As someone that has travelled around the world and seen that proganda and deception machine is very much alive and well in the world we live. Venezuela is a world away. My advice is for us to say little to nothing because nobody here really "knows". There are lies, deception and distortions going around from both sides - it is the name of foreign policies the world over. Take news like these with a grain of salt and just stand on the side lines and monitor, seive and masticate news being fed you. What my experience tells me is that there are elements of truth on either side of most arguements, and this one is no different. USA is arguable the free-est nation on earth. It is also the country were mis-information, propaganda, deception and half-truths reigns like the Chinese communist ruling gentry. You just have to have your "anti-gullible coat" handy at all times. No one is exempt.
Sam's post is the most relevant and accurate post in the thread. This next one, however, is utter crap . . . Your points may be relevant in other past cases involving Latin America, but not this one. Gross generalizations rarely work, and certainly not in this case where on almost every point you are misinformed.
At least I've actually served my country rather than just b****ing about its evils as you delight in doing. We act in our best interests......so what! That's life. Acknowledge reality or be doomed to be mired in misery forever. And for the little, stupid Bull Connors remark (how could I be a Bull Connors type if I'm not all white? You tell me.), you are a good example of why I consider a lot of your ilk to be on the wrong side of every issue and are opposed to the very country, the one country, that guarantees your right to make an ass out of yourself daily with these conspiracy-theory-laden I-hate-my- country and I'm a whiner bull**** posts. You have nothing to be guilty about! We aren't perfect, but as a friend of mine once observed, "Perfect is the enemy of the good." So you want us to not "interfere" in other states? Well, I guess you want to pay 3, 4 or 5 bucks a gallon for gas like your other little brother socialists in Europe, eh? We guard our vital interests for a reason. We've done more good for the world than any other great power, but everyday all I hear from you is negativity. Chavez is a punk ass who has to go. Period. And as for his remarks about Bush, like I give a damn what some little tinhorn third-world socialist dictator thinks about our president.
Ha-ha!!!!!! Add Cynthia McKinney, Teddy Kennedy, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and.....well, pretty much everyone else in Hollywierd.
While I usually disagree with Schröder's politics, I resent seeing him in the same list with Gaddhafi. What is your point?
SJC, don't you get it? If some leader does any single thing other than pucker up and kiss the anus of the United States, they are equal to Saddam et alia. What does not make sense here? I wish I was kidding, but that is pretty much a strong attitude within a significant population (about 48% or so) in the US.
His point is with us or against us, any dissenters hate america, blah blah blah, same old tired sh-t.
Several topics here: 1) Chavez calls Bush an ass****. So what? 2) The US intercedes in other country's politics. Yes, we do. And it's not always a 'bad' regime that we overthrow, but often not a good one either. Then again, maybe that makes no difference, and we should just leave them alone if they leave us alone.
Two totally separate situations. First of all, you have a government falling apart vs. a stable gov't, second of all you have a small insignificant island nation vs. a nation with very involved in international politics.
These stories we see involving Chavez are very slanted. Granted, I'm out on the left wing, myself, so it's easy to say that stories are slanted against Chavez. I'm sure he's no saint. He's dug himself a hole by being friendly with Castro. The U.S. has committed its shares of human rights abuses and so forth that we never read about, but just mention that Chavez and Castro talk on the phone and you've got a coup halfway-plotted. In "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," Greg Palast reports (he has a photo to prove it) that he was in Caracas when Bush and the Venezuelan oil companies tried to overthrow Chavez a year or two ago. There had been a march of, say, 100,000 against Chavez, and this was reported worldwide. It was never mentioned anywhere that twice as many people marched FOR Chavez. Granted, you can't believe everything you read, but Greg Palast is hated by the right and also, to a smaller extent, by the left, because he tends to excoriate any politician that screws over the small man in favor of the big corporations. Which is almost anyone these days. So I tend to believe him. Since I read that chapter involving Chavez, I have seen more than a few articles meant to bolster the anti-Chavez legions. One in U.S. News and World Report (a.k.a., what you can read if you want your 5-minute break from FOX "News") painted a fierce picture against Chavez. You'd think the article was written by Dick Cheney. It's also easy to vilify the man. Note how the press twists a story to influence the public. Chavez is dark; he's probably full-blooded Indian, or very close. Chavez put a taxation on oil revenues in his country and since then Bush and the Venezuelan petroleros have been working overtime to get rid of the guy. He wants to help the Venezuelan poor and for the most part he has succeeded, but I wonder just how long he'll be around to enjoy any of his successes.
Lack of edit. I should note that I'm no fan of Castro but the press is urged to whip up the connection. Had to mention it before TJ got on here and said I'm pro-Castro or pro-communist or some BS like that. Isn't all this more than a little reminiscent of the Reagan years and the Sandinistas? Whose goons were more dangerous, anyway? Ours or theirs?
Bush and his klan know that they cannot control Chavez, they know that he despises them, and they fear (properly, I think) that he'll soon decide to give the US the finger by pulling a Saddam and selling his considerable petroleum resources for Euros rather than dollars. This is a grave concern to the Bushists. Everything else, alleged human rights violations, possible voting fraud (oh, the irony), etc., is totally irrelevant and simply obfuscatory BS.
Thank you. Application of Occam's razor clarifies and captures the essence of the underlying reason for why Venezuela is even mentioned in US media in the first place: that Chavez has been bartering oil for hard commodities instead of selling it for the (monopoly money) US dollars Greenspan has been printing every week.
You mean Chirac? The guy who was decisive when dealing with Haiti? You mean the leader of the country who flew the 2nd most combat missions in Afghanistan and the war against terror next to the U.S.? Our ally who has stopped various terrorist plots in France and cooperated with information regarding an airline plot with the U.S.? Only a fool wouldn't work with Chirac. When it comes to the war against terror, we can not suffer fools lightly. It's funny that the conservatives on this board, are bashing liberals when it's the liberals supporting democracy. Conservatives seem to not want democracy but a puppet govt.
And how do you explain then that the European media (which is largely anti-Bush) is at least as critical of Chavez as the U.S. media? Also, ROXTIXA, I will say it again, the many protesters FOR Chavez were to a large extent PAID to demonstrate for Chavez. His government sent out buses to collect these people from the country side and they received free stuff for it. It was well-organized. Also, the fact that large masses march does not mean they are right. Many examples in history prove that. The fact of the matter is that Chavez is ruining that country.
Bama, let me say this. I can respect your going into the military. I proudly didn't go to fight in a war I thought was morally wrong. The guys I don't understand are the chickenhawks who support every war, but won't go themselves. It seems somehow there should be a little issue of honor for them, but they don't see it. The Bull Connor remark was out of line. The rest of your line is pure stereotypical Dixie corn. Peace.
Are you calling Bush a liberal? I just saw on MSNBC that Bush called Chirac to thank him for his work on Haiti.
