War-boy blasts Venezuela for buying weapons...

[SamFisher]

You can't make stuff like this up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/03/23/rumsfeld.venezuela.ap/

Rumsfeld, during a four-day trip to Latin America, raised concerns about the reports of Venezuela's rifle purchases Wednesday.

"I can't imagine what's going to happen to 100,000 AK-47s," Rumsfeld said at a news conference in Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, which shares a border with Venezuela.

"I can't understand why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s. I personally hope it doesn't happen. I can't imagine, if it did happen, it would be good for the hemisphere," the defense secretary said.
,"

[FranchiseBlade]

Venezuelan plans for world domination must be stopped. Thousands of assault rifles would definitely destabilize an entire hemisphere.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Venezuelan plans for world domination must be stopped. Thousands of assault rifles would definitely destabilize an entire hemisphere.

You know what the funny part is? One of the initial actions in rebuilding Iraq of the good old CPA was to apparently to order, inter alia, 50K handguns and thousands of Ak-47's for the new Iraqi army.

Buying more guns for Iraq? LOL, maybe they should buy some more sand and muslims too.

[basso]

Originally posted by SamFisher
You can't make stuff like this up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/03/23/rumsfeld.venezuela.ap/

so if i understand correctly you fell, inter alia, that venezuela, governed by glynch's favorite democratic thug, buying 100k assault weapons is a good thing, martha?

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by basso
so if i understand correctly you fell, inter alia, that venezuela, governed by glynch's favorite democratic thug, buying 100k assault weapons is a good thing, martha?

Great point, basso. Really a silly thread by all standards.

Liberals are especially sore about the last few elections and the fact that the Republicans control congress and the white house. The liberal positions have been shot down by the will of the American people - the liberals have lost. This leads them to go on a Bush administration smear campaign to make the winner look bad, thereby attempting to make themselves look better. It's the classic principle of consistency from psychology. Nobody wants to be a loser, not even liberals who should be used to it by now.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
so if i understand correctly you fell, inter alia, that venezuela, governed by glynch's favorite democratic thug, buying 100k assault weapons is a good thing, martha? The point is that 100k assault rifles aren't going to destabilize the entire hemisphere.

Are you defending what Rumsfeld said?

PS I notice you never answer questions, but ask a lot. You didn't answer the question about your lack of support for democracy in regards to Chavez. You didn't answer the question about if you were opposed to Bush I and Ronald Reagan when they were supporting and covering for Hussein during the worst years of his massacres.

So I won't be surprised if you don't answer this one either.

I don't mind, but I was curious if you had a strict policy of only asking and not answering questions.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Great point, basso. Really a silly thread by all standards.

Liberals are especially sore about the last few elections and the fact that the Republicans control congress and the white house. The liberal positions have been shot down by the will of the American people - the liberals have lost. This leads them to go on a Bush administration smear campaign to make the winner look bad, thereby attempting to make themselves look better. It's the classic principle of consistency from psychology. Nobody wants to be a loser, not even liberals who should be used to it by now. This was a case of folks pointing out the ludicrous statement made by Rumsfeld. Do you believe that the entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable if Argentina bought some rifles?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
so if i understand correctly you fell, inter alia, that venezuela, governed by glynch's favorite democratic thug, buying 100k assault weapons is a good thing, martha?

I don't know how the Professor Emeritus of the Bush Doctrine can show up in a Chavez thread since the Bush Doctrine (Venezuela version) was to applaud the overthrow of a democratically elected leader (and many would say, help plan and support, thought that part is inconclusive - see Nat'l Sec. Archive) in favor of a ruling military junta. Of course, Chavez is kind of a chump, but he's their chump for better or worse.

This of course is quite different from Bush doctrine v2.0 in which elections are the end-all be-all in an ode to popular sovereignty - but then we have to invoke the Hezbollah codicil - which means that popular support of un US-friendly leaders is way uncool, and probably undemocratic.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand, is it a good thing that he bought a bunch of small arms?

You know what? I can't really say. I don't know much about the present state of the firearms of the armed forces of the state of Venezuela. Perhaps they are rusty, or they don't shoot well anymore. Maybe they jam frequently. I don't know. But unlike Don, I'm not that worried about it truthfully. I'm pretty sure the Hemisphere (Southern? Western?) is going to make it. Likewise I don't think the Hemis-Fair Park n San Antonio is going to be assaulted by rifle toting Venezolanos any time soon - nor for that matter is the long gone Hemis-Fair Arena or its famed Baseline Bums.

Anyway, I just thought it sort of amusing, in a wry Gallic sort of sense, that Mr. "Hey-we-seriously-need-to-militarize-space-real-soon" is kept up at night by this sort of wanton proliferation.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
This was a case of folks pointing out the ludicrous statement made by Rumsfeld. Do you believe that the entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable if Argentina bought some rifles?

You need to read more carefully. He didn't say that the "entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable". He said that he couldn't imagine it being good for the hemisphere. Big difference.

He also didn't even mention Argentina anywhere in the statement. He mentioned Venezuela. They are two separate countries, in case you're not familiar with South American geography.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You need to read more carefully. He didn't say that the "entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable". He said that he couldn't imagine it being good for the hemisphere. Big difference.

He also didn't even mention Argentina anywhere in the statement. He mentioned Venezuela. They are two separate countries, in case you're not familiar with South American geography.

Texxx, as it has recently come to light that you are a high-school graduate still in the process of matriculation and learning about the big world we live in, I am going to have to ask you to refrain from commenting until you are more fully credentialed.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You need to read more carefully. He didn't say that the "entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable". He said that he couldn't imagine it being good for the hemisphere. Big difference.

He also didn't even mention Argentina anywhere in the statement. He mentioned Venezuela. They are two separate countries, in case you're not familiar with South American geography. lol. Sorry you got me there. I meant Venezuela.

Let me rephrase the question then. Do you think that it is bad for the whole hemisphere that Venezuela bought some rifles?

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
lol. Sorry you got me there. I meant Venezuela.

Let me rephrase the question then. Do you think that it is bad for the whole hemisphere that Venezuela bought some rifles?

I will agree with Donald that it's not a good thing that Chavez and his Venezuelan state have added to their arsenal of weapons. Chavez has really been on a media-assisted misinformation campaign to make the US out to look like the devil to the poor uneducated masses of Venezuela. Read the attached article on the oil industry and Venezuela's Petroleos de Venezuela. It's so ridiculous in terms of media spin that I was laughing aloud while reading it.

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=25231

There was also an interesting article about a week ago in either the WSJ or the Economist (can't remember which, but both are outstanding publications, though) on how Venezuela is taking actions to economically and militarily undermine the US. Chavez is clearly an enemy of the US.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Texxx, as it has recently come to light that you are a high-school graduate still in the process of matriculation and learning about the big world we live in, I am going to have to ask you to refrain from commenting until you are more fully credentialed.

Sam, now that you've mentioned that you're latino, what is your opinion on the Venezuelan situation? Perhaps you could offer some insightful perspective on this as a latino. I would welcome your point of view.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Sam, now that you've mentioned that you're latino, what is your opinion on the Venezuelan situation? Perhaps you could offer some insightful perspective on this as a latino. I would welcome your point of view.

Texxx, I am glad you have taken the opportunity to call upon the wisdom of one of your elders and recognize me as a valuable resource. Unfortunately I must finish this important business on which I am working at the moment, the present incompletion of which is due in no small part to my being overly generous in dispensing my wisdom to the BBS public these days. So I will pass presently but am going to definitely take this request under advisement.

[Deckard]

I'm not crazy about Chavez, and I'm not crazy about the Venezuelan oligarchy either. I think Rummy is worried about urban warfare (see Iraq) if the Bush Administration decides to militarily intervene, which might not be an impossibility. If Chavez does some things that affect our oil supply, and/or started taking euros instead of dollars, he'd be walking a fine line with Bush and company, imo.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[pippendagimp]

They say if you live long enough you'll see (or in this case hear) everything.

[plcmts17]

Liberals are especially sore about the last few elections and the fact that the Republicans control congress and the white house. The liberal positions have been shot down by the will of the American people - the liberals have lost. This leads them to go on a Bush administration smear campaign to make the winner look bad, thereby attempting to make themselves look better. It's the classic principle of consistency from psychology. Nobody wants to be a loser, not even liberals who should be used to it by now.

bigtexxx, you,basso,and trader jorge are so far up Bush's a$$ it's surprising he hasn't got colon cancer yet. When it comes to credit card companies pushing their own agenda through the republican held congress and senate with ease you guys seem to be at a loss for words. Why is that? Is that the will of the people you talk about?

I will agree with Donald that it's not a good thing that Chavez and his Venezuelan state have added to their arsenal of weapons. Chavez has really been on a media-assisted misinformation campaign to make the US out to look like the devil to the poor uneducated masses of Venezuela. Read the attached article on the oil industry and Venezuela's Petroleos de Venezuela. It's so ridiculous in terms of media spin that I was laughing aloud while reading it.

Now we come to a subject that the WH and republicans are good at, media assisted misinformation campaigns. Like Bush ads saying if Kerry where in the WH gas prices would go up even more, let's not forget everyone's favorite male internet reporter. You know the old saying "it takes one to know one".

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by plcmts17
Now we come to a subject that the WH and republicans are good at, media assisted misinformation campaigns. Like Bush ads saying if Kerry where in the WH gas prices would go up even more, let's not forget everyone's favorite male internet reporter. You know the old saying "it takes one to know one".

Please provide a link to those Bush ads. I do not recall them. Thanks in advance!

[pirc1]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Texxx, as it has recently come to light that you are a high-school graduate still in the process of matriculation and learning about the big world we live in, I am going to have to ask you to refrain from commenting until you are more fully credentialed.

Where did you find this info Sam? Can you provide a link?

[No Worries]

process of matriculation

That sounds down right painful.

The simple solution to the Venezuela problem is to let the Red States (tm) democratically elect their government. Thank me later.

[gifford1967]

I don't have a problem declaring support for Chavez. I actually believe in democracy and self determination. Chavez has been chosen by the people of Venezuela by large margins on more than one occasion. This probably has something to do with the fact that he is implementing policies that benefit the large majority of Venezualans rather than a small oligarchy.

It's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the Bush Administration is ramping up to some serious intervention against Chavez. If they succeed in overthowing Chavez it will be a tragedy.

[basso]

Originally posted by gifford1967
I don't have a problem declaring support for Chavez. I actually believe in democracy and self determination. Chavez has been chosen by the people of Venezuela by large margins on more than one occasion. This probably has something to do with the fact that he is implementing policies that benefit the large majority of Venezualans rather than a small oligarchy.

It's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the Bush Administration is ramping up to some serious intervention against Chavez. If they succeed in overthowing Chavez it will be a tragedy.

true, chavez was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the chavez is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure venezuela really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put chavez in power.

what i find most interesting however, is this is yet another example of how desparate the left is to smear bush, so desparate that, yet again, they come down on the side of a murderous tyrant. how do you guys sleep at night, knowing you're making common cause w/ the likes of basher assad, hosni mubarak, hugo chavez, and yes, saddam. who's next, kim?

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
true, chavez was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the chavez is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure venezuela really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put chavez in power.
]

Ahhh, the Basso Doctrine- a leader must be certified by the Bush administration before they can be considered democratic.



what i find most interesting however, is this is yet another example of how desparate the left is to smear bush, so desparate that, yet again, they come down on the side of a murderous tyrant. how do you guys sleep at night, knowing you're making common cause w/ the likes of basher assad, hosni mubarak, hugo chavez, and yes, saddam. who's next, kim?


I've only expressed support for Chavez. He is the only one on your list that I do support, as he is the only one who was democratically elected in a legitimate process. However, it doesn't surprise me that you are trying to link his name to those other true tyrants. We will see a lot more of this from Bush supporters as the propaganda machine kicks into gear.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
true, chavez was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the chavez is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure venezuela really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put chavez in power.

what i find most interesting however, is this is yet another example of how desparate the left is to smear bush, so desparate that, yet again, they come down on the side of a murderous tyrant. how do you guys sleep at night, knowing you're making common cause w/ the likes of basher assad, hosni mubarak, hugo chavez, and yes, saddam. who's next, kim? Actually the elections were clearly a victory for Chavez. Chavez is the person who actually asked outside observers to come in and help make it a fair voting process. In 2000 there were irregularities, but the Carter Center, found that the irregularities wouldn't have changed the outcome of Chavez' victory in which the President won 60% of the votes. Furthermore the Carter Center oppened up an office in Caracas.

Both parties signed agreements to respect not violate human rights.

The Carter Center worked with groups opposing Chavez, and the Chavez govt. themselves to work on reform, and layout the foundation for a recall vote. Chavez actually faced a recall vote in 2004. Again Chavez won 60% of the vote, and this time there were only nominal irregularities.

Any claims that Chavez isn't the leader elected by the people of Venezuela is inaccurate at best and at worst disengenous.

Chavez has been confrontational in his style of governing, which upset some folks. He hasn't been a door mat for U.S. interests which also upset people. However Chavez has been elected by larger margins than Bush, more times than Bush, and never had to have a court order that votes not be counted in order to assure is place in power.

There were seven elections in a two year period. At one point the govt. even postponed the elections because of technical problems in order to assure fairness.

Chavez has won all of the elctions brought in Cuban doctors to set up clinics in the poorest parts of Venezuela, and the people there are proud of the work being done.

The Chavez govt. is as democratic as it gets. International observers on the ground atest to this, the people of Venezuela atest to this. There has already been one coup attempt against Chavez.

Once again we see that if a democratic process puts someone into power against the liking of the Bush crowd it isn't called democracy. In Basso's post he actually had the nerve to try and claim that Chavez' govt. wasn't really a democratic one anymore. Chavez is up for re-election in 2006 by the way. An odd move for someone Basso claims is a tyrant. The Bush crowd didn't promote the democratic elections in the Palestinian territories when the result was Yassir Arafat, though he did win a an election that was certified by international observers again. Somehow it is only now that Democracy is taking place there.

Basso, I ask you, do you support democracy or not?

For any interested in the real story of elections there here are some links. http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/showdoc.asp?countryID=87&submenuname=activities#

http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1690.htm

http://www.cartercenter.org/peaceprograms/showstaticdoc.asp?programID=15&docname=lacpqa&submenu=peaceprograms

[jo mama]

Originally posted by basso
true, chavez was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the chavez is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure venezuela really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put chavez in power.


if your going to say that than i think this is fair...

true, bush was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the bush is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure america really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put bush in power.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by jo mama
if your going to say that than i think this is fair...

true, bush was "elected" by large "majorities", but the results were/are highly suspect. in any case, being democratically elected hardly means the bush is acting in a democratic manner. he abrogated an enormous amount of power to himself, and agressively stifled dissent. i'm not so sure america really qualifies as a democracy anymore, despite the process that put bush in power.

This isn't completely accurate. Bush was only elected by a "majority" once and the one majority he did win with could hardly be called "large."

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade


For any interested in the real story of elections there here are some links. http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/showdoc.asp?countryID=87&submenuname=activities#

http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1690.htm

http://www.cartercenter.org/peaceprograms/showstaticdoc.asp?programID=15&docname=lacpqa&submenu=peaceprograms

Hah! i can't believe you're trumpeting Jimmy Carter's role in ensuring the "fairness" of the elections in venezuala. most independent observers consider the elections, and carter's role in them, a farce.

here's some more background, from a journalist in venezuela. note how he calls out a noted conservative for shilling for the regime.

--
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/785ruylo.asp?pg=1

Hugo Chavez vs. the Media
The Venezuelan strongman tries to crackdown on his country's journalists while Jack Kemp shills for him in America.
by Thor Halvorssen
06/09/2003 6:40:00 AM


Caracas, Venezuela
EARLIER THIS YEAR, the U.S. media was atwitter with coverage of the protests against ousting Saddam Hussein. At the same time, just weeks before the war in Iraq began, a record-setting one and a half million Venezuelans marched in protest against a law proposed by the president of Venezuela, Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez. Simultaneous marches against Chavez took place across the world. It was the largest peaceful protest in Latin American history.

These protests did not register even a blip in the international and U.S. media. There were no page-one articles or photo-spreads about this widespread rejection of the Chavez regime. That the international media failed to cover these events is particularly dispiriting, since the protest was organized specifically to support the Venezuelan media, which has been tirelessly exposing human rights violations by the Chavez regime.

Despite being followed, harassed, arrested, tear-gassed, fire-bombed, shot at, and even killed by Chavez supporters and party members, journalists here have bravely persevered in their jobs and serve as the only effective check to arbitrary government power. Given that the courts, congress, military and the executive branch are firmly under Chavez's control, it's little wonder that in poll after poll, the Venezuelan media ranks as the most respected institution in the country.

Since January, using a presidential decree, Chavez has interrupted regular television and radio broadcasts on 60 separate occasions, forcing all media to transmit his hours-long tirades and pro-government propaganda.

And Chavez now seeks to formalize his control through the "Media Contents" law, a bill that controls TV programming by defining time slots suitable for children. The law assumes that children will be watching television for 18 hours a day and prohibits the broadcasting of news or any content with violent images or political language except between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. For example, live footage of Chavez militia members shooting at innocent protesters, would be content unsuitable for children.

IN ADDITION to controlling the programming, the law criminalizes any content that "promotes, condones or incites disrespect for the legitimate authorities and institutions." Known locally as the "gag law," it states explicitly that mocking or criticizing the president and his henchmen is illegal. Broadcasters face million-dollar fines, loss of their broadcast licenses, and even jail time for noncompliance. If this column was published in a newspaper or read on television here in Venezuela, it would be in violation of the proposed Chavez media law.

When journalists expressed opposition to the law's barefaced censorship, Chavez responded: "That's just like drug traffickers opposing anti-drug laws or criminals complaining about crime-fighting."

And to further control the media, Chavez has imposed exchange controls. No Venezuelan citizen may purchase foreign currency without government permission--an act that renders the local currency worthless for import transactions. As a result, any television company that needs to purchase electronic equipment or any newspaper editor wishing to order newsprint paper or buy ink must petition the currency control agency that is, conveniently, headed by a man who assisted Lt. Col. Chavez in his failed 1992 coup attempt.

TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, some American elites are actively shilling for the Chavez regime even as the media crackdown proceeds. Jack Kemp, notably, has been busy opening doors for the Chavez government. Recently Kemp and the Venezuelan ambassador visited the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in an unsuccessful attempt to charm the paper away from its anti-Chavez stance. Since that visit, the Journal reported that Kemp has been trying to broker a complicated deal to fill the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve with Venezuelan oil via an intermediary company--Free Market Petroleum LLC--on whose board Kemp sits. Since hooking up with Free Market Petroleum, Kemp has visited with Chavez and his ministers in Caracas. Surely he must have noticed Chavez's brutality here.

American elites should be helping pressure the Chavez regime and publicizing its anti-democratic doings in Venezuela, not seeking to profit from collaboration with it.

Thor Halvorssen is a human rights and civil liberties activist. He grew up in Venezuela and now lives in Philadelphia.

[basso]

here's another charming story about your boy chavez (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/153kcfti.asp?pg=1)

--
Horror in Venezuela
Jesus Soriano and the price of dissent in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
by Thor L. Halvorssen
01/23/2003 12:00:00 AM


VENEZUELA IS NOW an abyss where there is no rule of law. A rogue government tortures innocent civilians with impunity while paying lip service to democracy and buying time at the "negotiation" table set up by the Organization of American States. Venezuela's foreign minister, Roy Chaderton, has funded an effective multi-million dollar public relations campaign to smear the opposition as coup-plotters and fascists intent on bringing about violence.

Jesus Soriano has never met Roy Chaderton or Hugo Chavez. Soriano supported President Hugo Chavez's meteoric rise, volunteered during the election campaign, and is now a second-year law student in Caracas. His law-school peers describe the 24-year-old as a cheerful and happy young man.

Soriano, a member of the Chavez party, is part of a national student group called "Ousia," a group that brings together moderates who support the government and opposition members seeking a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.

On December 6, Soriano witnessed the massacre that occurred during a peaceful protest in Altamira, a neighborhood in Caracas where the opposition has a strong presence. The killer was Joao De Gouveia, an outspoken supporter of Chavez who has an unusually close relationship with mayor Freddy Bernal, a Chavez crony. Gouveia randomly began shooting at the crowd. He killed three--including a teenage girl he shot in the head--and injured 28 people. As Gouveia kept shooting, several men raced toward him to stop the killing. Soriano was one of the men who wrestled Gouveia to the ground and prevented further killing. Soriano also protected Gouveia from a potential lynch mob that swarmed around the killer.

Soriano's heroic accomplishments did not cease that day. He became a national figure in Venezuela when he brought a small soccer ball (known in Venezuela as a "futbolito") to a sizable protest march organized against the rule of Lt. Col. Chavez. Soriano and other pro-Chavez partisans made their way towards the march intending to engage the opposition members in dialogue.

That hot afternoon, Soriano kicked the futbolito across the divide at the members of the opposition. They kicked it back. The magical realism of the event is evident in the extraordinary television footage of what occurred next. By the end of the match the anti-Chavez protestors and pro-Chavez partisans were hugging and chanting "Peace! Unity! We are Venezuela! Politicians go away! We are the real Venezuela!" In one particularly moving part of the footage, Soriano and a member of the opposing team trade a baseball hat for a Chavez-party red beret.

In one hour this sharply divided group of strangers accomplished more than the high-level negotiation team that seeks to defuse a potential civil war. Chavez was reportedly furious with the televised soccer match and even angrier that the reconciliation was a product of the efforts of one of his supporters. Soriano was declared an enemy of the revolution.

Last week Soriano organized another soccer match. On Wednesday he visited the Universidad Central de Venezuela, the main university in the capital, to attend a meeting of the student government. Violent clashes erupted as members of the Circulos Bolivarianos, an armed militia sworn to protect the revolution, began throwing rocks and tear gas grenades at the students. The militia identified Soriano and captured him. They then tied his hands and feet, lifted him up, and paraded him through the street like a sacrificial lamb chanting "Judas! Judas!" The entire spectacle was recorded by a cameraman who works for the official government television entity. Soriano was beaten so severely that he was left at the hospital emergency room. At the hospital he was detained by the DISIP, Chavez's secret police, and taken to their headquarters for questioning.

During his interrogation, fingernails in his left hand were torn out. After being further tortured and injected with drugs, the secret police took him into the bowels of the building and placed him in a cell. His cellmate: Joao de Gouveia.

Gouveia has the keys to the cell and comes in and out of the secret police headquarters at will. His only restriction is that he must sleep in the precinct, lest Chavez's police are revealed as allowing a confessed killer to roam free. Soriano's mother (who is also a Chavez supporter) tearfully claimed that Gouveia sodomized Soriano and beat him with such force that Soriano cannot open his eyes.

Soriano was released last Friday afternoon after Roy Chaderton advised Chavez that the case could filter out of Venezuela and could become a "human-interest story" with the potential to derail their PR campaign.

The government denied that Soriano had been mistreated. A thorough medical examination by a civil surgeon reveals that, beyond lacerations, severe bruising, and cracked ribs, Soriano had been repeatedly raped while in custody. His right arm shows that he has been injected. Nails are missing from his left hand. Soriano's internal organs have been crushed to the point that he urinates blood, and he cannot walk without assistance.

Once the medical report was made public, the secret police immediately began saying that Soriano was a member of a "right-wing paramilitary organization." This tactic, engineered by Chaderton, is used frequently to disqualify and discount opponents of the regime. All enemies of the "revolution" are coup plotters and fascists. The government now circulates a photo of Soriano in military fatigues. Carlos Roa, Soriano's attorney, showed me that the picture is a yearbook photo from when he was a schoolboy in military academy.

Although it was obvious that Soriano had been tortured, Iris Varela, a Chavez congressional representative, offered no apologies: "I am glad they did this to him. He deserved it." That such savage treatment is what greets government supporters who seek a peaceful resolution to the current crisis speaks volumes about Chavez's ultimate intentions. Soriano, now recuperating at home, must wonder why he ever supported the Chavez regime.

Thor L. Halvorssen is a human rights and civil liberties activist who grew up in Venezuela. He now lives in Philadelphia.

[No Worries]

American elites should be helping pressure the Chavez regime and publicizing its anti-democratic doings in Venezuela, not seeking to profit from collaboration with it.

This is complete and total BS.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The point is that 100k assault rifles aren't going to destabilize the entire hemisphere.

So are you saying every American should be able to have an assualt weapon? I mean it won't destabilize the western hemisphere.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
Hah! i can't believe you're trumpeting Jimmy Carter's role in ensuring the "fairness" of the elections in venezuala. most independent observers consider the elections, and carter's role in them, a farce.


Thor Halvorssen is a human rights and civil liberties activist. He grew up in Venezuela and now lives in Philadelphia.

Ha! I can't believe you are trying to deny Carter's involvement in monitoring elections. I'm waiting for you to show me that most respected independent observers feel that the Carter Administration's role in this was a farce. You haven't even shown that the elections were a farce.

For your information the Carter Center is probably the foremost respected organization monitoring elections.

You pointed out some articles that say bad things about Chavez. The media one is certainly no different than what Bush has done by buying off reporters to hype his policies, giving out press passes so a fake reporter can ask softball pro-administration questions.

But if you had checked out the websites I listed you would have seen that the Carter Center did address media role, and the fact that the Chavez administration didn't do enough to educate voters on the issues at hand. The Carter Center even labaled one of the elections as - flawed because of Chavez' doings. The Carter Center isn't giving anyone a pass. They did point out that despite being flawed Chavez would have still won the elections.

The truth remains that Chavez asked for outside monitors to come in. That happened and the Carter Center refused to certify one of the elections as unflawed.

Not one of the articles you posted shows that Chavez wasn't popularly elected. Not one of them shows that the Carter Center's role in monitoring the elctions was a farce either.

Please name some of the more respected international election monitoring groups if you think the Carter Center is so unfair.

So far you have made unbacked accusations against Chavez, the Carter Center and the elections in Venezuela.

[pirc1]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
So are you saying every American should be able to have an assualt weapon? I mean it won't destabilize the western hemisphere.

They already do that. Check with Roxan(sp) , he can loan you a few thousand of his rifles I am sure.:p

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
So are you saying every American should be able to have an assualt weapon? I mean it won't destabilize the western hemisphere.

Yes, every American armed forces personnel who needs an assault weapon should have one.

Why is this a controversial or inconsistent position?

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I'm waiting for you to show me that most respected independent observers feel that the Carter Administration's role in this was a farce. You haven't even shown that the elections were a farce.

sigh...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586

--
Conned in Caracas
New evidence that Jimmy Carter got fooled in Venezuela.

Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:01 a.m.

Both the Bush Administration and former President Jimmy Carter were quick to bless the results of last month's Venezuelan recall vote, but it now looks like they were had. A statistical analysis by a pair of economists suggests that the random-sample "audit" results that the Americans trusted weren't random at all.

This is no small matter. The imprimatur of Mr. Carter and his Carter Center election observers is being used by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to claim a mandate. The anti-American strongman has been steering his country toward dictatorship and is stirring up trouble throughout Latin America. If the recall election wasn't fair, why would Americans want to endorse it?

The new study was released this week by economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT. They zeroed in on a key problem with the August 18 vote audit that was run by the government's electoral council (CNE): In choosing which polling stations would be audited, the CNE refused to use the random number generator recommended by the Carter Center. Instead, the CNE insisted on its own program, run on its own computer. Mr. Carter's team acquiesced, and Messrs. Hausmann and Rigobon conclude that, in controlling this software, the government had the means to cheat.

"This result opens the possibility that the fraud was committed only in a subset of the 4,580 automated centers, say 3,000, and that the audit was successful because it directed the search to the 1,580 unaltered centers. That is why it was so important not to use the Carter Center number generator. If this was the case, Carter could never have figured it out."

Mr. Hausmann told us that he and Mr. Rigoban also "found very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and a probability of less than 1% that the anomalies observed could be pure chance. To put it another way, they think the chance is 99% that there was electoral fraud.

The authors also suggest that the fraud was centralized. Voting machines were supposed to print tallies before communicating by Internet with the CNE center. But the CNE changed that rule, arranging to have totals sent to the center first and only later printing tally sheets. This increases the potential for fraud because the Smartmatic voting machines suddenly had two-way communication capacity that they weren't supposed to have. The economists say this means the CNE center could have sent messages back to polling stations to alter the totals.

None of this would matter if the auditing process had been open to scrutiny by the Carter observers. But as the economists point out: "After an arduous negotiation, the Electoral Council allowed the OAS [Organization of American States] and the Carter Center to observe all aspects of the election process except for the central computer hub, a place where they also prohibited the presence of any witnesses from the opposition. At the time, this appeared to be an insignificant detail. Now it looks much more meaningful."

Yes, it does. It would seem that Colin Powell and the Carter Center have some explaining to do. The last thing either would want is for Latins to think that the U.S. is now apologizing for governments that steal elections. Back when he was President, Mr. Carter once famously noted that the Afghanistan invasion had finally caused him to see the truth about Leonid Brezhnev. A similar revelation would seem to be in order toward Mr. Chavez.

[basso]

and more

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110005509

--
Observers Rush to Judgment
Jimmy Carter gets rolled--first by Fidel Castro, now by Hugo Chávez.

BY MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
Saturday, August 21, 2004 12:01 a.m.

When Jimmy Carter went to Cuba in 2002, Fidel Castro reveled in the photo-ops with a former U.S. president. Mr. Carter seemed to think he was heroically "engaging" the Cuban despot. But in the documentary "Dissident," celluloid captures something most Americans didn't see: Castro giggling sardonically as Mr. Carter lectures the Cuban politburo on democracy. That foreshadowed what happened when the media splash ended and the former president went home: Dissidents he went to "help" today languish in gulag punishment cells.

I was reminded this week of how Castro so artfully used Mr. Carter when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez took a page from his Cuban mentor's playbook. On Monday, the Carter Center along with the head of the monumentally meaningless Organization of American States, Cesar Gaviria, endorsed Chávez's claims of victory in the Venezuelan recall referendum, rather too hastily it now seems.

The problem was that the "observers" hadn't actually observed the election results. Messrs. Carter and Gaviria were only allowed to make a "quick count"--that is, look at the tally sheets spat out by a sample of voting machines. They were not allowed to check this against ballots the machines issued to voters as confirmation that their votes were properly registered.

If there was fraud, as many Venezuelans now suspect, it could have been discovered if the ballots didn't match the computer tallies. The tallies alone were meaningless. The problem was clear by Tuesday but it didn't stop the State Department spokesman Adam Ereli from chiming in. "The people of Venezuela have spoken," he proclaimed.

Mr. Carter marveled at the huge turnout on Sunday. Venezuelans, who have been voting 2-to-1 against Chávez in opinion polls, waited in absurdly long lines to cast more meaningful votes on electronic machines. But did the machine really record the vote as registered on the paper ballot?

According to experts, it is relatively simple to tamper with encryption codes in electronic voting machines. American Enterprise Institute resident scholar John Lott says, "You can easily write a program that tells the voting machine to record something different in its memory than what it prints out on the receipt that is to be dropped in the ballot box."

To rely on the tally sheets alone, as Messrs. Carter and Gaviria did, is to abdicate the heavy responsibility an observer accepts when overseeing an election. A Venezuelan who is a former U.N. deputy high commissioner of human rights wrote of his suspicions in Wednesday's International Herald Tribune (right beside a pro-Chávez New York Times editorial, by the way). Enrique ter Horst cited as cause for concern the fact that "the papers the new machines produced . . . were not added up and compared with the final numbers these machines produce at the end of the voting process, as the voting-machine manufacturer had suggested."

An exit poll done by the prominent U.S. polling firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates showed 59% of voters opposed to Chávez and only 41% in favor. (Messrs. Penn and Schoen both worked for Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election bid.) Raj Kumar, a principal at the polling firm, told me Thursday that the firm has gone back to try to explain the 34-point spread between the PSB poll and the results announced by the government. "While there are certainly biases that can impact any exit poll, we do not see any factor that could account for such a significant difference," he said.

At 3:00 on Monday morning two members of the National Electoral Council who are politically opposed to Chávez announced that they had been shut out of the audit process and warned the public that the established protocol had been violated. Some 50 minutes later pro-Chávez Electoral Council member Francisco Carrasquero emerged alone to proclaim Chávez the winner.

There is much to question. Mr. ter Horst cites one example: "In the town of Valle de la Pascua, where papers were counted at the initiative of those manning the voting center, the "yes" vote had been cut by more than 75%, and the entire voting material was seized by the national guard shortly after the difference was established." "Yes" was a vote to remove Chávez.

There is also a reasonable accusation that the number of "yes" votes at some polling stations was "capped" by software tampering. The charge is supported by the discovery, in some locations, of two or three machines recording the exact same number of "yes" votes and substantially more "no" votes. The opposition is claiming that it has proof that this occurred at 500 polling stations. Again, if Mr. Carter and the OAS observers had demanded an open auditing process instead of blindly endorsing government claims, cheating would have been uncovered. But Chávez refused open audits and the observers went along with him.

In the desperate attempt to divert attention from observer negligence, few have been as ardent as Mr. Gaviria, who is flailing about in the waters he helped muddy. He has no idea whether there was fraud because he never conducted an audit. So now he floats the idea that the whole problem is that the PSB exit poll was flawed. Yeah, right.

The Electoral Council is now engaged in a minimal audit with Mr. Carter and the OAS. But the opposition has wisely refused to participate on the grounds that the ballot boxes and the machines have been in Chávez control since Sunday and based on what is already known, further tampering can't be ruled out. As of yet there has not been an agreement on how to conduct a fair audit.

Chávez has already said that his "victory" cannot be reversed. To underscore that point on Tuesday, a pro-Chávez gang opened fire on a group protesting that the referendum had been rigged, killing one woman and injuring others.

There is some speculation that Messrs. Carter and Gaviria threw a veil over a gross deception on the grounds that it will prevent further violence. But Americans have a right to expect a sterner approach from the administration of George W. Bush. State's endorsement of this referendum without a fair audit is a sorry betrayal of not only the Venezuelan people but American ideals. It is tantamount to yielding to terrorism. Observing Washington's supine reaction, Chávez will not hesitate to escalate his efforts to restore authoritarianism on the South American continent.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
sigh...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005586

--
Conned in Caracas
New evidence that Jimmy Carter got fooled in Venezuela.

Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:01 a.m.



Oh my god, Basso found an op-ed in the WSJ that questions the legitimacy of Venezuela's electoral process. Of course this equals "most independent observers."

[bigtexxx]

Very eye-opening stuff, basso. Thanks for posting.

[gifford1967]

Basso please post something other than op-eds to support your declaration that "most independent observers consider the elections, and carter's role in them, a farce." Otherwise we will have to conclude that you are making intentionally misleading statements, otherwise known as lying.

[basso]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Very eye-opening stuff, basso. Thanks for posting.

i just don't understand the left's interest in propping this guy up- he's a thug. doesn't make sense.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
i just don't understand the left's interest in propping this guy up- he's a thug. doesn't make sense.

I just don't understand the right's willingness to take a dump on a popularly elected leader in favor of a military coup - it doesn't make sense.

Oh wait, it does make sense, because every time they pay lip service to the power of democracy and blah blah blah - it is all complete horsesh-t.

They don't actually believe it or practice it, because the power of democracy is thrown out the window whenever their personal political agendas are threatened. Lebanon, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, extraordinary rendition, whatever.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i just don't understand the left's interest in propping this guy up- he's a thug. doesn't make sense.

He has been elected several times and was even reinstalled after a coup because of the massive protests of the people. The people describing him as a "thug" are the oligarchy that are losing money because Chavez thinks it is more important to take care of the people than to further line the pockets of people who are already very wealthy.

You either agree with democracy or you don't. The people of Venezuela want Chavez to be their leader and that is good enough for me. It is disgusting that the Bushies think that it is right to manufacture evidence to start a war and then claim after the evidence is proven false that the war was meant to "spread democracy" and then come out against a man whose people have elected him by HUGE margins several times.

[basso]

Originally posted by SamFisher
extraordinary rendition, whatever.

you and mr. moonbeam are certainly examples of extraordinary parodies of liberal democratic concern. human rights abuses? government sanctioned murder? fine! he was democratically elected! dude, this guy is a leftist pinochet- why are you licking his balls so sweetly?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
you and mr. moonbeam are certainly examples of extraordinary parodies of liberal democratic concern.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by basso

human rights abuses? government sanctioned murder?

Have you looked at the history of Venezuela when it was ruled by the oligarchy? The abuses were far worse and they were committed by people who did not have to face elections.

Originally posted by basso

fine! he was democratically elected!


And when his abuses get to be too much for them to bear, he will be ousted through election. That is the way a democracy works.

There have been plenty of human rights abuses by GWB and his cabal since they took over, but I don't hear you asking for Bush's head on a platter.

Originally posted by basso

dude, this guy is a leftist pinochet- why are you licking his balls so sweetly?

To some of us, leaning left is not as evil as you make it out to be. Chavez is doing good for the people at the expense of the elite who milked that country dry for decades. If that is leftist, then I say GO LEFTISTS!!

[Deckard]

Originally posted by basso
you and mr. moonbeam are certainly examples of extraordinary parodies of liberal democratic concern. human rights abuses? government sanctioned murder? fine! he was democratically elected! dude, this guy is a leftist pinochet- why are you licking his balls so sweetly?
Folks, things have been getting a bit snippy around here lately, again, after a pretty good period of relatively "civil" behavior. (we wouldn't want things too civil, or it'd be boring as hell!)

Can't the various actors of both sides, along with a particular China apologist, try to maintain our hard-won civility?

Thanks.
Oh, and I'll be gone a few days, not that anyone will notice! ;)




Keep D&D Civil!!

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by basso
you and mr. moonbeam are certainly examples of extraordinary parodies of liberal democratic concern. human rights abuses? government sanctioned murder? fine! he was democratically elected! dude, this guy is a leftist pinochet- why are you licking his balls so sweetly?

Spare me this crap. Go back and read my first post on the subject:

"Chavez is kind of a chump, but he's their chump for better or worse."

I've never made claims to being anything other than a realist. I don't spout off bullsh-t about how I'm blowing stuff up to cause the flowering of democracy like you do (which was necessitated when the great WMD easter egg hunt came up empty) and then get pissy when the democracy sandwich tastes bad - or ignore it when its convenient.

Do you understand how much credibility is lost when you (and we) do these types of things? I guess you probably can't.

[No Worries]

Do you understand how much credibility is lost when you (and we) do these types of things?

Credibility? That left ages ago.

[FranchiseBlade]

Basso, there were seven elections in two years. I won't even say the source you provided isn't valid because there are some anecdotal evidence and polls in there.

I will say a couple of things. The article points out that Bush initially praised the election yet only Carter was conned. The article also points out the problem is based primarily on a random number generator used on a computer.

Carter was against using the govt. computer but finally acquiessed when the govt. wouldn't use Carters. That doesn't sound like he got conned.

Furthermore that isn't so different from the questions regarding diebold machines. The CEO of diebold made all sorts of promises about Bush's election and there was no paper trail in this case either.

The random generator of sights audited doesn't nullify the election in the first case, and in the second case it doesn't show that the Carter Center's participation was a farce.

The other big beef seems to be polls. The polls didn't match up and people they knew were in line early to vote against Chavez didn't win.

That evidence doesn't add up. None of it adds up to it being a farce or the Carter Center's involvement being a farce. You also did not provide the names of any more respected observers. In addition you didn't show what any independent observers thought about it at all.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
i just don't understand the left's interest in propping this guy up- he's a thug. doesn't make sense. It isn't the left who is propping him up it is the people of Venezuela who voted for him time and time again that are propping him up.

Is this your answer to, 'Do you support democracy?' I would like to know.

Chavez is up for ELECTION in 2006. If he isn't wanted by the MARJORITY OF THE PEOPLE he will be VOTED out.

Just because you or I or Bush don't like everything a leader does, doesn't mean that the leader isn't democratically elected. I don't like Bush, but I understand that he was democratically elected.

You can't argue for democracy when what you really want is only leaders who agree with YOU. That isn't democracy.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
It isn't the left who is propping him up it is the people of Venezuela who voted for him time and time again that are propping him up.

Is this your answer to, 'Do you support democracy?' I would like to know.

Chavez is up for ELECTION in 2006. If he isn't wanted by the MARJORITY OF THE PEOPLE he will be VOTED out.

Just because you or I or Bush don't like everything a leader does, doesn't mean that the leader isn't democratically elected. I don't like Bush, but I understand that he was democratically elected.

You can't argue for democracy when what you really want is only leaders who agree with YOU. That isn't democracy.

you have a fairly naive faith in the fairness of the electoral process in venezuela.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by basso
you have a fairly naive faith in the fairness of the electoral process in venezuela.
Who made you the expert?

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by No Worries
Who made you the expert?

I don't know, but I do know that this is coming from the same poster who had a complete mental breakdown when I noted far more serious allegations about Afghanistan's elections.

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85514&highlight=karzai+election


So if you question elections where basso likes the results, and in his words, you're a "pathetic excuse for [a] human being", but if you don't question the ones he wants you too, you're a nuthugging dictator lover. :confused:

You should write a self-help book basso.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
you have a fairly naive faith in the fairness of the electoral process in venezuela. I don't. I rely on observers who were there and witnessed it. I allow for errors and understand that the elections aren't perfect.

But I saw what happened when the military coup happened. I saw what happened in recall elections, I saw what happened in election after election.

I will listen to other more reputable international observers of the process if they would care to speak up.

If instead of 60% of the vote he only got 55% of it because of voting irregularities he would still have won the election.

Again Chavez is the one who requested outside observaton. He doesn't do that because he feels the only way he can win is to cheat.

If one candidate asks for outside observation in an election, and wins time and time again with outside observation, and they win by a large amount, I will beleive democracy has won out.

By the way the democracy in Iraq didn't have outside observers who were there. It was too dangerous. There are accusations of irregularities in the Sunni areas, but you are more than happy to proclaim that democracy won the day there.

Why when there is much scrutiny over the course of not 1, but 7 elections are you not willing to proclaim that democracy has won the day?

[plcmts17]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I don't know, but I do know that this is coming from the same poster who had a complete mental breakdown when I noted far more serious allegations about Afghanistan's elections.

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85514&highlight=karzai+election


So if you question elections where basso likes the results, and in his words, you're a "pathetic excuse for [a] human being", but if you don't question the ones he wants you too, you're a nuthugging dictator lover. :confused:

You should write a self-help book basso.

:D

Oh we must so ever thank basso, the bleeding heart that he is.
Letting us know how bad Chavez is for the Venezuelan people, did you ever think of working for Amnesty Intl.?

And to bigtexx, do you need a link in order to answer any question or just any question you feel like not answering.
To answer your question texx I have no link other than what I recall about the gas price issue during the election.
Now that may not be sufficient for you and it's totally understandable, but when oh when will you guys answer a question without using the spin cycle. Actually texx I only asked one question related to another thread. But I won't hold my hand on my a$$ waiting for an answer from you. Your silence speaks volumes enough.

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by plcmts17
bigtexxx, you,basso,and trader jorge are so far up Bush's a$$ it's surprising he hasn't got colon cancer yet. When it comes to credit card companies pushing their own agenda through the republican held congress and senate with ease you guys seem to be at a loss for words. Why is that? Is that the will of the people you talk about?

Oh plcmts17, please forgive me for not answering your question. It's kind of hard to take somebody seriously when they state that I am giving another man colon cancer due to residing so far up his anal cavity.

Grow up child, I don't have time for your silly musings. I didn't even read the credit card thread. My time is very valuable. Very valuable. I can quantify just how valuable my time is based on actual market data, but I wouldn't want to do that in a public forum.

[plcmts17]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Grow up child, I don't have time for your silly musings. I didn't even read the credit card thread. My time is very valuable. Very valuable. I can quantify just how valuable my time is based on actual market data, but I wouldn't want to do that in a public forum.
Well you could of fooled me, child. So sorry to waste your valuable time. Let me just let you on a little secret. You were just going to waste it anyway.

[basso]

Originally posted by SamFisher
I don't know, but I do know that this is coming from the same poster who had a complete mental breakdown when I noted far more serious allegations about Afghanistan's elections.

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85514&highlight=karzai+election


So if you question elections where basso likes the results, and in his words, you're a "pathetic excuse for [a] human being", but if you don't question the ones he wants you too, you're a nuthugging dictator lover. :confused:

You should write a self-help book basso.

my comments stand. you seem far more exorcised by what you, incorrectly, perceive as my inconsistency than you are about the crushing of dissent in venezuela. :fascinating:

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
my comments stand. you seem far more exorcised by what you, incorrectly, perceive as my inconsistency than you are about the crushing of dissent in venezuela. :fascinating:

I know Sam doesn't need to me to speak for him, but he's said it twice he doesn't approve of Chavez. How many times do you need to read it to understand it?

I don't like dissent crushed in Venezuela, I don't like the media coverage in the U.S. It is horrible.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

I don't like dissent crushed in Venezuela, I don't like the media coverage in the U.S. It is horrible.

but apparently you do love you some chavez.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
but apparently you do love you some chavez. I don't love Chavez. I don't think he's the demon some make him out to be. I don't approve of crushing dissent, or his control of the media. I do approve of him setting up clinics with Cuban doctors in the neediest of areas, and other programs that benefit the neediest in Venezuela.

But whether I love him or not, doesn't matter. I can accept that whether I like him or not, he is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela. So as a supporter of democracy even when I don't like the outcome, I defend his right to hold power.

My support of democracy is more than just lip service.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
[B
My support of democracy is more than just lip service. [/B]

how do you reconcile the conflict when your support of democracy and respect for human rights are in opposition to one another?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
how do you reconcile the conflict when your support of democracy and respect for human rights are in opposition to one another? I voice my displeasure with the human rights, and should a better candidate come along I would be supportive of that candidate. But while voicing that opposition I will still respect the people of nation's right to govern themselves.

Should human rights violations increase I would support campaigning for a better candidate, move for sanctions, etc.

[No Worries]

How many times do you need to read it to understand it?

Who said he was reading it?

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
My time is very valuable. Very valuable. I can quantify just how valuable my time is based on actual market data, but I wouldn't want to do that in a public forum.

Do you cry when you look at yourself in the mirror?

[lpbman]

Originally posted by bigtexxx


Grow up child, I don't have time for your silly musings. I didn't even read the credit card thread. My time is very valuable. Very valuable. I can quantify just how valuable my time is based on actual market data, but I wouldn't want to do that in a public forum.
who would ever doubt your value to this planet, your BIGtexxx *BIG* real BIG even BIGTEXXX, if anyone thinks otherwise they need look no farther than to see your F-150 KING OF THE ROAD

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by lpbman
who would ever doubt your value to this planet, your BIGtexxx *BIG* real BIG even BIGTEXXX, if anyone thinks otherwise they need look no farther than to see your F-150 KING OF THE ROAD

Finally I've built some street credibility on the bbs.


That's what I'm talkin about.

[SamFisher]

Ouch, texxx is getting some flak around here, he is badly in need of my mentoring skill set.

pirc1, to answer your initial query, I was tipped off to the true age of my young would-be ward when he inquired in a Chinese zodiac thread, what animal "year" 1984 was - making him 20 years old (or very recently 21).

I'm not sure if anybody answered his inquiry but I think we both know what year that is - why it's the year of the Rat, of course.

That's when I began to see him as not a shyster but as a malleable lump of clay, capable of being salvaged through the combination of my sage tutelage and a stern but fair rebuke on occasion. The pride I felt when he opted to stay at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Miami on New Years over the cheap showiness of the Delano.... it almost brought tears to my eyes.

Then I invited him on my since aborted Cascades mountain climbing junket - not a pretty tale, that one, but I continue to harbor hopes that I will guide him up his own personal mountains in the future.

CLIMB EVERY MOUNTAIN LADDIE! (http://www.clevelandpops.com/v-mountain.mpg)

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by SamFisher
Ouch, texxx is getting some flak around here, he is badly in need of my mentoring skill set.

pirc1, to answer your initial query, I was tipped off to the true age of my young would-be ward when he inquired in a Chinese zodiac thread, what animal "year" 1984 was - making him 20 years old (or very recently 21).

I'm not sure if anybody answered his inquiry but I think we both know what year that is - why it's the year of the Rat, of course.

That's when I began to see him as not a shyster but as a malleable lump of clay, capable of being salvaged through the combination of my sage tutelage and a stern but fair rebuke on occasion. The pride I felt when he opted to stay at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Miami on New Years over the cheap showiness of the Delano.... it almost brought tears to my eyes.

Then I invited him on my since aborted Cascades mountain climbing junket - not a pretty tale, that one, but I continue to harbor hopes that I will guide him up his own personal mountains in the future.

CLIMB EVERY MOUNTAIN LADDIE! (http://www.clevelandpops.com/v-mountain.mpg)

You know Sam, your intentions seem genuine, but your attention to detail leaves much to be desired. This is especially troubling considering the tremendous amount of document review that a lower level associate like yourself must be expected to do. In fact, my guess is that you are probably performing some sort of proofreading exercise right now at this advanced hour on the east coast. My lodging at the Mandarin Oriental did not take place over New Year's. In fact I was in Las Vegas for New Year's. I flew from Las Vegas to Miami to attend the Orange Bowl, at which time I made my accomodation at the MO. I actually partied one night at the Delano, so perhaps there remains a bit of cheap showiness about me yet.

Let the record show that the mountain climbing junket was scrapped due to Sam's concern about price. Sam took issue to the potential "4 figure" cost of the excursion, at which time he cancelled the trip, leaving not only a hole in my schedule, but also a hole in my heart. This resulted in a dispositive effect on my inner chi, my zeal for life, and today I remain a shell of my former self, relegated to correcting low-lifes like andrew moon on an internet message board.

[pirc1]

Thanks for the good laugh in the morning.

Keep up the good work Sam and Bigtexxx.

[gifford1967]

Let's see- the Bush Administration is worried about the destabilizing effect of a democratically-elected government buying 100,000 rifles, but doesn't have a problem selling F-16s to a country that is run by a guy who came to power in a coup and is currently in a tense nuclear stand off with their democratic neighbor- India.

Of course, according to the Basso Doctrine Musharraf is really a champion of democracy because Bush said so.

Sura faints.



Officials: Bush Agrees to Sell F-16s to Pakistan

43 minutes ago

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) has agreed to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in a major policy shift rewarding a key ally in the war on terrorism, administration officials said on Friday.



A senior Bush administration official said the sale, which was blocked for 15 years, "will not change the overall balance of power" between Pakistan and India, and the jets "are vital to Pakistan's security as President (Pervez) Musharraf takes numerous risks prosecuting the war on terror."


One Bush administration official said the sale involved 24 planes but another said the numbers could change.


India's prime minister expressed "great disappointment," a spokesman in New Delhi said.


Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed called Bush's decision "a good gesture... This shows that our relations are growing stronger."


Washington blocked the sale of the F-16s to Pakistan in 1990 as a sanction against its nuclear weapons program.


Though no final decision has been made "at this point" on similar F-16 sales to India, the senior Bush administration official said: "We will respond positively to the Indian tender for bids to sell multi-role combat aircraft."


The F-16 is made by Lockheed Martin Corp., the largest U.S. defense contractor.


Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, opened new political possibilities for advancing Pakistan's stalled 15-year quest for the F-16 fighters when he said last month that Islamabad would not object to India also buying the American-made jets.


NUCLEAR NEIGHBORS


The decision follows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites)'s visit to India and Pakistan earlier this month. The State Department informed key congressional leaders on Friday.


In New Delhi, a spokesman for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Bush called him on Friday about the planned sale.


"The prime minister expressed India's great disappointment at the decision which could have negative consequences for India's security environment," Sanjaya Baru, spokesman for the prime minister's office, told Reuters.


Tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors, who have fought three wars and were on the brink of another in 2002, have eased since they began talks last year aimed at ending half a century of enmity.


India has strongly opposed the sale of F-16s to Pakistan after the Pentagon (news - web sites) cleared arms sales worth $1.2 billion to Pakistan last year. New Delhi says the planes could only be used against it in a conflict.


Islamabad in turn has said that any move by the United States to sell Patriot anti-missile systems to India would trigger a new arms race in the region, after a U.S. defense team made a presentation last month in New Delhi.


The F-16 sale represents a major policy shift for the United States and a final step toward tacit acceptance of Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons.


"President Musharraf made a commitment to stand with the United States," the senior administration official said. "This is a long-standing request."

[No Worries]

Maybe we could sell some F16s to Iran while we are at it.

[VinceCarter]

besides the argument...

i lived in Venezuela for a summer.... all i can say is DAMN.... the women are BEAUTIFUL....

































Plastic surgery is a wonderful thing.:D

[basso]

Originally posted by VinceCarter
besides the argument...

i lived in Venezuela for a summer.... all i can say is DAMN.... the women are BEAUTIFUL....

...and the men stood straight and tall...

actually, i prefer chilean women...

[glynch]

Hugo Chavez is democratically elected.

He is better on human rights than many of the guys we support around the world. This includes guys Bush wines and dines in trips to Washington D.C. This is extremely hipocritical.

He is responding to the majority of Venezuelans, who aren't wealthy which is a good thing. He and Venezuelans are entitled to this.

He is not playing ball with the imperialist oil guys in the Bush Administration.

The Bush gang will therefore try to overthrow him again.

Some of the things they have already tried or will try: assassination, economic sabatage, a coup, probably not an invasion as they have been caught lying so much on their war rationales that it is getting old. They will invade if they can get away with it.

Chavez and Venezuelans are entitltled to take strong steps steps to deal with the overthrow attempts listed above.

The same folks who decry any attemp by Chavez to save himself are all for virtualy any undemocratic measure taken by Bush in the name of national security, when the US faces no threat remotely comparable to the threat that Bush-Cheney pose to the sovereignity of Venezuela.

[No Worries]

when the US faces no threat remotely comparable to the threat that Bush-Cheney pose to the sovereignity of Venezuela.

There are those 100,000 AK-47s to consider. Perhaps the US should consider dropping some video-friendly smart bombs or funding some freedom fighters (after all Chavez is a pinko commie fag). It is all good.

[basso]

wonder if this what chavez wanted the guns for?

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20053300.asp

--
Venezuela Gets Ready For Civil War
by James Dunnigan
March 30, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

Venezuela is having problems with the loyalty of its armed forces. The current government is run by a former army officer Hugo Chavez. Normally, that would not be a problem. But Chavez sees himself as another Fidel Castro. That is, the rebel Castro before he proclaimed himself a hard core communist. Chavez wants social revolution in Venezuela, but many, perhaps a majority, of Venezuelans don’t want to be another Cuba. While Venezuela's oil wealth has not been distributed equally, it has created a large middle class. This includes the military. Many of the troops are nervous about Chavez, and his social programs. Even some of Chavez’s military decisions have caused unease among officers and troops. For example, Chavez is now buying military equipment from Russia. This includes helicopters (nine Mi-17s and one Mi-26) for the navy. The navy considers these helicopters unsuitable for naval use. The sailors are correct, but the price is cheap, and Chavez wants to make a political point.

The army is unhappy about the cozy relationship between Chavez and leftist rebel groups in neighboring Colombia. Venezuelan troops have been operating more aggressively along the Colombian border. This is officially a crackdown on the smugglers who always have operated there. But the Venezuelan troops are accused to really going after the Colombian rebels, or supporting them. Take your pick. No one is sure exactly what is going on.

To top it all off, Chavez is now organizing a new army, one loyal to him personally. This is part of his plan create "Bolivarian Circles of Venezuela Frontline Defense for National Democratic Revolution." These are political clubs all over the country, particularly in poor areas, where Chavez has the most support. Chavez expects to have 2.2 million members, who will be the backbone of the “democratic revolution unfolding in Venezuela." What upsets the armed forces is Chavezs decision to pass out infantry weapons to these political clubs, so that his new political clubs can use force to “defend the revolution.” There are believed to be Cuban advisors involved in this effort. This sort of mass organization has been used before in Latin America, by both leftist and rightist dictators (pro-fascist Juan Peron of Argentina, and communist Fidel Castro of Cuba.) But by passing out guns to his most dedicated followers, Chavez is angering the military, making the middle class even more nervous, and setting the stage for a bloody civil war.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You know Sam, your intentions seem genuine, but your attention to detail leaves much to be desired. This is especially troubling considering the tremendous amount of document review that a lower level associate like yourself must be expected to do. In fact, my guess is that you are probably performing some sort of proofreading exercise right now at this advanced hour on the east coast. My lodging at the Mandarin Oriental did not take place over New Year's. In fact I was in Las Vegas for New Year's. I flew from Las Vegas to Miami to attend the Orange Bowl, at which time I made my accomodation at the MO. I actually partied one night at the Delano, so perhaps there remains a bit of cheap showiness about me yet.

Let the record show that the mountain climbing junket was scrapped due to Sam's concern about price. Sam took issue to the potential "4 figure" cost of the excursion, at which time he cancelled the trip, leaving not only a hole in my schedule, but also a hole in my heart. This resulted in a dispositive effect on my inner chi, my zeal for life, and today I remain a shell of my former self, relegated to correcting low-lifes like andrew moon on an internet message board.

:D



Keep D&D Civil!!

[glynch]

While I often agree politically with Sam, I must repeat the old joke: What does Friday afternoon in a corporate law firm mean?

Ans. Only two more working days till Monday morning.

Fortunately I guess Sam is about to ditch the corporate law grind. At least for a while.

[glynch]

The anti Chavez forces have been preparing for civil war for years. They are encouraged by the anti-democrats within the Bush administration who backed the last coup attempt against him.

It is natural for them to be pissed if Chavez prepares for a coup or civil war.

Naturally they hope that they can convince enough of the military to help them join in the coup against the democratically elected president. They will of course do it in the name of democracy.

I don't know on what basis the author claims that "perhaps a majority" of
Venezuelans are against Chavez.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
wonder if this what chavez wanted the guns for?


Maybe. Buying guns to protect a democratically elected leader against a military coups, doesn't sound like something to be against to me.

[BMoney]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
You need to read more carefully. He didn't say that the "entire Western Hemisphere would become unstable". He said that he couldn't imagine it being good for the hemisphere. Big difference.

He also didn't even mention Argentina anywhere in the statement. He mentioned Venezuela. They are two separate countries, in case you're not familiar with South American geography.


Aww, Bigtexx....you're so cute when you try some analyzin'.