Should Chavez apologize?

[sodaseller]

hmmm......................I didn't know this I guess. Tell me more about this.

TNR had it originally, but it does not seem to pull back up. Most of the rest of the sources are unreliable, at least linkable ones. But I read it in TNR, know where Reich comes from, and also maintain some contacts through friends with priests in Venezuela who have been threatened by Chavez' thugs but also know Opus' role

 

[oxfordcircus]

The guy in the WH must be the most dislike US President of all time.
First, 50% of the voters don't like him. Second, there's the outspoken 180 non-aligned nations around the world. Third, the balance of countries who are too chicken to say what they think because they depend on a handout in the form of aid.

Question: Who was the last democrat president to win with more than 50% of the popular vote?

Your second point probably applies to any and every American president in history. For example, I understand that whole Unaligned Countries thing started sometime before January 2001, or around 1979 (when someone else was president if you recall who).

Your third point is interesting. I think I shall respond with equal authority by saying, on balance, most countries love and adore America, its way of life and its president, and appreciate without a hint of ingratitude all the foreign and humanitarian aid this country gives them.

 

[sodaseller]

sodaseller,

I am well aware of that... I have a hard time equating having meetings with people in advance and affirming that we would recognize them as the legitimate government with "sponsoring" the coup. We "sponsored" the Bay of Pigs. We have "sponsored" other coups by handpicking the new leaders, using CIA assets on the ground, providing funds, etc. That hasn't been shown to be the case here.

TLHB70, here you go: Guardian Story The US met with representatives of the plotters in advance and said we'd support them politically.

It may be splitting hairs, and Opus Dei tends to make me sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, based on a little personal experience. But they are well connected in the US Government, and have a way of directing resources through nonofficial channels

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think I shall respond with equal authority by saying, on balance, most countries love and adore America, its way of life and its president, and appreciate without a hint of ingratitude all the foreign and humanitarian aid this country gives them.

I agree because if we're so universally hated-then why is everyone trying to come here??

 

[toto2]

Yep, ask Bush about that syndrome!!!

I have a real problem with such arguements. The fact is, unless you can point to actual examples of actions and reactions, such "everybody knows that..." arguments are easy to make and require zero proof. It's speculation. And speculation can be made about anything you want. Until the King of Saudi Arabia makes such statements as Chavez and takes such actions, no one can say with any certainty what the US reaction will be. Such pronouncements are only opinion. Diplomacy is a multi-varient system. As such you can't automatically take one scenario and assume that it will apply to another. During WWII we were allied pretty tightly with Josef Stalin... another unsavory character. At that time, under the set of circumstances present, that was the best move for the US and Great Britian. That relationship then disolved when a new set of circumstances were realized.

Acutally, the US has been one of the few countries that put a lot of effort into trying to keep the situation in Darfur in the World's spotlight.

So you say that The USA , great sponsor of democracy around the world is friend with the Saudies ( the country where most the 9/11 highjackers came from) because they are nice ? Where is the pressure there to spread democracy ? It is in the interest of the US to be friends with the SAudies because if the US dont play nice with them , they can turn around and sell the petrol to somebody else. It is not rethorical to think so.


I understand the need to be friends with countries we dont like in certain circonstance , but when it is in flagrant contradiction with the reason we go to war with other countries...

 

[TLHB70]

TLHB70, here you go: Guardian Story The US met with representatives of the plotters in advance and said we'd support them politically. The story also contains a large amount of "smoke" about what some of the same players did in other LA countries in the 1980's and tries to leave the reader with the impression, without evidence, that they did the same thing with the Chavez plotters.

OK, that is basically what I thought. They met, they talked, but there is no true evidence of us supporting them financially and actually having our hands in it, so to speak. Sure, I knew that our government would be happy with the new Venezuela government, but to actually back it financially was not proven so. I do know that our US government recognized the new leaders and never condemned the coup.
Chavez is crazy. My Venezuelan friends agree with that statement.

 

[DawnCt1]

Does Chavez owe us an apology? Heck no! We can't pay him and Amedineajad enough to say what they said. Look at who is fauning over Chavez. Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belefonte love Chavez. The media is touting his "cult status" and then Amedinahad gets invited to speak at Colombia. With the kind of liberal following that these two thuggish dictators have, the Republicans are almost guaranteed another term!

 

[njzieglers]

Does Chavez owe us an apology? Heck no! We can't pay him and Amedineajad enough to say what they said. Look at who is fauning over Chavez. Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belefonte love Chavez. The media is touting his "cult status" and then Amedinahad gets invited to speak at Colombia. With the kind of liberal following that these two thuggish dictators have, the Republicans are almost guaranteed another term!

Yeah, Rove must have wrote both of their speeches.

 

[DawnCt1]

Yeah, Rove must have wrote both of their speeches.

You know the saying; "don't interupt your enemy when they are making fools of themselves"

 

[toto2]

With the kind of liberal following that these two thuggish dictators have, the Republicans are almost guaranteed another term!

Chavez is not a dictator yet. I concede that the danger is there , but not yet.His election was scrutinized by and deemed clean by international observer ( can you say that Ohio and Florida?) So far , no human right violation ( can you say that guantanamo) Should we keep an eye on him ? Most certainly ! Should he choose is words more wisely ? You bet !

Right now , the people who are mad at him are the petrol companies that have to pay Venezuela more taxes tu une the Venezualans own natural resources. Noboby can dictate a country how to use there own ressources. The other people that are mad are the rich of venezuela who lost a lot of priviledge ( but not there money)

 

[Galahad]

can you say that Ohio and Florida

This doesn't add credibility to your arguement.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Nevermind. Just not worth it.

 

[toto2]

This doesn't add credibility to your arguement.

I am not saying that those election were not legit , but the only fact that there is some dout in those states and none in Venezuela is enough of an argument.

 

[TLHB70]

I am not saying that those election were not legit , but the only fact that there is some dout in those states and none in Venezuela is enough of an argument.

No doubts in Venezuela...........that really depends on who you talk to. I know that "officials" say so, but...........

 

[dcentity2000]

Should Chavez apologize?

Yes.



Rich::

 

[toto2]

No doubts in Venezuela...........that really depends on who you talk to. I know that "officials" say so, but...........

The only problem when arguing those thing is that nothing is good enough , even if it is a proven fact. Wich international organisation do you trust ? Arent there any that are worth your trust ? Is the US governement the only organisation that is clean , void of any type of corruption and perfect in it elections , world dealing etc ? No country or world organisation is perfect , but a lot of them do mostly good work .

I can tell you that when a canadian delegation goes to another country to monitoe election , they do it very , very seriously. Are the Us the only contry good enough to monitor elections ?

 

[momof2inPA]

I didn't hear the speech and the link doesn't work, but from the bits I heard on the news, Chavez's criticisms didn't apply to me as I didn't vote for Bush or the politicians in power. So, he doesn't need to apologize to me. Plus, I support his country's taking over the oil production from the big corporations. I think it's time the U.S. did the same. And the guy's right when he says the U.S. gets involved in matters of other countries where they have no business being. Other than that, I have no opinion on the man.

It is interesting that the prevailing sentiment in the S.A. countries seems to be a backlash against conservatism and the class separations. DH was an international observer for the Lula election in Brazil, and many in the U.S. predicted that electing him, a liberal president supported by labor parties, would mean economic ruin, but it hasn't. The rich of that country certainly weren't happy with the outcome of that election.

 

[sodaseller]

Chavez is not a dictator yet. I concede that the danger is there , but not yet.His election was scrutinized by and deemed clean by international observer ( can you say that Ohio and Florida?) So far , no human right violation ( can you say that guantanamo) Should we keep an eye on him ? Most certainly ! Should he choose is words more wisely ? You bet !

Right now , the people who are mad at him are the petrol companies that have to pay Venezuela more taxes tu une the Venezualans own natural resources. Noboby can dictate a country how to use there own ressources. The other people that are mad are the rich of venezuela who lost a lot of priviledge ( but not there money)

Chavez wouldn't rate in the world's top 50 in dictators or tyrants. But he's far from clean, and is not above some pedestrian thugishness. Really, he's just a boca grande with oil. He is trying to set up a counterweight to US influence, which some were attracted to, but they have realized that he is far too bizaare to bear that standard. He is Bush's dream, an opponent that makes him look prudent and measured by comparison.

 

[Geoff_M]

So you say that The USA , great sponsor of democracy around the world is friend with the Saudies ( the country where most the 9/11 highjackers came from) because they are nice ? Where is the pressure there to spread democracy ?

Perhaps you can point out where exactly I said that??? I in no way claimed that the Saudis government is "nice". As I stated, history is full of un-holy alliances. But without a doubt the US would like to see Saudi Arabia become more democratic, but we're smart enough to look at certain realities when deciding the course of our diplomatic actions and realizing that at times there's only so much we can do... especially when the country in question happens to contain the most holy site in all of Islam.

As for the hijackers, unless you can show me proof that the Saudi government put the 19 up to the act, your analogy would be like suggesting we hold the British government responsible for the actions of Richard Reid.

It is in the interest of the US to be friends with the SAudies because if the US dont play nice with them , they can turn around and sell the petrol to somebody else. It is not rethorical to think so.

There's some holes in your analogy here. If "playing nice" with a government were linked to the realitive importance of our nation's dependence of their oil, then we'd be "playing nice" to Hugo in a similar way since the US gets approximately the same amount of its oil from Venezuela as it does from Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is #1 worldwide in terms of exports, but #3 in the US in terms of imports. Canada(!) is #1 followed by Mexico. Venezuela is a close #4.

But if you want to engauge in speculation, I'd wager that if the Saudi's started saber rattling with the US, threatened to cut off our oil again, and our government was approached by a group of dissadent Saudi princes who thought they could pull off a bloodless coup and restore good ties with the US, I think we'd talk to them and agree to support them likewise if we thought they might pull it off.

 

[sodaseller]

The issue of the Saudi government is a tough one. I can't really fault the Bush Administration's position too greatly, as a push for democracy would very likely lead to something far worse. But it's important to understand what we mean when we refer to the Saudi "government" which is composed of one giant family, and I mean that literally - the House of Saad. I have no doubt that those at the highest levels of power want bin Laden as bad or worse than we do, as he is truly an existential threat to them. But there are plenty of family members that also finance AQ and provide them intel. So it's not an easy situation.

My limited objection the Bush Administration's policy is based upon my two favorite lawmakers - Bob Graham and Jim Davis. Graham believes, and he can explain it persuasively, that we well should have pushed the Saudis after 9/11 and held them responsible, not with invasion but directly stating that they harbor AQ supporters, which they do. It's not like those at the top don't know they have core AQ supporters at the family reunion, but they feel they are powerless to purge them. Graham thinks that must be pressed, accepting the risk, because AQ will never be completely defeated so long as they have the Saudi support, which dwarfs all other support, financially and otherwise.

Also, Jim Davis, now a candidate for governor, has pressed us to try to compel educational reformed over there, which is also potentially destabilizing. But the House of Saad made a deal with the devil with the Wahabbists, giving them control of the ediucational system in exchange for political support for the House of Saad to rule. Jim feels that until that is broken, the Saudi system will still turn out jihadists on a regular basis despite the alliance with the leaders at the top. In both cases, it is a matter of accepting the inevitable and dealing with it now to avoid a sudden fall like Iran in 1979