years before it was eclipsed by the newly powerful US, Germany, and USSR.

Actually, there's been a substantial increase in Cuban unemployment in the past few years.geez that wouldn't have anything to do with an embargo would it? China has government that has far far worse humanitarian record than Cuba and the hypocritical USA does immense business with them because there's a dollar to be made.

Don't point a finger at Cuba and say that their system is a failure, it's failure because the USA makes it so.

For the time being. Eventually, the U.S.A. will be come entirely like Rome, and they will attempt to conquer as much as they can get their hands on. Then the "barbarians" (metaphor for the middle east, South America, and Asia) will slowly crumble the American empire. And it will fall. And a new leader will rise. And it will fall. Then a new leader will rise. And it too will fall. And so on and so forth.

If we remain true to history, we may very well end up splitting in to two nations; the wealthy Byzantium and the crumbling, divided Western Empire. You might go even farther and compared the urbanized, wealthy blue states to the more rural, less populated and poorer red states for more historical similarity.

And that's why our foreign policy is designed to continue our ascent and prevent a decline for as long as possible. We will not last forever; even the mighty British Empire, arguably the greatest empire and economic power in pre-US world history only had a run of 200 years before it was eclipsed by the newly powerful US, Germany, and USSR.

But we will eventually fall. And it is primarily because we want to keep our throne. If we didn't crave the power of being the leader of the world, we would probably stay the leader of the world. That is really what ends all world leaders. They want to stay world leaders, and with that, people begin to consider them tyrannical, and therefore unite to collapse them.

Hey man, I'm just saying what I've been told. I trust what I've been told more than what I'm being told now. And what's wrong with the little kids being able to keep the big kids from beating the shit out of them? And America is rich? Really, WHERE IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION?!?! America has one of the largest debts in the world! You call that rich?! And along your line of thought, a country can be the richest in the world, yet have 0 literacy, 0 health care, 100 percent unemployment, 100 percent inflation, 100 poverty, 0 education, yet still be a first world country?

If you don't think the US is rich you may not be that bright. Seeing as the US has the highest GDP in the world. And if everyone lived in poverty and didn't work the country wouldn't be rich so your example is flawed.

And that's why our foreign policy is designed to continue our ascent and prevent a decline for as long as possible. We will not last forever; even the mighty British Empire, arguably the greatest empire and economic power in pre-US world history only had a run of 200 years before it was eclipsed by the newly powerful US, Germany, and USSR.

economically China and India will pass the US in 25-35 yrs.

And that's why our foreign policy is designed to continue our ascent and prevent a decline for as long as possible. We will not last forever; even the mighty British Empire, arguably the greatest empire and economic power in pre-US world history only had a run of 200 years before it was eclipsed by the newly powerful US, Germany, and USSR.

couldn't have said it better myself.

economically China and India will pass the US in 25-35 yrs.

probably 10-15 for China

For the time being. Eventually, the U.S.A. will be come entirely like Rome, and they will attempt to conquer as much as they can get their hands on. Then the "barbarians" (metaphor for the middle east, South America, and Asia) will slowly crumble the American empire. And it will fall. And a new leader will rise. And it will fall. Then a new leader will rise. And it too will fall. And so on and so forth.

Thats good we have another 600 or 700 years to look foward to. Especially with all the conquering we're doing-all the land we grab,the gold and riches,all the natural resources and slaves.

geez that wouldn't have anything to do with an embargo would it? China has government that has far far worse humanitarian record than Cuba and the hypocritical USA does immense business with them because there's a dollar to be made.

Don't point a finger at Cuba and say that their system is a failure, it's failure because the USA makes it so.

I never said their system was a failure. I simply said that their unemployment rates were high. I never said who caused it.

economically China and India will pass the US in 25-35 yrs.

In size, yes. However, they won't approach the US in terms of GDP per capita for much longer; there are still barriers to their approaching us in all economic terms that will take longer than 25-30 years to overcome. India and China today are at the same level as the US in the 1870's; growing rapidly and gaining ground but still behind the leaders like the UK or France.

The key for the US will be to work with the new powers rather than against them, because much of what is good for the US is good for India and China.

probably 10-15 for China

Why only 10-15 years for China?

If we remain true to history, we may very well end up splitting in to two nations; the wealthy Byzantium and the crumbling, divided Western Empire. You might go even farther and compared the urbanized, wealthy blue states to the more rural, less populated and poorer red states for more historical similarity.

I'd love to see that.

couldn't have said it better myself.

What the fuck? You disagree with me when I agree with him, but agree with him when he says it himself? Really man, get your beliefs straight.

Why only 10-15 years for China?

why not?

If you don't think the US is rich you may not be that bright. Seeing as the US has the highest GDP in the world. And if everyone lived in poverty and didn't work the country wouldn't be rich so your example is flawed.

So we have the highest GDP. And? We also have the highest debt of any country in the world. I think debt weighs much more heavily than GDP. And the example was for the sake of example. So answer the god damned question.

why not?

Maybe because with their military might they could simply take over economically strong countries?

I'd love to see that.

It would be an interesting world; China and India would be back in the positions of power they had in the Middle Ages along with Europe.

Unlike the Middle Ages, there is no New World to discover that will give Europe the advantages it had in the 16th century; the closest thing is space, but now everyone has the capability to reach and harvest the resources of that New World, and it truly becomes everyone's game.

So we have the highest GDP. And? We also have the highest debt of any country in the world. I think debt weighs much more heavily than GDP. And the example was for the sake of example. So answer the god damned question.
I don't mind debate but frankly your cursing offends me. You catch more bees with honey than anti-freeze you know.

Yes, that's correct. It is beneficial to the US economy to maintain a stable flow of moderately priced oil and in order to preserve that benefit we need to keep the oil market stable through whatever means are necessary. After all, if we don't buy that oil then someone else will and they are going to be just as willing to keep it flowing as we are through whatever means possible.

That's correct. Superpowers don't like nations challenging their hegemony, especially when those nations control such a vital resource.

finally-an admission that the USA is an Evil corporate entity that cares nothing about democracy and liberty for anyone but themselves.

I don't mind debate but frankly your cursing offends me. You catch more bees with honey than anti-freeze you know.

What? I said "god damned" in an attempt you get you to answer it, which I was sure you wouldn't if I asked politely. Now answer the god damned question. And please, respond to my remark about how debt weighs more than GDP, otherwise I will think you have simply abandoned that fight. Also resume the fight about true Marxist ideals. I don't like it when people simply drop a debate when it is unresolved.

finally-an admission that the USA is an Evil corporate entity that cares nothing about democracy and liberty for anyone but themselves.

The thing is most Americans don't care since they understand this is the only way to preserve their way of life.

finally-an admission that the USA is an Evil corporate entity that cares nothing about democracy and liberty for anyone but themselves.

It is essentially run by all the big corporations. That's why it's so corrupt.

The thing is most Americans don't care since they understand this is the only way to preserve their way of life.

Then maybe they should abandon their corrupt way of life? Maybe they should take up a virtous one, one where instead of trying to control other countries, they instead try to assist them, and that doesn't include sending military aid or "helping" them by taking over their country and installing a new government.

finally-an admission that the USA is an Evil corporate entity that cares nothing about democracy and liberty for anyone but themselves.

Good and evil are determined by the most powerful nation, religion, or society and applied to their actions according to their worldview. The US is "evil" according to people opposed to its interests and "good" according to those who support them.

Of course, I support US interests but I'm not naïve enough to believe we do things out of the goodness of our heart. Is democracy good? Yes. Is liberty good? Yes. Should we support these values when they are beneficial to our interests? Absolutely. However, in some cases that is not true and we have to ignore these values in order to preserve our interests. Even so, in most cases liberty and democracy are in line with US interests.

What? I said "god damned" in an attempt you get you to answer it, which I was sure you wouldn't if I asked politely. Now answer the god damned question. And please, respond to my remark about how debt weighs more than GDP, otherwise I will think you have simply abandoned that fight. Also resume the fight about true Marxist ideals. I don't like it when people simply drop a debate when it is unresolved.

God damn is offensive to Jesus which aint cool. Anyway debt has nothing to do with quality of life, per capita GDP does. We have high GDP, which means high standard of living. Debt just shows we import a lot of cheap things. This allows for people to have more money that they in turn put into the economy, helping it grow. A strong, growing economy with high GDP is a sign of wealth. Debt has nothing to do with it. As far Marxist ideals there's not much to debate about. They don't work and never lead to a better economy, quite the opposite.

God damn is offensive to Jesus which aint cool. Anyway debt has nothing to do with quality of life, per capita GDP does. We have high GDP, which means high standard of living. Debt just shows we import a lot of cheap things. This allows for people to have more money that they in turn put into the economy, helping it grow. A strong, growing economy with high GDP is a sign of wealth. Debt has nothing to do with it. As far Marxist ideals there's not much to debate about. They don't work and never lead to a better economy, quite the opposite.

This is a discussion about socialism, not religion. And if that debt accumulates, eventually the U.S. will have to answer for it. And where has all our money gone? Into "cheap imports". And what will happen when we have no money to pay the debt? People stop importing. We lose our GDP. We become a third world country. And in case you can't read, I said that Russia, China and Cuba are not true Marxist ideals. Venezuela is close, but still no cigar. We have never seen true Marxist ideals in action in government, so there is still really absolutely NO way to determine how it will help. Since governments that have gotten close to Marxist ideals simply grow, I have to assume that it helps more than it hurts.

Then maybe they should abandon their corrupt way of life? Maybe they should take up a virtous one, one where instead of trying to control other countries, they instead try to assist them, and that doesn't include sending military aid or "helping" them by taking over their country and installing a new government.

Nope, I will never abandon my corrupt way of life because guess what, I like my way of life. It gives me 3 squares a day, central air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water. among other things of course. So no, I keep the way I'm living at all costs.

Then maybe they should abandon their corrupt way of life? Maybe they should take up a virtous one, one where instead of trying to control other countries, they instead try to assist them, and that doesn't include sending military aid or "helping" them by taking over their country and installing a new government.

The problem is, if we do it there is no guarantee that anyone else will. We could, and probably should but it's highly unlikely that it will seriously affect the other 5.9 billion peoples' desire to live like us. After all, why should India and China give up their pursuit of our living standards because we decided to?

We've had easily 50 years of high-consumption living and Chindia has had 0; it seems monstrously unfair to them that they should have to conserve after we were able to waste as much as we wanted for half a century. They're going to keep on developing unless they decide to also cut back willingly, and who would do that when Western-style prosperity is achievable within the next 50 years?

Nope, I will never abandon my corrupt way of life because guess what, I like my way of life. It gives me 3 squares a day, central air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water. among other things of course. So no, I keep the way I'm living at all costs.

But what if we decide to help out other countries? Don't you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE they will decide to help us out too? So that we still get three square meals a day, air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water, among other things? And don't you think that our invasion of other countries to set up our perferred governments, for the sake of the corporations ability to get more money, maybe, JUST MAYBE will cause other governments to unite against us, toppling our government, taking away our three square meals a day, air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water, among other things?

This is a discussion about socialism, not religion. And if that debt accumulates, eventually the U.S. will have to answer for it. And where has all our money gone? Into "cheap imports". And what will happen when we have no money to pay the debt? People stop importing. We lose our GDP. We become a third world country. And in case you can't read, I said that Russia, China and Cuba are not true Marxist ideals. Venezuela is close, but still no cigar. We have never seen true Marxist ideals in action in government, so there is still really absolutely NO way to determine how it will help. Since governments that have gotten close to Marxist ideals simply grow, I have to assume that it helps more than it hurts.

We don't have to repay our debts. We are America, we will repay them if we feel like it. The US will never be a 3rd world country.

We don't have to repay our debts. We are America, we will repay them if we feel like it. The US will never be a 3rd world country.

Whoa whoa whoa. So you're saying just because we're America, we don't have to repay our debts? What the fuck man? Seriously! People will unite against us, and they WILL refuse to import to us until we repay our debts. They don't care if we're America or not. They still will refuse to keep our country alive.

But what if we decide to help out other countries? Don't you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE they will decide to help us out too? So that we still get three square meals a day, air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water, among other things? And don't you think that our invasion of other countries to set up our perferred governments, for the sake of the corporations ability to get more money, maybe, JUST MAYBE will cause other governments to unite against us, toppling our government, taking away our three square meals a day, air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water, among other things?
Countries generally don't like to help each other since they are selfish. Some dont like this I understand however this is how the world works, so no helping other countries will not protect our interests, just drain our resources. The government of the United States of America can not be toppled either from within or abroad. It just isn't going to happen.

Whoa whoa whoa. So you're saying just because we're America, we don't have to repay our debts? What the fuck man? Seriously! People will unite against us, and they WILL refuse to import to us until we repay our debts. They don't care if we're America or not. They still will refuse to keep our country alive.

We can do whatever we feel like, thats what comes with being the world's sole superpower. Anyone that unites against us will die, its as simple as that really.

Countries generally don't like to help each other since they are selfish. Some dont like this I understand however this is how the world works, so no helping other countries will not protect our interests, just drain our resources. The government of the United States of America can not be toppled either from within or abroad. It just isn't going to happen.

Yes. It. WILL. If countries refuse to import to us because our debt is so high, we will have very few resources.

We don't have to repay our debts. We are America, we will repay them if we feel like it. The US will never be a 3rd world country.

Your right in some regards. Why because more money can be printed to cover the debts. Of course that has a negative effect too. It is truly an interesting topic the national debt. I was worried about it when I was younger but as I advance in the business world I realize how it works. That is why I am not to worried about the national debt numbers. It is really a crock of shit if you really look at it. Maybe we can make a new posting on this and discuss it in length.

We can do whatever we feel like, thats what comes with being the world's sole superpower. Anyone that unites against us will die, its as simple as that really.

So you're saying that if all the countries who we have large amounts of debt to, China included, unite against us, invade us to force us to pay our debt back, we will complete destroy them all? Misguided fucking nationalism...

The problem is, if we do it there is no guarantee that anyone else will. We could, and probably should but it's highly unlikely that it will seriously affect the other 5.9 billion peoples' desire to live like us. After all, why should India and China give up their pursuit of our living standards because we decided to?

We've had easily 50 years of high-consumption living and Chindia has had 0; it seems monstrously unfair to them that they should have to conserve after we were able to waste as much as we wanted for half a century. They're going to keep on developing unless they decide to also cut back willingly, and who would do that when Western-style prosperity is achievable within the next 50 years?

valid point-of course they want what we have, unfortuntely the world cannot sustain that kind of development. Possible complete enviromental collapse in 50-100yrs, in the future we will all have to make due with much less that we have now. 9,10, 12 billion people? where the resources going to come from, oceans fisheries are already being strained to the limit, oil, it's not a renwable resource. At least it won't be my problem as I'll be dead.

Your right in some regards. Why because more money can be printed to cover the debts. Of course that has a negative effect too. It is truly an interesting topic the national debt. I was worried about it when I was younger but as I advance in the business world I realize how it works. That is why I am not to worried about the national debt numbers. It is really a crock of shit if you really look at it. Maybe we can make a new posting on this and discuss it in length.

The thing is, with more debt comes less value in our paper money. Giving someone paper money is like saying "Here. Take this piece of paper. It will repay my debt to you.". Eventually, people won't want our paper money any more. They will want our resources. We won't have any resources, so we won't be able to repay our debt, and therefore we will economically collapse.

So you're saying that if all the countries who we have large amounts of debt to, China included, unite against us, invade us to force us to pay our debt back, we will complete destroy them all? Misguided fucking nationalism...

There is no country or group of countries that could successfully invade the US, not even close.

There is no country or group of countries that could successfully invade the US, not even close.

Not even if half the world, including the most powerful countries, invaded the U.S., we would still successfully repel the invaders?

He's restricted the political and economic freedoms of his people,
Please explain. It is my understanding that prior to Chavez, the economic benefits were mostly enjoyed by the wealthy and that poverty was rampant under a dictatorial regime.

handed over the oil industry to incompetent cronies
The oil industry is now controlled by the state? GDP has increased significantly under Chavez?

and aligns himself with some of the most oppressive and backward regimes in the world, ones that are the enemy of freedom, religious acceptance, and personal liberty.
The US used to be the major supplier of armaments to the previous dictatorship of Venezuela, and refuse to assist Chavez in building his countries defenses. This caused Chavez to turn to other countries such as Spain and Russia for weapons.

It did not help the US cause when the US tried to overthrow Chavez?

Chavez is using these social programs as a "bread and circuses" diversion while he sets up the apparatus necessary for a dictatorship.
Purely your opinion?

Not even if half the world, including the most powerful countries, invaded the U.S., we would still successfully repel the invaders?

I hope you know I'm waiting for a response, Soviestan.

Meh, Chavez is a fuckhead.

/thread

I hope you know I'm waiting for a response, Soviestan.

er, yeah. The Atlantic and Pacific are good barriers

er, yeah. The Atlantic and Pacific are good barriers

Ever hear of ships? Planes? We aren't in the middle ages any more, you know.

Ever hear of ships? Planes? We aren't in the middle ages any more, you know.

China doesnt really have great ships or planes you know. And they are the only country we owe debt to that could challenge the US as far as the military.

China doesnt really have great ships or planes you know. And they are the only country we owe debt to that could challenge the US as far as the military.

They are? They don't? In case you forgot, we owe debt to almost every European country, who (If what you say is true about China, which I seriously doubt) have plenty of planes and ships. We owe debt to Canada, who is directly north of us. Don't forget the vast amount of Hispanic countries whom we owe debt to. They're directly connected to us by land.

They are? They don't? In case you forgot, we owe debt to almost every European country, who (If what you say is true about China, which I seriously doubt) have plenty of planes and ships. We owe debt to Canada, who is directly north of us. Don't forget the vast amount of Hispanic countries whom we owe debt to. They're directly connected to us by land.
come on man. The idea of Canada+ the latin countries beating us in a war is a joke.

come on man. The idea of Canada+ the latin countries beating us in a war is a joke.

Did you read what I said before Canada? Almost the entirety of Europe and China. Hell, I'm pretty sure even Canada and the Latin countries alone could beat us. You over estimate the American military too much. Stop watching over-patriotic biased news and get your real facts straight.

Response, please.

Venezuela is close, but still no cigar.

Venezuela is very far from even a "dictatorship of the proletariat" situation; quite simply, the working class does not have political power.

Right and wrong don't matter in international affairs. They're words that are wonderful for personal virtue but meaningless when it comes to power politics. All that matters is that your interests are the ones on top when the dust settles, and if you have to use force to achieve it then so be it.

After all, if we don't do it then someone else will, and that someone might be the last nation you want holding the dominant position in the region or the world.

Well seeing as the US has tended to equal death squads and rape squads for Latin America, I'd imagine that it and its coterie of right wing ,high-handed, hypocritical rat bastards are the last lot I'd want to see, were I in that particular region.

And seeing as its all about power...like we didnt know....could there be a phasing out of the "truth, freedom and democracy" crap from the speeches. Gets a bit too much betimes.

Nope, I will never abandon my corrupt way of life because guess what, I like my way of life. It gives me 3 squares a day, central air conditioning, high speed internet, and clean drinking water. among other things of course. So no, I keep the way I'm living at all costs.

You must realise there is nothing new about this platform. Of course, last time around, the Abolitionists were the cure for this particular worldview... this time, it might be the anti-globalists.

He is a great leader and he is definitely good for Venezuela.
Of course, to protect his people both from internal upheaval and foreign subjection, he must take actions that most of us in the developed world can not understand.