NationStates Jolt Archive

On January 1st, 1959, Che Guevara leads troops into Santa Clara, Havana is seized by revolutionary workers, while Fidel Castro leads soliders into Santiago De Cuba, seizing the Moncada Army Barracks without firing a shot — all 5,000 occupying soliders surrendering to the revolutionary movement. General Fulgencio Batista, a man who had murdered over 20,000 workers and peasants, flees Cuba, leading his supporters to Miami Flordia, while Cubans imprisoned and deported by Batista are welcomed back home. Construction begins on a new Cuban state — without any expression of socialism — but with a strong programme for establishing better workers and peasants rights, particularly agrarian reform. Cuba immediately establishes diplomatic relations with United States, the U.S. complies days later, on January 7th, 1959. U.S. Congressmen attack the newly formed Cuban government for trying and executing war criminals who ordered the murdering of 10 or more people during the war. Two U.S. Representatives (Porter and Powell) travel to Cuba and take up a defense of the public Cuban trial process and executions of war criminals.

On January 21st, speaking to a gathering of well over a million workers and peasants, Castro condemns the U.S. policy of financial support and political non interference with Batista and every other dictatorship around Latin America, while now attacking the new born Cuban revolution. Castro explains that the U.S. has started "A campaign against the people of Cuba, because they want to be free not just politically, but economically as well. A campaign against the people of Cuba, because they have become a dangerous example for all America. A campaign against the people of Cuba because they know we are going to call for cancellation of the onerous concessions that have been made to foreign monopolies, because they know electric rates are going to be lowered here, because they know that all the onerous concessions made by the dictatorship are going to be reviewed and canceled."

On February 2, 1959, a U.S. citizen, Allen Mayer, is arrested in an attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro. On February 7, the Cuban Republic reinstates Cuba's Constitution of 1940 (which had been discarded by Gen. Batista after his military coup in 1952). On the 13th, Fidel Castro becomes the Prime Minister after Jose Miro Cardona resigns.

On March 3, the Cuban government nationalizes the Cuban Telephone Company, an affiliate of ITT, and drastically reduces its enormous telephone rates. Two days later, former president Ramon Grau San Martin demands the U.S. military leave it's occupation of Cuba at the massive (116 sq. km) Guantanomo naval base. The U.S. government refuses to leave it's military base in Cuba, but writes Cuba a check to forcefully "lease" the land for $2,000 a year. The Cuban government has never cashed a single one of those checks. Throughout the rest of the month, the price of medicine in Cuba is drastically reduced, while the Urban Reform Law lowers all rents by 30 to 50 percent. On March 26, another assasination plot against Fidel Castro is uncovered, planned by Ernesto De la Fe (Batista's Information Minister) and Rolando Masferre (Autentico Senator), who led his private army to fight the Cuban guerilla's in 1958; fleeing Cuba by the end of the year for Florida.

On April 15-26, 1959, Prime Minister Fidel Castro travels to the United States on behalf of the new Cuban Republic, seeking to meet with U.S. President Eisenhower, but is refused, and permitted only a meeting with the vice president, Richard M. Nixon. After the meeting, Nixon reports to Eisenhower that while Fidel Castro may deny it, he is a Communist, saying things like "democracy is more than just a word", that there can be no democracy where there is hunger, unemployment and injustice. At the United Nations, Castro explains that Cuba will take an independent position. By May 2nd, with encouragement by liberal senators and the majority of the U.S. public who views Cuba's revolution as a positive step forward, the United States signs a Point Four agreement with Cuba offering technical cooperation in the development of Cuba's agrarian reform program.

On May 17, 1959, the Cuban government enacts its Agrarian Reform Law: distributing all farmlands over 1,000 acres to landless peasants and workers, and prohibiting foreign ownership of land — which had owned 75 percent of Cuba's most fertile land. The Cuban government buys all foreign owned land with 20 year fixed-term government bonds paying an annual interest rate of 4.5 percent (higher than most U.S. government bond rates at the time). Over 200,000 Cuban families own land for the first time in their lives as a result of the reform.

Opposition in the U.S. grows as a result, and on June 5, Sen. George Smathers (Democrat of Florida) proposes an amendment to reduce the Cuban sugar quota. Six days later, the U.S. government officially protests the terms of compensation given to U.S. companies for the Cuban land they had occupied. U.S. landowners object that compensation is being granted in accordance to tax assessment rates, explaining that those tax rates had not been adjusted for 30 or 40 years, and thus did not depict the current value of the land. For decades this had been of tremendous advantage to the foreign landowners — not having tax rates updated meant paying taxes in terms of values 30 or 40 years old; i.e. increasingly lower tax rates with each passing year. Despite this, the Cuban government negotiates with foreign landowners and reaches agreements with landowners in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, Spain and Sweden. U.S. landowners refuse to sitdown for any negotiations.

By July, 1959, the CIA puts out a contract on Fidel Castro's life, with the order that he be killed within a year. While Castro is aware of the assassination being orchestrated from the United States, he does not plan nor attempt reprisals, but continues to attempt to find peace between Cuba and the United States. On July, 16, President Urrutia resigns and Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado becomes president.

In August 10, at the behest of Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo and General Batista, Dominican Republic radio broadcasts counter-revolutionary demands to the Cuban people that they overthrow their government through the use of mass arson and murder. The counter-revolutionary attempt miserably fails on the ears of every Cuban who hears of it, with a last ditch effort on the 13th ending when a Dominican C-47 lands in Cuba with arms and ammunition is seized, bringing the weak attempt to a complete halt. On August 20, in order to help give electricity to more homes throughout Cuba (many Cuban people had never seen even a lightbulb), sales rates of the "Cuban Electric Company" monopoly (owned by the American Foreign Power Company) are reduced by 30 percent to make electricity more affordable.

Through October 11 to 21, three covert raids by U.S. military aircraft bomb Cuban sugar mills in Pinar del Rio and Camaguey provinces. Cuba begins efforts to purchase airplanes for its defense, looking first to Britain, who agrees to enter negotiations for sales. Britain quickly withdraws from the negotiations after the U.S. learns of them and advises Britain otherwise. On Oct. 21, an aircraft raid on Havana kills two people and wounds 45 civilians in the streets. The next day, in Las Villas province, a U.S. military aircraft strafes a train full of passengers. In response, Cubans form a popular militia. On October 25, Camilo Cienfuego, leader of the Cuban revolutionary army, is tragically lost in a mysterious plane crash.

In January, 1960, Cuba expropriates 70,000 acres of land held by U.S. sugar companies, who refused to sell the land at any price, in an attempt to make up for the lowered quota that is damaging the nation's economy. This land includes 35,000 acres held by the powerful United Fruit Co., which had attained over 270,000 acres of Cuban land at the time.

On January 12, U.S. government protests arrive in the form of U.S. military bombers camouflaged as counterrevolutionary Cuban aircraft. The bombers drop napalm bombs on oil refineries and the sugar cane fields of Cuba, burning 10 tons of sugar cane in Havana Province. On the 21st, four 100 pound bonds are dropped on Havana, causing extensive damage. On the 28th through the 29th, U.S. military aircraft bomb and severely wreck five sugar cane fields in Camaguey Province and three in Oriente Province.

Meanwhile, the majority of the U.S. population is still in love with the Cuban revolutionaries, and their heroic struggle. Both Castro and Guevara are seen as romantic freedom fighters who beat unthinkable odds to establish freedom. The U.S. people are completely unaware of the secret war their government is waging against the Cubans, and the U.S. government quietly begins a propaganda campaign to turn U.S. workers' opinions on their head.

On February 7, 1960, another air attack by covert U.S. military aircraft burns 30 tons of sugar cane and several sugar mills in Camaguey, as sabotage operations of sugar production and terrorism in urban areas continue. On February 13th the Cuban government, finds a nation not intimidated by U.S. economic threats and blockading, a nation that would would help Cuba recover from the extensive loss of life, and economic damage caused by U.S. bombings and terrorism. Soviet Deputy Prime Minister Anastas Mikoyan and Prime Minister Fidel Castro sign a trade agreement in which the Soviet Union agrees to purchase 5 million tons of sugar over a five-year period. The Soviet Union agrees to export to Cuba crude oil and petroleum products, as well as wheat, iron, fertilizers, and machinery. They also provide Cuba with a $100 million loan at 2.5 percent interest. Meanwhile, on February 18, U.S. pilot Robert Ellis Frost is killed when his aircraft is shot down while attacking a sugar mill in Matanzas province. On the 23rd, several more air attacks are launched against sugar mills in Las Villas and Matanzas provinces. The Cuban government reaches out to the United States for peaceful negotiations on the 29th, with the condition that the United States cease the bombing campaigns which the U.S. continues to publicly and privately deny during negotiations. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (a stockholder and longtime legal adviser for the United Fruit Company, whose land had been purchased as a result of the Agrarian Reform Law), refuses all attempts to negotiate peace.

In March, a $100 million loan, planned to be granted to Cuba by Western European banks, is canceled in response to U.S. threats. On March 4, the Coubre , a French freighter loaded with Belgian arms and ammunition, is blown up by a terrorist attack in Havana Harbor, killing over a hundred workers. On March 8, an air attack burns more sugar cane in Pinar del Rio. On March 17, 1960, President Eisenhower approves a covert action plan to actively overthrow the Cuban Republic, guided by the CIA (the director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, is the brother of the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. Allen also has ties to the United Fruit Company — he was once the president of the company). The plan begins with the creation of a military force, with the aim to invade and overthrow the Cuban government. In the meantime the plan calls for complete economic warfare: a termination of all sugar trade with Cuba, the end of all oil deliveries to Cuba, instructing all U.S. companies in Cuba to refuse to cooperate with the Cuban Government. Meanwhile, a continuation of the arms embargo through all means necessary and the campaign of terrorism will continue.

Although the U.S. invasion plan is top-secret, by April Foreign Minister Raul Roa Garcia learns that troops are being trained by the United States in Guatemala to invade Cuba. The Guatemalan government (which had been put into power by the CIA in June 1954, after the CIA overthrew the elected government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, who was a Socialist with a plan to nationalise much of the nation's land, including vast tracks owned by the United Fruit Company) lies about their involvement and severs all diplomatic relations with Cuba. On April 4, Cuba readies a plan to exporpriate all Cuban land held by the United Fruit company, while on the same day a U.S. military aircraft flying from the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo drops napalm bombs in the Oriente province.

On May 7, 1960, Cuba establishes normal diplomatic relations with Soviet Union, which had been severed after General Batista's coup in 1952. On May 17, the CIA creates Radio Swan in Florida with the help of those loyal to Batista, a radio station broadcasting U.S. propaganda to the Cuban people to rise up and overthrow their own government.

In June 7, when the first shipment of Soviet sold oil arrives, it finds not only that every oil refinery in Cuba is owned by the U.S. companies Esso, Texaco and the British Shell, but that the companies are unilaterally ordered by the U.S. government to refuse to process Soviet oil; while at the same time all U.S. oil sold to Cuba is terminated. This act completely paralyzes the Cuban economy, unable to generate energy. On June 27, the U.S. Congress begins to push through an amended Sugar Act, which calls to eliminate Cuba's sugar quota in whole. Taking the only open option to avert catastrophy, Cuba nationalizes the Texaco oil refinery on June 29, and the Esso and Shell oil refineries on July 1.

On July 3, 1960, the United States suspends trading sugar with Cuba through the Sugar Act, cutting off over 80 percent of Cuban exports to the United States, again crippling the Cuban economy. On July 5, Cuba attempts to recover from yet another staggering economic blow by nationalizing all U.S. businesses and commercial property. On the following day President Eisenhower cancels the 700,000 tons of sugar remaining in Cuba's quota for 1960, and threatens that military action against Cuba is imminent. On July 8, the Soviet Union announces that it will purchase the 700,000 tons of sugar cutoff by the U.S.; while Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev explains that the Soviet Union will protect Cuba from a U.S. invasion force. At the U.N. General Assembly, Cuba replies that in the event of a U.S. invasion, Cuba "could have no other course than to accept this assistance with gratitude." On July 23, China agrees to buy 500,000 tons of sugar from Cuba annually for five years, at the world market price.

In August 8, 1960, Cuba nationalises all remaining U.S. industrial and agrarian held land in Cuba. A week later, on August 16, the CIA unsuccessfully launches another effort to assassinate Fidel Castro. In this attempt, members of the U.S. mafia are recruited to kill Castro for the CIA. In September, John Roselli is recruited by the CIA, who in turn recruits Chicago Mafia boss Momo Salvatore Giancana and Santo Trafficante Jr.. Santo introduces the new group to "very active" Cubans in Florida who are eager to return to the days of their lucrative gambling, drugs, and prostitution businesses in Cuba.

In September, Cuban civilian militia mobilize for cleanup operations in the Escambray region of Las Villas Providence, against CIA funded counterrevolutionary groups operating there. The CIA groups are crushed by the civilian militia. On September 17, Cuba nationalizes all U.S. banks in Cuba (The First National Bank of Boston, First National City Bank of New York and Chase Manhattan). On September 19, Fidel Castro, attending the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, stays in Harlem, where he meets Malcolm X. On September 26, Premier Castro addresses the U.N. General Assembly. Returning to Cuba on the 28th, Castro addresses a mass rally at Revolution Plaza — when terrorists detonate four bombs intended for Castro. The attempt is unsuccessful, and Castro continues speaking, now proposing the creation of Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Czechoslovakia sends military arms to Cuba for protection, primarily antiaircraft batteries, with technicians accompanying them.

On October 7, 1960, the United Nations is again informed by Foreign Minister Raul Roa Garcia that the CIA is training counterrevolutionaries in Guatemala for an invasion of Cuba. The United States agressively denies the allegations and the United Nations again dismisses the claim. On October 8-10, weapons caches dropped from a U.S. military aircraft are seized in Escambray and over 100 counter-revolutionaries are arrested. On the 13th, the delegate of the Cuban Republic's council in Miami, Abelardo Leon Blanco, is severely beaten and terrorized in broad daylight. On October 19, the United States imposes a full trade and economic embargo on Cuba excepting food and medicine.

By this time, the Cuban government has converted former army barracks into over 10,000 new schools in both the cities and rural areas, a 200% increase in the number of Cuban schools for the past 20 years, achieved in a single year. On October 15, 1960, Cuba enacts a program of urban reform, guaranteeing every worker home ownership.

On October 31, Cuban Foreign Minister Raúl Roa, in an interview at the U.N. General Assembly, again reveals new information about a planned U.S. attack on Cuba, citing the training of Cuban exiles once loyal to Battista, now being indoctrinated and supplied by the U.S. military. U.S. President Eisenhower denies all. Four days previous, Eisenhower ordered the beginning of U-2 flights over Cuba to map out invasion plans. By this time Cuba has universally armed all of its workers, including women, for the defense of their country.

On November 13, nearly half of the entire Guatemalan army, led by over 120 officers, rebels against the government of Miguel Fuentes. The soldiers, partly in solidarity with Cuba's revolution, object to the U.S. government using their country for an invasion of Cuba. The Guatemalan government is not able to crush the soldiers rebellion, and appeals to the United States government for assistance. The U.S. government complies, thoroughly bombing the soldiers with B-26 bombers — piloted by Cuban exiles, whom the CIA is training for use against Cuba. To cover this action up, five days later President Eisenhower orders the U.S. Navy to Nicaragua and Guatemala to protect these countries from "Cuban aggression". On the 18th, the soon-to-be President Kennedy is briefed on plans for the invasion of Cuba.

On January 1, 1961, Cuba launches a National Literacy Campaign, which within the span of the year reduces the rate of illiteracy in Cuba from 25 percent to 3.9 percent — setting an unprecedented standard throughout the underdeveloped world. On January 2, 1961, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev lucidly tells a gathering at the Cuban embassy in Moscow: "Alarming news is coming from Cuba at present, news that the most aggressive American monopolists are preparing a direct attack on Cuba." A day later the United States severs diplomatic and consular relations with Cuba. On January 7-9, weapon caches dropped by U.S. planes in Pinar del Rio and Ecambray are again ceased. Days later, on the 14th, terrorists start a fire in the tobacco warehouses of Havana, causing severe damage.

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy is inaugurated as the president of the United States, defeating Richard Nixon with claims that he had not been tough enough on the world-wide spread of communism. Nixon had been the vice president of Eisenhower (the Supreme Allied Commander in Western Europe, during World War II), their administration lasting from 1953-1960. Together they encouraged the Red Scare, purging hundreds of people from the government and imprisoning thousands of people who were suspected of being affiliated with the Communist Party. Eisenhower had used the CIA to attack and overthrow the Iranian government in 1953 and in 1954 to overthrow the socialist government in Guatemala. In September of 1954, Eisenhower created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) to ensure the stability of capitalism in Southeast Asia. The administration had however signed a treaty agreeing not to attack China, and it's "only" involvement in the war in Indochina was to send weapons, supplies, and military strategists to the South Vietnamese (thereto supported militarily by the French). Kennedy had much more militaristic plans for communism, which was tearing asunder U.S. economic power throughout the world.

In February, for the first time Castro explains Socialism is being built in Cuba. Shortly thereafter, the CIA makes yet another attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Castro, this time poisoning Castro's favorite Cuban cigars with botulism, a toxin so potent that its fumes are strong enough to kill. Furthermore, Col. Sheffield Edwards of the CIA delivers capsules containing the same toxin to his Mafia contact Roselli, to have sent to Castro. Both attempts fail.

On March 11, terrorists destroy electrical plants in Havana, leaving a large part of Havana without electricity. Two days later, an oil refinery at the Santiago de Cuba port is attacked by terrorists.

On April 3rd, the U.S. State Department issues a White Paper on Cuba, explaining that Cuba is a Soviet satellite — dictating that if Cuba breaks off all ties with the Soviet Union the United States will aid such a "free" government; if Cuba chooses otherwise, the United States threatens that Cuba is "a clear and present danger to the authentic and autonomous revolution of the Americas." On April 7, the New York Times reports that "experts" have been training paramilitary groups for an invasion of Cuba in Guatemala, Florida and Louisiana.

On April 12, 1961, the Soviet Union ushers the world into a new era when Yury Gagarin becomes the first human being in space. On the same day, U.S. President Kennedy directly responds to the allegations leaked into the New York Times, saying: “First, I want to say that there will not be, under any conditions, an intervention in Cuba by the United States Armed Forces.”

In the early morning of April 14, 1961, a squadron of U.S. B-26 bombers camouflaged with Cuban insignias begin bombarding airports in Cuba in raids that would last for two days, destroying a large portion of the cuban airforce. Additional airstrikes to completely wipe out the air capabilities of Cuba are denied by Kennedy, to ensure the U.S. connection to the attacks remain secret, while world support already is begining to swing strongly in favor of Cuban defense. On April 16, shortly before midnight, U.S. frogmen land on Cuba's beaches in the Bay of Pigs and set up landing lights to guide the coming invasion.

The invasion is sprearheaded by Brigade 2506, a group of 1200 Cubans, trained under U.S. military direction, supplied with U.S. armament and support. The Brigade is commanded by CIA agent Grayston Lynch and CIA operative William Robertson. In addition to having destroyed most of the Cuban Air Force days earlier, the invasion plan is for aerial attacks to destroy roads and bridges, ensuring the Cubans could not reach the Bay of Pigs before the counterrevolutionary soldiers got a foothold. These air raids would be extended by CIA operatives who had already penetrated Cuba, ready to blow up several key bridges and roadways throughout Cuba. The overall victory condition was to be the creation of a new Cuban government under U.S. direction.

In the early morning of April 17, the 2506 Brigade split up into six battalions of about 200 soldiers each, and began deploying. Two battalions landed at Playa Girón and one at Playa Larga, but even deployment would deny them. Coral reefs were their first enemy, delaying the landing several hours until the boats could navigate around the coral, lest it breach their ships' hulls. Two war vessels sank 80 yards from the Cuban shore as a result of poor navigational ability, the crews were rescued but some heavy equipment (artillery, heavy war munitions, etc.) were lost.

Shortly before 3 a.m. on Monday morning, a civilian member of the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution spots the U.S. warships, just yards off the Cuban shores. Less than 20 minutes later, the entire Cuban government is informed about the invasion, and their response is immediate. Castro tirelessly coordinates defense of the island; first the civilian population is immediately alerted about the invasion: for the past months the Cuban government had begun an aggressive program of giving weapons to the entire Cuban population and training their people in basic military tactics to defend the island in case of invasion. Next, the remainder of the Cuban Air Force launches — within hours the outnumbered but daring Cubans achieve air superiority over the U.S. aircraft. The Cuban Air Force then flies over the U.S. invasion fleet, bombarding and sinking the fleet command vessel “Maropa” and the supply ship “Houston.” Cuban police hunt down and arrest CIA operatives before they can blow up any of their intended targets, and Cuban civilian and later military forces ferociously engage Brigade 2506.

Diplomatic matters for the United States began going very poorly, very quickly. U.S. involvement in the invasion of Cuba was a direct violation of Article 2 and Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as Articles 18 and 25 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, and Article 1 of the Rio Treaty.

On the day of the invasion, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk gives a press conference. “The American people are entitled to know whether we are intervening in Cuba or intend to do so in the future,” he said. “The answer to that question is no.” U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Stevenson, now made aware of the U.S. involvement in the invasion that he had been instructed to deny days earlier, breaks ranks and publicly urges the United States to stop the attack. Soviet ambassador to the United Nations Zorin respondes by making it clear that “Cuba is not alone today. Among her most sincere friends the Soviet Union is to be found.”

At 12:15, April 18, Kennedy receives a letter from Khrushchev: “It is a secret to no one that the armed bands invading this country were trained, equipped and armed in the United States of America. The planes which are bombing Cuban cities belong to the United States of America, the bombs they are dropping are being supplied by the American Government.... It is still not late to avoid the irreparable. The government of the USA still has the possibility of not allowing the flame of war ignited by interventions in Cuba to grow into an incomparable conflagration.... As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, there should be no mistake about our position: We will render the Cuban people and their government all necessary help to repel an armed attack on Cuba.”

Kennedy blinks.

All planned support by the U.S. Air Force is called off, and the 2506 Brigade is left stranded to fend for itself in Cuba. The battle was going poorly for the U.S. invaders, not able to gain an inch on the beach they had been deserted. In the face of utter defeat, Kennedy continues to maintain that the U.S. is not involved in the invasion. After two days of intense fighting, Kennedy momentarily reverses his previous decision with his stomach full of regret, and orders the U.S. Air Force to assist the invasion force in what way they can. Four American pilots are killed, shot down by people who months ago had known little more about the world than harvesting sugar.

On the same day, April 19, 2:30 p.m., 2506 Brigade commander Perez San Roman transmites a final radio message from Brigade 2506: “We have nothing left to fight with, “ San Roman said, his voice breaking, “how can you people [the U.S.] do this to us, our people, our country?” Around 200 soldiers are killed in the fighting, while 1000 others are captured as prisoners of war. Among the prisoners are men who had previously owned in Cuba 914,859 acres of land, seventy factories, five mines, two banks and 10 sugar mills.

In 72 hours, Cuba had won.

I thought I would use this article regarding the Bay of Pigs and Cuba to start a discussion regarding US state-sponsored terrorism in general, but specifically in Latin America against governments and individuals seen to be 'leftist', already is seems the same thing is happening with Chavez and the US -supported military/RCTV coup of Chavez's elected government for those few days.

Well, the purpose of those interventions aren´t that bad. Commies like Castro or Allende were a pain in the ass. Problem is that their succedors were even worse. Pinochet in Chile for example. Sometimes interventions turn out to be good, sometimes disastrous: Civil wars caused by terrorism, anarchy. USA should know their limits.

And Chavez isnt really a guy who´s going to let himself being whiped away by the USA. He´s too stubborn, too clever, too popular. Pig Bay didnt work out as well.

The US never managed to overthrow an eb1l c0mm13 government that didn't turn into a US puppet fascist dictatorship or a permanently unstable government.

Like Mossadegh. I remember trying to explain this to FAG.

does anyone think that maybe the real reason for the U.S. to at least act like its supporting anti-Chavez or anti-Castro "terrorists" is so that they are forced to become a dictatorship/police state, because the regime knows that that may be the only way it can survive?

You call it U.S. sponsored terrorism - i call it geopolitics as usual...

Yeah we all knew how good and grand the US was.

I thought I would use this article regarding the Bay of Pigs and Cuba to start a discussion regarding US state-sponsored terrorism in general, but specifically in Latin America against governments and individuals seen to be 'leftist', already is seems the same thing is happening with Chavez and the US -supported military/RCTV coup of Chavez's elected government for those few days.

A small fact often overlooked by Chavez wankers like yourself is that prior to becoming president Chavez spent time in jail for his role in a failed military coup against his elected predecessor but I guess coups are only bad when they're against leftists.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3517106.stm)

In February 1992, he led an attempt to overthrow the government of President Carlos Andres Perez amid growing anger at economic austerity measures.

The foundations for that failed coup had been laid a decade earlier, when Mr Chavez and a group of fellow military officers founded a secret movement named after the South American independence leader, Simon Bolivar.

The February revolt by members of the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement claimed 18 lives and left 60 injured before Mr Chavez gave himself up.

He was languishing in a military jail when his associates tried again to seize power nine months later.

That second coup attempt, in November 1992, was crushed as well.

Mr Chavez spent two years in prison before being granted a pardon. He then relaunched his party as the Movement of the Fifth Republic and made the transition from soldier to politician.

Wow... I didn't know we got that desperate. But I believed that Castro basicly busted every assassin before the CIA could even get far enough along to actually reach the trigger point.

TO THE OP WRITER:

Read this book:

Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson.

You would find it very enlightening.

I sure as hell did.

A small fact often overlooked by Chavez wankers like yourself is that prior to becoming president Chavez spent time in jail for his role in a failed military coup against his elected predecessor but I guess coups are only bad when they're against leftists.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3517106.stm)

Your ignoring the fact that the two main parties formed coalition government and their was effectively no viable opposition party to vote for, both were conservative reactionary groups and their alliance caused massive corruption, patronage and other illegal dealings with saw the upper class gain all the wealth from the oil and the Caracas slums became more abject than ever. It's hard to be a 'democratic' government as you put it when the patronage 'partyarchy' is the only voice in the country. Your also ignoring the fact that the people wanted the partyarchy out of power because it was later proved most of the judges were partisan and corrupt, as was all public service and cabinet. The coup were just an attempt to reform a political system which did not allow opposing views from the upper class oligopoly of (AD) and COPEI.

Once again, Chavez's popularity and support from the majority of the country has been distorted by the private media like RCTV, who were involved in the military coup and put in power that corporate giant. I mean seriously, when Carmona fled to (who guessed it, the home of latin american anti-socialist drug dealers and assorted scum) Miami he literally stole public money from safes in the Presidential Palace, is this the action of a democratic president. I suggest you watch this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE&mode=related&search=

Your ignoring the fact that the two main parties formed coalition government and their was effectively no viable opposition party to vote for, both were conservative reactionary groups and their alliance caused massive corruption, patronage and other illegal dealings with saw the upper class gain all the wealth from the oil and the Caracas slums became more abject than ever. It's hard to be a 'democratic' government as you put it when the patronage 'partyarchy' is the only voice in the country. Your also ignoring the fact that the people wanted the partyarchy out of power because it was later proved most of the judges were partisan and corrupt, as was all public service and cabinet. The coup were just an attempt to reform a political system which did not allow opposing views from the upper class oligopoly of (AD) and COPEI.

Once again, Chavez's popularity and support from the majority of the country has been distorted by the private media like RCTV, who were involved in the military coup and put in power that corporate giant. I mean seriously, when Carmona fled to (who guessed it, the home of latin american anti-socialist drug dealers and assorted scum) Miami he literally stole public money from safes in the Presidential Palace, is this the action of a democratic president. I suggest you watch this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE&mode=related&search=

So replacing a conservative government that suppressed dissent and siphoned off the national wealth with a leftist government that suppresses dissent and funnels the national wealth into sudsidising falwed economic programs that provide a short term "feel good" boost but are ultimately untenable in the long term is a good thing?

As usual the best course lies in the middle.

Chavez is no threat to the US or its interests and is mostly ignored by everyone but the extremists (from both sides) that infest the Internet. If the US really wanted Chavez gone I think we could could come up with something better than the aborted coup attmept a couple years ago, for which no evidence of direct American involement has yet to be presented anyway.

Nor is the Chavez the brave revolutionary Che/Castro wankers like you think he is. He's a tinpot little troll who is using his crackpot economic policies to win over short term support while he slowly dismantles all oppoision to his leadership. He may not be a dictator yet, and he may never be, but he is far from the romantic "hero" he seem to think he is.

. If the US really wanted Chavez gone I think we could could come up with something better than the aborted coup attmept a couple years ago, for which no evidence of direct American involement has yet to be presented anyway.


It has been, in detail.

And why is everybody a "wanker"? I don't recall anybody being abusive towards you.

How has Chavez 'suppressed dissent' exactly? The only thing he has done is refuse to renew the contract of RCTV, which the Supreme Court upheld, the reasoning he gave and that the courts upheld was that RCTV was involved in the military coup and encouraged military officers and troops to rebel against the elected Chavez government, they did it on live tv. They were also involved in using paid-up renegade military officers to seize the channel 8 (public television) station and shut it down, this is proven.

They also have treasonous links to the US in trying to bring down Chavez's elected government, accepting state department money etc. That Chavez is suppressing dissent is the big lie of the private media and reactionary interest, under previous right-wing governments the media was strictly censored and regulated by the state, but under Chavez their was complete freedom of the press, there is something like 9 private tv channels in Venezuela still and only one that Chavez uses for public addresses, channel 8. RCTV only didn't get it's contract renewed for illegal activities, you call it 'suppressing dissident' but what government in the world today would allow RCTV to go on if it happened in their country? None, again the hypocrisy.

You should watch this documentary to see the 'callibre' of the private media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE&mode=related&search=

Said documentary is one of the famed pieces of propaganda put out by the Chavez government. Fuck, AP, you're just like the Bushevik's, only for someone even more pathetic than Georgy-peorgy.

Said documentary is one of the famed pieces of propaganda put out by the Chavez government. Fuck, AP, you're just like the Bushevik's, only for someone even more pathetic than Georgy-peorgy.

Anyone with a brain knows Chavez is not a saint, but more pathetic than an incompetent fratboy who utterly bankrupted three companies his father gave to him to run and is now going for a fourpeat with one of the world's sole remaining superpowers?

Anyone with a brain knows Chavez is not a saint, but more pathetic than an incompetent fratboy who utterly bankrupted three companies his father gave to him to run and is now going for a fourpeat with one of the world's sole remaining superpowers?

:confused:

Anyone with a brain knows Chavez is not a saint, but more pathetic than an incompetent fratboy who utterly bankrupted three companies his father gave to him to run and is now going for a fourpeat with one of the world's sole remaining superpowers?

Except AP deeply and truthfully believes that Chavez is a goddam saint. He thinks he's some sort of Arthurian hero, fighting for truth, justice and all that jazz. Not the power-seeking caudillo that he actually is.

How has Chavez 'suppressed dissent' exactly? The only thing he has done is refuse to renew the contract of RCTV, which the Supreme Court upheld, the reasoning he gave and that the courts upheld was that RCTV was involved in the military coup and encouraged military officers and troops to rebel against the elected Chavez government, they did it on live tv. They were also involved in using paid-up renegade military officers to seize the channel 8 (public television) station and shut it down, this is proven.

They also have treasonous links to the US in trying to bring down Chavez's elected government, accepting state department money etc. That Chavez is suppressing dissent is the big lie of the private media and reactionary interest, under previous right-wing governments the media was strictly censored and regulated by the state, but under Chavez their was complete freedom of the press, there is something like 9 private tv channels in Venezuela still and only one that Chavez uses for public addresses, channel 8. RCTV only didn't get it's contract renewed for illegal activities, you call it 'suppressing dissident' but what government in the world today would allow RCTV to go on if it happened in their country? None, again the hypocrisy.

You should watch this documentary to see the 'callibre' of the private media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE&mode=related&search=

Chavez hasn't overtly moved to crush dissent, he doesn't have to, he's done an excellent job of manipulated the masses into blindly supporting him that the opposition is schattered and irreleveant. However, it's typically not a good sign when an elected leaderstarts ruling by decree and trying to overturn the constitutional term limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm). If George Bush attempted a similar move you''d one of the first on here complaining that he was trying to take power and crush dissent and yet you so quickly label others a hypocrite, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Also, let's not forget the firing of government employees who dared signa petition urging Chavez's recall. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/latin_america/venezuela/opposition.html) When this happened in America with the US Attorneys there was a massive outcry, do you feel the same way here?

As far as the current Venezuelan economy goes, there have been considerable short term gains made, primarily driven by high oil prices and increased government spending on "missions". What happens when oil prices receded, Venezuela's oil runs out, and the world economy moves away from petroleum? Since Venezuela has shown no interest in diversifying its economy, things get very bad, very fast. Venezuela's infrastructure is crumbling, the middle class isn't particualrly fond of Chavez or his socialist tinged policies, there are already rampant shortages of food and gas due to Chavez's state imposed price limits, and the most wealthy and talented will simply leave. Then Chvez is stuck with a country full of poor and unskilled people addicted to government hand outs he can no longer afford to lavish on them. Want to bet on how popular he is then?

Chavez certainly is no nefarious dictator, but he is very intelligent politician (though rather buffoonish and completely ignorant on economy realities) who knows how to buy support through populist policies and goood old fashioned propaganda. He does an excellent job of turning people's anger and dissatisfaction at their lives outward by blaming the US and "elite" for all their problems. You so eagerly bash American politicians for voicing their disagreement with Chavez and his policies but say nothing when he cavorts with dictators like Castro, voices support for Iran, and constantly accuses the US of trying to kill/overthrow/undermine him, usually with no evidence.

If you want to see hypocrisy try looking in a mirror.

Chavez hasn't overtly moved to crush dissent, he doesn't have to, he's done an excellent job of manipulated the masses into blindly supporting him that the opposition is schattered and irreleveant. However, it's typically not a good sign when an elected leaderstarts ruling by decree and trying to overturn the constitutional term limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm). If George Bush attempted a similar move you''d one of the first on here complaining that he was trying to take power and crush dissent and yet you so quickly label others a hypocrite, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Also, let's not forget the firing of government employees who dared signa petition urging Chavez's recall. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/latin_america/venezuela/opposition.html) When this happened in America with the US Attorneys there was a massive outcry, do you feel the same way here?

As far as the current Venezuelan economy goes, there have been considerable short term gains made, primarily driven by high oil prices and increased government spending on "missions". What happens when oil prices receded, Venezuela's oil runs out, and the world economy moves away from petroleum? Since Venezuela has shown no interest in diversifying its economy, things get very bad, very fast. Venezuela's infrastructure is crumbling, the middle class isn't particualrly fond of Chavez or his socialist tinged policies, there are already rampant shortages of food and gas due to Chavez's state imposed price limits, and the most wealthy and talented will simply leave. Then Chvez is stuck with a country full of poor and unskilled people addicted to government hand outs he can no longer afford to lavish on them. Want to bet on how popular he is then?

Chavez certainly is no nefarious dictator, but he is very intelligent politician (though rather buffoonish and completely ignorant on economy realities) who knows how to buy support through populist policies and goood old fashioned propaganda. He does an excellent job of turning people's anger and dissatisfaction at their lives outward by blaming the US and "elite" for all their problems. You so eagerly bash American politicians for voicing their disagreement with Chavez and his policies but say nothing when he cavorts with dictators like Castro, voices support for Iran, and constantly accuses the US of trying to kill/overthrow/undermine him, usually with no evidence.

If you want to see hypocrisy try looking in a mirror.

I'll give you a hint: AP is an Stalinist ideologue who clings to a bizarre and misshapen ideology out of some personal need to attach himself to the losing side in a struggle that is in its latter days. He does it to fill some pathetic void in his life, the type of void that most people fill with something sensible; like alcoholism.

Your still ignoring the fact that RCTV organized a military coup against Chavez, and those people you refer to are US puppet traitors who deserved to be sacked, when you start working for foreign powers, as RCTV and the 'opposition' do, you cross the line. Chavez is giving the oil revenue back to the people of Venezuela, how can you argue against that? You can't, you just say it's bad economics because you are trying to justify your own reactionism and upper class bias. You say the economic and infrastructure are crumbling, yet you can't prove it without bias sources. Venezuela needs a strong leader like Chavez instead of the corrupt mismanagement of the corporate cronies that dominated government before him, who lined their pockets with bribes and let the 80% lower class starve, the opposition are nothing but a joke, they don't even participate in parliament anymore because they can't accept the fact that Chavez got elected, so it's their fault for not participating. They have proven links to right-wing think-tanks in the US such as the Heritage Foundation, and receive funds from them and other nefarious sources, they are traitors. You people just can't accept the fact either that he got elected by the people, and that he represents them, not the greedy oil companies and elitist business minorities, who deserve nothing but tax. You say also that Chavez is anti-democratic, but in truth he is the most truly 'democratic' President the country has ever had. Democracy means political, economic power proportional to numbers, as in true egalitarianism. In Venezuala before Chavez's reforms all the private media channels only represented the top 20% of the population, the upper classes (note that a middle-class doesn't really exist in the country anymore).

Chavez is giving the oil revenue back to the people of Venezuela, how can you argue against that? You can't, you just say it's bad economics because you are trying to justify your own reactionism and upper class bias.
Look, how about we just keep economics out of it, pretend that the Venezuelan government could actually competently run PDVSA and just say that his judgement has been crap? Because firing the smart guys because they dared disagree with his politics wasn't particularly smart.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9410681
Oil industry sources say that Venezuela's total output has fallen to 2.3m b/d (though the government claims it is 3.2m b/d). That is mainly because of the shortcomings of PDVSA, which sacked most of its qualified staff after a two-month strike in 2002-03 and whose investment budget has been used as a cash-cow for social programmes by Mr Chávez.

You say the economic and infrastructure are crumbling, yet you can't prove it without bias sources.
Or, is it perhaps you that's biased?
http://209.85.12.227/1381/85/emo/shiftyeyes.gif

Venezuela's GINI coefficient - a standard measure of inequality - has actually gone up slightly (albeit an insignificant 1%) from 44.1 (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-353.html) in 2000 to 45 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm) in 2006. So, income inequality as based on this measure hasn't really changed - rather, its gone from right-wing elites to left-wing elites.

Yes - Chaves has spent to help the poor. Unfortunately, he's overseen disasterous amounts of inflation, averaging over 20% (http://www.economist.com/countries/Venezuela/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet) during the 2002-2006 period. This tends to be disasterous to the lower classes.

Well of course their will be a downturn because Chavez put his own people in, it's not like he had a choice, the oil board for one was stacked with corporate interests from the old regime, he couldn't possibly hope to carry out popular rebates and subsidies with bulwarks of reaction like them left standing. Once he can get his people technical experience combined with the right socialist outlook, the objectives can be met. You forget of course that he is making Venezuala a socialist state, reorganization is necessary, but you should know that government expenditure that prevent economic downturns, so using that oil revenue will keep inflation down.

Said documentary is one of the famed pieces of propaganda put out by the Chavez government. Fuck, AP, you're just like the Bushevik's, only for someone even more pathetic than Georgy-peorgy.


My bollocks it is. It was filmed by two Irish people who happened to be over there at the time. Its won mainstream awards all over, including 'world documentary'. Try reading up on what you're on about some time, rather than take the word of the last yank to mouth off about it.

My bollocks it is. It was filmed by two Irish people who happened to be over there at the time. Its won mainstream awards all over, including 'world documentary'. Try reading up on what you're on about some time, rather than take the word of the last yank to mouth off about it.

Exactly, I don't think it has any affiliation whatsoever with the government in it's production, other than being able to film Chavez in his daily stuff. It's won like tonnes of awards including the Cannes one for being unbias and good I believe.

Exactly, I don't think it has any affiliation whatsoever with the government in it's production, other than being able to film Chavez in his daily stuff. It's won like tonnes of awards including the Cannes one for being unbias and good I believe.

Correct.

*sighs*

The US has done some extremely bad things in its time. Chavez is no saint.

But none of us can do anything about it, so getting needlessly angry about it all is simply ludicrous. The bursts of impotent rage from both the extreme left and right here is a bit saddening, really.

And this, my friends, is why Darfur is in the shit.

So, income inequality as based on this measure hasn't really changed - rather, its gone from right-wing elites to left-wing elites.
Exactly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm

But nevermind, no matter how rich someone on the left wing is, by virtue of his or her political conviction they'll always be part of the downtrodden poor. It's got to do with Marx and all that...you can't possibly be against your class interests, so your interests actually determines your class. Hence why I'm a bourgeois pizza delivery boy.

You expect immediate results and for Chavez to fix the economic inequalities of Venezuala which were caused by years of impotent conservative rule in one night?

If only you would apply such standards to your own side, if only...

Much as I deplore the Castro and Chavez governments, I see no reason why we should meddle in their affairs. We should renew diplomatic ties to Cuba, drop the sanctions, trade with both, and just leave them alone.

A small fact often overlooked by Chavez wankers like yourself is that prior to becoming president Chavez spent time in jail for his role in a failed military coup against his elected predecessor but I guess coups are only bad when they're against leftists.

Well, a small fact overlooked by Chávez opponents is that he didn't do a coup attempt for the fun of it, but only after the "democratic" government violently repressed the Caracazo, killing more than 3000 of people in a few days.

Another small fact overlooked is that, while the population came massively in the streets to reclaim the power after the 2002 coup, none did during Chávez coup attempt - the only protests were to ask for Chávez release from jail.

Well, the purpose of those interventions aren´t that bad. Commies like Castro or Allende were a pain in the ass.

Who are you to decide that ? If some government decide that Bush is "a pain in the ass" (which, IMHO, he surely is, much more than Castro or Allende ever were), he's free to try to murder him or have him removed by force ?

Well, who does it right and who doesn't? I think there is a very easy way to determine that:

Just look at the numbers. How many people do leave a country each year and emigrate to some other country (and to which country do they go, that also has some meaning). Which countries have the need to imprison their people within their borders, else they leave for good? How many people risk their lifes each year, just to leave their country and start from scratch in a foreign and potentially hostile environement?

There you are. If a government is doing good, their people stay. If they are f***ing things up, people leave.

So replacing a conservative government that suppressed dissent and siphoned off the national wealth with a leftist government that suppresses dissent and funnels the national wealth into sudsidising falwed economic programs that provide a short term "feel good" boost but are ultimately untenable in the long term is a good thing?

First, Chávez doesn't suppress dissent. Then, the social programs are definitely not "flawed" (if suppressing analphabetism or enabling sick people to get cured, is "flawed" we just don't speak the same language).

But most of all, Chávez policies are long term policies. The whole "Siembra Pretoleo" plan is all about using oil money (money that they have now) to prepare the future (where there'll be no, or at least less, oil). Most of Chávez policies are focused on long term: education (that's definitely a long-term issue, especially in the XXIest century), heavy infrastructure (dam on the Orinoco, second bridge on the Orinoco, building train and metro lines, ...), bootstrapping a local agriculture (Venezuela imports more than 70% of its food), having a healthy population, ... all those focus on the long-term.

Chavez is no threat to the US or its interests and is mostly ignored by everyone but the extremists (from both sides) that infest the Internet.

He is a threat for the USA for two reasons. The first is that he has control over one of the largest oil supply of the world (probably the largest, according to recent studies). But the most important one is that he's breaking the TINA argument. The political right always end up by using the only argument they really have: "there is no alternative". Chávez is showing that there IS an alternative, and that this alternative leads to a much better life for the vast majority of the people. That's threatening the world-wide political right, and, by giving hope, it also encourages other people to revolt against neoliberalism. And you can see it in South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, ...), the Chávez vision ("Socialism of the XXIest century") is attracting more and more follower.

If the US really wanted Chavez gone I think we could could come up with something better than the aborted coup attmept a couple years ago, for which no evidence of direct American involement has yet to be presented anyway.

Oh, it has, more than once. Read the books of Eva Golinger, for example, full of declassified documents from the CIA, the NED and other related offices, and you'll see how deep was the USA involvement in the coup.

Except AP deeply and truthfully believes that Chavez is a goddam saint. He thinks he's some sort of Arthurian hero, fighting for truth, justice and all that jazz. Not the power-seeking caudillo that he actually is.

There is no saint in politics, and even in the rest of the world. Chávez is not perfect, he has flaws, I disagree with him on several things (the most important being his friendship with Iran). But that doesn't mean he didn't do any good, that he didn't improve deeply the living conditions of his population, and most important of all, that he wasn't the catalyst required to make the population start to take its destinity in its hands.

Chávez is trying something that was never tried for long: building a human, democratic, socialism. Several attempt existed before (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Sandinist Nicaragua, ...) but all of them collapsed quickly, not able to whistand the amount of attacks they received for the rest of the world.

Of course, this process, as any innovative process, is not flawless. But it's the most interesting and promising process of this beginning of century, and its great achievements far compensate its few flaws and mistakes.

Also remember that when Chavez was in prison their was a US plane chartered to render him before loyal military troops freed him.

George Washington counseled the nation to avoid foreign entanglements. I think Washington was a much wiser man than he's given credit for and definitely is one of the greater examples of what SHOULD have been done.

Ever since the United States has ignored his advice and gone on the "International Police Force" kick we've compromised our principles again and again. Some of the most embarassing and ethically dubious behavior this Government has ever engaged in as come as a direct result of that exact policy. (There are a few exceptions, yes. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind, but that's another issue.) Would we be sponsors of Government coup d'etats in Central America and Asia? No. Would we be stuck in wars and "police actions" that produce very little long term benefit? No.

I think Washington would have agreed that sometimes exceptions must be made. WWII and to a lesser extent WWI, would certainly qualify as examples when getting involved in foreign conflict is right and justifiable. The problem is that was the camel's nose in the tent and instead of going back to our original ideals we basically walked away from them and never looked back.

I think Washington would be quite disgusted with us right now.

George Washington counseled the nation to avoid foreign entanglements.

George Washington was right.

However, it's typically not a good sign when an elected leaderstarts ruling by decree and trying to overturn the constitutional term limits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm).

That is just utterly false. Chávez can "rule by decree" on a limited set of issues, for a limited time period, and not at all bypass the Constitution (which you should read, as it's probably the Constitution which has the greatest amount of protection of civil, political and social rights in the world). This "rule by decree" can still be undone by referendum (there is even a special, easier process to undo it that for normal laws).

For the "constitutional term limits", Chávez has absolutely no power to change or overturn them without the approval by a referendum. He said he'll do a referendum on the issue, but the ultimate word will be the one of the people.

I leave the other rubbish become I don't have much time, but the rest of your post is the same: half-truths, falsehood, broad exageration, ...

Venezuela's GINI coefficient - a standard measure of inequality - has actually gone up slightly (albeit an insignificant 1%) from 44.1 (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-353.html) in 2000 to 45 (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm) in 2006.

There is one big flaw in this: the Gini coefficient consider _incomes_, not what you can do with it. The availibility of many services (education and healthcare, mostly) for free improved _a lot_ the living conditions of the poorest, even if it didn't change their income. The same goes for Mercal, by providing low-price (around half-price) food, it increased a lot the purchasing power of the poorest (for whom food is a big share of income), even if the income didn't change much.

Look, how about we just keep economics out of it, pretend that the Venezuelan government could actually competently run PDVSA and just say that his judgement has been crap? Because firing the smart guys because they dared disagree with his politics wasn't particularly smart.

The day you'll understand that motives are more important than smartness, you would have done a huge progress. A moderately smart person trying to do his work seriously and fairly will be much, much better for the society than a very smart person just trying to twist everything for his own profit.

most of its qualified staff after a two-month strike in 2002-03

You know, in most countries, if you ever try to sabotage (because it was much more a sabotage than a strike, changing codes to prevent worker from entering the buildings, destroying and faslifying data, ...) the most important industry of the country, you would end up in jail. Chávez was nice enough to "just" fire them. And seeing how they behaved, it'ld prefer them to be less qualified, they would have been able to do less harm...

You should also remember that enormous (don't have the figure right now, but you can find it easily) sums of money "disappeared" from PDVSA accounts when those "qualified staff" runned the company.

Well, who does it right and who doesn't? I think there is a very easy way to determine that:

Just look at the numbers. How many people do leave a country each year and emigrate to some other country (and to which country do they go, that also has some meaning). Which countries have the need to imprison their people within their borders, else they leave for good? How many people risk their lifes each year, just to leave their country and start from scratch in a foreign and potentially hostile environement?

You're speaking of Cuba ? Actually, much more people flee from countries with right-wing, USA-friendly governments like Columbia or Mexico than from Cuba. And you should dig a bit more the "imprison their people within their borders", and you'll see it's... the USA which refuses the visas to Cuban citizen and forbid travel from/to it (so they are forced to use crap boats, which can then be used as a justification to attack Cuba...), even if Castro settled a deal with the USA for 10 000 visas each year.

My bollocks it is. It was filmed by two Irish people who happened to be over there at the time. Its won mainstream awards all over, including 'world documentary'. Try reading up on what you're on about some time, rather than take the word of the last yank to mouth off about it.

So he finally got The Revolution Will Not Be Televised? He kept posting that pos Venevision put out for a while there.

Also remember that when Chavez was in prison their was a US plane chartered to render him before loyal military troops freed him.

That, dearest, is crap. There was never a US "prison plane."

That, dearest, is crap. There was never a US "prison plane."

Radar sensors from the Venezuelian military are quite clear about it: a plane, coming from the USA, entered the Venezuelian space, with no authorization, flying towards the island on which Chávez was. We can only guess what it was doing, but the guess is pretty easy, isn't it ?

Radar sensors from the Venezuelian military are quite clear about it: a plane, coming from the USA, entered the Venezuelian space, with no authorization, flying towards the island on which Chávez was. We can only guess what it was doing, but the guess is pretty easy, isn't it ?

Returning from a drug run, most likely. Probably taking the back door into Colombia, through Venezuelan air space.

After all, that would be the sensible thing to do if I were a cartel transporter at the time. Venezuela was in turmoil, so who's going to care if my teeny-little prop job skirts Venezuelan air space?

The Coup plotters had plenty of airplanes, why didn't they take care of it themselves?

Returning from a drug run, most likely. Probably taking the back door into Colombia, through Venezuelan air space.

After all, that would be the sensible thing to do if I were a cartel transporter at the time. Venezuela was in turmoil, so who's going to care if my teeny-little prop job skirts Venezuelan air space?

Yes, sure, a drug dealer going towards a military island... indeed.

Edit: and of course, exactly when the coup was collapsing, not at any other time during the 47 hours of the coup, and of course, going backwards once Chávez was successfully rescued by the loyal forces. It's so obvious, sorry to not believe it...

The Coup plotters had plenty of airplanes, why didn't they take care of it themselves?

Because at this time, the coup plotters had nothing left. They were trying to save their own skin, more than anything, and knew the coup had collapsed. That was not on April 11 or even on April 12 when the golpists had the power, but on the 13th, once they were kicked from Miraflores by the people, and once the military started to obey to the legal vice-president, and not to them.

Originally I was thinking about the "socialist paradises" in eastern Europe, where they had to erect death-zones and things like the Berlin wall to keep their people inside. So I was not referring to Cuba, altough it also fits very good.

Well yes, the US also do their part to make the journey for would-be exilants from Cuba dangerous. Nevertheless, you must answer the question, why do people risk their lifes just to leave their country. If it is the Cubans or the US-Americans who make the journey risky does not matter in this context.

That was only the beggining of their exile....a harsh and untold period of torment in the blasted wilderness of Miami

Well yes, the US also do their part to make the journey for would-be exilants from Cuba dangerous. Nevertheless, you must answer the question, why do people risk their lifes just to leave their country. If it is the Cubans or the US-Americans who make the journey risky does not matter in this context.

For the same reason than people from Mexico or Columbia do it in USA, or people from Africa do it in Europe: because people tend to flee from third-world countries, even if it's risky. Even if it has a great healthcare system, Cuba is still a third-world country, and the 40-years blockade from the USA didn't do much to help them.

Much as I deplore the Castro and Chavez governments, I see no reason why we should meddle in their affairs.

Which is the backbone of my policy recommendation for confronting Chavez. His ability to maintain his popularity is due primarily to his use of rhetoric and show, not necessarily actual results and improvements in the lives of everyday people. He is a caudillo, and he knows it. He knows what he has to do to stay in his spot.

His first and most obvious game of show is the 'socialist' policies that he is putting into place. Policies that are, by and large, token. Mainly to put cameras in front of them for a little while, until the buzz wears off.

His second tack, though, is the "US is the bad guy" method, that has worked surprisingly well for him, given that his 'socialist' campaign is primarily funded by dollars coming from the US and its allies around the world, in the form of oil revenues. He rails about the evil US, claims that we're preparing to invade Venezuela, arms a "home guard" to fight off the American Marines, talks about how American ships are cruising off of the Venezuelan coast, scouting landing beaches, and so on and so on. He makes the Venezuelan people feel as if they are under imminent threat, when it is clear to nearly everyone else, they are not.

In fact, the most potent action the US could do to undermine the Chavez regime would be to remove that perception of threat from the eyes of the Venezuelan people. Take our hands off of Venezuela, start ignoring Chavez, don't respond to him, remove military assets from the area, open a period of détente with Cuba, extradite Carilles, and eventually have the process lead to the eventual lifting of the embargo, and generally foster a perception that we're being hands off in Latin America.

Only then can we undermine the most potent motivator for the broad Venezuelan center to continue to support Chavez. Remove the perception of external threat, and Chavez will find himself in an increasingly precarious domestic political situation. The people will realize that income inequality has not improved under Chavez, they will realize that his policies are inflationary which is absolutely horrible for the poor and destitute, and they will realize that he's filled the government with cronies who are only there for their own personal financial gain.

My model for this concept? George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans, leading up to the 2006 elections.

Because at this time, the coup plotters had nothing left. They were trying to save their own skin, more than anything, and knew the coup had collapsed. That was not on April 11 or even on April 12 when the golpists had the power, but on the 13th, once they were kicked from Miraflores by the people, and once the military started to obey to the legal vice-president, and not to them.

Then why not just cap his ass, right on the site? It wouldn't be too hard, physically, to do.

For the same reason than people from Mexico or Columbia do it in USA, or people from Africa do it in Europe: because people tend to flee from third-world countries, even if it's risky. Even if it has a great healthcare system, Cuba is still a third-world country, and the 40-years blockade from the USA didn't do much to help them.

Actually technically it's Second-World.

Which is the backbone of my policy recommendation for confronting Chavez. His ability to maintain his popularity is due primarily to his use of rhetoric and show, not necessarily actual results and improvements in the lives of everyday people. He is a caudillo, and he knows it. He knows what he has to do to stay in his spot.

His first and most obvious game of show is the 'socialist' policies that he is putting into place. Policies that are, by and large, token. Mainly to put cameras in front of them for a little while, until the buzz wears off.

His second tack, though, is the "US is the bad guy" method, that has worked surprisingly well for him, given that his 'socialist' campaign is primarily funded by dollars coming from the US and its allies around the world, in the form of oil revenues. He rails about the evil US, claims that we're preparing to invade Venezuela, arms a "home guard" to fight off the American Marines, talks about how American ships are cruising off of the Venezuelan coast, scouting landing beaches, and so on and so on. He makes the Venezuelan people feel as if they are under imminent threat, when it is clear to nearly everyone else, they are not.

In fact, the most potent action the US could do to undermine the Chavez regime would be to remove that perception of threat from the eyes of the Venezuelan people. Take our hands off of Venezuela, start ignoring Chavez, don't respond to him, remove military assets from the area, open a period of détente with Cuba, extradite Carilles, and eventually have the process lead to the eventual lifting of the embargo, and generally foster a perception that we're being hands off in Latin America.

Only then can we undermine the most potent motivator for the broad Venezuelan center to continue to support Chavez. Remove the perception of external threat, and Chavez will find himself in an increasingly precarious domestic political situation. The people will realize that income inequality has not improved under Chavez, they will realize that his policies are inflationary which is absolutely horrible for the poor and destitute, and they will realize that he's filled the government with cronies who are only there for their own personal financial gain.

My model for this concept? George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans, leading up to the 2006 elections.

If you actually had read the article I posted in the OP you'd know the threat is very real.

Chávez is trying something that was never tried for long: building a human, democratic, socialism. Several attempt existed before (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile, Sandinist Nicaragua, ...)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually technically it's Second-World.

Quite true, as the 'First World' states were the western democracies and their allies, the 'Second World' states were the East Bloc states and the 'Third World' were the non-aligned states. I'm fascinated that most people forget that that's where that term came from.

If you actually had read the article I posted in the OP you'd know the threat is very real.

No it isn't. The US has not actively sought to overthrow a Latin American government in two decades, and your OP is about an event that happened more than two of my liftetimes ago. How can that even be considered relevant?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I never knew that lining people up against a wall and summarily executing them for holding opposition beliefs was democratic or humane.

Yeah, I never knew that lining people up against a wall and summarily executing them for holding opposition beliefs was democratic or humane.

Hey, it was done in the name of "the people," right? ;)

Hey, it was done in the name of "the people," right? ;)

Of course! Jury trials are merely a bourgeois luxury! -Ernesto 'Che' Guevera

Of course! Jury trials are merely a bourgeois luxury! -Ernesto 'Che' Guevera

Right, I forgot. :p

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If you don't have any argument, shut up, but laughing stupidly doesn't make a point.

No it isn't. The US has not actively sought to overthrow a Latin American government in two decades, and your OP is about an event that happened more than two of my liftetimes ago. How can that even be considered relevant?

They didn't try to overthrow the cuban government, that's sure.

For other countries... maybe it was because, once they manage to remove the sandinists from power, there were only remaining, in Latin America, US-friendly, right-wing governments ? Of course, the US don't want to remove those, even if they are like Pinochet or if they drive their country to bankrupcy like in Argentina.

But as soon as a new leftish leader, like Chávez, is in power... things change. And you can see it very easily, by the enormous amount of money given by the USA to Chávez opposition, and all the others way of trying to remove him - including support to the coup.

No it isn't. The US has not actively sought to overthrow a Latin American government in two decades, and your OP is about an event that happened more than two of my liftetimes ago. How can that even be considered relevant?

Well that can only be true if we're being very "legal" about the phrase "actively sought to overthrow"........

Which is the backbone of my policy recommendation for confronting Chavez. His ability to maintain his popularity is due primarily to his use of rhetoric and show, not necessarily actual results and improvements in the lives of everyday people. He is a caudillo, and he knows it. He knows what he has to do to stay in his spot.

That's utterly false. Chávez supporters in Venezuela very rarely speak of the US threat when they explain why the support Chávez - they speak of Bario Adentro and the dozens of educational missions, of Mercal, of the new Constitution, of the first "train" line between Caracas and Los Teques (which they call a "metro"), of the power granted to the people through municipal councils, ...

Chávez didn't went from 56% (1998) to 63% (2006) by renting against USA, he had this constant and important increase of voices because he actually improved the life of the vast majority.

Yeah, I never knew that lining people up against a wall and summarily executing them for holding opposition beliefs was democratic or humane.

Spreading the lies invented by the CIA to justify its massive use of terrorism against a democratically elected government (and which, of course, accepted to resign once they were voted out, even if they were voted out only because people were sick of US-supported terror and gave up the struggle) doesn't make you any more believable.

Originally Posted by Kilobugya
For the same reason than people from Mexico or Columbia do it in USA, or people from Africa do it in Europe: because people tend to flee from third-world countries, even if it's risky. Even if it has a great healthcare system, Cuba is still a third-world country, and the 40-years blockade from the USA didn't do much to help them.

Well, just being a US-ally like Colombia doesn't mean, they are doing a good job for their people. And despite of the fence "guarding" the US from Mexico, immigrants there don't really risk their lives in a way Cubans do when setting off to Florida by rubber-boat.

So, you say, Cuba is still a "third world" (or "second world", as somebody noted) country. So I ask you, why is it still so? Eastern European countries ended communist rule, and see - they are growing a massive standard of living since then. Under communist rule, people wanted to flee from eastern Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, getting shot at the border. And nowadays? You see them as tourists in western Europe, not as refugees anymore.

Show me one - only one - "third world"-state, which had a stable, democratic rule with civil rights, personal and economic freedom (and no wars of course) for the last 25 years. You won't find one. Nations with such a government don't stay "third world" for long.

I'm confused. Are we talking about Cesar Chavez or who? I thought he had died.

Speak the truth Kilobugya, well done.

Spreading the lies invented by the CIA

That's really all you've got, isn't it?

to justify its massive use of terrorism

Which both the contras and the Sandinistas were guilty of.

doesn't make you any more believable.

You're not one to talk when it comes to "believability," bucko.

No it isn't. The US has not actively sought to overthrow a Latin American government in two decades, and your OP is about an event that happened more than two of my liftetimes ago. How can that even be considered relevant?

Well let's see - there was Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama...

Arab Maghreb Union, you have little credibility considering the sources you use to backup your farcical claims.

Arab Maghreb Union, you have little credibility considering the sources you use to backup your farcical claims.

Andaras Prime, you have little credibility considering the sources you use to back up your claims.

Spreading the lies invented by the CIA to justify its massive use of terrorism against a democratically elected government (and which, of course, accepted to resign once they were voted out, even if they were voted out only because people were sick of US-supported terror and gave up the struggle) doesn't make you any more believable.

Oh, stop being facetious, you and I both know that the Sandinistas, as well as their Contra opponents both aggressively used terrorism and fear as methods to gain and secure control. They were little more than rural fascists, who claimed to be leftists: A situation that seems to be shockingly common in Latin America.

Oh, stop being facetious, you and I both know that the Sandinistas, as well as their Contra opponents both aggressively used terrorism and fear as methods to gain and secure control. They were little more than rural fascists, who claimed to be leftists: A situation that seems to be shockingly common in Latin America.


Who was it the Sandinistas were formed in opposition to? Julie Andrews?

They didn't try to overthrow the cuban government, that's sure.

For other countries... maybe it was because, once they manage to remove the sandinists from power, there were only remaining, in Latin America, US-friendly, right-wing governments ? Of course, the US don't want to remove those, even if they are like Pinochet or if they drive their country to bankrupcy like in Argentina.

But as soon as a new leftish leader, like Chávez, is in power... things change. And you can see it very easily, by the enormous amount of money given by the USA to Chávez opposition, and all the others way of trying to remove him - including support to the coup.

Or maybe it's because the US only carried out its actions out of fear of the spread of Soviet influence in the region (see: Cuban Missile Crisis, the single most important event in Latin American politics since 1905 in the American view), and once that threat had been totally removed, we stopped caring.

Take my word for it, there are plenty of leftists in Latin America these days, Morales, Lulu, Bachelet and Garcia, just to name a few. They're all totally fine.

Furthermore, Chavez uses the US as a bogeyman all the time, and you cannot deny it. He holds mock trials of the American leadership, where he himself plays the role of a witness. He goes before the UN and basically advertises that useless little waste of paper by Chomsky. He has spoken of, in several key addresses, the threat of American warships off of the Venezuelan coast, preparing to invade. His weapons purchases are geared towards either arming the Venezuelan military or developing an organization amongst the Venezuelan populace akin to the Fedayeen Saddam.

You cannot tell me that Chavez routinely uses the US as a bogeyman, to scare his people into line. I should know these tactics well, my President uses them too.

Who was it the Sandinistas were formed in opposition to? Julie Andrews?

Listen, the argument was made that the Sandinistas formed a democratic and humane government. It's a simple fact that such is not true in the slightest. That Somoza was a douche is entirely irrelevant to this.

Listen, the argument was made that the Sandinistas formed a democratic and humane government. It's a simple fact that such is not true in the slightest. That Somoza was a douche is entirely irrelevant to this.


While saints they weren't, this
Oh, stop being facetious, you and I both know that the Sandinistas, as well as their Contra opponents both aggressively used terrorism and fear as methods to gain and secure control. They were little more than rural fascists, who claimed to be leftists: A situation that seems to be shockingly common in Latin America
still rather misrepresents the situation.

While saints they weren't, this

still rather misrepresents the situation.

Not in the slightest. It's an accurate depiction of Nicaraugua while two factions equally prone to the use of terrorism fought a bloody and violent civil war.

Not in the slightest. It's an accurate depiction of Nicaraugua while two factions equally prone to the use of terrorism fought a bloody and violent civil war.


Firstly it fails to acknowledge that the Sandnista movement orginally rose to oppose a brutal puppet regime, not to seize power for the fun of it. They held legitimate Elections in 1984, were defeated in 1990, left more able to read and write than not, with access for the population to something resembling healthcare. Much of the allegations against them were discredited by both HRW and Amnesty. The contras are/were a group of foreign backed dissidents with little popular support with the country itself. No comparison whatsover, at all, in the least.

Theres no doubt that excesses and atrocities took place, as they do in all armed conflict, but to place them in the same bracket as the product of the "Nun Raper" school of US policy such as the contras is unsustainable.

Another round of this, with both sides missing the target more than hitting it, and using the same old arguments than in 2002.

I just have a question, if our goverment is so good, why it needs so much propaganda all the time? I mean, I have been in other countries, and I haven't seen any goverment that makes so big efforts to convince the people they are doing the right things as here in Venezuela. I mean, they shouldn't need words and huge posters if their actions are so good, don't you think?

"CHÁVEZ WORK FOR YOU!"

"CHÁVEZ IS THE BEST FOR OUR PEOPLE!"

"THE REVOLUTION ADVANCES TOWARDS A BETTER VENEZUELA!"

With big pictures of the president hugging kids and giving favours to the poor, all the time in each highway, in each street. With messages in TV, radio and the movies. With big ads in the press. I am not just wondering the assload of money that costs to the venezuelan goverment, (and to us the taxpayers, of course), I am wondering why, if they are doing such a good job, we need so much propaganda and indoctrination. Looks like Chávez is always running for president by the amount of propaganda his regime spawns.

I don't know, looks like a mix of that Nationstates issue about public speakers, a Maoist China policy, and a chapter of 1984. You need to be here to realize that.

I just have a question, if our goverment is so good, why it needs so much propaganda all the time? I mean, I have been in other countries, and I haven't seen any goverment that makes so big efforts to convince the people they are doing the right things as here in Venezuela. I mean, they shouldn't need words and huge posters if their actions are so good, don't you think?



Are those countries as "split" as Venezuela?
Are they subject to hostile attention from the US?
Are you lack of sophistication/subtelty for what goes on in many countries?

Are those countries as "split" as Venezuela?
Are they subject to hostile attention from the US?
Are you lack of sophistication/subtelty for what goes on in many countries?

No, I am not quite sure they are as split as Venezuela right now, although most have two marked tendencies of "left" and right". Like Spain, for example, with the left wing PSOE and the right wing PP, or Mexico, or Argentina, who has also gaps between right and left parties.

"Hostile" attention. Well, I haven't seen the US so hostile. I guess they tried to take advantage of the situation in 2002, but right now, I see the Bush administration happily buying our oil and just complaining a bit. The US was hostile towards Irak, not towards Venezuela. I see the US regime more occupied with other countries, and being more hotile towards others, as Cuba. I would consider the US hostile against us when I see either an embargo, or a military action.

I do not understand what do you mean with your last question, although. My education says I have sensibility towards subtlety, but that's about it.

I do not understand what do you mean with your last question, although. My education says I have sensibility towards subtlety, but that's about it.


My apologies, I phrased that badly...fucking terribly in fact

Are you mistaking the lack of sophistication/subtelty (in Chavez' PR) for a "different" phenomena than what happens in other countries, albeit with far more polish?

My apologies, I phrased that badly...fucking terribly in fact

Are you mistaking the lack of sophistication/subtelty (in Chavez' PR) for a "different" phenomena than what happens in other countries, albeit with far more polish?

Could be, although I stand by my perception. I do not object that as any other person in this planet, I depend on my own perception of things, that could be either biased or mistaken. Yet I stand by my argument, given the fact that even more, the delicate situation in Venezuela requires a more subtle and polished view than in any countries less polarized than ours.

I object the militarist propaganda in the United States, for example, as much as I do object the extraordinary amount of political propaganda that fills our streets, our media and our lives in Venezuela. I haven't see that amount of propaganda in any other country,. By references, not even in China you see such displays, although you do in North Korea. Then again, I haven't been in China or North Korea, I just met people who has been there.

I have been in Cuba, although, and not even there they have so much propaganda as us. In my opinion, our goverment is trying to convince us, through a dedicate media effort, that they are doing things right, said effort being payed by the state. If they are truly doing things right, they do not need to repeat that so many times everywhere.

As I said before, I agree with several, even most, of the socialist policies done by our current goverment, because this country need many advances in the reduction of the inequality. However, some of those policies are applied in a pretty inept way, and others are just wrong. One of the first things this goverment need, is to learn to accept criticism, I can't see how they can improve if they cannot accept that they, from time to time, make horrible mistakes. And by they, I mean specially Hugo Chávez, our president. He has become proud, and right now he hardly accept critics in any form.

Or maybe it's because the US only carried out its actions out of fear of the spread of Soviet influence in the region (see: Cuban Missile Crisis, the single most important event in Latin American politics since 1905 in the American view), and once that threat had been totally removed, we stopped caring.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of the failed Bay of Pigs coup attempt. Castro called the Kremlin for military backup in the wake of the event and the Russians decided it would be peachy to give him a bunch of nuclear missiles instead. Historically speaking, the United States brought the Missile Crisis upon itself.

You cannot tell me that Chavez routinely uses the US as a bogeyman, to scare his people into line. I should know these tactics well, my President uses them too.

And given the United States' habit of regime change when it suits their purpose against countries without nuclear weapons, Chavez's spooky stories unfortunately has a lot more bite than Dear Leader's.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of the failed Bay of Pigs coup attempt. Castro called the Kremlin for military backup in the wake of the event and the Russians decided it would be peachy to give him a bunch of nuclear missiles instead. Historically speaking, the United States brought the Missile Crisis upon itself.

It may have been in response to American actions, but it was far from the warranted response. Castro should have realized that once Bay of Pigs failed, the US would not longer attempt to hit Cuba in an overt manner, rather, opting for the usual covert actions that both sides constantly undertook during that amoral conflict known as the Cold War.

Furthermore, had the USSR carried out the deployment of nuclear missiles in an open and transparent fashion, it would not have caused so much concern within the American government. As it is, the USSR used transports disguised as merchant ships to deploy the missiles to Cuba, then kept them fairly well hidden. To an American analyst steeped in the rhetoric and attitude of the time, the deployment would look an awful lot like preparations for a massive surprise attack. The Russians should have realized this, and taken this into account. Had they done so, those thirteen days in October would have been a far less harrowing experience for all involved.


And given the United States' habit of regime change when it suits their purpose against countries without nuclear weapons, Chavez's spooky stories unfortunately has a lot more bite than Dear Leader's.

I continue to maintain that an apt comparison between Bush/terrorism and Chavez/US exists, and that Chavez will be able to maintain his illusion of threat for an extended period of time because he is not caught up in any protracted and painful foreign entanglements.

I believe Chavez has learned an awful lot from the successes and failures of the Bush administration, and will be able to carry on far more effectively and far longer than Bush has.

About the Castro affair, that was terrorism. It was a half-hearted attempt to complete an objective, which we did, big time. We shouldn't have been so moral and not use the mob to kill Castro. I tell you, a third-world Latin American leader wouldn't stand a chance against such a sophisticated crime organization. Damn Kennedy.
Anyhow, I honestly don't believe that the US is involved in Venezuela. Frankly, I don't think anyone in Washington cares for him, and would be happy to see him go. But we live in a state of symbiosis. Venezuela is one of our largest foreign oil exporters. Oil can certainly be used as a political weapon, but it won't be. He's extremely dependent on the money to finance his socialist schemes, and thus to keep him in power. When the market heads south, his position will weaken, maybe even falter, to be replaced by another tin-pot Latino dictator. But yeah, the US and Venezuela are symbiotic, if not comfortably. There are many, many countries whom treat the US worse that it is not going against.