NationStates Jolt Archive

The US State Department is threatening to put Venezuela on its infamous terror-sponsor list which includes known enemies such as Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. The list, of course, doesn't include the world's historically and currently largest sponsor of terror: the United States.

In b4 Sel, you commie

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us)

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez dared the U.S. on Friday to put Venezuela on a list of countries accused of supporting terrorism, calling it one more attempt by Washington to undermine him for political reasons. Chavez said the "threat to include us on the terrorist list" is Washington's response to his own successes in the region.

U.S. lawmakers including Rep. Connie Mack and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Florida Republicans, have called for the State Department to add Venezuela to its list of terror sponsors, which currently includes North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. They have expressed concerns about what they call Chavez's close ties to Colombia's leftist rebels.

"Let them make that list and shove it in their pocket," Chavez said in a televised speech.

"We shouldn't forget for an instant that we're in a battle against North American imperialism and that they have classified us as enemies — at least in this continent they have us as enemy No. 1," Chavez said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday during a visit to Brazil that all U.N. nations, including Venezuela, have an obligation to go after terrorists and keep them from operating within their borders.

The comment was largely a warning for Chavez, who U.S. officials suspect has lent support to Colombian rebels. In recent days, Rice and President Bush have sharpened their rhetoric against Chavez while at the same time praising Colombia and other Latin American allies in a bid to isolate the Venezuelan leader.

Asked whether Washington was seriously considering designating Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism, Rice said the U.S. was ready to respond if necessary.

"There is after all a U.N. obligation that all states have undertaken to do everything that they can to prevent terrorists from actively using their territory, from being engaged in terrorist financing," Rice told reporters after a meeting with Brazilian leaders Thursday.

Chavez said Rice's visit to Brazil and Chile this week is aimed at mounting "pressures" against "our government and against me in particular."

Chavez also responded to earlier critical comments by Bush, saying "you've seen the imperial chief himself attack us again."

"The chief of the empire is going around desperate," Chavez said.

"The imperial plan is to overthrow this government and knock down the Bolivarian Revolution," he said, referring to his socialist movement. "They're afraid of the impact of this revolution in the rest of the countries ... of Latin America. That permanent aggression is because of that."

Bush on Wednesday accused the Venezuelan government of destabilizing, provocative behavior, saying "it has squandered its oil wealth in an effort to promote its hostile, anti-American vision."

I didnt know Cuba sponsored terrorists. Id also like to see if Saudi Arabia is on said list.


Oh, and I love international pissing contests between governments.

Does Venezuela not sponsor terrorism? I thought it was a bit obvious with their support of FARC. But I guess it depends on if you see FARC as freedom fighters.

Does Venezuela not sponsor terrorism? I thought it was a bit obvious with their support of FARC. But I guess it depends on if you see FARC as freedom fighters.
FARC be freedom fighters.

Honestly, I'm sure the British thought of the Americans as terrorists. More my man John Paul Jones than George Washington, but still.

"If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin

FARC be freedom fighters.
No, they're common gangsters, they lost their ideological ties with the end of the USSR.

"If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin

The French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fries

The French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fries

Not going to be much of a fight then...:p

FARC be freedom fighters.

Freedom for whom? Surely not those that they've kidnapped and enslaved?

Honestly, I'm sure the British thought of the Americans as terrorists. More my man John Paul Jones than George Washington, but still.

That's piracy, and while they should be considered different crimes, the appropriate response to both problems is not all that different.

don't tell him pike!
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwldGmw4yDo&feature=related)
:D

The US State Department is threatening to put Venezuela on its infamous terror-sponsor list which includes known enemies such as Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. The list, of course, doesn't include the world's historically and currently largest sponsor of terror: the United States.

In b4 Sel, you commie

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us)

US Gov:Now now, Venezuela.... stop making us Americans mad or else....

Venezuelan President: Or else what?!

US Gov: Or else, we will get very very angry with you, and then we will put your nation on a bad list to show you and the world how very angry we are.

Freedom for whom? Surely not those that they've kidnapped and enslaved?
For themselves at the very least.

That's piracy, and while they should be considered different crimes, the appropriate response to both problems is not all that different.
He also terrorized the coasts of Britannia.

The international diplomacy equivalent of writing their name on the chalkboard.

"Don't make me add a check mark..."

The international diplomacy equivalent of writing their name on the chalkboard.

"Don't make me add a check mark..."
Oh dear...I remember that. I wonder if it's still done. Looking back, it seems like it means nothing whatsoever, but I guess humiliates you when you're young or shocks you.

Oh dear...I remember that. I wonder if it's still done. Looking back, it seems like it means nothing whatsoever, but I guess humiliates you when you're young or shocks you.

I got a lot of checkmarks. *nod*

I got a lot of checkmarks. *nod*
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. I got maybe one checkmark in my career. A few names though.

Any more o'that, you two, and you both lose your Chalkboard Monitor privileges!

High school tactics on a worldwide scale. Lawd I love bein' American ^.^

Does Venezuela not sponsor terrorism? I thought it was a bit obvious with their support of FARC. But I guess it depends on if you see FARC as freedom fighters.

First, the FARC are not really "terrorists" according to international definitions. There are insurgents, using very reprehensible means like hostages taking and drug traffic, but not "terrorists" (well, it became a wild card for "bad guy" nowadays).

Then, no support of FARC from Venezuela was ever proved. And Chávez is not the kind of guy to do things in the shadow, he doesn't care about "political correctness", and he displays his sulphurous friendships openly (like the one with Iran, which is my most important disagreement with him).

The same goes for Cuba btw. You can oppose Cuba's regimes for many reasons (some valid some not), but they never supported "terrorism". They are one of the most important victims of terrorism in the world, including by terrorists protected by the USA, like Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch.

All I can say is ROFLMAO. With the USA being the ONLY economy in the world not booming [mainly thanks to the third world, india, china, japan, canada and the EU figuring out they were getting ripped off...HARD by the USA and its protectionist policies] other then good old Iran..well that list is about as good as toilet paper especially to me.

The USA has become a rather funny joke as of late, and its sad too because its all thanks to mr reagan [who boosted all the resources to build 32 000 nuclear bombs] and mr Bush, who simply destroyed the only hope america had to remain on top. [telling people the high tech industry isnt going anywhere, yeah that wont make the utter morons who run wall street panic and sell <.<]

Really its ok though, most of the HT industry moved up to canada and now we are doing very well, very very well especially with cutting off alot of trade to america :). To be honest though, america is the biggest supporter of terrorism. After all they install barbaric, megalomaniacal dictators then sell said dictators weapons to fight freedom fighters who, when refused aid by the USA go with Syria, Cuba, Sudan etc etc.

Hell there is a tape i have heard of JFK stating clearly his concerns over peace with russia. He discussed with one of his top aides what to do about this damn peace treaty and friendship that peacenick commie Eisenhower made, and asked what the best way to mess it up was. After all, JFK had to think of the millions he would have lost in the investments he made in american arms companies. [Remember JFK was the military industrial complex Ike warned about as he left office.] Yup, USA kept the cold war brewing, hell Cuba was a farce too, after all why shouldnt the russkies have nukes in cuba..America had nukes in TURKEY. Thats how the crisis was resolved. The USA agreed to move their nukes out of turkey, so the russians moved the nukes from Cuba.

In my eyes, come to think of it, americas list..is worse then toilet paper.

don't tell him pike!
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwldGmw4yDo&feature=related)
:D

That was my thoughts too upon seeing the the title of the thread , cant take anyone serious anymore when they threaten anyone with a list

I think the US is quite right by putting Venezuela on such list. Chavez clearly supports ( not only ideologically ) the FARC, and I don't think the world needs any more communism. Besides, FARC gains money out of drug trade, so they're thugs as well. Chavez basically supports scum, and destabilizes the region by his macho military response to a dispute between Colombia and Ecuador.

I think the US is quite right by putting Venezuela on such list. Chavez clearly supports ( not only ideologically ) the FARC,

Such accusations are done since Chávez is elected, and never were proven. While US support to extreme-right terror groups is well proven...

and I don't think the world needs any more communism.

That's not the question.

Besides, FARC gains money out of drug trade, so they're thugs as well.

Drug traffic is not terrorism. Terrorism is not just a wild card for any crime. Yes, FARC are drug dealers. That's the only true thing you said for now.

Chavez basically supports scum,

Chávez doesn't support the FARC. He supports the opening of negotiations with the FARC. You may agree or not with that, but that doesn't mean he supports the FARC. I support negotiation with many people I don't agree with.

and destabilizes the region by his macho military response to a dispute between Colombia and Ecuador.

His response forced Columbia to recognize its fault, excuse itself, and swear it'll not do it again. That's quite a stabilization for the region. The one who destabilizes the region is Columbia, by violating other countries sovereignty. With the support of USA. Venezuela is making clear that this is not acceptable, and by doing so, they stabilize the whole region and prevent the Columbian civil war from spreading into border countries.

The French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_FriesThat makes a Francophobe a Freedom Hater.

US is adding Venezuela to the list of nations supporting terrorists?! OMG! I'm shocked they waited this long, as Chavez has been their little enemy for his whole presidency. But US doesn't really have the means to make such a list as they themselves (and maybe Saudi-Arabia) support terrorists. US government hasn't done anything about Luis Posada Carriles who is clearly a terrorist, but isn't such for the US as he bombed a Cuban plane. And as we all know US and Cuba are best friends. :mp5:

Drug traffic is not terrorism. Terrorism is not just a wild card for any crime. Yes, FARC are drug dealers. That's the only true thing you said for now.


Excuse me ? Ever heard of the Taliban ? They finance their terrorist activities with money gained out of poppy and heroine growth. So does the FARC, yet with coca and cocaine. The fact that they grow drugs in order to finance their terrorist acts, such as kidnappings, bombings still makes them terrorists.

Chávez doesn't support the FARC. He supports the opening of negotiations with the FARC. You may agree or not with that, but that doesn't mean he supports the FARC. I support negotiation with many people I don't agree with.

I agree, there is no DIRECT evidence, but there is reason to believe Chavez has more than sympathy for them:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_farc_laptop

His response forced Columbia to recognize its fault, excuse itself, and swear it'll not do it again. That's quite a stabilization for the region. The one who destabilizes the region is Columbia, by violating other countries sovereignty. With the support of USA. Venezuela is making clear that this is not acceptable, and by doing so, they stabilize the whole region and prevent the Columbian civil war from spreading into border countries.

Hm, so in order to reach stabilization, you basically send half your army to the border to intimidate your neighbour country ? I thought the 19th century Macchiavellism was over...

Also, why would you defend Hugo Chavez ? He is dictatorial ( Coup d'etat in 1992, 2002 ), he wanted a constitutional change in order to make him president for life.

Surely US attempts to launch a military coup against Venezuela's elected government constitute terrorism. Obviously, bringing education and health to the poor has conflicted with US economic interests too far to be "tolerated." So much for democracy, eh?

Surely US attempts to launch a military coup against Venezuela's elected government constitute terrorism. Obviously, bringing education and health to the poor has conflicted with US economic interests too far to be "tolerated." So much for democracy, eh?
Chavez is no angel, and it's very important for the UK Left not to get bogged down by a kind of stupid anti-US sentiment which makes any enemies of the US into saints, regardless of their personal actions.

Yes, the coup attempt was bad, there we go. On the other hand, Chavez has always been extremely overly cheery about pissing off the US. More importantly than this, whilst the poor now have slightly better education (incidentally, voting in the new constitution would have undermined this) and mildly better healthcare, he's still done too little about crime, and the economy there is now simply going into Chavez and his mates' pockets instead of the old leadership's pockets.

Also, the growing militarism of Venezuala and his ties to the military as an ex-General himself are a sign, in my opinion, that if he starts to lose elections in any great number, he'll just rule by Junta, as in Argentina. This would be a pretty lame state of affairs for everyone but those at the top.

Chavez is no angel, and it's very important for the UK Left not to get bogged down by a kind of stupid anti-US sentiment which makes any enemies of the US into saints, regardless of their personal actions.

He's no Great Satan either. Neither, should I add, is this merely a matter which antagonises the Left. Principally, US interference in Latin America is a symptom of hypocrisy, which should be as abhorrent to conservatives as it is to the left. Essentially, my own objection lies in the degradation of one state by another without right or reason. Criticism where it is due.

Yes, the coup attempt was bad, there we go. On the other hand, Chavez has always been extremely overly cheery about pissing off the US. More importantly than this, whilst the poor now have slightly better education (incidentally, voting in the new constitution would have undermined this) and mildly better healthcare, he's still done too little about crime, and the economy there is now simply going into Chavez and his mates' pockets instead of the old leadership's pockets.

That's somewhat subjective. Irritating the United States through rhetoric is not grounds for invasion. If Chavez wants to attack Washington in his speeches, he should have every right to do so. If he wants to praise them, the same applies.

As for health and education, there have been undeniable improvements. Where the money is going is more of a murky business, that I agree needs sorting. Given that everything used to reside in the hands of the White elite there, though, it would seem that there has been an overall improvement. Granted, more needs to be done, and Chavez may not be the man to do it. But then, that is for the Venezuelan public to decide, and not the White House.

Also, the growing militarism of Venezuala and his ties to the military as an ex-General himself are a sign, in my opinion, that if he starts to lose elections in any great number, he'll just rule by Junta, as in Argentina. This would be a pretty lame state of affairs for everyone but those at the top.

I wasn't aware of military-linked regimes being of particular chagrin to the United States. It's not ideal, no, but it isn't grounds for interference. If we have a look at the militarism of key US allies, the hypocrisy surfaces again. Of course, Britain is no better in that respect either.

I saw in the article that Chavez talked about his sucess. I find it interesting though that in a poll from the last year taken all over South America that more people approve of George W. Bush than Chavez.

I saw in the article that Chavez talked about his sucess. I find it interesting though that in a poll from the last year taken all over South America that more people approve of George W. Bush than Chavez.

I suspect that's because W. looks like that guy we knew in college who was a total fuckin' asshole but always brought the keg. CHavez looks like our unemployed drunk uncle. *nod*

He's no Great Satan either. Neither, should I add, is this merely a matter which antagonises the Left. Principally, US interference in Latin America is a symptom of hypocrisy, which should be as abhorrent to conservatives as it is to the left. Essentially, my own objection lies in the degradation of one state by another without right or reason. Criticism where it is due.

That's somewhat subjective. Irritating the United States through rhetoric is not grounds for invasion. If Chavez wants to attack Washington in his speeches, he should have every right to do so. If he wants to praise them, the same applies.
No, irritating the US through rhetoric is hardly grounds for invasion, you're right. Talking shit about them and then nationalising their assets? That's going a bit far. Building up a large army and then posting troops next to their ally's borders? Too far again. He ought to watch himself.
As for health and education, there have been undeniable improvements.
For some.
Where the money is going is more of a murky business, that I agree needs sorting. Given that everything used to reside in the hands of the White elite there, though, it would seem that there has been an overall improvement. Granted, more needs to be done, and Chavez may not be the man to do it. But then, that is for the Venezuelan public to decide, and not the White House.
... because it going from the old white elite to a new marginally less white one is a really important and good change?
I wasn't aware of military-linked regimes being of particular chagrin to the United States. It's not ideal, no, but it isn't grounds for interference. If we have a look at the militarism of key US allies, the hypocrisy surfaces again. Of course, Britain is no better in that respect either.
Aye, that's no big deal for the US, more for the general public of Venezuela.

No, irritating the US through rhetoric is hardly grounds for invasion, you're right. Talking shit about them and then nationalising their assets? That's going a bit far. Building up a large army and then posting troops next to their ally's borders? Too far again. He ought to watch himself.

As far as I am aware, Venezuela has nationalised the assets of private companies, which it has the right to do. Whilst the United States may not like that, its own actions against democracy in Venezuela have removed any grounds for complaint. As far as I can see, Chavez's actions are those of a man who is threatened taking severe, but entirely legitimate, measures to preserve his country's integrity. If I were him, I would probably do something similar. The United States doesn't have a monopoly on saber-rattling, you know.

For some.

For the poor. Granted, there is no improvement for the wealthy, because they already had them.

... because it going from the old white elite to a new marginally less white one is a really important and good change?

Going from a colonial racial elite to a democratically-elected, though corrupt, government is marginally better. It's not good enough, but this is a process, as in any other country. At least its better than the newly-"democratic" Iraq.

Aye, that's no big deal for the US, more for the general public of Venezuela.

If you recall, Chavez did lose his constitution plans. As far as I can see, Venezuela is a healthy democracy. Either way, it is plain that the United States has no interest in what the general public of any Latin American nation thinks.

Excuse me ? Ever heard of the Taliban ? They finance their terrorist activities with money gained out of poppy and heroine growth. So does the FARC, yet with coca and cocaine. The fact that they grow drugs in order to finance their terrorist acts, such as kidnappings, bombings still makes them terrorists.

The Taliban were not terrorists, there were a dictatorship, but not terrorists. They helped Al Qaeda, which are terrorists, but themselves were not terrorists.

As for the FARC, they don't do "bombings". They do kidnapping, but that's not terrorism. That's very bad and unacceptable, but not terrorism.

I agree, there is no DIRECT evidence, but there is reason to believe Chavez has more than sympathy for them:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_farc_laptop



Yeah, of course, unencrypted documents found on the computer of the number 2 of the FARC, which of course survived the bombing that killed 20 persons. About as trustworthy as the "proof" of WMD in Irak, or of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Hm, so in order to reach stabilization, you basically send half your army to the border to intimidate your neighbour country ? I thought the 19th century Macchiavellism was over...

Half of his army ? He was far from sending half of his army to the border... and he sent it on *his* side of the border, unlike Uribe...

Also, why would you defend Hugo Chavez ? He is dictatorial ( Coup d'etat in 1992, 2002 ), he wanted a constitutional change in order to make him president for life.

Your facts are really messed up. The only true part is that Chávez tried a Coup d'État in 1992, but that was only because the president of that time slaughtered 3000 protesters ! So well, it's understandable Chávez really wanted to remove him from power.

In 2002, the coup was done by the oligarchy *against* Chávez, and failed because... millions of people took the street to reclaim their president ! Hardly a dictator...

As for the referendum, it was only to be able to present himself to elections as long as he wanted, not to be president as long as he wanted ! Being reelected, if the people want it, for head of state or government is actually possible in 17 of the 27 countries of EU, is EU a dictatorship ?

And the mere fact that he did a referendum, lost it, and accepted his defeat just should show you he has nothing of dictator.

On the other hand, Chavez has always been extremely overly cheery about pissing off the US.

Well, not exactly. Relations between Chávez and Clinton were fine. Relations between Chávez and USA started to become very bad when Chávez opposed US invasion of Afganistan in 2001, and after Chávez showed on TV the photos of children killed by US bombing and said something like "September 11 was already, but this is also horrible. You don't fight terror with terror ! I beg you to think about the consequences before acting."

More importantly than this, whilst the poor now have slightly better education

Slightly better ? He solved illiteracy (was around 1 million when he took power), hundred of thousands were granted secondary school level, and many were able to enter university unlike before.

(incidentally, voting in the new constitution would have undermined this)

How so ?

and mildly better healthcare,

Mildly better ? There are 100% free healthcenter in every "barrios" now ! 600 totally free "diagnostic centers" were opened ! Tens of new hospitals ! 500 000 were cured from eyesight defect ! That's "mildly better ?"

he's still done too little about crime

That's true, but crime is hard to solve in a few years, and was not his priority. He's trying to work more on this now, so let's see what happens.

, and the economy there is now simply going into Chavez and his mates' pockets instead of the old leadership's pockets.

The economy of Venezuela is growing faster than any other south american country, including the non-oil sector. Unemployment was greatly lowered. As for his mates' pockets, do you have any proof ?

Also, the growing militarism of Venezuala

Which growing militarism ? When Chávez arrived in power in 1999, the situation was so bad that he *reduced* strongly the military spendings... when later on he restored them to previous level (because the situation is much better for them with high oil prices), every media was yelling "Chávez is increasing military spendings"... while he was just restoring them. Then, you should not forget that US ban on spare parts makes fixing their existing material (aircraft, ...) impossible, so they need to buy new crafts which is more expensive, just to maintain the same level.

Don't forget either that Venezuela has a 2000km long border with a country in civil war: Columbia. So they need to be careful.

and his ties to the military as an ex-General

Lieutenant-Colonel.

himself are a sign, in my opinion, that if he starts to lose elections in any great number, he'll just rule by Junta, as in Argentina. This would be a pretty lame state of affairs for everyone but those at the top.

He lost the referendum. He accepted it, even before the counting was total, and congratulated his opponents. This looks exactly like the FUD that was used against the Sandinist in Nicaragua, and as history showed us, they accepted their electoral defeat, even if it was caused by US money and US-paid Contra.

I saw in the article that Chavez talked about his sucess. I find it interesting though that in a poll from the last year taken all over South America that more people approve of George W. Bush than Chavez.

Really ? Are sure you didn't confuse yourself ? In all south-america polls I saw since a few years, Chávez was the most popular president of the whole continent, and Bush the least popular one.

The same is clearly visible when they do state visist... Bush cannot land in a country without thousands of people protesting, Chávez cannot land in a country without thousands of people supporting him.

The Taliban were not terrorists, there were a dictatorship, but not terrorists. They helped Al Qaeda, which are terrorists, but themselves were not terrorists.

As for the FARC, they don't do "bombings". They do kidnapping, but that's not terrorism. That's very bad and unacceptable, but not terrorism.

Again, I'm astonished. There are suicide bombings and attacks on civilians almost every day in Afghanistan, executed by the Taliban. As for the FARC: Back in 2007 they murdered 11 lawmakers. Human Right watch found out they use gas cylinders for attacking (military) targets, but often kill civilians. Kidnapping IS terrorism as well. Remember those kidnapped journalists in Iraq, which was pretty populair among terrorists in the years after 2003 ? Ever heard of Ingrid Betancourt ? FARC planted landmines and recruited child soldiers. In 2001, they assassined numerous Colombian soldiers by (car)bombs.

Source:Wikipedia
In June 2004, 34 coca farmers were found bound hand and foot and shot with automatic weapons. Blame was placed on the FARC-EP by the government, and after several days of uncertainty the FARC-EP publicly claimed responsibility for the massacre, saying they had killed the farmers for being supporters of right-wing paramilitaries and accusing the government of shedding “crocodile tears” for their deaths. The United Nations condemned the massacre as a war crime. After the FARC’s communique was made public, other human rights organizations likewise denounced the event and called on the Colombian government to protect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

Go find a dictionary and search for 'terrorism'.

Half of his army ? He was far from sending half of his army to the border... and he sent it on *his* side of the border, unlike Uribe...


Ok, fine, a lot of battalions then. But your answer dodges my statement. The fact that it was Venezuela's side of the border doesn't change the situation. His action was not thought out in a constructive way. Last but not least, the ( political ) clash between Colombia and Ecuador wasn't Venezuela's business, Chavez provoked and intimidated the region in a nasty and 19th century-like way, so you really can't give him credit for any kind of stabilization.

As for the referendum, it was only to be able to present himself to elections as long as he wanted, not to be president as long as he wanted ! Being reelected, if the people want it, for head of state or government is actually possible in 17 of the 27 countries of EU, is EU a dictatorship ?

Nope, you´re wrong there. It was an amendment to Abolish all presidential term limits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum%2C_2007

Surely US attempts to launch a military coup against Venezuela's elected government constitute terrorism. Obviously, bringing education and health to the poor has conflicted with US economic interests too far to be "tolerated." So much for democracy, eh?
Actually, the success of his social programmes has been limited while his maladministration of the Venezuelan economy has damaged everyone, especially the poor, despite the massive boom in oil. The summary of this article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html) is rather succinct:
Even critics of Hugo Chávez tend to concede that he has made helping the poor his top priority. But in fact, Chávez's government has not done any more to fight poverty than past Venezuelan governments, and his much-heralded social programs have had little effect. A close look at the evidence reveals just how much Chávez's "revolution" has hurt Venezuela's economy -- and that the poor are hurting most of all.
The idea that Chavez has brought real benefits to his people his a myth fuelled by his petrodollars. Even if they were true, they would not excuse his abuse of the economy or his abhorrent manner of rule. That they appear not to be makes Chavez an even worse ruler than is currently thought.

For themselves at the very least.

Then it's violent opportunism and common thuggery, not freedom fighting.


He also terrorized the coasts of Britannia.

Depending on the legal definition, those actions would remain as piracy, or possibly privateering. Because they are acts committed on or from the sea.

Really ? Are sure you didn't confuse yourself ? In all south-america polls I saw since a few years, Chávez was the most popular president of the whole continent, and Bush the least popular one.

The same is clearly visible when they do state visist... Bush cannot land in a country without thousands of people protesting, Chávez cannot land in a country without thousands of people supporting him.

That's not saying much, because even if Bush lands in the United States, he's going to be greeted with crowds of protesters.

That means little more than well done or poorly done marketing though.

and the economy there is now simply going into Bush and his mates' pockets instead of the old leadership's pockets.
Fixed.

I saw in the article that Chavez talked about his sucess. I find it interesting though that in a poll from the last year taken all over South America that more people approve of George W. Bush than Chavez.
Proof?

Then it's violent opportunism and common thuggery, not freedom fighting.
They are fighting for their freedom.

Depending on the legal definition, those actions would remain as piracy, or possibly privateering. Because they are acts committed on or from the sea.
The word terrorist didn't exist back then. I'm sure if that kind of thing went on today, he'd be called a pirate AND a terrorist.

That's not saying much, because even if Bush lands in the United States, he's going to be greeted with crowds of protesters.

That means little more than well done or poorly done marketing though.

Not just marketing, Bush's policies have annoyed alot of people, wouldn't be surprised if he was assassinated soon. (not intending to support any such action, just considering the possibility of it happening)
*watches the laser beams cross over my torso*
I think if the US got rid of Gauntanimo and invading other countries without proper political support, then Bush would have more success in talking to Chavez or other folks who cause him problems.

Actually, the success of his social programmes has been limited while his maladministration of the Venezuelan economy has damaged everyone, especially the poor, despite the massive boom in oil. The summary of this article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html) is rather succinct:

The idea that Chavez has brought real benefits to his people his a myth fuelled by his petrodollars. Even if they were true, they would not excuse his abuse of the economy or his abhorrent manner of rule. That they appear not to be makes Chavez an even worse ruler than is currently thought.

Any organisation funded by Morgan Stanley is likely to be critical of Hugo Chavez.. Similarly, you wouldn't expect free-market economists like Rodriguez to be his biggest fans, either.

All you've really shown is the media-savvyness of the Venezuelan old guard. The only people who deny that Chavez has improved life for the poor are the same ones who want "regime change" on the grounds that he is a socialist, and that they want his oil.

“Don’t tell him your name, Pike.”

FARC be freedom fighters.

Honestly, I'm sure the British thought of the Americans as terrorists. More my man John Paul Jones than George Washington, but still.Bullshit. The word didn't even exist, because that kind of "tactic" had not been invented.
I get sick and tired of terrorist apologists saying "Oh, everybody does it." No. Everybody doesn't.

Not just marketing, Bush's policies have annoyed alot of people, wouldn't be surprised if he was assassinated soon. (not intending to support any such action, just considering the possibility of it happening)
*watches the laser beams cross over my torso*
I think if the US got rid of Gauntanimo and invading other countries without proper political support, then Bush would have more success in talking to Chavez or other folks who cause him problems.

I think that if the US were to do those things, it would change virtually nothing. Chavez has managed to tap into an old strain of virulent anti-US attitudes in Latin America, that date from poorly conceived actions that occurred largely between 1901 and 1974, with some further misdeeds on the part of the Reagan administration. So, likely, the US could spend a full decade being a model global citizen, and still be the target of the ire of people like Chavez, the type who like to prattle on about the "Ebi1 F3rN3rs".

They are fighting for their freedom.

Requisite in being a freedom fighter is the concept that you must be fighting for a politically driven cause, not cocaine profits and power. They are not, by any definition, freedom fighters.

The word terrorist didn't exist back then. I'm sure if that kind of thing went on today, he'd be called a pirate AND a terrorist.

Ridiculousness. He would, by all legal definitions be a pirate or privateer, depending on whether or not you wanted to classify the 13 colonies, on whose behalf he was acting, a sovereign state or not.

I thought the 19th century Macchiavellism was over...


Whoever gave you that idea lied to you.

As I feared, the US will try and stick its nose into this conflict.:( They should, honestly, stay out of it. Let Venezuela straighten itself and its problems with neighboring countries without threatening the country with ¨the list¨.

As I feared, the US will try and stick its nose into this conflict.:( They should, honestly, stay out of it. Let Venezuela straighten itself and its problems with neighboring countries without threatening the country with ¨the list¨.

Well, in defense of the US government, which is something I dont usually do, this is an instance where it actually makes sense for us to get involved. This is our backyard after all.

I think Chavez is an asshat, and he does sympathize with FARC (support and sympathize are different things remember), but I dont think we need to start droppin bombs. And this "list" is a joke.

Well, in defense of the US government, which is something I dont usually do, this is an instance where it actually makes sense for us to get involved. This is our backyard after all.

I think Chavez is an asshat, and he does sympathize with FARC (support and sympathize are different things remember), but I dont think we need to start droppin bombs. And this "list" is a joke.

Perhaps the US government just has to be on its guard, but issuing threats this early? I don´t know. Maybe it should wait a bit longer. Could be that this conflict resolves on its own. But yeah, no dropping bombs. That would a big mistake in this stage.

Perhaps the US government just has to be on its guard, but issuing threats this early? I don´t know. Maybe it should wait a bit longer. Could be that this conflict resolves on its own. But yeah, no dropping bombs. That would a big mistake in this stage.

Well, whipping it out and showing Chavez ours is bigger is not really required because he has ideological agreements with FARC.


We prop up repressive governments all the time. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are current examples. We sponsor state terrorism. We should be on our own list.


But if the region really was "destabilizing" then we would have cause to be involved. But we shouldnt be putting Chavez on "the list" *gasp* because thats exactly what he wants, the US to threaten him. Then he can go to his people and say "SEE?!? Teh ebil US is out to get me cuz I am teh great leader!!!11!!1!"

Well, whipping it out and showing Chavez ours is bigger is not really required because he has ideological agreements with FARC.


We prop up repressive governments all the time. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are current examples. We sponsor state terrorism. We should be on our own list.


But if the region really was "destabilizing" then we would have cause to be involved. But we shouldnt be putting Chavez on "the list" *gasp* because thats exactly what he wants, the US to threaten him. Then he can go to his people and say "SEE?!? Teh ebil US is out to get me cuz I am teh great leader!!!11!!1!"

But don´t you think that´s provoking? That showing that the US´s bigger than Chávez´s could result in more of a problem than a solution to the conflict in question? I know, the US needs to be watching this closely but... I don´t know... I would´ve waited a bit longer before starting to finger-wrestle. That´s all. Plus, can the US handle having a conflict on the Middle East and one in South America without getting more burned in the eyes of the rest of the world?

But don´t you think that´s provoking? That showing that the US´s bigger than Chávez´s could result in more of a problem than a solution to the conflict in question? I know, the US needs to be watching this closely but... I don´t know... I would´ve waited a bit longer before starting to finger-wrestle. That´s all. Plus, can the US handle having a conflict on the Middle East and one in South America without getting more burned in the eyes of the rest of the world?

We're saying the same thing. Saber rattling is currently not required. Its just a battle of rhetoric that Bush is losing (wait, you mean Bush isnt very good at rhetoric?!?) and so is just saying "But....but....but....Thats it youre going on "the list"."

Pretty soon Chavez will end up on the Axis of Evil (TM)

We're saying the same thing. Saber rattling is currently not required. Its just a battle of rhetoric that Bush is losing (wait, you mean Bush isnt very good at rhetoric?!?) and so is just saying "But....but....but....Thats it youre going on "the list"."

Pretty soon Chavez will end up on the Axis of Evil (TM)

LOL! Yeah, Bush isn´t good at rhetoric. Actually, I highly doubt he even knows what that is.:p

Ah man! He´ll take Putin, Osama and Saddam´s title? No fair! ROFL!:D

Pretty soon Chavez will end up on the Axis of Evil (TM)

Which is exactly where he wants to be
He wants the population focused on how ebil capitalist foreign types are gonna invade his country and rape and eat everyones children.
Nothing will do more to unite and keep support behind him.
Just look at how North Korean government holds its population in thrall

If the US said 'f*** you' and just ignored his rantings, pretty soon the population will start looking at the situation in the country and start thinking 'Hey the president is an ---- ' and quickly get rid of him

Which is exactly where he wants to be
He wants the population focused on how ebil capitalist foreign types are gonna invade his country and rape and eat everyones children.
Nothing will do more to unite and keep support behind him.
Just look at how North Korean government holds its population in thrall

If the US said 'f*** you' and just ignored his rantings, pretty soon the population will start looking at the situation in the country and start thinking 'Hey the president is an ---- ' and quickly get rid of him

So... what you´re saying is that Bush fell on Chávez´s trap? Crap.

So... what you´re saying is that Bush fell on Chávez´s trap? Crap.

Its even simplier than that. Chavez had no "trap". He just knows how Fearless Leader's "mind" works, and just pandered to Bush's preconcieved views of how Chavez is.


And Bush keeps fueling him. Everytime Washington scolds him, he says "See! Teh ebil capitalists are out to get me!"

Its even simplier than that. Chavez had no "trap". He just knows how Fearless Leader's "mind" works, and just pandered to Bush's preconcieved views of how Chavez is.


And Bush keeps fueling him. Everytime Washington scolds him, he says "See! Teh ebil capitalists are out to get me!"

Oh my, this is like watching a ´novela´ in Telemundo. I´m enthralled.:D
I´m glad of one thing though. Elections will be in November so, bye bye Little Bush!

Oh my, this is like watching a ´novela´ in Telemundo. I´m enthralled.:D
I´m glad of one thing though. Elections will be in November so, bye bye Little Bush!


Another analogy its like watching a horror movie when the murderer/sociopath is hiding in the basement or something, and one of the characters is about to go down there, and someone in the theater screams "DONT GO DOWN THERE!!!" knowing full well that it wont change anything.


The audiance realizes how stupid that move is, but the character doesnt. Just repleace Chavez with the murderer and Bush with a young, big boobed, sweaty, scantly clad actress.


I kind of like the idea of doing that with the later....

Another analogy its like watching a horror movie when the murderer/sociopath is hiding in the basement or something, and one of the characters is about to go down there, and someone in the theater screams "DONT GO DOWN THERE!!!" knowing full well that it wont change anything/


The audiance realizes how stupid that move is, but the character doesnt. Just repleace Chavez with the murderer and Bush with a young, big boobed. sweaty, scantly clad actress.

This reminds me of a scene in ¨Malibu´s Most Wanted¨ (Lame, Nanatsu, so lame!) when the actors had ´scared´ B-rad white and they were at the movies. And just when Michael Mayers appears to kill the blond bimbo, B-rad screams ¨Run bitch, run!! He´s gone kill ´ya!!!¨

Chávez´s Michael Mayers and Bush´s the blond bimbo.:D

and here was me expecting the Us to threaten Venezuela with bringing democracy over...

and here was me expecting the Us to threaten Venezuela with bringing democracy over...

Considering they already elect their leaders, I dont think that threat would work.

Considering they already elect their leaders, I dont think that threat would work.

http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/democracy2.gif
This explains Venezuela´s case.

Considering they already elect their leaders, I dont think that threat would work.

Oh but the US will think otherwise ...

Oh but the US will think otherwise ...

Fearless Leader and his Kabal might, but I dont think the American people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Fearless Leader and his Kabal might, but I dont think the American people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore.

I reckon Americans must be tired already of their idiotic president. Yup!

Bullshit. The word didn't even exist, because that kind of "tactic" had not been invented.
I get sick and tired of terrorist apologists saying "Oh, everybody does it." No. Everybody doesn't.
Doesn't matter. He still was a terrorist. He caused fear among the British citizens, forcing them to ask the government to end the war.

Requisite in being a freedom fighter is the concept that you must be fighting for a politically driven cause, not cocaine profits and power. They are not, by any definition, freedom fighters.
Their cause is the right to sell and profit from drugs.

Ridiculousness. He would, by all legal definitions be a pirate or privateer, depending on whether or not you wanted to classify the 13 colonies, on whose behalf he was acting, a sovereign state or not.
Legal definition is irrelevant. Chavez and FARC are not legally defined as terrorists. In colloquial and political use, it's 100% accurate.

Fearless Leader and his Kabal might, but I dont think the American people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Who exactly is fearless leader...I know that's my friend's sn (with some numbers), but yeah...

Again, I'm astonished. There are suicide bombings and attacks on civilians almost every day in Afghanistan, executed by the Taliban.

Look at my phrase, I said "were" when they were in power. Nowadays, it's hard to say what is the Taliban, what is Al Qaeda, what is many other groups...

As for the FARC: Back in 2007 they murdered 11 lawmakers. Human Right watch found out they use gas cylinders for attacking (military) targets, but often kill civilians. Kidnapping IS terrorism as well. Remember those kidnapped journalists in Iraq, which was pretty populair among terrorists in the years after 2003 ? Ever heard of Ingrid Betancourt ? FARC planted landmines and recruited child soldiers. In 2001, they assassined numerous Colombian soldiers by (car)bombs.

All those are not terrorism. They kill people (they fight a war), they kidnap people (to exchange or ask for ransoms), they produce drug, ... yeah, that's criminal. But that's not *terrorism*. This is not about *terror*. They don't kidnap people to terrorize the population, they do it to use them as hostages. That's not worse or better, that's different. Once again, *terrorism* is not just "bad guy".

Ok, fine, a lot of battalions then. But your answer dodges my statement. The fact that it was Venezuela's side of the border doesn't change the situation.

It's absolutely fundamental, it's the difference between "I take precautions in case they would like to do the same to me" and "I declare war to you".

His action was not thought out in a constructive way.

Oh it was: protect Venezuela's border in case of Columbia wanted to do the same. And show Columbia that they crossed a line.

Last but not least, the ( political ) clash between Colombia and Ecuador wasn't Venezuela's business,

"Each one for himself" is not the vision of Venezuela, and that's very good for them. Standing up to defend your allies is all to your honor. And btw, nearly all of Latin America supported Ecuador, in different ways. It wasn't their business either ?

Chavez provoked and intimidated the region in a nasty and 19th century-like way, so you really can't give him credit for any kind of stabilization.

He didn't intimidate "the region". He intimated Columbia which nearly started a war by bombing a neighbour !

Nope, you´re wrong there. It was an amendment to Abolish all presidential term limits.

That's exactly what I was saying: he wanted the president to be able to be candidate "for ever". Candidate. Then, the people would elect him or not. That's democracy, not "president for life". And that's what is the case in the majority of EU.

“Don’t tell him your name, Pike.”

don't tell him pike!
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwldGmw4yDo&feature=related)
:D

soo there seems a little conspiracy going on eh?
*watches clip*
tee hee,
"don't tell him your name Pike!" that was a classic captain Manering moment.
watches debate with anti-sleep powder in tea.

Look at my phrase, I said "were" when they were in power. Nowadays, it's hard to say what is the Taliban, what is Al Qaeda, what is many other groups...

Actually it doesn't matter which specific organization did it. Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolah, you name it. Perhaps they cooperated. The point is that intimidating civilians through violence is always terror.

All those are not terrorism. They kill people (they fight a war), they kidnap people (to exchange or ask for ransoms), they produce drug, ... yeah, that's criminal. But that's not *terrorism*. This is not about *terror*. They don't kidnap people to terrorize the population, they do it to use them as hostages. That's not worse or better, that's different. Once again, *terrorism* is not just "bad guy".

And if you read my quote which reported the murder of 34 coca farmers by FARC a couple of years ago, then how can you still defend FARC as being non-terrorist. Seriously...

He didn't intimidate "the region". He intimated Columbia which nearly started a war by bombing a neighbour !

The aim of the raid was not the nation of Ecuador. The action was aimed at FARC, and the raid took place in an inhabited area ( yes, in Ecuador ), and didn't kill Ecuadorian civilians. I agree, ignoring a border is something Colombia can, and should be criticised for, but they killed domestic terrorists and criminals who murdered civilians and soldiers in Colombia. The fact that FARC hides in neighbouring countries shows their cowardness and political ignorance ( FARC = the revolutionary communist armed forces of Colombia, so FARC was illegally operating from within Ecuador anyway ). Although it would be better if Colombia urged Ecuador to combat FARC as well.


That's exactly what I was saying: he wanted the president to be able to be candidate "for ever". Candidate. Then, the people would elect him or not. That's democracy, not "president for life". And that's what is the case in the majority of EU.

-The referendum called for an unlimited presidency term which is hardly democratic.
- increasing presidential term which is not a dictatorial measure itself, but one more step towards infinite leadership of Hugo Chavez
- Called for and end of the autonomy of the central bank, charge be given to the president ( Chavez )

These propositions would give the president a disproportional amount power which, to me, tells a lot about the autocratic nature of Hugo Chavez. Fortunately, a majority of the Venezuelan people voted against this abuse of power.

The fact that Mr. mischief-maker Chavez embraced with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and other dictators such as Ghaddafi is characteristic.

25% of US domestic oil needs comes from Venezuela, an as an OPEC nation Venezuela could easily switch that production to China as they desperately need it, while the US would be hard pressed to convince other OPEC nations to increase production to fill the gap that a loss of Venezuelan oil would produce, not to mention that their is substantial evidence that OPEC is pumping at close to full capacity anyways.

So, in short, Bush should remember the rule of diplomacy, make sure your rhetoric keeps track with your economic clout.

Also Pacific2, my country of Australia has unlimited terms for Prime-Minister, would you call that undemocratic also?

Also Pacific2, my country of Australia has unlimited terms for Prime-Minister, would you call that undemocratic also?
Why don't you read what he wrote?

It's not about whether or not term limits exist. It's about the action of Hugo Chávez removing the term limits he previously considered necessary and added to the constitution, so that he can continue to the President for longer than his little revolution originally intended. That's the problematic bit.

As for oil, he knows perfectly well that the Chinese aren't "desperate". They can do without Venezuelan oil more than Bolivarianism can do without oil revenue. So don't expect particularly generous contract terms to come from Beijing - and if you don't believe it, look at the prices China pays for iron ore. Venezuela's threats are no more believable than those coming from Washington.

So yes, FARC is considered a terrorist group by the US, EU and others. If there is meaningful evidence that the Venezuelan government has given aid, money or other support to FARC, individuals associated with FARC or FARC operations, then Venezuela belongs on the list.

No, that doesn't mean jack.

Why don't you read what he wrote?

It's not about whether or not term limits exist. It's about the action of Hugo Chávez removing the term limits he previously considered necessary and added to the constitution, so that he can continue to the President for longer than his little revolution originally intended. That's the problematic bit.

As for oil, he knows perfectly well that the Chinese aren't "desperate". They can do without Venezuelan oil more than Bolivarianism can do without oil revenue. So don't expect particularly generous contract terms to come from Beijing - and if you don't believe it, look at the prices China pays for iron ore. Venezuela's threats are no more believable than those coming from Washington.

So yes, FARC is considered a terrorist group by the US, EU and others. If there is meaningful evidence that the Venezuelan government has given aid, money or other support to FARC, individuals associated with FARC or FARC operations, then Venezuela belongs on the list.

No, that doesn't mean jack.

The 'list' is meaningless because it's backed up with nothing, only idle rhetoric of dying and criminal administration. Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Then he can go to his people and say "SEE?!? Teh ebil US is out to get me cuz I am teh great leader!!!11!!1!"

Chavez is a hacker?

The aim of the raid was not the nation of Ecuador. The action was aimed at FARC, and the raid took place in an inhabited area ( yes, in Ecuador ), and didn't kill Ecuadorian civilians. I agree, ignoring a border is something Colombia can, and should be criticised for, but they killed domestic terrorists and criminals who murdered civilians and soldiers in Colombia.
So it's always acceptable to cross any border as long as enemies are killed. The problem is that they might screw up and kill civilians. It's just too risky. And honestly, if foreign planes came and bombed your territory, wouldn't you be a bit worried that it might be an attack and would mobilize your forces in a conflict that soon spirals out of control.

The fact that FARC hides in neighbouring countries shows their cowardness and political ignorance
I find it amusing that adapting to changing conditions is called cowardly. This is chess, not all-out bloodshed. It has a purpose and the FARC has to be careful.

( FARC = the revolutionary communist armed forces of Colombia, so FARC was illegally operating from within Ecuador anyway ).
First off, Communist is not in the acronym FARC. You just automatically like to equate communism with anything bad. Second, the Tibetan Cunter for Human Rights and Democracy operates in India. The location of HQ and location in name is irrelevant. The Liberal Party of Australia is hardly liberal, even in Australia. Name isn't always relevant to the facts.

-The referendum called for an unlimited presidency term which is hardly democratic.
No, it called for no term limits. This is actually MORE democratic.

- increasing presidential term which is not a dictatorial measure itself, but one more step towards infinite leadership of Hugo Chavez
If the people want it, why shouldn't they have it? I thought you wanted democracy.

The fact that Mr. mischief-maker Chavez embraced with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and other dictators such as Ghaddafi is characteristic.
Guilt by association is not valid.

First off, Communist is not in the acronym FARC. You just automatically like to equate communism with anything bad.

No, FARC are actually communists - Marxist-Leninists, specifically.

Well if Chavez is going to support revolutionary movements, he should hurry up and help our comrades in Peru, Nepal, Palestine and elsewhere.

So it's always acceptable to cross any border as long as enemies are killed. The problem is that they might screw up and kill civilians. It's just too risky. And honestly, if foreign planes came and bombed your territory, wouldn't you be a bit worried that it might be an attack and would mobilize your forces in a conflict that soon spirals out of control.

I wrote that Colombia should be criticised as well, and I never said such a raid can be without consequences. My point is, if an organization like FARC has been terrorizing your country for decades, and the important nr.2 terrorist is hiding just a couple of miles behind the border in a largely inhabited jungle area, it is understandable that the army decides to quickly neutralise them. Again, this is no justification, but it can be put in a certain perspective.


First off, Communist is not in the acronym FARC. You just automatically like to equate communism with anything bad. Second, the Tibetan Cunter for Human Rights and Democracy operates in India. The location of HQ and location in name is irrelevant. The Liberal Party of Australia is hardly liberal, even in Australia. Name isn't always relevant to the facts.

Granted, it was not the most perfect acronym, but they're a communist organization which organized terrorist attacks in Colombia, apparently with a kind of new 'safeheaven' area in Ecuador. You can't compare it with TCHRD, because the Dalai Lama principally rejects violence and terrorism, and FARC apparently operates from within Ecuador.


No, it called for no term limits. This is actually MORE democratic.

? Care to elaborate ?


If the people want it, why shouldn't they have it? I thought you wanted democracy.

Hmm so if people want dictatorship let them have it ? We allowed that in Europe in the '30s too long !


Guilt by association is not valid.

That's right, therefore I wrote 'characteristic'. Really, if he's embracing all those dictators, it just tells a lot about the style of governing he fancies.

So why isn't Uribe and Colombia being threatened with the list for his well known support of right-wing death squads which he arms against his own people, including the infamous rural brigades which frequently go and gun down some villagers for fun and dress them up as guerrillas for the cameras. Hypocrisy ftl!

Granted, it was not the most perfect acronym, but they're a communist organization which organized terrorist attacks in Colombia, apparently with a kind of new 'safeheaven' area in Ecuador. You can't compare it with TCHRD, because the Dalai Lama principally rejects violence and terrorism, and FARC apparently operates from within Ecuador.
Oh really? You should probably look up the relationship between violent terroristic groups in Tibet controlled by the government in exile with support from the CIA.

That's right, therefore I wrote 'characteristic'. Really, if he's embracing all those dictators, it just tells a lot about the style of governing he fancies.
It's called being a head of state, you meet other heads of state, how about you head your over-moralistic head out and look at reality.

It's called being a head of state, you meet other heads of state, how about you head your over-moralistic head out and look at reality.

Haha, so the priority of a head of state is meeting all dictators he/she can think of ? When Gordon Brown was elected, he visited Angela Merkel, when Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president of France, he instantly took the plane to Berlin to meet a democratically elected head of state. If Chavez wants to earn the respect he wants, he ought to meet up with EU-leaders, the US-president, Asian countries like India, and/or democratic African countries to gain support and symphaty for his idealism from respected and democratic countries. That would strenghthen the cause he's fighting for. But no, he prefers meeting a leader who ruined a country, and an inflation of 50.000% ( Zimbabwe )

What's wrong with moralism ?

Haha, so the priority of a head of state is meeting all dictators he/she can think of ? When Gordon Brown was elected, he visited Angela Merkel, when Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president of France, he instantly took the plane to Berlin to meet a democratically elected head of state. If Chavez wants to earn the respect he wants, he ought to meet up with EU-leaders, the US-president, Asian countries like India, and/or democratic African countries to gain support and symphaty from respected and democratic countries. That would strenghthen the cause he's fighting for. But no, he prefers meeting a leader who ruined a country, and an inflation of 50.000% ( Zimbabwe )

What's wrong with moralism ? :)

Moralism has no basis in reality, and thus is irrelevant. And by 'democratic' leaders I assume you mean bourgeois puppets.

Moralism has no basis in reality, and thus is irrelevant. And by 'democratic' leaders I assume you mean bourgeois puppets.

No, I mean leaders who respect democratic tradition and their constitution.

No, I mean leaders who respect democratic tradition and their constitution.

No, you mean capitalist leaders, don't deny it. Traditions? You mean the tradition of class exploitation, Constitutions? You mean those old documents which enshrined classism in law?

No, I mean leaders who respect democratic tradition and their constitution.




Ok, you are new, so some advice.


Dont bother arguing with Andaras. He has a Marxist rant for every single topic or comment you could think of, and he doesnt really listen to logic.

No, you mean capitalist leaders, don't deny it. Traditions? You mean the tradition of class exploitation, Constitutions? You mean those old documents which enshrined classism in law?

What are you talking about ?

As if only capitalist leaders are democratic..
- Zapatero's Spain is socialist, and democratic
- Prodi's Italy was socialist, and democratic
- Schroeder's Germany was socialist and democratic.
etc etc ..

No, FARC are actually communists - Marxist-Leninists, specifically.
That does nothing to change the fact that their name DOES NOT have the word "Communist" in it.

I wrote that Colombia should be criticised as well, and I never said such a raid can be without consequences. My point is, if an organization like FARC has been terrorizing your country for decades, and the important nr.2 terrorist is hiding just a couple of miles behind the border in a largely inhabited jungle area, it is understandable that the army decides to quickly neutralise them. Again, this is no justification, but it can be put in a certain perspective.
It's called telling the country you are infringing upon what is going to happen or asking if it can be done.

Granted, it was not the most perfect acronym, but they're a communist organization which organized terrorist attacks in Colombia,
That does nothing to change the fact that their name DOES NOT have the word "Communist" in it.

apparently with a kind of new 'safeheaven' area in Ecuador.
Good for them.

You can't compare it with TCHRD, because the Dalai Lama principally rejects violence and terrorism, and FARC apparently operates from within Ecuador.
I'm not. I'm attacking your incorrect assumption that because Colombia is in the name, they can only operate in Colombia.

? Care to elaborate ?
Are you an idiot? You actually let people decide whether someone should stay in office and not say "No this person can't".

Hmm so if people want dictatorship let them have it ?
Absolutely. I thought you were all for freedom of choice and democracy.

We allowed that in Europe in the '30s too long !
Hitler was an excellent leader with the exception of his genocide. Regardless, it is debatable whether he actually had popular support. His movement was just very vocal, forceful, and controlled the records. Everyone was forced to be a Nazi, but I'm sure the silent majority didn't really care either way.

That's right, therefore I wrote 'characteristic'. Really, if he's embracing all those dictators, it just tells a lot about the style of governing he fancies.
Because the West shunned him. Maybe he doesn't like the West and wants to be friends with enemies of the West.

Haha, so the priority of a head of state is meeting all dictators he/she can think of ?
Please tell me what dictators he met with. So far, you only name one: Mugabe.

If Chavez wants to earn the respect he wants, he ought to meet up with EU-leaders, the US-president, Asian countries like India, and/or democratic African countries to gain support and symphaty for his idealism from respected and democratic countries. That would strenghthen the cause he's fighting for. But no, he prefers meeting a leader who ruined a country, and an inflation of 50.000% ( Zimbabwe )
Maybe they didn't want to meet with him or he just doesn't like or trust their policies. I'm sure he's met with Hu Jintao.

What's wrong with moralism ?
High morals tends to lead to bad choices because you thikn you're always right no matter what you do.

No, you mean capitalist leaders, don't deny it. Traditions? You mean the tradition of class exploitation, Constitutions? You mean those old documents which enshrined classism in law?
You're not helping with your Marxist rants.

Dont bother arguing with Andaras. He has a Marxist rant for every single topic or comment you could think of, and he doesnt really listen to logic.
Andaras's law? "As a thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Marxism (And its derivatives) or Stalin approaches one."

What are you talking about ?

As if only capitalist leaders are democratic..
- Zapatero's Spain is socialist, and democratic
- Prodi's Italy was socialist, and democratic
- Schroeder's Germany was socialist and democratic.
etc etc ..

Don't bother. He's gonna say they're cryptocapitalists (or, in his own language, "bourgeois"), because they didn't nationalise everybody and everything and send anyone unhappy with it (again in his own language, "Kulaks") to Gulags.

What are you talking about ?

As if only capitalist leaders are democratic..
- Zapatero's Spain is socialist, and democratic
- Prodi's Italy was socialist, and democratic
- Schroeder's Germany was socialist and democratic.
etc etc ..

Lol yeah and Mitternich was a socialist:rolleyes: At best they are social-democratic reformists, in the case of Spain it's simply replacing economic change with liberal social policies. Socialism is when the working class seize state power.

Well, not exactly. Relations between Chávez and Clinton were fine. Relations between Chávez and USA started to become very bad when Chávez opposed US invasion of Afganistan in 2001, and after Chávez showed on TV the photos of children killed by US bombing and said something like "September 11 was already, but this is also horrible. You don't fight terror with terror ! I beg you to think about the consequences before acting."
That and he made it quite clear from the start that he was against US companies in Venezuela.
Slightly better ? He solved illiteracy (was around 1 million when he took power), hundred of thousands were granted secondary school level, and many were able to enter university unlike before.

How so ?
It would have made it so that students could only learn what the government said was useful.
Mildly better ? There are 100% free healthcenter in every "barrios" now ! 600 totally free "diagnostic centers" were opened ! Tens of new hospitals ! 500 000 were cured from eyesight defect ! That's "mildly better ?"
Yes, it is only mildly better.
That's true, but crime is hard to solve in a few years, and was not his priority. He's trying to work more on this now, so let's see what happens.
Indeed, I hope it gets sorted out.
The economy of Venezuela is growing faster than any other south american country, including the non-oil sector. Unemployment was greatly lowered.
And inflation is making things extremely hard for everyone, both poor and middle class, which is terrible, and poverty is just as bad as it was when he came to power, and it was only by changing the way poverty is calculated that Chavez has made any 'improvements'.
As for his mates' pockets, do you have any proof ?
http://www.economist.com/World/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6749208

Amongst others.
Which growing militarism ? When Chávez arrived in power in 1999, the situation was so bad that he *reduced* strongly the military spendings... when later on he restored them to previous level (because the situation is much better for them with high oil prices), every media was yelling "Chávez is increasing military spendings"... while he was just restoring them. Then, you should not forget that US ban on spare parts makes fixing their existing material (aircraft, ...) impossible, so they need to buy new crafts which is more expensive, just to maintain the same level.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4718688.stm - quadrupling the size of the Reserves is quite a big deal, no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4682488.stm - totally unnecessary purchase of 100,000 rifles, as well as more jets, when they could just purchase spare parts from Europe? Quite militaristic.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-looks-to-triple-arms-exports-to-venezuela-04199/ - Tripling the current $4 billion contracts would make them $12 billion, which would be roughly 8x the current official budget for Venezuela's military. I think there's a lot of secret spending going on.
Don't forget either that Venezuela has a 2000km long border with a country in civil war: Columbia. So they need to be careful.
A border they've recently been massing troops at for no good reason.
Lieutenant-Colonel.
Does it really matter what exact rank he had?
He lost the referendum. He accepted it, even before the counting was total, and congratulated his opponents. This looks exactly like the FUD that was used against the Sandinist in Nicaragua, and as history showed us, they accepted their electoral defeat, even if it was caused by US money and US-paid Contra.
Aye, accepted it and then told the opposition to keep quiet about it - and it's a good thing for students that it failed, since it would have limited their university education.

Who cares Yootopia! I certainly wouldn't give a hoot if we armed FARC to the teeth, better to deal with the bourgeois regime of Uribe then.

Hitler was an excellent leader with the exception of his genocide. Regardless, it is debatable whether he actually had popular support. His movement was just very vocal, forceful, and controlled the records. Everyone was forced to be a Nazi, but I'm sure the silent majority didn't really care either way.
Just to point this out -

Hitler was not an excellent leader. He was an extremely weak leader, it was his underlings who made him appear strong. Himmler in particular did most of the grunt work involved in the actual running of the Third Reich, and Goering chipped in in his own way, too.

Also, the inflationary pressures created by Hitler's overindulgence towards German industry, giving them enormous contracts paid for by money with little worth etc. caused a drop in real wages of about 25%, as inflation rose pretty sharply whilst wages did not - and with the new system of labour books and the difficulty in quitting one's job, things were made much, much harder for the average German worker.

In addition to this, he was a crap general and did not consider his generals more competant than himself, which was a massive error in judgement. And he took crystal meth and speed in the last couple of years of the war, which didn't exactly help his judgement much.

So, aye, crap leader. Alright at speeches, but nothing more.

Socialism is when the working class seize state power.
And we all know what happens then, A middle class 'leader' appears , manages to manipulate his way into a powerful position, then into the leaders place, then send the kulacks to the gulag, purges the old guard of the revolution with a 9mm pistol just in case they thinking about deposing him, signs a peace treaty with his facist enemy in order to seize various independent states along the border, fights a brutal war with said facist enemy which results in him taking over more of the independent states to the west, builds an A-bomb, starts a pointless war in a small country to the east,and finally dies after being poisoned by his trusted deputy (who was about to get purged himself).

Aye aint socialism great

still that version was far better than Pol Pot's version: "shoot anyone wearing glasses"

http://www.economist.com/World/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6749208
Gimme a break! The Economist hates anything that isn't Adam Smith. GEt a real, unbiased source.

Just to point this out -

Hitler was not an excellent leader. He was an extremely weak leader, it was his underlings who made him appear strong. Himmler in particular did most of the grunt work involved in the actual running of the Third Reich, and Goering chipped in in his own way, too.

Also, the inflationary pressures created by Hitler's overindulgence towards German industry, giving them enormous contracts paid for by money with little worth etc. caused a drop in real wages of about 25%, as inflation rose pretty sharply whilst wages did not - and with the new system of labour books and the difficulty in quitting one's job, things were made much, much harder for the average German worker.

In addition to this, he was a crap general and did not consider his generals more competant than himself, which was a massive error in judgement. And he took crystal meth and speed in the last couple of years of the war, which didn't exactly help his judgement much.

So, aye, crap leader. Alright at speeches, but nothing more.
But, he put it all together and started it all. His later years saw him go crazy. It's a shame the assassination failed.

And we all know what happens then, A middle class 'leader' appears , manages to manipulate his way into a powerful position, then into the leaders place, then send the kulacks to the gulag, purges the old guard of the revolution with a 9mm pistol just in case they thinking about deposing him, signs a peace treaty with his facist enemy in order to seize various independent states along the border, fights a brutal war with said facist enemy which results in him taking over more of the independent states to the west, builds an A-bomb, starts a pointless war in a small country to the east,and finally dies after being poisoned by his trusted deputy (who was about to get purged himself).

Aye aint socialism great

still that version was far better than Pol Pot's version: "shoot anyone wearing glasses"

Firstly, Stalin wasn't middle class, secondly historical revisionism, thirdly the baltic state voluntarily accepted Soviet garrisons in the socialist system because they opposed fascism, Poland refused to yield strategic areas to the Soviet Union to defend against fascist aggression, thus Stalin took it by force. Fourthly the Korean War was started by South US-supported raids into Northern territory. Fifthly historical revisionism.

Also Yootopia, The Economist=failure at life. I find it strange that anyone would pay for bourgeois opinions.

Gimme a break! The Economist hates anything that isn't Adam Smith. GEt a real, unbiased source.

Also Yootopia, The Economist=failure at life. I find it strange that anyone would pay for bourgeois opinions.

You keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it has a pro-market stance. It does, however, fact-check more often than any source Andaras has presented so far.

Firstly, Stalin wasn't middle class, secondly historical revisionism, thirdly the baltic state voluntarily accepted Soviet garrisons in the socialist system because they opposed fascism, Poland refused to yield strategic areas to the Soviet Union to defend against fascist aggression, thus Stalin took it by force. Fourthly the Korean War was started by South US-supported raids into Northern territory. Fifthly historical revisionism.


Wait wait wait...Mr Stalin was really good guy and eveything else is a lie is accusing someone else of historical revisionism?

Just to point this out -

Hitler was not an excellent leader. He was an extremely weak leader, it was his underlings who made him appear strong. Himmler in particular did most of the grunt work involved in the actual running of the Third Reich, and Goering chipped in in his own way, too.

Also, the inflationary pressures created by Hitler's overindulgence towards German industry, giving them enormous contracts paid for by money with little worth etc. caused a drop in real wages of about 25%, as inflation rose pretty sharply whilst wages did not - and with the new system of labour books and the difficulty in quitting one's job, things were made much, much harder for the average German worker.

In addition to this, he was a crap general and did not consider his generals more competant than himself, which was a massive error in judgement. And he took crystal meth and speed in the last couple of years of the war, which didn't exactly help his judgement much.

So, aye, crap leader. Alright at speeches, but nothing more.

Hitler was pretty dam good. Germany money was so bad that it was cheaper to burn it than coal. He came to power and was able toput the right people in place and do the right things so that they could rebuild imensly. How the hell do you think they got such a big military? At first it wasn't pretty but he pulled it back together. He was a terrible general on the other hand. His hold at all cost policies destroyed the 6th army at Stalingrad, Lost the Afrika corp in tunisia, and many troops just plain died because they were not allowed to retreat. I see the same thing in Obama. except not as good.

Gimme a break! The Economist hates anything that isn't Adam Smith. GEt a real, unbiased source.
Jesus Christ, Sel.

Even the Socialist Worker points out that Venezuelan government is corrupt, and they'd take Chavez up the arse every day of the week.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10538

[Many politicians of other, allied parties] were seen as cut off from the movement, with repeated complaints of their "bureaucratism", "clientalism" and "corruption".

Chavez is responding to these feelings... Chavez's own references to corruption show that he recognises some of these faults.
Obviously, they try to blame it on the pre-Chavez middle class, but then they would, because the writers for the Socialist Worker feel guilty for largely not being working class, but instead champagne socialists.
But, he put it all together and started it all.
Again, not really. He got into power because von Papen was a moron and Hitler's mate Goering was a war hero, and the other cabinet member of Hitler's first chancellorship was Wilhelm Frick, who was a grey man, even for German politics.
His later years saw him go crazy.
Mein Kampf was written in his early years. I've read it, and it's quite the crazy affair.
It's a shame the assassination failed.
Shame he didn't die in WW1, but there we go.

Congradulations Yootopia, you have managed to find some bankrupt Trotskyite source which will say anything the bourgeois wants, well done.

Hitler was pretty dam good. Germany money was so bad that it was cheaper to burn it than coal.
Aye, which was sorted out by the creation of the Rentenmark in 1923 (turned into the Reichsmark in 1924, at which point it became the 'proper' currency), a full 10 years before Hitler came to power.
He came to power and was able toput the right people in place and do the right things so that they could rebuild imensly.
He came to power just as the world economy was bouncing back, and managed to take credit for the completely unsurprising economic boom which resulted from this.
How the hell do you think they got such a big military?
He gave them so much money that they couldn't even spend it in his first year as Chancellor. That's how. On the other hand, the fact that he was printing money to give to the large firms like Krupp meant that inflation started to rise fairly sharply and real wages dropped.
At first it wasn't pretty but he pulled it back together.
Economic stability improved around the world. That's what saved Hitler.
He was a terrible general on the other hand. His hold at all cost policies destroyed the 6th army at Stalingrad, Lost the Afrika corp in tunisia, and many troops just plain died because they were not allowed to retreat.
Aye, shite general.
I see the same thing in Obama. except not as good.
Right, good for you, or something.

Hitler was pretty dam good. Germany money was so bad that it was cheaper to burn it than coal. He came to power and was able toput the right people in place and do the right things so that they could rebuild imensly. How the hell do you think they got such a big military? At first it wasn't pretty but he pulled it back together. He was a terrible general on the other hand. His hold at all cost policies destroyed the 6th army at Stalingrad, Lost the Afrika corp in tunisia, and many troops just plain died because they were not allowed to retreat. I see the same thing in Obama. except not as good.Germany was actually on its way to recover from the depression, with or without Hitler. He may have sped it up, but only by increasing debt and spending money he didn't have to build the Autobahn and engines of war. In the end, it was confiscating money from the Jews and the prospect of reparations/tribute from the rest of Europe that kept the economy afloat.

You keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it has a pro-market stance. It does, however, fact-check more often than any source Andaras has presented so far.

Lol, you mean it fact checks on itself, and holds the market as an infallible system.

Congradulations Yootopia, you have managed to find some bankrupt Trotskyite source which will say anything the bourgeois wants, well done.Get your grammar right before tossing around big words like that.

Lol, you mean it fact checks on itself, and holds the market as an infallible system.No, not really. ;)

You keep telling yourself that. Perhaps it has a pro-market stance. It does, however, fact-check more often than any source Andaras has presented so far.
Nonetheless, it is a heavily biased Adam Smith mouthpiece.

Nonetheless, it is a heavily biased Adam Smith mouthpiece.Heavily biased means heavily slanted. I have yet to see evidence showing that it is indeed slanted towards Adam Smith's theories in such a profound manner.

Nonetheless, it is a heavily biased Adam Smith mouthpiece.
Aye, fine, I've given you another source.

Heavily biased means heavily slanted. I have yet to see evidence showing that it is indeed slanted towards Adam Smith's theories in such a profound manner.

Any source which shows a preference toward capitalist economical news is slanted in that direction.

Any source which shows a preference toward capitalist economical news is slanted in that direction.

Irony is a bit like goldy and bronzy to you, only made from iron, isn't it?

This is our backyard after all.

No. No, it is not your backyard. South America is not the backyard of the USA.

Latinos do not live on 'your' property.

The USA has no right to get involved at all. And I am making the generous assumption that the USA hasn't involved itself yet.

It strikes me as incredibly convenient that Uribe happened to get the info about Reyes' location just in time to derail Chavez' negotiations. Incedibly convenient that they 'found' documents linking Chavez to FARC, that also conveniently link both to weapons of mass destuction. And then some US politicos just happened to use these documents to put Venezuela on a list of states that support terrorism despite the sketchy 'evidence'.

Can you think of any other oil rich country that has received similar treatment?

I'm not saying that the CIA or some other agency is behind this. But such a theory is consistent with the data.

Nonetheless, it is a heavily biased Adam Smith mouthpiece.

Aaaaaaaaand????

That makes it invalid, how?

That does nothing to change the fact that their name DOES NOT have the word "Communist" in it.

That's not my point.

I'm not. I'm attacking your incorrect assumption that because Colombia is in the name, they can only operate in Colombia.

( continuation reply 1 ). You misinterpreted. I said, that, if most FARC people are Colombians, and fight the Colombian government from a base in Ecuador, they're probably illegal in Ecuador, since no normal country would allow terrorists to cross their borders. Nevertheless, Colombia could ask Ecuador to extradite all Colombian FARC members currently residing in Ecuador.


Hitler was an excellent leader with the exception of his genocide. Regardless, it is debatable whether he actually had popular support. His movement was just very vocal, forceful, and controlled the records. Everyone was forced to be a Nazi, but I'm sure the silent majority didn't really care either way.

Oh right, an excellent leader, except that he was a great threat to international security and stability...and it's all perfectly right to let him do what he wants....:rolleyes:


Because the West shunned him. Maybe he doesn't like the West and wants to be friends with enemies of the West.

He shunned himself, by raping all bits of what Venezuela theoretically made a democracy.


Please tell me what dictators he met with. So far, you only name one: Mugabe.

- Ghaddafi
- Hu Jintao
- Fidel Castro
- Khamenei

High morals tends to lead to bad choices because you thikn you're always right no matter what you do.

You know what the real bad decisions where ? Tolerating dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam for years. Tolerating the Taliban till 2001, Still tolerating a country like North Korea where every basic human right one can think of is violated. In October 2007, when Myanmar's gvt shot demonstrating monks, the UN was whining about human rights, but in the mean time the regime has only tightened their grip on the country, it is no longer on the news. The same is now going in Tibet. If only the international community had some real high morals now...

No. No, it is not your backyard. South America is not the backyard of the USA.

Latinos do not live on 'your' property.

Thanks for this. The best thing I can say to the goverment and citizens of the US treying to meddle here based on the backyard assumption is "fuck off", really.

First, the FARC are not really "terrorists" according to international definitions. There are insurgents, using very reprehensible means like hostages taking and drug traffic, but not "terrorists" (well, it became a wild card for "bad guy" nowadays).

They are a group that uses fear and violent means to achieve a political end. I fail to see how that doesn't comply with the international definition of a terrorist so far. For me, even ETA has more political reasons for terrorism than the FARC.

FARC be freedom fighters.

Honestly, I'm sure the British thought of the Americans as terrorists. More my man John Paul Jones than George Washington, but still.

Are the FARC fighting for independence and self determination of a certain group of people? Are they fighting a oppressor? Are they making a territorial claim that was taken from them?

Then, no support of FARC from Venezuela was ever proved. And Chávez is not the kind of guy to do things in the shadow, he doesn't care about "political correctness", and he displays his sulphurous friendships openly (like the one with Iran, which is my most important disagreement with him).

Except the testimony of Mr. Chávez, who says that he agrees and identifies himself with the struggle of the FARC. Although it is true that no monetary or financial support has been proved, he extends political support to the FARC.


All those are not terrorism. They kill people (they fight a war), they kidnap people (to exchange or ask for ransoms), they produce drug, ... yeah, that's criminal. But that's not *terrorism*. This is not about *terror*. They don't kidnap people to terrorize the population, they do it to use them as hostages. That's not worse or better, that's different. Once again, *terrorism* is not just "bad guy".

Show me if they asked something in return for Ingrid Betancourt. They kidnap for ransom and to spread fear that you might get caught if you oppose them, that is terrorism.


It's absolutely fundamental, it's the difference between "I take precautions in case they would like to do the same to me" and "I declare war to you".

Oh it was: protect Venezuela's border in case of Columbia wanted to do the same. And show Columbia that they crossed a line.

A line with another country. Chávez movement was as good as was the Kaiser movement to support Austria against Serbia in 1914. A warmongering attempt to threaten one of the sides directly involved before diplomacy even started.

"Each one for himself" is not the vision of Venezuela, and that's very good for them. Standing up to defend your allies is all to your honor. And btw, nearly all of Latin America supported Ecuador, in different ways. It wasn't their business either ?

Remember that you would be speaking, in the best of cases, of 6 of every 10 venezuelans. Once thing is to support a posture, and another one is to menace saying that you are willing to enforce your vision with military power.

I'm sure Chavez is shaking in his boots at the thought of being put on the US 'naughty list'. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about ?

As if only capitalist leaders are democratic..
- Zapatero's Spain is socialist, and democratic

Please, spare me. Zapatero is only the President of Spain, Spain doesn't belong to him. So don't make it sound as if he is the owner of the country...

Firstly, Stalin wasn't middle class, secondly historical revisionism, thirdly the baltic state voluntarily accepted Soviet garrisons in the socialist system because they opposed fascism, Poland refused to yield strategic areas to the Soviet Union to defend against fascist aggression, thus Stalin took it by force. Fourthly the Korean War was started by South US-supported raids into Northern territory. Fifthly historical revisionism.


I must say thank you here for a good laugh on a bad day (so far ) for me

Stalin originally planned to be a priest... if that aint a middle class job, I'm not an industrial robot programmer.
Next why dont you ASK people from the baltic states if they wanted to be invaded by the Soviet union in 1940 and have many of their countrymen shipped off to the gulag. Note: the old nazi propeganda films showing people welcoming the nazi troops invading Russia were shot in the baltic states... because they thought no one could be worse than the Soviets and the NKVD...... how wrong they were.

Poland was chopped up by Soviets and Germany 2 weeks before the germans invaded poland, in any case, why did the Soviet choose to kill 27 000 polish army and government officers in the Katlyn forest when they could have been used helping to throw the nazis out of Poland.

And lastly the Korean war... best you get yourself a decent textbook on the matter and read it.

El-Presidente Boris

Capitalism maybe a crap system, but its a hell of a lot better than the alternatives :p

http://www.mikhaela.net/pictures/toons/bushcat.gif

http://www.mikhaela.net/pictures/toons/bushcat.gif

On the contrary, there has been shocking proof of the intelligence of cats. The behavior of the modern day cat can be examined in two phases:

1. Waking hours
2. Sleeping hours

During the sleeping hours the cat seems to do nothing. Indeed, this is probably what the cat is doing. However, it is during the first phase which the most remarkable thing occurs. In this phase cats may seem to be doing the exact same thing in phase #2, however, the difference is that they are calculating the meaning of life. It all started a few million years ago. When cats evolved to their modern forms, they were so incredibly intelligent that they became bored with life. In fact, many cats have depressing thoughts. The reason for them lobbying around houses is because they are actually physicists executing those calculations. This discovery has shed light [and fur] on many of the problems with cats. Though physicists, the cats have not been able to solve the tail paradox mentioned above. It is also a little know fact that cats are actually larger on the inside than the outside, which explains why the litter box is overflowing.

Again, not really. He got into power because von Papen was a moron and Hitler's mate Goering was a war hero, and the other cabinet member of Hitler's first chancellorship was Wilhelm Frick, who was a grey man, even for German politics.

I'd say that Von Papen was getting senile, was in poor health and was in a job that he never wanted (but felt obligated to hold).

Heavily biased means heavily slanted. I have yet to see evidence showing that it is indeed slanted towards Adam Smith's theories in such a profound manner.
Just read it. It's so blatant. If you have trouble, read an article on socialism or anything remotely related.

Latinos do not live on 'your' property.
What about Pedro and Pablo who live in the shed...

Aaaaaaaaand????

That makes it invalid, how?
It's like reading a KKK article about the benefits of African culture.

That's not my point.
Either keep to facts or don't. Don't make assumptions or false statements that demonize something in a way that shouldn't.

( continuation reply 1 ). You misinterpreted. I said, that, if most FARC people are Colombians, and fight the Colombian government from a base in Ecuador, they're probably illegal in Ecuador, since no normal country would allow terrorists to cross their borders. Nevertheless, Colombia could ask Ecuador to extradite all Colombian FARC members currently residing in Ecuador.
Ecuador has every right to harbor Colombian rebels. If it was illegal, they wouldn't be there or Ecuador would be asking for help.

Oh right, an excellent leader, except that he was a great threat to international security and stability...and it's all perfectly right to let him do what he wants....:rolleyes:
He actually brought stability and security.

He shunned himself, by raping all bits of what Venezuela theoretically made a democracy.
BS statement with no basis in fact.

- Ghaddafi
I guess

- Hu Jintao
Try again. Hu actually doesn't have that much power.

- Fidel Castro
As much a dictator as FDR and George Washington (had he decided to continue to pursue terms in office) Just because someone is continuously reelected doesn't make them a dictator. He's just very popular. What dictator steps down when there is no reason to?

- Khamenei
Not really. He just has a lot of power. It's how their gov't works.

You know what the real bad decisions where ? Tolerating dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam for years. Tolerating the Taliban till 2001, Still tolerating a country like North Korea where every basic human right one can think of is violated.
Clearly, we should invade every country and set up an unstable democracy that can't provide its people with anything.

In October 2007, when Myanmar's gvt shot demonstrating monks, the UN was whining about human rights, but in the mean time the regime has only tightened their grip on the country, it is no longer on the news.
Who the fuck cares? They make our shirts and don't use the metric system.

The same is now going in Tibet. If only the international community had some real high morals now...
Tibet is getting what it deserves.

I'd say that Von Papen was getting senile, was in poor health and was in a job that he never wanted (but felt obligated to hold).
Suppose so. His naïve nature was a bit sad, though.

Ecuador has every right to harbor Colombian rebels. If it was illegal, they wouldn't be there or Ecuador would be asking for help.

Haha, as if a government has full knowledge of all illegals hiding in their country.

He actually brought stability and security.

Till 1938.

BS statement with no basis in fact.

Reread my posts about Coup'd Etats and his miserable attempt to change the constitution. He demolished the small bit of credit he still had in the rest of the world.

Try again. Hu actually doesn't have that much power.

And PRC is a democracy, according to you ?


As much a dictator as FDR and George Washington (had he decided to continue to pursue terms in office) Just because someone is continuously reelected doesn't make them a dictator. He's just very popular. What dictator steps down when there is no reason to?

What a terrible comparison. FDR en Washington didn't economically and morally squeeze their country. Raul Castro, finally, after 50 years allowed Cubans to own a television. Dissidents are held in captivity, and there is no such thing as freedom of speech. But yeah, Castro was so popular, thousands of Cubans (try to )flee the country every year.

Clearly, we should invade every country and set up an unstable democracy that can't provide its people with anything.

Guys like Mugabe and Kim can't even manage food for their people.

Tibet is getting what it deserves.

This is the climax of a ridiculous attempt to defend oppressive dicatorships.

Just read it. It's so blatant. If you have trouble, read an article on socialism or anything remotely related.
I'd disagree, but I gave you another source which you've seemingly been unable to answer. Make an effort for fuck's sakes.

Just to take a few select pieces of stupidity from a plentiful source right here -

Try again. Hu actually doesn't have that much power.
There's nothing Hu and his Politburo can't mandate or veto. That's pretty powerful.
[Fidel Castro was] As much a dictator as FDR and George Washington (had he decided to continue to pursue terms in office) Just because someone is continuously reelected doesn't make them a dictator. He's just very popular. What dictator steps down when there is no reason to?
...

1) FDR and George Washington certainly did not imprision political prisoners in peacetime. The revolution ended in the mid 1960s in Cuba, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.

2) Re-elected?

"Hmm, who do I vote for, Fidel or RON, especially with people looking at who I've been voting for afterwards"

That and when you simple give yourself somewhere in the region of 110% popularity, nobody can take you seriously.
Who the fuck cares? They make our shirts and don't use the metric system.
1) It's the only place in the world that fulfils the UN's "seriously, invade please" criteria of mass political repression, needless killing and indeed slavery of ethnic minorities, an Evil And Bad Government, as well as the other ones I can't remember off the top of my head.

2) Metric is great, it makes converting between units much, much easier. A litre of water is a kilogram. This is simple, and effective.

Instead of a pint of water being about a pound and a quarter, which is ridiculous.

I'd disagree, but I gave you another source which you've seemingly been unable to answer. Make an effort for fuck's sakes.

That would break with a long standing tradition.

Despite the protests of the USA, the OAS found that Colombia had violated international law:

The text deplored the "incursion of Colombian armed forces and police into Ecuadorean territory" on 1 March.

The action was taken "without the knowledge or approval of the Ecuadorean government, which constitutes a clear violation of articles 19 and 21 of the OAS charter".

The resolution also referred to Colombia's "clear apology" for its incursion.

And for those who wish to see the relevant articles...


Art 19: No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Art 21: The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognised.

Linky. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7302025.stm)

This does not surprise me at all. I think most Latin Americans, and their governments, saw this primarily as a sovereignty issue. First of all, there was the threat to Ecuadorean sovereignty posed by the Colombian military, but there was also the threat of US involvement in the region. There were worries that the US government would use this as a pretext to involve itself in regional affairs, under the guise of helping Colombia fight international terrorism. I think this is one of the reasons why Correa and other leaders are asking for a multilateral force under the OAS to patrol the border.

Despite the protests of the USA, the OAS found that Colombia had violated international law.
I'm disgusted that you think that there's a single proper nation in the world, least of all in the Americas, that doesn't do this on a regular basis, especially those with disputed borders which are covered by jungle and such.

I'm disgusted that you think that there's a single proper nation in the world, least of all in the Americas, that doesn't do this on a regular basis, especially those with disputed borders which are covered by jungle and such.

I don't see how this is a reply to my post.

I don't see how this is a reply to my post.
"Everyone does this, what's your point?"

"Everyone does this, what's your point?"

That's true. Here in Canada, we constantly deal with cross border incursions from our US neighbours. :rolleyes:

Tell you what, rather than making generalisations that may or may not be true, and may or may not be related to the discussion, how about you provide me with some source detailing the history of Colombian and Ecuadorean border disputes? Or whatever it is you're trying to argue.

That's true. Here in Canada, we constantly deal with cross border incursions from our US neighbours. :rolleyes:
Article 19, squire, not article 21, is what's constantly violated, although there's a fair amount of armed cross-border stuff between Ecuador and Paraguay if you're interested (it's dry reading, I wouldn't bother).
Tell you what, rather than making generalisations that may or may not be true, and may or may not be related to the discussion, how about you provide me with some source detailing the history of Colombian and Ecuadorean border disputes? Or whatever it is you're trying to argue.
Seeing as this whole thing is really about Venezuela, how's about the talks between Chavez and the Colombian high command in direct violation of what Uribe had asked for?

Were those not influencing the internal politics of Colombia both directly and indirectly?

Article 19, squire, not article 21, is what's constantly violated, although there's a fair amount of armed cross-border stuff between Ecuador and Paraguay if you're interested (it's dry reading, I wouldn't bother).

Actually, very few nations do this. There are obvious exceptions like the USA, which involves itself in many Latin American issues.

Seeing as this whole thing is really about Venezuela, how's about the talks between Chavez and the Colombian high command in direct violation of what Uribe had asked for?

Were those not influencing the internal politics of Colombia both directly and indirectly?

That would be difficult to say, without a source.

Actually, very few nations do this. There are obvious exceptions like the USA, which involves itself in many Latin American issues.
Nah, the countries at the top of central America generally try to help out groups friendly to their cause - for some such as the FARC, it's Ecuador and Venezuela on their side, for other groups generally the Nicauraguans and so on and so forth. Utter mess.
That would be difficult to say, without a source.
Do you not read the news or something?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7118127.stm

Relations between the two men seemed close in August - despite their apparent ideological differences - when Mr Uribe enlisted Mr Chavez's help in trying to arrange an exchange of prisoners with rebel-held hostages.

But last week Mr Uribe ended Mr Chavez's involvement, saying it was because the Venezuelan leader was in direct contact with Colombia's army chief despite being told to avoid such action.
There you go.

Nah, the countries at the top of central America generally try to help out groups friendly to their cause - for some such as the FARC, it's Ecuador and Venezuela on their side, for other groups generally the Nicauraguans and so on and so forth. Utter mess.

I've noticed that many anglos believe this myth. I wonder why.

Do you not read the news or something?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7118127.stm


There you go.

You are claiming that Chavez interfered in the affairs of another nation, yet your only evidence is that he was speaking with some generals. Please explain to me how this discussion with army officials somehow contravened either of the articles.

I've noticed that many anglos believe this myth. I wonder why.
Do you actually have a point, or is this just some kind of stupid "I live in Montréal, bugger the Ontarians" thing?
You are claiming that Chavez interfered in the affairs of another nation, yet your only evidence is that he was speaking with some generals. Please explain to me how this discussion with army officials somehow contravened either of the articles.
...

"Art 19: No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements."

President Uribe told Chavez explicitly that he shouldn't talk with the generals. Chavez then ignored Uribe and talked with them personally - this is interfering with the internal politics of Colombia, and is forbidden in Art. 19.

There you go.

Do you actually have a point, or is this just some kind of stupid "I live in Montréal, bugger the Ontarians" thing?

...

I meant english speaking people, i.e. people from the UK and those who live in their former colonies.

And to be honest, I wonder what your point is. I was merely updating the thread with the latest news on the issue, and outlined what the OAS position was, and why I thought they came to that conclusion. You replied with some weird post about how disgusting you found my thoughts. Whatever.

The point being that you seem to believe that meddling in the affairs of other countries is something quite common in Latin America, yet you provide nothing to back up such an assertion.

"Art 19: No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements."

President Uribe told Chavez explicitly that he shouldn't talk with the generals. Chavez then ignored Uribe and talked with them personally - this is interfering with the internal politics of Colombia, and is forbidden in Art. 19.

There you go.

You forgot to explain the important part: how Chavez' conversation with the generals affected Colombian affairs to such a degree that it could be called 'interfering with the internal politics of Colombia'.

Alright, regarding the Colombia situation, here is a comparison:

What if Cuban Migs bombed an Alpha 66 camp in Florida, what do you think the reaction from the US would be? Yet this is exactly what Colombia did by violating Equador's sovereignty to bomb FARC, how are the two any different, both are terrorist organizations which advocate the violent overthrow of their respective states.

Let's see if anyone can answer this without reverting to some rude American nationalist 'we are better, we are special' rant.

What if Cuban Migs bombed an Alpha 66 camp in Florida, what do you think the reaction from the US would be? Yet this is exactly what Colombia did by violating Equador's sovereignty to bomb FARC, how are the two any different, both are terrorist organizations which advocate the violent overthrow of their respective states.
The US would react as they please, though I don't think they'd be justified. There is no reason to tolerate or support terrorist groups, regardless who they're against.

More relevant is however the question of why Canada would mobilise troops against Cuba...

More relevant is however the question of why Canada would mobilise troops against Cuba...


Exactly. I sympathize with Ecaudor. I think Chavez is out of line.

More relevant is however the question of why Canada would mobilise troops against Cuba...
Wasn't Pierre friends with Fidel?

Haha, as if a government has full knowledge of all illegals hiding in their country.
Prove that they're illegal.

Till 1938.
1939* and that's when Britain and France got involved. Regardless, there was peace and stability WITHIN Germany.

Reread my posts about Coup'd Etats and his miserable attempt to change the constitution. He demolished the small bit of credit he still had in the rest of the world.

And PRC is a democracy, according to you ?
Absolutely.

What a terrible comparison. FDR en Washington didn't economically and morally squeeze their country.
Neither did Fidel Castro. The US did with its silly embargo.

Raul Castro, finally, after 50 years allowed Cubans to own a television.
You have got to be kidding. This is clearly American propaganda, BS, or wikiality. If you think they didn't have TVs before, you are delusional. In fact, the 2007 World Almanac states there are 248 TVs per 1000 people.

Dissidents are held in captivity, and there is no such thing as freedom of speech.
If dissidents are held in captivity, how come there are groups IN CUBA that spoke after Fidel Castro's announcement?

But yeah, Castro was so popular, thousands of Cubans (try to )flee the country every year.
People leave the US every year. People leave Canada, Sweden, etc. every year. You have an uncanny ability to state obvious facts. If they disagree with the system/government, they are free to leave.

Guys like Mugabe and Kim can't even manage food for their people.
Excellent work stating obvious and irrelevant facts.

This is the climax of a ridiculous attempt to defend oppressive dicatorships.
I do defend "dictatorships" because I support them. I don't support stuff like North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia.

There's nothing Hu and his Politburo can't mandate or veto. That's pretty powerful.
Mr. Hu is merely a figurehead that can give the government a face.

1) FDR and George Washington certainly did not imprision political prisoners in peacetime.
Even worse, FDR imprisoned people because of their nationality. The number of political prisoners in Cuba is quite low. Maybe high in the 60s, but not now. I'm sure the US has more.

The revolution ended in the mid 1960s in Cuba, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.
It's still ongoing. It's Cuba's vision vs. the powerful American vision.
2) Re-elected?

"Hmm, who do I vote for, Fidel or RON, especially with people looking at who I've been voting for afterwards"
It's how their system works. It's better than two fake parties that are almost identical.

1) It's the only place in the world that fulfils the UN's "seriously, invade please" criteria of mass political repression, needless killing and indeed slavery of ethnic minorities, an Evil And Bad Government, as well as the other ones I can't remember off the top of my head.
I'd love to see how that'd go down. The UN invasion of Korea has gone well 58 years later.

2) Metric is great, it makes converting between units much, much easier. A litre of water is a kilogram. This is simple, and effective.
I don't deny this. Myanmar does not use metric though.

I am of the opinion that we should just let them sort their troubles out before we cause more, which is what is bound to happen.

That would break with a long standing tradition.
Comrade, I promise I will get you the documentation you request by the end of the summer of 2008 in the Northern Hemisphere. I merely am too lazy to go digging for it right now, but I know IDF has posted my arguments in the past. You're quite a character I must admit.

I'm disgusted that you think that there's a single proper nation in the world, least of all in the Americas, that doesn't do this on a regular basis, especially those with disputed borders which are covered by jungle and such.
Nauru is a consistent violator of international law.

People here obviously have no idea how the Cuban system it works, it is highly democratic and the Communist Party plays a much different role than an electoral one, it doesn't endorse candidates or the like, and to become a member you cannot just join - you must be endorsed by many members in your local community as a good revolutionary and community man. Candidates for the national assembly are only allowed a few pages to write down information for voters because it's designed to prevent massive use of financial resources by certain candidates, as what happens in the US, instead it happens so the most 'socialist man' gets elected.

People here obviously have no idea how the Cuban system it works, it is highly democratic and the Communist Party plays a much different role than an electoral one, it doesn't endorse candidates or the like, and to become a member you cannot just join - you must be endorsed by many members in your local community as a good revolutionary and community man. Candidates for the national assembly are only allowed a few pages to write down information for voters because it's designed to prevent massive use of financial resources by certain candidates, as what happens in the US, instead it happens so the most 'socialist man' gets elected.

Exactly. People think Western-style democracy is the only way. This is actually similar to what the Founding Fathers wanted.

Shame then that the National Assembly meets only twice a year, with legislative and administrative power wielded by the Council of State, appointed by the National Assembly under the 'guidance' of the PCC of which virtually all members of the National Assembly are also members. Furthermore, the unions and defense committees who pick the candidates are also tied in with the PCC who also happen to control the media to 'encourage' voters to pick the nominated candidate. And of course, dissent is illegal.