Chavez (man of the people) praises Belarus

I always find it amusing when the neo cons attack Chavez. If he sold off everything to the american corporations, he’s be a welcome friend.
What they don’t take into account is the majority of the people in Venezeula are better off under him than the pro US business presidents of the past.
Fred Smith and his ilk would like to see South America destitute for eternity as long as the countries benefit the globalists and not the people in those countries.
Any chance of these people having free health care and education is a disgrace in the neo-cons eyes.
And then you have Chinese generals talking about nuking the US while Bush shakes hands with their leaders.
Neo-cons being hypocritical would be an understatement.

Got any proof of that? Or did you mean “most of whom are probably innocent of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time?” Anyway, I don’t suppose it matters much, if they weren’t dangerous when they went in they will certainly be dangerous by the time they get out, if they get out, if the military doesn’t find some way to disappear them first… That seems to be the theme in the war on terror so far. Generate as much hostility as you can, plow in and murder people, destroy their homes, the infrastructure of their cities etc. that will inspire more people to join the terrorist camp therby justifying more military action which will inspire more terrorism…

Oh, by the way, a friend of mine is interested in purchasing some stocks in an arms manufacturing business and was wondering if I had any suggestions. “Beyond me,” I told him “But I know just who to ask.”

oil looks good, why weapons?

[quote]
Exxon Mobil 2Q Profit Jumps 36 Percent
Jul 27 9:29 AM US/Eastern

Exxon Mobil Corp. said Thursday it earned $10.36 billion in the second quarter, the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.

The earnings figure was 36 percent above the profit it reported a year ago. High oil prices helped boost the company’s revenue by 12 percent to a level just short of a quarterly record. [/quote]
breitbart.com/news/2006/07/27/D8J4BVPO1.html

and this:[quote]
OPEC can’t bring down prices: cartel president
Jul 27 8:52 AM US/Eastern

OPEC is unable to do anything to stop surging oil prices, the cartel’s president Edmund Daukoru has said.

“There is no shortage in oil supply. The current geopolitical conditions are out of OPEC’s hands,” the visiting Nigerian petroleum minister was quoted as saying by the Iranian oil news agency Shana Thursday. [/quote]
breitbart.com/news/2006/07/2 … r4dav.html

There are plenty o places to make a buck bob. :slight_smile:

Yeah, BP is up twenty percent too I see. Another company, this one in China, is building twenty gazzillion solar powered water heaters a year. Hmm, descisions, descions… :ponder:

I always find it amusing that the very people who scold the US most on “human rights abuses” give the man a pass. I also find it very amusing that the people who are most concerned about weapons sales have nothing to say about Chavez and his arms-buying sprees. Perhaps, the meony would be better spent helping the “people?”

Right, it is all about neoimperialist control of Venezuela’s resources. Let me repeat loud and clear lest some of you missed out on events in the past 15 years. Communism is DEAD. Socialist policies have FAILED. They are being DISMANTLED everywhere in the world excepting a few countries like Venezuela and Bolivia. NOW both nations have two fat-faced thuggish peasants and one wonders if they can really even read BUT do we hear snears about the intellectual abilities from the same people that cannot seem to heap enough abuse on George Bush and his “linguistic lapses?” no and that is why my contempt for you and your “concerns” has no bounds. haha

Crime rates are up considerably since Chavez took over. This information was already cited. AND for all the huge boon in oil money, the poverty rate has barely dropped at all. Strange, eh?

Yes, my hatred especially for Argentina is well-known. I live to grind the heel into the very nation that I would most like to live but cannot because of populist, corrupt thugs like Chavez and that dolt in Bolivia whose name escapes me.

It is if it kills the goose that lays the golden egg and you simplistic simpletons never seem to understand that despite proof positive in every nation where such socialist policies were attempted.

relevance? to this discussion? especially since Venezuela’s leader has not attempted to deal with the world’s most enlightened leaders but has deliberately gone chasing like some street dog with mating on his mind after the world’s nastiest, mangiest bitches?

Hmmm I wonder if even Cake is capable of understanding the delicious irony of this statement? Nah. Idiot!

So ladies and gentlemen:

From the brigade that is most concerned about human rights and people helping the “people.”

In the US with the evil fascist rights-stealing, constitution stamping George Bush: Freedom House awards it a top score in both political freedom and civil liberties. The economy is booming and poor people are getting jobs and moving up as are those who trade with the US, including 300 million out of poverty in China, even more in East Asian nations like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, et al and Southeast Asia and now India. All being lifted out of poverty in huge numbers, numbers that NEVER changed when they had socialism.

And in Venezuela, we have Chavez who gets what on a scale of one to seven: a 4 and a 4 which puts him on the bottom half of countries for political freedom and civil liberties but as Cake so wisely (snicker) pointed out: Chavez is there to help the POOR. Now, ladies and gentlemen, IF you believe as Cake does that socialist, communist policies which failed EVERYWHERE else they have ever been tried, will now suddenly work in Venezuela and therefore will truly HELP the people, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn and land in Florida that I want to sell you. Give me a call! I am here!

I love that! Bob! You are becoming so funny! That’s like the mafia guy standing with a gun in his hands after a bank shootout captured oh maybe on the scene saying: "I was out walking my dog when I stumbled across this fight and someone threw this gun at me, which I only caught and then you guys arrived and arrested me. The fact that I have known mafia connections and a past history of violence doesn’t prove anything. I know my rights, now release me on bail until the trial. IF ONLY it were possible to ensure that such terrorists when released would only injure people like you or kill people like you when they were released, I would have them out in a heartbeat.

True. But…

The consequences of communism and dictatorial rule are well documented. However, the concentration of power in the hands of a small number of large unaccountable corporations is not necessarily the best fix for countries coming out from under the cloud of uber-socialism. The reason arguments in favour of the Western capitalist model hold water in older solid democracies is those countries have press freedom, independent regulators, and an independent judiciary. Now some might laugh at my naivety in writing that, but by and large it is true. One of the major problems of Britain (and I venture, the USA, even though I only know about it what I read on the Interweb) is that it has become a victim of its own success to a certain extent. The very fact that the system has turned Britain around from utter bankruptcy in 1979 to a relatively rich country where it is possible to start a business or gain employment after a useful education has made many potential voters complacent. But the system is still there. Baddies still get caught cooking the books. Despite manipulation of the media by politicians (hardly a new thing), the system works better than any alternative that could be workable in a country of 60mn people.

Now, if there is not even a framework in place with the goal of attempting to separate the government from big business, and holding companies to the law, as is often the place in tin-pot dictatorships, what benefit is it to the people of the country for absolute power to be transfered from a top-heavy government to a handful of unaccountable corporations? Bearing in mind also that often these companies can bring to bear upon any regulatory obstacle more money than the government itself has?

The first priority in the case of poor and badly-run countries is fixing the judiciary, IMHO. The danger of an alliance between some military dictator and foreign companies (egged on by their governments) is that as in the cliche “he who pays the piper calls the tune” domestic policy ends up being run by the dictator and his foreign backers, just as if a proxy government had been put in place by a secretive foreign policy directive. It is up to the domestic legislatures of Western companies to extend abroad the safeguards they put in place for their own citizens. This sounds hideously prescriptive, but stories of liberties taken abroad with brown people will come home to roost at these companies. The least the legislature (and is it too much to hope “the executive”?) can do is remind multi-nationals that lawmakers and the government will not condone interference in foreign governments. Obviously this sounds like an essay by a five-year old, but simple saying “Ah the whole world is corrupt, so to hell with it!” is no answer either.

It is important how the activities of companies, especially those dealing with natural resources, areperceived. Obviously Shell and BP etc don’t need me to tell them that, but in teaming up with the like of Chavez, they are like the the subject of the Tom Waits song “getting a little something that he can’t get at home”.

The alternative is to say that British citizens must be protected from the potential harm done by corporate excess, but nationals of other countries do not matter. Not much of a foreign policy, and at the risk of descending into sixth-former babble, the people in the country concerned will view all of this as just another change of dictatorship utterly irrelevant to them.

I’m starting to like you very much Lord Lucan. I could not agree more. The problem in Russia and Argentina was that the privatizations where in many cases shanghaiied by those with close ties to political leaders rather than done fairly. So to prevent the judiciaries from giving them a hard time, the presidents merely appointed their friends to positions with their respective courts.

BUT DESPITE this corruption, would you like to argue that the Russians and Argentines are worse off now? There is more income inequality but I remember the time when there were no new houses being built in Buenos Aires, there were water shortages because of busted mains, the subways did not work and they had holes in the train cars and if you dared to take one you could get stuck for hours and hours if it stopped, and there were power shortages, none of the public telephones worked, no one had Internet, faxes or computers, etc. etc. It took DAYS to wait in line to pay your bills and then, privatization came along, and suddenly all of these things were available and for the first time in a long time, it was possible to set up new businesses and build new houses and families could move out from their parents’ house and actually buy their own. It was great but as Domingo Cavallo warned, the privatization and the peg to the dollar would not work and would eventually collapse if the regional governments were allowed to continue spending money and racking up debt. Menem (president at the time) refused or did not want to listen and so Cavallo resigned in 1996 and five years later… the rest is history BUT that does not mean that Argentina is a worse country to live in because of the privatizations. With rule of law, things could have turned around and maybe it would be Chile or New Zealand today BUT they did not BUT it is still better than the Cuba it could have been if it had remained locked in failed policies of socialism. At least, the economy (not the judiciary and body politic) were freed so surely have some freedom is better than none at all?

Agreed. And in a republic there is nothing more important than ensuring the constitutionality of laws and government action - otherwise you might as well just run a parliamentary democracy. Some people really don’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy or argue there is none. Similarly, “rule of law” is not just an empty phrase nor does it smack of Anglo-American legal-culture imperialism. Dictators always pay lip service to their idea of the “rule of law” by trying to legitimise their misdeeds (look at Mugabe). But by that stage the ideal is dead.

Rule of law of course is essential to privatisation and rolling back bloated nepotistic governments. Properly regulated private companies can often do much of the government’s work for it. Just because the regulation system sometime fails (sometimes spectacularly) doesn’t mean it’s no good or the idea of privatisation is bad. It also frees up governments to make policy and engage the public in debate, which is what they should be doing. The revolving door system in the UK that has blurred the line between public contractors and the government needs cleaned up, not abolished, and is a lot to do with the current government. But we have noticed this unseemly blemish and will remove it. (If things were really bad it wouldn’t have been reported at all.) Tony Blair won’t live forever. It is too early to be playing the Last Post for the British political and legal system.

Getting a bit hysterical there aren’t we?

only if you find it hysterically funny. I was aiming for sarcasm. Bob? You used to be so much better than this… Kindergarten kids hanging around your computer again today?

Sarcasm is insulting language guised in complimentary language. What you said was that you would allow certain people out of prison only if could be guaranteed that they would murder people like me. How is that sarcasm? Did you mean the opposite of what you said? If you meant the opposite it would hardly be insulting would it? You can see where a guy would get confused.

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]I also find it very amusing that the people who are most concerned about weapons sales have nothing to say about Chavez and his arms-buying sprees. Perhaps, the meony would be better spent helping the “people?”
[/quote][/quote]

Shall we go back to the US being the number one arms dealer in the world by a large margin? Why don’t you talk about gun control in the US when kids are getting killed?

And what if Chavez is indeed buying arms for defensive modernization? Do countries not have a right to defend themselves? His arms purchases are well-documented in the press. 100k ak47s and 30 jet fighters. Hardly seems like he’s gonna conquer south america.

and before you miscontrue me, I don’t idolize Chavez. But I do see him trying to fix things for Venezuela and standing up to the US Monroe Doctrine that still permeates US-Latin,South American policy. I do see him getting Cuba’s doctors into his barrios to give medical support to his poor. I do see him using his new petrodollars to build infrastructure and social services.

Is he putting money into his personal swiss account? I don’t know, but he does seem to be meeting his promises which is more than I can say for your leader.

better than

CHENEY (MAN OF THE OIL BARONS) PRAISING KAZAKHSTAN

whose leader we know is another despot who’s “silenced” opponents, but hey, he’s got oil and strategic positioning, and so let’s overlook human rights abuses right?

My point is, no one is clean and pure. it’s the hypocrisy that bothers me. Not to say that the US hasn’t done a lot of good, but more that it seems to ignore its darker side amidst all the flag waving.

Who buys those weapons? Who are they sold to? Just anyone?

If only I could…

No. You are being “fairminded.” There is no “right” or “wrong” and we should meet people “halfway” and “compromise” and who’s to say one system is better than any other…

zzzzzzzzzzzz yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh? zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Maybe there would not be so many poor needing Cuban doctors if the same failed socialist populist claptrap policies were not continually being re-implemented by the same dull-minded, fat-faced peasants?

No comment about gun control in the US?

No comment about Cheney and the admin’s policy towards Kazakhstan? Let’s be honest. Here’s another dictator they’re courting, willing to overlook some of his bad habits, just because he’s got natural resources. At least acknowledge that. Tell me it’s realpolitik. I can understand. c’mon Fred.

Sorry but gun control in US zzzzzzzzzzz must try to focus zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cute. But not very perceptive. Let me try to explain this to you yet again. Maybe the 150th time around it will sink it? Let’s live in hope.

I am NOT the proponent of Human Rights Uber Alles. I am the one that has said the world is a difficult place and getting ourselves thrown out of Uzbekistan completely has not exactly helped human rights there now has it? Perhaps the same is true for Kazakhistan.

Now, others on this forum have repeatedly criticized the US for its human rights record. I am merely directing my comments to those people since they are the ones that have stated that they are most concerned about human rights. Naturally, I will therefore have to “hold them to higher standards” regarding who they do business with. Given that I have never claimed to be primarily interested in human rights, I see no reason why I have to defend my positions regarding the same.

Please let me know if this is now clear.

Honestly, sometimes, I really have to wonder what kind of critical reading abilities are being taught in our universities these days. Oh yeah, didn’t you go to Berkley? haha Now, I understand dude.

[quote=“fred smith”]Sorry but gun control in US zzzzzzzzzzz must try to focus zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Cute. But not very perceptive. Let me try to explain this to you yet again. Maybe the 150th time around it will sink it? Let’s live in hope.

I am NOT the proponent of Human Rights Uber Alles. I am the one that has said the world is a difficult place and getting ourselves thrown out of Uzbekistan completely has not exactly helped human rights there now has it? Perhaps the same is true for Kazakhistan.

Now, others on this forum have repeatedly criticized the US for its human rights record. I am merely directing my comments to those people since they are the ones that have stated that they are most concerned about human rights. Naturally, I will therefore have to “hold them to higher standards” regarding who they do business with. Given that I have never claimed to be primarily interested in human rights, I see no reason why I have to defend my positions regarding the same.

Please let me know if this is now clear.

Honestly, sometimes, I really have to wonder what kind of critical reading abilities are being taught in our universities these days. Oh yeah, didn’t you go to Berkley? haha Now, I understand dude.[/quote]

Actually, I am holding the US to their higher standards and higher morality, not you. I am stating that they are hypocrites when they accuse others of supporting questionable dictators when they do it themselves out of convenience or political necessity. They lack impartiality when they support Israel in its surgical strikes or lack thereof at Hezbollah, which have missed, but hit other parts of Lebanon.

I am pointing out that you criticized Chavez for reaching out to ‘questionable’ allies when Cheney seems to be doing the same thing, and yet you weakly justify his actions cuz ‘if we can’t beat them (to stop abuse), we might as well join them’. If you really believe the US govt’s spin, and fail to understand that it plays a political game just like any other nation, then perhaps you lack critical thinking.

I brought up gun control and sales, because you brought up Chavez’s arms purchases. Who tells the US that it buys too much, has too big a military? Who guards the guardians? (playing the quoting game here).

And you spelt Berkeley wrong. (of course, you’ll tell me that was intentional, because you are so clever like that.)

Great. So what do you have to say about these perfect scores given by Freedom House to the US for both civil rights and political freedom?

Well, I know this difficult for you to understand but can there be no variations in dictators? So, for example, we have Musharaff helping us stabilize Afghanistan by not supporting the Taliban and helping us by locking down Dr. Khan and also helping us rouind up some of the al Qaeda and trying to a small extent to crack down on extremist madrassas, ending funding and support of terrorists in Kashmir and making peace with India. Then on the other hand we have Assad and the Iranian mullahs who are doing their damnest to stir up trouble in Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq among others. Iran is also trying to develop wmds as is Syria. Then we compare this with the cooperation that we have gotten on wmds from Qadaffi and then we look at how when we tried to force a dictator who was previously cooperating with us in Uzbekistan how we got a kick in th teeth and how exactly did that help human rights when we were kicked out of the country? So your precious sensibilities regarding human rights may make it easier for you to proudly go to sleep at night knowing that you are a PERFECT model moralist but what does that do at the end of the day for the average Uzbeki? Just curious.

Please explain…

How many civilian casualties did the US cause in Iraq removing Saddam and in Afghanistan removing the Taliban? Is there no difference to the fact that the aims of the US and Israel are on a different moral plane? AND what about the fact that the two nations, the US and Israel, take great pains to minimize civilian casualties while the Taliban, Saddam and Hizbollah do everything they can to MAXIMIZE them for public relations purposes? Again, your morals are highly principled and very much intact when you go to sleep at night but what do you say then about your “inactions” of not removing Hizbollah from Lebanon? You are proud, oh so proud of having done nothing wrong but your inaction is a kind of sin of omission that can be equally bad morally.

Chavez Freedom House scores are 4 and 4 and Cheney represents the US with scores of 1 and 1. No difference? AND given that the same kind of socialist palabrum and populist nonsense have failed EVERYWHERE, why should we celebrate Chavez and his efforts to impoverish the Venezuelans with the same claptrap? Just because he makes anti-American noises? Just so you can get a cheap thrill at having someone publicly insult George Bush?

What abuse? There have been numerous allegations but has anything ever panned out? There were abuses being committed in isolation in Abu Ghraib, the offenders were investigated, prosecuted and duly sentenced. How does that have any bearing on the morality of Dick Cheney?

Not at all. I point once again to Freedom House and our perfect scores of 1 and 1 and I say that we are doing something right. You seem to think that the US is doing something wrong. Where’s your proof? Just because an allegation has been made does not mean that it is true and despite all the Guantamo Bay this, renditions that, Patriot Act this, Abu Ghraib that, isn’t it strange that Freedom House, being fully apprised of all these facts and incidents continues to award the US perfect scores in political freedom and civil liberties. Maybe you need to do some critical thinking about what is really going on here.

How are they related?

Explain to me why Venezuela needs so many weapons and why others view its massive arms purchases with concern. Explain to me why the US which guarantees most of the peace and security in the world with numerous treaty-bound commitments is being overly militarized in your view?

My contempt for many of the graduates of that institution is well-known. Perhaps, it was subconscious?

Would anyone in their right mind mind trust the US with treaties?
Maybe Chavez has looked at the past experience in South America with the US and thinks it does no harm to arm oneself.

So countries aren’t allowed to buy arms unless they are pro american?

Chevez was democratically elected. He’s in power. The opposition even with their TV stations spouting propaganda can’t make the people turn against Chavez.
The ‘peasants’ as you call them are learning to read and write, have access to health care, etc etc. Why is this a problem to you?

I think the problem is the fred smith model won’t work in countries such as Venezuala. These policies never worked in the past (but they did work for the corporations).
They bled the country dry and it was akin to a mouse running around a wheel. The poor forever lived in shanty towns and had no hope.
Maybe in twenty years when the Chavez model needs change, a new system (that most western countries use(not that I think that is perfect)) could be introduced.
I don’t agree with everything Chavez has done. But I respect him for giving ‘peasants’ the opportunity to better themselves.
That is something they would never have had with previous governments.
Hopefully this model will lead to the opposition (if they ever win an election again) changing their policies and realising they have to offer the people the same opportunities they offer themselves.

Cake:

You are so cuuuuutttteeee when you try to talk all grownup.

Well, most nations of the world do seem to be doing just in fact that. This is why (oh irony of ironies) both North Korea and Iran are looking for some kind of security guarantee from the US and I would imagine this to be in the form of a treaty.

Perhaps, Chavez is looking at the kind of leader he is and feels the need for protection because he fully understands that if he were democratic and sensible, there would not be any threat perceived or otherwise from America.

No but the ones that do are often up to no good. It really depends on the context. In Venezuela’s case, probably not. That is why even Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and others, excepting only Bolivia, which also happens to be ruled by a thick-faced, dim-witted peasant, have declined Chavez’s offer for a military alliance.

Perhaps, but most likely yes. Sort of like how Hitler was elected. Does not mean that there is any guarantee that democratically elected leaders will act democratically. Isn’t that your usual spiel on Bush and the US? Hahaahahaha

Of that, we are all crystal clear. Thanks for the help.

the opposition? with its TV stations? Hmmm, then why would Freedom House give Venezuela scores of 4 for political freedom and 4 for civil liberties on a scale of 1 to 7 with the US getting top scores of 1 and 1. This despite all the Patriot Act, phone tapping, bank record monitoring, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. etc.?

All to the good

Great!

It isn’t but why do you have a problem with the fact that the US does a better job of educating its people and providing health care (albeit not perfectly) while providing a much higher standard of living with much more freedom? Why don’t you have a problem with the ratings that Venezuela received from Freedom House (4 and 4) which is not a very good record. So it is not the health care and the reading and writing that I have a problem with. I have a problem with Chavez because he talks and acts like the thug that he is. His being a stupid looking, fat faced peasant merely riles my aesthetic biases and I apologize for that. His policies have been tried before in fact far too many times to encourage one to believe that Latin Americans can ever learn that same tired populist socialists never bring growth and often bring ruin.

Well, they may not have worked as they did in the US and local corruption, lack of rule of law and various other cultural and developmental factors are clearly at work but what if the alternative is not a richer, better educated Venezuela but a nation with a standard of living and quality of life more akin to that of Cuba?

haha. Where are you getting all of this? The poor have always lived in shanty towns. The question is how to raise them out of being poor. Most nations have scrapped failed populist and socialist policies to embrace market reform. Those that do (and many that claim to be doing so do not actually do so) succeed and voila people are raised out of poverty and no longer live in shantytowns. The difference is that while “communism has failed because it was never actually put in practice” may sound nice, the fact is that while “in some nations capitalism has failed because it was never put into practice” can be counterbalanced by the fact that in others it has been highly successful because it was put into practice effectively.

What are the chances? You may be right, but if you are, it would be defying the experiences of Latin America throughout its history and presenting a uniquely “unique” experience in the history of economics.

Such a statement! But one that fails to give me hope that you will eventually see the realities of who and what Chavez is.

And if that impoverishes the nation and leads to less democracy it will be worth it to you. This brings to mind Margaret Thatcher’s indictment of socialism. The problem is that eventually you always run out of someone else’s money. See what happens in five years.

Thank God.

Yeah. I will hold my breath waiting for that to happen.