NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/04/venezuela.cargill/index.html


Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.

As BS as Chavez's move is. I don't think i could be responsible for leaving people in Venezuela to starve by destroying the food processing machinery.

lol cutting off your nose to spite your face much? lmao

lol cutting off your nose to spite your face much? lmao

i do if often myself. just should make sure it is my own face.

i do if often myself. just should make sure it is my own face.

owy!

well wait about 2 years from now when Venezuela is unable to expand their food processing ability they will be begging Cargill(or any MNC) to come back and take over.

Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.

Why are you so impatient? Just wait until the nationalisation wrecks it by itself.

Why are you so impatient? Just wait until the nationalisation wrecks it by itself.

Mainly for the purposes of trolling Chavez, and getting him to refer to people as "wreckers".

Mainly for the purposes of trolling Chavez, and getting him to refer to people as "wreckers".

Real trollers use RDX.

Mainly for the purposes of trolling Chavez, and getting him to refer to people as "wreckers".

Ahhh so his next policy will be to nationalize the people. not certain how that will work.

Real trollers use RDX.

Ah, true, so true.

Ahhh so his next policy will be to nationalize the people. not certain how that will work.
I think he'll nationalize the government first, just to confuse everyone. While everyone is busy pondering the apparent paradox, he'll strike.

He's slowly slipping towards "Bob Mugabe".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/04/venezuela.cargill/index.html


Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.


Or just wait for it to nationalize, then watch it fail.

Or just blow it up, fuck Chavez.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/04/venezuela.cargill/index.html


Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.

That's terrorism. Do you or do you not support the war on terror?

That's terrorism. Do you or do you not support the war on terror?

Hey, terrorism is alright when it's us that are doing it!

Hey, terrorism is alright when it's us that are doing it!

:eek:

Even under Obama?

:eek:

Even under Obama?

Only brown people are terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/04/venezuela.cargill/index.html


Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.

Explosives are flashy, and would give some credence at least to Chavez's rants.

Easier to sell the harder to replace machinery to scrap dealers as broken down scrap or just take all the specialized maintenance gear.

He's slowly slipping towards "Bob Mugabe".
slowly?

Wait til he orders in 8000boxes of Ferrero Roche, then we'll know for certain!

It's high time someone, somewhere, grew the balls to pull an Ellis Wyatt.

If Chavez wants it, he can take it in the same state Cargill found it and try and replicate all their work from the ground up.

That's terrorism. Do you or do you not support the war on terror?

No, it's breaking your own stuff.

Further, it is sabotage, but it is not terrorism, as the goal of terrorism is to inflict an indirect effect of the act, that is, terror. The goal of sabotage is to, literally, break stuff. I don't think you understand the difference.

slowly?

Wait til he orders in 8000boxes of Ferrero Roche, then we'll know for certain!

Look. Mugabe's addicted. And since so many countries have broken off or have reduced diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe of late, there have been no ambassadors around to spoil him with Ferrero Roche. Which actually makes things worse, as he goes more and more mad from withdrawal symptoms if he doesn't get his expensive foul tasting chocolates. Those boxes of Ferrero Roche will reestablish a balanced mental state and restore peace and prosperity.

No, it's breaking your own stuff.


Doing it with explosives gives Chavez more froth for his rants though. If it must be destroyed, an electrical fire is simpler and easier.

Take note of what Chavez is doing, the leaders in the USA are going to try some of these tactics over the next few years. They are already setting the stage with the bank bailout.

Look. Mugabe's addicted. And since so many countries have broken off or have reduced diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe of late, there have been no ambassadors around to spoil him with Ferrero Roche. Which actually makes things worse, as he goes more and more mad from withdrawal symptoms if he doesn't get his expensive foul tasting chocolates. Those boxes of Ferrero Roche will reestablish a balanced mental state and restore peace and prosperity.

...Foul tasting?

Someone get this man a cell in Guantanamo, and the full treatment. I want him GAPING by morning.

Bet he doesn't even like Cadbury eggs. Bastard.

Take note of what Chavez is doing, the leaders in the USA are going to try some of these tactics over the next few years. They are already setting the stage with the bank bailout.
Err no.

But this is lame and will fail. Which is going to be a shame for all concerned.

Take note of what Chavez is doing, the leaders in the USA are going to try some of these tactics over the next few years. They are already setting the stage with the bank bailout.

Obvious Neocon troll is obvious.

Anyway, I agree with the OP. Trolling Chavez is awesome. Its probably the only thing I will miss about Bush. He never hesistated to troll him.

Obvious Neocon troll is obvious.

Anyway, I agree with the OP. Trolling Chavez is awesome. Its probably the only thing I will miss about Bush. He never hesistated to troll him.

We could assign Bush as "special envoy" to Venezuela. Would be good for shits and giggles.


As for Cargill I say dismantle operations and move it out of Venezuela. When people start getting hungry and oil isnt worth crap maybe they will think again about their "dear leader".

We could assign Bush as "special envoy" to Venezuela. Would be good for shits and giggles.


Only if his assistant can be the King of Spain.

Only if his assistant can be the King of Spain.

¿Por qué no te callas?

He's slowly slipping towards "Bob Mugabe".
Only when I was saying it two years ago, I got yelled at.

Anyways, I agree with the OP. The correct answer to nationalisation is sabotage.

As BS as Chavez's move is. I don't think i could be responsible for leaving people in Venezuela to starve by destroying the food processing machinery.

Whyever not? Let the poor bastards suffer for electing Chavez.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1141/1308604775_fce1c3b246.jpg?v=0

Chavez needs one of these to carry around with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/04/venezuela.cargill/index.html

Nothing a little high explosives wouldn't fix.

You are proposing attacking government agencies (of another nation, no less), because you object to government policy?

Opposing policy, through destruction of property is practically definitive for 'terrorism'.

I'll be expecting you to argue in favour of the 9/11 'terrorists' next time that debate rolls around.

The terrorist answer to nationalisation is sabotage.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Can't argue with that.

Opposing policy, through destruction of property is practically definitive for 'terrorism'.
Are you serious? Say I own the plans for an H-Bomb, and the government comes to take it away and use it as part of their policy. If I destroy those plans so they don't fall into the hands of the state, I'm a terrorist? What about my tax money? If I make big losses and so my tax bill ends up being very small, I have interfered with government policy through the destruction of my property. Does that make me a terrorist?

No one has an obligation to preserve one's property for the purposes of anyone else, and certainly not the government's expropriation plans. I am quite free to let whatever depreciation, lack of maintenance or active dismantling crosses my mind happen to my property.

Can't argue with that.
I think that's the point.

Anyways, we now know that acts of sabotage in nationalised companies in the USSR, Nazi Germany or any other dictatorial state were in fact terrorism.

Only when I was saying it two years ago, I got yelled at.

Anyways, I agree with the OP. The correct answer to nationalisation is sabotage.

Is it OK for me to sabotage MacDonalds outlets because I find their employment policies objectionable?

Do you support the rule of law?

Are you serious? Say I own the plans for an H-Bomb, and the government comes to take it away and use it as part of their policy. If I destroy those plans so they don't fall into the hands of the state, I'm a terrorist?


That's a serious question?

Yes, obviously.

And you could probably be fairly charged on a whole slew of other charges in that particular circumstance, also.


What about my tax money? If I make big losses and so my tax bill ends up being very small, I have interfered with government policy through the destruction of my property. Does that make me a terrorist?


Your inability to run a business counts as destruction of property? Interesting. I'm not sure I agree, although you could probably be charged with some kind of financial wrongdoing.

Once the facility has been nationalised, if you deliberately interfered in it to make sure it made big losses? It's certainly wrongdoing, although I'm not sure it quite qualifies as terrorism. It would identify you as a traitor to the state, though.


No one has an obligation to preserve one's property for the purposes of anyone else, and certainly not the government's expropriation plans.


Or, alternatively, in reality... here, they call it 'eminent domain'.


I am quite free to let whatever depreciation, lack of maintenance or active dismantling crosses my mind happen to my property.

It's not your property.

I think that's the point.

Anyways, we now know that acts of sabotage in nationalised companies in the USSR, Nazi Germany or any other dictatorial state were in fact terrorism.

Yes, they were - if we use the same definitions we use for 'terrorism' in other situations, when it favours 'us'.

Russian Partisans in WW2, attacking troop supply, destroying farm equipment and supplies, etc were 'insurgents' and 'terrorists', according to our lexicon.

Or, alternatively, in reality... here, they call it 'eminent domain'.

"Eminent domain" is not a legitimate form of property transfer.

Is it OK for me to sabotage MacDonalds outlets because I find their employment policies objectionable?

The difference, of course, is that the McDonald's in question is presumably not your own property, whereas a business you run that is about to be nationalized is (and still is after the nationalization, since nationalization is not a legitimate form of property transfer).

If Venezuela continues to threaten Cargill with nationalization of its operations, Cargill should pack everything up that they own, and leave Chavez and Venezuela behind. I'm sure there are other South American nations willing to host Cargill's operations.

The difference, of course, is that the McDonald's in question is presumably not your own property, whereas a business you run that is about to be nationalized is (and still is after the nationalization, since nationalization is not a legitimate form of property transfer).

It is "legitimate" if it is done according to law.

It may not be "fair" if the owner isn't paid a reasonable price as part of the nationalisation. Has the Venezuelan Government indicated it will seize the business? Or will they buy it?

...since nationalization is not a legitimate form of property transfer
Surely only forced nationalisation is not a legitimate form of property transfer?

I don't see how you could have a problem with someone choosing freely to have their property nationalised.

"Eminent domain" is not a legitimate form of property transfer.

Sure it is.

You can argue that some form of compensation (preferably, 'fair' compensation) might be required, you can argue that there should be rules... but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with 'eminent domain'.

Why do that? Like everything else he's nationalized, it'll be run in to the ground and he'll have to beg them to come back and fix it...apparently, Chavez has trouble grasping the concept that replacing skilled, experienced staff with cronies leads to disaster. Sure, inflation is over 31% and rising and the country's experiencing shortages of basic consumer staples...God only knows what unemployment is.

Ah well, I guess he'll keep living the dream even if it leads to utter ruin. Of course, he could beg the Russians to bail him out out but there's that little detail about their foreign currency reserves plunging at a rate of over $40 billion per month (with only $380 billion left...) and their economy so far in the shitter that it makes the US look prosperous. I guess the fundamental lesson to be learned here is that his policies have failed massively and the Venezuelan people are probably going to be in a world of economic hurt pretty soon.

The difference, of course, is that the McDonald's in question is presumably not your own property, whereas a business you run that is about to be nationalized is (and still is after the nationalization, since nationalization is not a legitimate form of property transfer).

Your use of the word 'legitimate' is not legitimate.

Is it OK for me to sabotage MacDonalds outlets because I find their employment policies objectionable?

Do you support the rule of law?

If you own the business, I'm fairly certain it's legal for you to sabotage it. Plenty of CEOs did it and got golden parachutes after all.

It is "legitimate" if it is done according to law.

No, because "the law" is not ipso facto valid or legitimate.

but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with 'eminent domain'.

Yes, there is; its mere existence is a violation of the sanctity of private property.

Yes, there is; its mere existence is a violation of the sanctity of private property.

'private' property is a convenience. It's 'sanctity', then, is an agreement between gentlemen. And agreements between gentlemen are subordinate to the laws of the land, not superior to them.

No, because "the law" is not ipso facto valid or legitimate.

Quite simply, the law 'legitimates' the action. Almost definitively.

No, because "the law" is not ipso facto valid or legitimate.

Yes, there is; its mere existence is a violation of the sanctity of private property.

On what principle or authority do you base these assertions? Your beliefs?

Only brown people are terrorists.
Well, that's just not true.

Black people can be too, such as those in the Nation of Islam. :wink:

Is it OK for me to sabotage MacDonalds outlets because I find their employment policies objectionable?
No, but McDonald's outlets aren't your own property.

Do you support the rule of law?
That depends on how you define the rule of law. If by rule of law you been putting a constitution above all concerns of the government of the day, then yes. But Chavez has abandoned that concept a long time ago, as has every other government that ever nationalised something.

But if you simply mean the rule of the legislations the government puts in place at any given point, then I see no a priori reason to support that. I disagree vehemently with just about all legislations governments put in place and I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of legislation to start with.

So given you probably mean something closer to the latter than the former, no, I'm not a big fan of the rule of law.

Yes, obviously.
You're making the term kinda meaningless if you include the burning of a piece of paper. Any material opposition to government policy would become terrorism, including peaceful forms of protest.

Your inability to run a business counts as destruction of property?
I certainly consider it as such. When shareholders put property into the venture, and the venture fails and in the process loses this property, some fraction of the value disappears entirely (for example the depreciation of equipment that doesn't end up earning a return).

It would identify you as a traitor to the state, though.
And that's the point. I'm sure Chavez would get off on calling people traitors to the state/revolution/his face on a poster. I'm sure he will do it to Cargill if he hasn't already. But terrorism is a charged term intended to mean something else entirely.

It's not your property.
You should have made that point at the start and saved everyone some time. If you run of the assumption that there is no such thing as private property and everything is just on loan from an all-powerful state until they call it in, then what you're saying makes sense. Otherwise it doesn't and sounds like you're just disagreeing for the sake of it.

Yes, they were - if we use the same definitions we use for 'terrorism' in other situations, when it favours 'us'.
So you're seriously suggesting moral equivalence between someone who burns his factory rather than hand it over peacefully to the policemen sent to take it over and the people who blew up the World Trade Centre, to the point of Andaluciae being a hipocrite if he supported one but not the other?

Well, that's just not true.

Black people can be too, such as those in the Nation of Islam. :wink:
As can be good ol' white boys with a truckload of fertilizer blowing up kids in a daycare at a Federal building.

As can be good ol' white boys with a truckload of fertilizer blowing up kids in a daycare at a Federal building.
And you shall never hear me utter a word of disagreement against that. . .

No, but McDonald's outlets aren't your own property.


That depends on how you define the rule of law. If by rule of law you been putting a constitution above all concerns of the government of the day, then yes. But Chavez has abandoned that concept a long time ago, as has every other government that ever nationalised something.

But if you simply mean the rule of the legislations the government puts in place at any given point, then I see no a priori reason to support that. I disagree vehemently with just about all legislations governments put in place and I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of legislation to start with.

So given you probably mean something closer to the latter than the former, no, I'm not a big fan of the rule of law...

I've noticed this with you before. Similarly, Bluth Corporation. As I read you, you're asserting that all laws that contradict your belief system, are invalid. Is this reading correct?

And you shall never hear me utter a word of disagreement against that. . .
Are you agreeing that whites can be terrorists too? Or that the Federal building needed bombing? I'm trying to puzzle out what you meant...

Are you agreeing that whites can be terrorists too? Or that the Federal building needed bombing? I'm trying to puzzle out what you meant...
Oh my God, Kat. What the hell kind of monster do you think I am? :p

Obviously that Whites can be terrorists too. I've been posting here for years under your Modful eye. . . what in my posting history would possibly give you the impression that I'd call for the bombing of American federal buildings??!! :tongue:

I've noticed this with you before. Similarly, Bluth Corporation. As I read you, you're asserting that all laws that contradict your belief system, are invalid. Is this reading correct?
Almost. When you call it "your belief system" you're adding an idea of subjectivity that isn't really there. The system I'm talking about has just two rules: everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others), and there is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

That's not subjective or relative, it's the objective foundation that is required for a society in which people are free to be subjective.

Any other system necessarily requires the imposition of a certain belief on people who disagree with it. I seek to minimise interference with the freedom of people to do what they want, which is ultimately the only way for anyone who doesn't claim to be the ultimate holder of all truth to go. Ironically, capitalist libertarians (objectivists in particular), as much as they believe that they are in fact correct and there is only one correct way of living, are also the only ones who are consistent in their appeal to letting everyone live the life they want to. Even left libertarians have never really been able to convince me that their system doesn't in some way necessitate the subjugation of the individual to society, because in many ways I consider property rights as the first, last and only line of defense we have against everyone else. An actually inviolable property right would make all forms of crime, murder and oppression impossible (notwithstanding the somewhat metaphysical problem of the guy buying a ring of land around the property of someone else).

The problem is if violence is introduced and property rights are no longer inviolable. I don't have a whole lot to answer to that, no one does. But I think the existence of people who are apparently content to live a life by the gun is no reason to submit or, worse, use this as an excuse to promote a government that imposes my beliefs on everyone else.

As can be good ol' white boys with a truckload of fertilizer blowing up kids in a daycare at a Federal building.

Radical ideas and actions have no boundaries.

You're making the term kinda meaningless if you include the burning of a piece of paper.


Your entirely arbitrary opinions don't interest me.


Any material opposition to government policy would become terrorism, including peaceful forms of protest.


If a peaceful form of protest caused destruction or harm, in attempt to change a policy - it's is terrorism.


But terrorism is a charged term intended to mean something else entirely.


It has been refined to refer largely to people with tinted skin doing mean things to predominantly white or white-sympathetic audiences.

I'm not sure what baggage you'r bringing to the table, but if an act meets the definitions of terrorism, I think it's hardly inappropriate to use the word.


You should have made that point at the start and saved everyone some time.


Nice approach. The run-up was good, and your take-off was fine. Unfortunately, you missed the sand pit completely, and ended up jumping to conclusions.

"It's not your property" because we were talking about a property that has already been taken from you.


So you're seriously suggesting moral equivalence between someone who burns his factory rather than hand it over peacefully to the policemen sent to take it over and the people who blew up the World Trade Centre, to the point of Andaluciae being a hipocrite if he supported one but not the other?

Absolutely, although the 'support' thing is your strawman, and not anything I said.

If you advocate terrorism against commies/mean landlords/ people that like pumpkins, I consider you a hypocrite if you condemn it when someone does it for some other ideological justification. Absolutely.

Almost. When you call it "your belief system" you're adding an idea of subjectivity that isn't really there. The system I'm talking about has just two rules: everyone should be free to live as they want (necessitating a right not to be encroached upon by the needs/wants of others), and there is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

That's not subjective or relative, it's the objective foundation that is required for a society in which people are free to be subjective.


That's not 'objective'. That's somewhere between pure bullshit, and fantasy.

Your entirely arbitrary opinions don't interest me.



If a peaceful form of protest caused destruction or harm, in attempt to change a policy - it's is terrorism.



It has been refined to refer largely to people with tinted skin doing mean things to predominantly white or white-sympathetic audiences.

I'm not sure what baggage you'r bringing to the table, but if an act meets the definitions of terrorism, I think it's hardly inappropriate to use the word.



Nice approach. The run-up was good, and your take-off was fine. Unfortunately, you missed the sand pit completely, and ended up jumping to conclusions.

"It's not your property" because we were talking about a property that has already been taken from you.



Absolutely, although the 'support' thing is your strawman, and not anything I said.

If you advocate terrorism against commies/mean landlords/ people that like pumpkins, I consider you a hypocrite if you condemn it when someone does it for some other ideological justification. Absolutely.

Actually, dismantling the operations by expeditious means just makes good business sense-Chavez wants to take what someone not-Chavez built, and use it to compete with that someone who is not Chavez on the market. Giving the Leader of Venezuela what was there when the previous leader invited them in-(and no more) is simply good sense, and is reasonable. It's also not terrorism, since Terrorism is about politics, and this is about property- in this case, Cargill's machinery, which is not part of Venezuela, was not built or emplaced by the Venezuelan Government, was not paid for by Venezuela, and certainly hasn't been run by the Venezuelan Government.

Eminent Domain is, IIRC, about the real-estate under the factory, not the machinery in it-if it costs too much to move, then destroy it in place and move the scap.

Chavez clearly objects to Cargill's presence, a big chunk of that presence, is the functioning factory they built-therefore, to fully comply with his stated objection to their presence, they should remove that machinery and bring the building back to the condition in which they found it- thus, the objective of the Eminent Domain is satisfied, and the objectionable presence is fully excised for the good of the Venezuelan people (as defined through action by their leader).

Actually, dismantling the operations by expeditious means just makes good business sense-Chavez wants to take what someone not-Chavez built, and use it to compete with that someone who is not Chavez on the market. Giving the Leader of Venezuela what was there when the previous leader invited them in-(and no more) is simply good sense, and is reasonable. It's also not terrorism, since Terrorism is about politics, and this is about property- in this case, Cargill's machinery, which is not part of Venezuela, was not built or emplaced by the Venezuelan Government, was not paid for by Venezuela, and certainly hasn't been run by the Venezuelan Government.

Eminent Domain is, IIRC, about the real-estate under the factory, not the machinery in it-if it costs too much to move, then destroy it in place and move the scap.

Chavez clearly objects to Cargill's presence, a big chunk of that presence, is the functioning factory they built-therefore, to fully comply with his stated objection to their presence, they should remove that machinery and bring the building back to the condition in which they found it- thus, the objective of the Eminent Domain is satisfied, and the objectionable presence is fully excised for the good of the Venezuelan people (as defined through action by their leader).

People here seem to be assuming that the Venezuelan Government is simply going to seize the business. That's not necessarily what nationalisation means. To me nationalisation means the Government buying out private owners, perhaps compulsorily, but buying them out nonetheless.

Methinks people here hate the Venezuelan Government and are deliberately imputing all sorts of nefarious behaviour on their part.

People here seem to be assuming that the Venezuelan Government is simply going to seize the business. That's not necessarily what nationalisation means. To me nationalisation means the Government buying out private owners, perhaps compulsorily, but buying them out nonetheless.

Methinks people here hate the Venezuelan Government and are deliberately imputing all sorts of nefarious behaviour on their part.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0426337720090305

He pays them with debt bonds. Which seems a little shaky if you ask me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0426337720090305

He pays them with debt bonds. Which seems a little shaky if you ask me.

Thanks for the informative link.

To quote the article: Chavez has typically paid companies adequately after ordering their takeover. But several nationalizations last year have not been implemented and this year Chavez has said he would only pay for seizures with government debt paper.

What is government debt paper?

Hey, terrorism is alright when it's us that are doing it!

Whyever not? "Terrorism" is nothing more than a moniker applied to an action to impart it with emotional significance. Frankly, I'd be rather disappointed in my government not using every instrument at its' disposal in foreign policy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0426337720090305

He pays them with debt bonds. Which seems a little shaky if you ask me.

It's a LOT shaky-governments have defaulted on Bonds before, and the payments of those bonds could well be delayed or the currency they use inflated to the point of worthlessness...which strikes me as being quite in line with how Chavez is rolling these days.

Also, "Fairly Compensated" is a matter of a question, isn't it? what constitutes a "Fair" compensation? Especially if the medium is Debt-based Bonds? Seems to me that getting Nationalized is the taking of a fairly significant asset (Cargill was, after all, not in serious trouble with their Venezuela operation, it was profitable or the Government wouldn't want it-much like the Oil industry in that nation was.) A bond issued by someone who's already behind on their bills isn't worth a whole lot.

Whyever not? "Terrorism" is nothing more than a moniker applied to an action to impart it with emotional significance. Frankly, I'd be rather disappointed in my government not using every instrument at its' disposal in foreign policy.

Simplest definition I've ever come across for Terrorism, is when Party A attacks Party C to influence the policies of Party B. For instance, say, burning Korean-american shop-owners to protest the decision of a white Jury in the trial of a Cop convicted of beating a black man on the other side of the county, or shooting a Jewish-American on an Italian boat to influence the actions of Israel (a separate country), OR killing Bosnians to influence Russia... or blowing up a building in Kansas because of something that happened in Texas, that was directed from Washington D.C., OR building a bomb to detonate at a dance in New Jersey because you don't care for the policies of a Texan in Washington D.C. regarding a country in Southeast Asia.

Terrorists always attack bystanders unless those bystanders are part of the press, because it's about "Getting a message out" or "Making a STatement".

Attacking a military convoy with armed guards using a rifle isn't terrorism-unless you're doing so from a school-bus full of kids, or a hospital full of civilians-that's Insurgency. Terrorism focuses on creating chaos among civilians in hopes of creating governmental change, through violence and death.

Blowing up the equipment in your OWN factory, but not the workers, isn't terrorism-blowing up the workers (who aren't you, aren't owned by you, or part of your decision-making organization) is. If Cargill wanted to make a political point by "disinvesting" in their facility via high-explosives, it's their equipment, their financial loss, (which would be lost anyway-Venezuelan Bonds aren't going anywhere but down on the market-it's a loss no matter how you pretty it up), and their property they are pre-emptively denying to a thief.

(If you don't work for it, you don't own it.)

Simplest definition I've ever come across for Terrorism, is when Party A attacks Party C to influence the policies of Party B. For instance, say, burning Korean-american shop-owners to protest the decision of a white Jury in the trial of a Cop convicted of beating a black man on the other side of the county, or shooting a Jewish-American on an Italian boat to influence the actions of Israel (a separate country), OR killing Bosnians to influence Russia... or blowing up a building in Kansas because of something that happened in Texas, that was directed from Washington D.C., OR building a bomb to detonate at a dance in New Jersey because you don't care for the policies of a Texan in Washington D.C. regarding a country in Southeast Asia.

Terrorists always attack bystanders unless those bystanders are part of the press, because it's about "Getting a message out" or "Making a STatement".

Attacking a military convoy with armed guards using a rifle isn't terrorism-unless you're doing so from a school-bus full of kids, or a hospital full of civilians-that's Insurgency. Terrorism focuses on creating chaos among civilians in hopes of creating governmental change, through violence and death.

Blowing up the equipment in your OWN factory, but not the workers, isn't terrorism-blowing up the workers (who aren't you, aren't owned by you, or part of your decision-making organization) is. If Cargill wanted to make a political point by "disinvesting" in their facility via high-explosives, it's their equipment, their financial loss, (which would be lost anyway-Venezuelan Bonds aren't going anywhere but down on the market-it's a loss no matter how you pretty it up), and their property they are pre-emptively denying to a thief.

(If you don't work for it, you don't own it.)

That does make rather a lot of sense. Apologies for any misunderstanding; I was referring to the use of "terrorism" as a term to impute some incorrigible bastardness on an individual or action, as opposed to a more practical definition.

Thanks for the informative link.

To quote the article: Chavez has typically paid companies adequately after ordering their takeover. But several nationalizations last year have not been implemented and this year Chavez has said he would only pay for seizures with government debt paper.

What is government debt paper?

its bonds i think. maybe just how it got translated from Spanish to English.
A. I want to see the interest rate on these.(I suspect substandard)
B. that's really bad for a business. You can't reinvest those bonds in another business or location. those bonds are, pretty much stuck in Venezuela maturation. More over the Company cant use that capitol to perform other free market activities.

"It's not your property" because we were talking about a property that has already been taken from you.
It clearly hasn't. There are several days between the announcement of a policy to nationalise X, and the actual arrival of the cops to take the place over. Indeed, one could even feasibly have a leak in the government before the initial announcement of the policy.

If I destroyed my piece of paper in that period of time, that then wouldn't be terrorism, right?

What is government debt paper?
It means that, because Venezuela's government has no money anymore, they are paying with IOUs. Those bonds will of course be denominated in Bolivars and not inflation-indexed in any way so the real rate of return on them is almost certainly negative, given that inflation has started to run away in Venezuela.

So in effect, they're not paying at all. Chávez' good friend, Correa in Ecuador, has already demonstrated how Bolivarian governments treat the people they owe money to.

"It's not your property" because we were talking about a property that has already been taken from you.
Not legitimately; that's the whole point.

If you advocate terrorism against commies/mean landlords/ people that like pumpkins, I consider you a hypocrite if you condemn it when someone does it for some other ideological justification. Absolutely.

Then you're wrong. It's no different than saying "I'm justified in shooting someone who's pointing a gun at me threatening to shoot me" and then saying "I'm not justified in shooting some random guy on the street who's never done anything to me." The only difference is in the justification for the action, not in the action itself.

Oh, the same crap as usual. People repeating themselves over and over. Both in real life AND in NSG.

Almost funny.

Almost.

Oh, the same crap as usual. People repeating themselves over and over. Both in real life AND in NSG.

Almost funny.

Almost.

Tía!
*tackle-hugs*
Dónde has estado, muyer?!!! Te extrañé.:(

Whyever not? Let the poor bastards suffer for electing Chavez.

And those who didn't vote for him should also suffer!

And those who didn't vote for him should also suffer!

I am a..."Poor bastard"?

Let's see where Obama takes America for starters. Among others.

Anyway. I didn't even vote, so...

Tía!
*tackle-hugs*
Dónde has estado, muyer?!!! Te extrañé.:(

Tres meses en un crucero japonés por el pacífico, en un programa de intercambio con un montón de japoneses. Sin Internet. Pero el mejor viaje de toda mi vida.

Tres meses en un crucero japonés por el pacífico, en un programa de intercambio con un montón de japoneses. Sin Internet. Pero el mejor viaje de toda mi vida.

Vale, pues espero que te lo hayas disfrutao, que sé te lo merecías. Y me alegra que estés de vuelta. Siempre es bueno ver a los miembros con carácter de NSG estar de vuelta.

Then you're wrong. It's no different than saying "I'm justified in shooting someone who's pointing a gun at me threatening to shoot me" and then saying "I'm not justified in shooting some random guy on the street who's never done anything to me." The only difference is in the justification for the action, not in the action itself.

You're funny. You say I'm wrong, and then present an example where you, yourself, admit that the difference is only in the justification.

The person is just as dead, either way. The gun is the same, the bullet is the same. The act is the same.

The only difference is that we might allow the cause to mitigate.

So, sorry, but it is you that is wrong.

Actually, dismantling the operations by expeditious means just makes good business sense


Which is irrelevant.

Selling people into slavery 'just makes good business sense'.


Giving the Leader of Venezuela what was there when the previous leader invited them in


The factory was built in 2001-2, and Chavez was elected in 1998...


It's also not terrorism, since Terrorism is about politics,


You're wrong.


Eminent Domain is, IIRC, about the real-estate under the factory,


Governments seize property. The purpose of the example of Eminent Domain is fulfilled.


Chavez clearly objects to Cargill's presence...

Your strawman.

Far more likely, Chavez wants to gain control of a means of production.

You're funny. You say I'm wrong, and then present an example where you, yourself, admit that the difference is only in the justification.

Because that's the whole point--the act is irrelevant; all that matters are the reasons for the act.

Because that's the whole point--the act is irrelevant; all that matters are the reasons for the act.

So, it would be okay to murder (or rape, or torture, or whatever) your own children, if you had a 'good enough reason'?

No, because your insane bullshit "all that matters are the reasons" mantra is insane bullshit.

So, it would be okay to murder (or rape, or torture, or whatever) your own children, if you had a 'good enough reason'?

If it was indeed a "good enough reason," then yes.

As a practical matter, do I think such a reason actually exists? No, although it's not something I've really spent a lot of time thinking about. But the point here is the principle.

After all, that's the very essence of what a "good enough reason" is! I mean, ironically, you countered an argument with a tautological statement that actually backs up my argument!

If it was indeed a "good enough reason," then yes.


There is nothing further to be gained in addressing you on this matter.

Your perspective is so beyond reconciliation with my own (or the law, or the accepts norms of sanity) that there's simply no language to allow me to communicate with you.

So "my child was threatening to kill me, and killing him was my only means of self-defense" is not a good enough reason to kill my own child?

You are proposing attacking government agencies (of another nation, no less), because you object to government policy?

I believe what you're trying to say is "Oh, I see, hyperbole! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14562457#post14562457)

Chavez's nationalization will wreck it anyway. Why waste some good plastique, when he'll ruin it and put a further nail in the coffin of his "bolivarian revolution".

Opposing policy, through destruction of property is practically definitive for 'terrorism'.

Don't be a Bushevik, just because it's non-state violence, doesn't mean it's terrorism. Terrorism is carried out to change policy due to the resultant "terror" inspired in the population, i.e., the ultimate goal of a terrorist act is terror. This sort of thing would actually constitute sabotage as a direct form of action, in which the goal is to "break stuff".


I'll be expecting you to argue in favour of the 9/11 'terrorists' next time that debate rolls around.

No, not really.

Meanwhile, Bluthy, deliberately destroying this stuff would be so incredibly politically and morally ill advised. While, yes, it is entirely less than desirable that the equipment and facilities should not fall into the hands of Chavez, we can expect that, with a high degree of certainty, he will ruin it on his own--he's proven that with budget surpluses, he's proven that with constitutions and he's proven that with the oil industry. Let him do what he wants, it's not our job to stop him.

Perhaps, but it seems that the biggest point of contention atm is justifiability rather than advisability.

Perhaps, but it seems that the biggest point of contention atm is justifiability rather than advisability.

It might be justified. In this case, I'm leaning away from it--as the nationalization occurred outside of a traditional legal, punitive structure through the courts. There was no presentation of evidence before juries or magistrates, merely the government acting, and like my dinner last night, that seems fishy.

But, as always, regardless of justifiability, the advisable course of action is clear.

Meanwhile, Bluthy, deliberately destroying this stuff would be so incredibly politically and morally ill advised. While, yes, it is entirely less than desirable that the equipment and facilities should not fall into the hands of Chavez, we can expect that, with a high degree of certainty, he will ruin it on his own--he's proven that with budget surpluses, he's proven that with constitutions and he's proven that with the oil industry. Let him do what he wants, it's not our job to stop him.

Chavez will fuck things up on his own, it's an observed fact. Encouraging Cargill to sabotage the equipment before leaving is only going to give that windbag more propaganda material to rant and rave about for another decade at least.

Chavez will fuck things up on his own, it's an observed fact. Encouraging Cargill to sabotage the equipment before leaving is only going to give that windbag more propaganda material to rant and rave about for another decade at least.

Aye to the max.

I wish the silly feud between the U.S. and Venezuela would end. But as long as we continue to meddle in Latin American countries' affairs, sadly, it won't.

I wish the silly feud between the U.S. and Venezuela would end. But as long as we continue to meddle in Latin American countries' affairs, sadly, it won't.

First off. It's a two way street. Mr. Chavez would be well advised to avoid insulting the President of the US before he's even spent a month in office and enacted any policies pertaining to Venezuela, for instance.

When was the last time the US meddled in Latin American countries' affairs?

When was the last time the US meddled in Latin American countries' affairs?

what day is it ?

When was the last time the US meddled in Latin American countries' affairs?

We try to force pseudo-free trade (i.e., managed trade/forced globalism) on them. Then there's the embargo on Cuba...

We try to force pseudo-free trade (i.e., managed trade/forced globalism) on them. Then there's the embargo on Cuba...

The Embargo is a long-standing policy derived from and sustained by some particularly nasty events fifty years ago, and it hasn't changed out of sheer bureaucratic inertia rather than any conscious policy decision.

Also, trying to engage other states economically is not meddling--it's cooperation. I thought that's what we were supposed to do in the world, coexist and get along.

Engaging and pressuring are two different things. Besides, it's extremely hypocritical to preach "free trade," with the U.S. as protectionist as it is.

As for the embargo, as much as I hate Castro, we should immediately restore diplomatic relations with Cuba and begin trading with them immediately.

As for the embargo, as much as I hate Castro, we should immediately restore diplomatic relations with Cuba and begin trading with them immediately.
And destroy any number of domestic Cuban businesses with your forced globalism?

Methinks there is a degree of hipocrisy at work here.

Engaging and pressuring are two different things. Besides, it's extremely hypocritical to preach "free trade," with the U.S. as protectionist as it is.

And if I oppose the current protectionist policies in place in the US?

For example, I fully support permitting the import of Brazilian and Cuban sugar for energy-related purposes, as well as the elimination of the ridiculous farmer subsidies for corn ethanol.

As for the embargo, as much as I hate Castro, we should immediately restore diplomatic relations with Cuba and begin trading with them immediately.

See NL.

And destroy any number of domestic Cuban businesses with your forced globalism?

Methinks there is a degree of hipocrisy at work here.

No. We would allow Cubans to trade with us. Not force them to.

No. We would allow Cubans to trade with us. Not force them to.
How does an FTA with Colombia force anyone to trade with the US? All it means is that there are no (or fewer) trade barriers, so everyone is allowed to compete on an equal footing. The decision on whether or not a trade happens is still up to free individuals who can choose to buy Colombian if they preferred.

to buy Colombian if they preferred.
And for the Cocaine they largely do.

How does an FTA with Colombia force anyone to trade with the US? All it means is that there are no (or fewer) trade barriers, so everyone is allowed to compete on an equal footing. The decision on whether or not a trade happens is still up to free individuals who can choose to buy Colombian if they preferred.

There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't force them. But exerting pressure on a country because we don't like their trade policies is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't force them. But exerting pressure on a country because we don't like their trade policies is wrong.

Example.

Example.

Pardon?

There is nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't force them. But exerting pressure on a country because we don't like their trade policies is wrong.

so your Saying the EU is wrong to exert trade pressures on the US ???

Pardon?

Provide an example. It's for the rigor of the argument.

so your Saying the EU is wrong to exert trade pressures on the US ???

You mean like this ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7866900.stm

so your Saying the EU is wrong to exert trade pressures on the US ???

Wait, what? When did that happen?

Provide an example. It's for the rigor of the argument.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I don't have any examples, and of course I could be (and probably am) mistaken, in which case you are the victor.

Wait, what? When did that happen?

See above.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I don't have any examples, and of course I could be (and probably am) mistaken, in which case you are the victor.

Google it, it'll be good for you. I actually have no doubt that you're right that the US does attempt to exert overbearing trade pressures in Latin America, but building research skills is good for you :)

Google it, it'll be good for you. I actually have no doubt that you're right that the US does attempt to exert overbearing trade pressures in Latin America, but building research skills is good for you :)

Thanks. :)

Wait, what? When did that happen?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/senate.buy.american/

Here's the result.

The Embargo is a long-standing policy derived from and sustained by some particularly nasty events fifty years ago, and it hasn't changed out of sheer bureaucratic inertia rather than any conscious policy decision.


...but it does still exist.


Also, trying to engage other states economically is not meddling--it's cooperation. I thought that's what we were supposed to do in the world, coexist and get along.

But we don't honestly 'try to engage other states economically'. We try to get them involved in trade with us, on terms advantageous to us. Not that that's a rare arrangement, of course, but it means we have a lot of 'free trade' and very little 'fair trade'.

...but it does still exist.

And I'm not sure how anyone in Congress, the White House or anywhere else could figure out how to do this. It's so ingrained in the global foreign policy establishment that it's taken for granted--just like a Castro being in charge of Cuba.

Virtually everything about Cuba is trapped in 1961, and that US policies towards Cuba haven't changed either don't surprise.



But we don't honestly 'try to engage other states economically'. We try to get them involved in trade with us, on terms advantageous to us. Not that that's a rare arrangement, of course, but it means we have a lot of 'free trade' and very little 'fair trade'.

I don't put a lot of value in "fair" trade, which tends to actually retard successful economic development in LDC's by increasing the value of agricultural goods, resulting in decreased incentives for involvement in higher value added industrial fields. Further, it tends to be a highly subjective and interest based measure as to what is exactly fair.

And I'm not sure how anyone in Congress, the White House or anywhere else could figure out how to do this. It's so ingrained in the global foreign policy establishment that it's taken for granted--just like a Castro being in charge of Cuba.

Virtually everything about Cuba is trapped in 1961, and that US policies towards Cuba haven't changed either don't surprise.

How I would do it is have Cuba pay for the private property(+ interest of course) of American seized during and since the revolution. that way we create a moral win out of backing way.




I don't put a lot of value in "fair" trade, which tends to actually retard successful economic development in LDC's by increasing the value of agricultural goods, resulting in decreased incentives for involvement in higher value added industrial fields. Further, it tends to be a highly subjective and interest based measure as to what is exactly fair.

Fair trade is a pipe dream cooked up by people who do not understand Kuznets Curve.