Should Chavez apologize?

Geoff_M said:
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.

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.


I am going to say that you definitaly have a better grasp of this subject then I do ( And my limited english does not help me either ! :) ) I still think I am somewhat right in some of my speculations.

As far as the higjacker subject goes , I think President Bush said that countries that house terrorist , and so far it seems that the Saudies know pretty well that they did. I understand the difficulties and the implication of the US governement to be strong and ask for democracy in this country , but lets remember that This admistration used the spreading of democracy excuse to go to war in Irak ( at least it was one of the excuses once they did not find significant amount of wmd) There just doesn not seem to be lot of cage ratteling in this erea.

Thank you Sodaseller for sheding some light on this subject !
 
toto2 said:
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 ?


Sorry, but NO I do not consider most officials to be void of corruption. I hate to say that. I know that some are truly good men/women that are honest. However, let's face it, not all are. Honestly, I think more are not. I was speaking in the context of Venezuela and Chavez. From what I saw living there, I put absolutely nothing past him! He wants to be another Castro and he will do whatever he can to achieve that!
 
As the OP, I just wanted to say sorry for the bad link on post #1. [Cue Napoleon Dynamite --- "Dang!"] :badpc: :badpc: . I seldom post links, but seem to remember running into this trouble before. I will continue to educate myself.

As I was pondering the events of the last couple of days I was thinking what a freak show its been in NYC. I heartily agree that it is time to move the UN out of the US. Quebec would be a wonderful home for it, as would Caracas or Tehran or anywhere else but here. The GOP could not ahave asked for better publicity this week, and Rangel and Pelosi know it. That's why they are timely in their vocal opposition to Chavez.

IMO his tactic of calling Bush "devil" etc is hypocritical. He has amassed power and wealth for himself at the expense of his people. Worst of all, he exploits the poor for the purpose of maintaining said power. Shame on him. Most disrespectfully, he came to the shores of this nation to spew his hate speech.
 
And my limited english does not help me either !
Hey, it's a lot better than my French!

As far as the higjacker subject goes , I think President Bush said that countries that house terrorist , and so far it seems that the Saudies know pretty well that they did.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one. While Sodaseller is correct that there are plenty of AQ supporters in the country, AQ is also effectively "at war" with the Saudi Royal family. To AQ, the House of Saud committed the unforgiveable sin of allowing US troops to enter Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. When AQ has periodically carried out operations within the country the government has responded quite harshly and Saudi security fources have killed and captured a number of AQ foot soldiers and leaders (those captured were often "put to the sword"). All things being equal, the royal family would like to see AQ "go away" too.... but as Sodaseller pointed out, they have to deal with certain political realities too.

I understand the difficulties and the implication of the US governement to be strong and ask for democracy in this country , but lets remember that This admistration used the spreading of democracy excuse to go to war in Irak.
It's a bit unfair to suggest that the US carry out this political goal by applying the same policies, the same actions, the same rhetoric, in the same fashion to all countries lest it be call a "fraud".
 

Zippa D Doodah said:
As I was pondering the events of the last couple of days I was thinking what a freak show its been in NYC. I heartily agree that it is time to move the UN out of the US. Quebec would be a wonderful home for it, as would Caracas or Tehran or anywhere else but here. The GOP could not ahave asked for better publicity this week, and Rangel and Pelosi know it. That's why they are timely in their vocal opposition to Chavez.

IMO his tactic of calling Bush "devil" etc is hypocritical. He has amassed power and wealth for himself at the expense of his people. Worst of all, he exploits the poor for the purpose of maintaining said power. Shame on him. Most disrespectfully, he came to the shores of this nation to spew his hate speech.

Excellent post!!!!!! So true!!!!!!!!! ::yes::
 
We are rushing around packing today and preparing to leave for WDW very early tomorrow morning! :cool1:
However, I wanted to take a few moments to post this article that my friend in Venezuela sent me by email last night. I know it is a long read, but it is a good one!

HUGO'S BIG LIES


WHAT TYRANT DIDN'T TELL U.N.


By THOR HALVORSSEN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 21, 2006 -- JUST a few days before his rant at the United Nations yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave a speech in Caracas playing up the most obscene 9/11 conspiracy theory - that the attacks were planned by the Bush administration as a pretext for war.
Yes, on Sept. 12, Chavez said, "Maybe it was even the imperialist North American power that planned and drove this terrorist attack against its own people and the citizens of the world to justify the aggressions immediately following against Iraq, Iran and threats against all of us, against Venezuela as well."

This guy is really, really big on "the Big Lie."

Yesterday's fire-breathing speech - carried live by dozens of world TV broadcasters - was nonstop hate, aimed at the United States, President Bush, Israel and the United Nations itself, along with Western democracy and economic liberalism.

Calling "world dictator" George Bush the "devil" over and over again, he discussed everything from CIA plots to assassinate him to how he - along with Cuba, Iran and the non-aligned countries - will save the world from imperialist doom.

Chavez has said the United States is "afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices," yet Chavez has suffocated all dissent in his own backyard. Beyond rewriting the Constitution to bolster his legal power, he's passed a law banning "the use of language deemed to be insulting to the President of the Republic."

Indeed, any expression of dissent, public or in private, against any public official is punishable with prison.

Francisco Usón - a former minister in Chavez's own Cabinet - recently drew a six-year jail term for expressing an opinion on television. Carlos Ortega - the president of Venezuela's AFL-CIO-affiliated federation of workers - got a 16-year sentence for instigating a legal strike despite protests by the International Labor Organization of this unspeakable violation of human rights. (Ortega escaped from prison last month.)

Chavez claimed yesterday that the United States protects terrorism while his own government is "fully committed to combating terrorism and violence." In fact, Chavez has demonstrably protected and armed the FARC terrorists of next-door Colombia. (He's also presided during the greatest crime wave in Venezuelan history, with a death toll exponentially larger than any previous government's.)

Chavez denounced capitalism as the generator of "mere poverty." Yet, thanks to a capitalist oil boom, he has profited from the richest Venezuelan government in history - but squandered its wealth on a new Venezuelan oligarchy of petro-millionaires masquerading as government officials. Meanwhile, misery and malnutrition are at a historic high.

Chavez railed against Western-style democracy. Yet it was western style democracy that brought him into power (after his own armed coup failed) and may remove him in the end. This is why he does everything he can to hollow and weaken democratic institutions.

He has frequently praised the "participatory" models of Libya, North Korea and Cuba as ideal forms of government - countries where rulers, accountable to no one, torture, imprison and murder their opponents.

As for his references to peace and world understanding, well: The Venezuelan leader has increased military spending to $10 billion a year, dwarfing all social programs, education and health budgets - and vastly above the nation's previous arms spending. He's bought 100,000 automatic assault rifles, 53 Mi-35 assault helicopters and several supersonic fighter-bombers from Russia, as well as transport planes, patrol boats and speedboats from Spain. He has also signed an agreement with Russia to build Latin American's first-ever Kalashnikov factory.

The worst may be his roars about the threat of imperialism - for, in Latin America, Hugo Chavez is the face of modern imperialism. Chavez's grants to Fidel Castro alone are larger than all United States aid packages in the Americas. He helped get coca-grower Evo Morales elected president of Bolivia. He is putting Venezuelan oil cash behind Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

His neighbors resent it: Voters in Peru and Mexico recently rejected Chavez-backed candidates (Ollanta Humalla and Andres Lopez Obrador) in good part because of the Chavez taint.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton dismissed Chavez's thundering rhetoric yesterday as cartoonish. Other leaders have referred to him as a buffoon and a joke. But, like Korea's much-ridiculed Kim Jong Il, Chavez poses a deadly threat not only to his own nation but to the peace and security of the region.

He has signed more than 80 international agreements with Iran, stating repeatedly that if international action is taken to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capacity, Venezuela will attack the United States. His own "hypothetical" nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Chavez was brandishing a book by MIT professor Noam Chomsky yesterday. He's plainly taken one of Chomsky's maxims to heart: "If you repeat it loudly enough, it will become the truth."

Thor Halvorssen is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hugos_big_lies_opedcolumnists_thor_halvorssen.htm
 
momof2inPA said:
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. .


Missed this little nugget.

You really support the nationalization of "Big Oil"? Any other industries you'd like to have taken over by the Federal Government? There was a "threat" to nationalize oil a good number of years ago by one of our (from PA) US Reps. Peter Kostmayer
 
Here is an interesting ( and long !!!!!!) interview with Chavez. With any politician , thre probably will be a difference in the "project" and what is done , but it is none the less interesting. The projet is fascinating and a new way a seing things , economicaly speaking:

You’d think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chavez’s behind. Not only has Chavez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chavez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, “not too high, a fair price,” he said — a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.

But our President has basically told Chavez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chavez has the power to pull it off — and the method in the seeming madness of his “take-my-oil-please!” deal.

Venezuela, Chavez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis’ reserves. However, most of Venezuela’s mega-horde of crude is in the form of “extra-heavy” oil — liquid asphalt — which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil’s price — and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago — would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chavez’s offer: Drop the price to $50 — and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela’s investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn’t like that one bit. It comes down to “petro-dollars.” When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn’t because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush’s $2 trillion rise in the nation’s debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chavez would put an end to all that. He’ll sell us oil relatively cheaply — but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chavez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chavez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a “tropical IMF.” And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an “International Humanitarian Fund,” an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chavez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel’s reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution,” a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal — a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity — makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries’ old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Chavez’s government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chavez several times over charges brought against Sumate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chavez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.

Bush’s reaction to Chavez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, “In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region.”

So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chavez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him,” Robertson said, “I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”

There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chavez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chavez’s crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.

Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?

Hugo Chavez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they’re short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.

Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?

Chavez: It’s not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It’s up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can’t allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.

Q: How do you respond to Bush’s charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?

Chavez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people’s affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d’etat in Argentina thirty years ago.

Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?

Chavez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d’etat, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.

Q: You don’t interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?

Chavez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what’s going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What’s happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus — a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.

Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation’s oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?

Chavez: We are brothers and sisters. That’s one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.

Q: And the Bronx?

Chavez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it’s not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.

Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?

Chavez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn’t matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.

Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as “Daddy Big Bucks”?

Chavez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.

Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?

Chavez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.

Q: Milk for oil.

Chavez: That’s right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It’s a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I’m not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.

Q: Speaking of the free market, you’ve demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?

Chavez: No, we don’t want them to go, and I don’t think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It’s simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn’t pay taxes. They didn’t pay royalties. They didn’t give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn’t comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn’t pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.

Q: You’ve said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?

Chavez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it’s not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.

Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the
Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez simply collapse because there’s no money to pay for the big free ride?

Chavez: I don’t think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won’t have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there’s another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?

Chavez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.

*****

From: http://www.gregpalast.com/hugo-chavez-an-exclusive-interview-with-greg-palast#more-1496
 
Charade said:
Missed this little nugget.

You really support the nationalization of "Big Oil"? Any other industries you'd like to have taken over by the Federal Government? There was a "threat" to nationalize oil a good number of years ago by one of our (from PA) US Reps. Peter Kostmayer

Off topic: Yes. Healthcare.
 
Monagles said:
toto2 said:
Here is an interesting ( and long !!!!!!) interview with Chavez.
toto2 said:
What point were you trying to make by posting this article?


Just that the program is intersting and so far offers something intersting that is a million miles from our Noth-American way of doing things. The man sure should watch how he speaks, and we should be concern about having a new distatorship down there , but Chavez has definitaly a plan where the poors ( about 80 percent of the population) are getting what they derserve: jobs and heathcare.

I see nothing wrong with the nationalisation of petrol , or any other energy sources. Why should multy national only should profit from this whealth , and not the citizen ? The petrol belongs to the venezuelans , not some foreing entities. Those corporation shopuld pay a fair amount of money to exploit this richness.

In my province , until the beguining of the60,s electricity was a private sector sevice, and it was nationalise. Now , our vast hydroelectricity ressources makes it possible for us to have cheap energy , and sell our surplusses to those who need it , (the US and other provinces) the profits are send back in the economy , pays for school and health care. Since the electricity is sold as service , not as a source of profit , nobody rises the price of electricity as they want ( like Enron did in California , creating false electricity shortage to artificially raise prices.

I think that nationalisation of petrol is a great idea for a poor country.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom