FB, to be fair, scolding the crowd for "any kind of aggression," isn't exactly a great segue into, "I'm going to throw you out of Venezuela if you continue provoking the Venezuelan people," and, "If the Washington government takes some measure against Venezuela motivated by provocations, you will be responsible, you will have to leave here, sir. I will declare you persona non grata in Venezuela," along with, "With your imprudence and provocation, you could one of these days cause a grave incident because (you walk) around with people who are armed, with security forces." It's clearly playing to the "crowd," by giving a tiny slap on the wrist to them (for behavior I've done myself as a teenager, but I digress), while absolutely reaming out the US Ambassador for the sin of riding in his car. It's clearly designed to provoke the United States in, at the very least, condemning his behavior yet again. I would ask, why? What does he gain by doing so? One would think he would be attempting to improve relations, which are in the crapper, to say the least. It only makes sense by seeing it as using anti-American rhetoric to garner the favor of the masses. That's his perfect right as head of state, but hardly the behavior expected from a head of state, towards the country that probably is their largest trading partner. Seems like he could be using better judgment. If he's done so much for the lower classes, who are the majority in Venezuela, and certainly need someone to help them improve their standard of living, why the need to "slap around" the US ambassador? As our Chinese friends would attest to, in the 19th Century far less was viewed as cause for British military intervention (or intervention by the other powers with "interests" in China). Thank god we've made it to the 21st, but with a President stuck in the 19th, you'd think Chavez would use more sense. Keep D&D Civil.
by the way it's only the youth in Libya that stoned us, they targeted other kids(I was about 12-13 years when I was there…on a side note...me and my friends were chased by about 200 high school students once, now that was intimidating. ). Don't want you to think it's like Palestine or something. It’s actually a nice place, and A LOT safer than Caracas. However one thing of Venezuela I miss is the women, they are fabulous, honestly stunning. It’s amazing. (I used to hang out at the malls all the time, and damn half the girls there could be models, now my only objective in life is to learn Spanish )
I wanted to address a couple things in that post. The first was that the thread title is not accurate, and certainly not backed up by evidence in either of the articles posted by gwayneco. There is zero evidence that the protestors were unleashed by Chavez himself. The scond thing I addressed in my post was how ridiculous and lame it was to blame the U.S. ambassador. I am against blaming the victim in any situation including this one. Chavez was lame for that. As far as trying to improve relations with the U.S., I think Chavez would be wise to wait until another administration is in power. Our current administration has shown no interest in improving relations with Chavez, and he doesn't need improved relations. The U.S. wants and needs oil. Chavez has it. Chavez has the advantage. He also has friends in other nations in the region, that will help him. The ones who should be trying to improve relations is the U.S. Perhaps a more diplomatically skilled administration will do that. Until then I can see no reason why it is in the interest of Chavez to improve relations with the U.S.
I'm biased towards this: Although I would have prefferred a little more cleavage. That is all. Carry On.
Dude, it was a protest in which the WORST thing that happened was that the ambassador's car got dirty. Furthermore, there was absolutely nothing linking these protestors to Chavez and as such, they are not a "goon squad," much less one commissioned or supported by Chavez. You are in serious need of a course in reading comprehension. We have several good teachers at the college where I work. I would be more than happy to forward you some information.
You seem to have missed a very relevant passage. Let me quote the article you posted. "Chavez condemned the crowd of protesters for pelting U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield's car with eggs and tomatoes, saying his government "rejects any kind of aggression."" Three words: Reading comprehension course.
Given his hatred for the USA, I would be absolutely shocked if he doesn't have his security forces tailing the US ambassador. Nothing that happens to the US ambassador outside of the embassy happens without their approval. Here the local authorities did nothing to stop the violence. That was not a mere coincidence. And his condemnation of the crowd is two-faced given his other comments.
Again you being shocked if Chavez didn't have someone tailed isn't proof. It also isn't violence. Your statement that nothing happens to the U.S. ambassador happens without Chavez approval is also not proof of anything. Chavez public statement criticizing the behavior is evidence to the contrary of the claims you are making with no evidence at all. As far as Chavez' animosity toward the United States it is well deserved. They supported a coup which removed him after he was democratically elected. He should be both suspicious and unfriendly towarads those who would support such an action.
as opposed to buying saudi oil and supporting terrorists? nice to know you have your priorities straight. fight the good fight!
While I agree with some of what Deckard said, the fact remains that not only is there no proof that Chavez had anything to do with the protest (thread poster claimed "Chavez unleashes") nor any proof that there was any damage whatsoever (thread poster claimed a "goon squad," which implies violence beyond thrown fruit), but Chavez came out and criticized people that support him for the extremely minor violence that happened. Would it have been better to not say anything about the ambassador's percieved mistakes? Yes. Does anything in the article even remotely resemble what gwaynie purorts that it does? No. Accusing Chavez of sending out a "goon squad" as a result of this article is asinine and dishonest. Chavez has made his share of mistakes, but this does not even remotely qualify as one of them. This is just a pathetic attempt to smear him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12277173/ Chavez suspends the DEA in Venezuala and then this. Is he getting the people ready to defend him like Noriega did? Or is the CIA setting him up? My guess is something more on the lines that he needs the military's full support and has little control over them and some provincial general is filling his Swiss bank account. With as much oil as the Colonel controls he has little need for the risks of drug money...but this could get ugly.
