Comments on: Hugo Chavez and the devil called Bush

By: Croix Clayton

Croix Clayton — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:06:14 +0000

When David says that we only went to Afghanistan bacause of the Taliban, I’d like to point out a couple things:
1.
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and some of those other ‘Stans sit on some of the largest untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the world, and the Taliban turned off the damn pipes. Halliburton built the pipeline, kids.

2. The Northern Aliiance are the biggest opium dealers in the world (but hey, there’s just no rational way that the CIA, aka Wall Street’s secret police, would want in on the biggest cash crop in the world, right?)

3. The Taliban, like much of the Islamic fundamentalist movement, was supported and built with American money, either directly financed by American tax dollars, or in a roundabout way through the Saudis, with the purpose in mind of fighting a proxy war against the Soviets.

4. Most of the Arab world thinks al qaeda is full of bs! Bush and Bin Laden are like mirror images of eachother, minds polluted with morally bankrupt reductivist messianic crap, and a total belief in their own cultural superiority. They deserve eachother, two arch conservatives in a pod…I hope they never realize how similar they are…or we’ll all be in trouble.

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:06:40 +0000

Hugo Chavez is but one of the most recent Latin American leaders to run up against the US. Less than 50 years after declaring independence, the Monroe Doctrine was penned which declared hegemony over the entire Western Hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine. The most important amendment to the Monroe Doctrine came in the early 1900’s and was known as the Roosevelt Corollary, simply put “The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was a substantial alteration (called an “amendment”) of the Monroe Doctrine by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. In its altered state, the Monroe Doctrine would now consider Latin America as an agency for expanding U.S. commercial interests in the region, along with its original stated purpose of keeping European hegemony from the hemisphere.” Subsequently, the “Good Neighbor Policy”
implented by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and was in affect during his term stated “In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor � the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others � the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors” It was essentially,an attempt by the US government to put a “nice face” on our policy towards Latin America where we had been meddling for years on behalf of our own business interests and to gain their support and promise of non-interference in WWII. Since WWII the Good Neighbor Policy has been tossed away, not longer of strategic use, and the US has overthrown democratically elected leaders in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia, Honduras, amongst others who dared to nationalize their country’s national resources. This film, “US Foreign Policy, Secret Wars of the CIA” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8061307149260436858&q=US+terror
is actually a series of several documentaries disclosing CIA activities in countries around the world, including Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
This film, “This Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=The+Revolution+will+not+be+televised
is an amazing documentary about Chavez “HUGO CHAVEZ ELECTED PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA IN 1998, IS A COLORFUL, UNPREDICTABLE FOLK HERO, beloved by his nation’s working class and a tough-as-nails, quixotic opponent to the power structure that would see him deposed. Two independent filmmakers were inside the presidential palace on April 11, 2002, when he was forcibly removed from office. They were also present 48 hours later when, remarkably, he returned to power amid cheering aides. Their film records what was probably history’s shortest-lived coup d’�tat. It’s a unique document about political muscle and an extraordinary portrait of the man The Wall Street Journal credits with making Venezuela “Washington�s biggest Latin American headache after the old standby,” This is an amazing film documenting the first coup of the 20th century, a coup orchestrated with CIA aid and giving an insight into Chavez and why he is deemed a threat to US interests (business)
The Middle East shares much in common (as does the rest of the world)
with Latin America in their struggle for sovereignty against the forces of the United States government which in fact is the struggle against US business interests. In 2003, Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980 wrote the following letter to President Bush http://www.counterpunch.org/esquivel04302003.html
which began “I don’t know if you will read this letter, not because it will not reach you, but because you are incapable of reading it. Your heart is so hardened by hatred and fear, that you have neither capacity nor courage to open your mind and your spirit to compassion. In spite of all that, however, I cannot keep from sending it to you, because if you do not read it, I am sure it will be read by many men and women, those who ask you to stop the massacre of the people of Iraq. When you decided to invade Iraq, in spite of the opposition of the people of the world, you did not listen to their cries, “NO TO WAR, YES TO PEACE;” you closed your ears and your heart when the United Nations, churches, humanitarian and human rights organizations demanded that the rule of law and the consideration of the people had to prevail. You were not interested in hearing it.” the rest of the letter is available at the link.
Chavez is but the latest and perhaps most vocal Latin American leader to speak out against the US on behalf of peoples of the world suffering from US aggression. If anyone would be interested in reading one of the most renowned Latin American authors, Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Columbian), winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature (1982), his book, “One Hundred Years of Solitude” is the novel for which he was finally nominated for the prize after years of writing.

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:16:20 +0000

Kimmy, the U.S. is buying oil from Canada, not taking it. Canada is our largest trading partner, regardless of NAFTA. The lumber trade has nothing to do with buying oil, and at any rate has been agreed upon. Start reading the business section of a newspaper or online.

By: kimmy

kimmy — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:05:48 +0000

Hey guys,
Don’t forget how the US is taking oil from Canada in the name of NAFTA.
In the same breath the US uses NAFTA to stop or slow down the lumber trade with Canada.
If it helps the US, it is good. If it hurts the US, it is bad. There is no reasoning with the US. Fair is fair is not in the US mentality!
Bush only supports his big business friends and not the people of the US and even less anyone elsewhere in the world!

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:53:48 +0000

Hey guys,

Here is a great article that I think explains a lot of how the relationship between Pres. Chavez and big oil works.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/24/MNGNSLBRUG1.DTL&hw=chavez&sn=002&sc=866

It provides insight not only into the alturistic nature of Pres. Chavez but also some of his anti-democratic power grabs. What do I think of the guy? Like all people he is full of contradictions. I believe he helps many poor folks around the world (even if it is poliically motivated) but hasn’t helped out his own nation that much (building an economy on one export is silly and dangerous, ask Argentina.) I believe he had a right to condemn Pres. Bush, but maybe not in those exact words. But hey, I think calling folks Islamo fascists is ridiculous too. He will keep getting voted in to power as long as the oil wealth holds, but I think the damage he is doing to Venezuela’s economy is going to be legendary. So, overall, he is the duly elected leader of a nation but I am not too fond of everything he does. At least he hasn’t bombed anyone, though. LOL.
Peace be with you all.

By: Dave riley

Dave riley — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:36:25 +0000

Better translation of HG speech from the original Spanish here:
http://ratbaggy.blogspot.com/2006/09/hugo-chavez-speech-to-un.html
Plus some other stuff on Chavez…including Greg Palast interview.(Video)

By: Andrew Milner

Andrew Milner — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 00:26:25 +0000

Bet George is chewing the carpet.
“What color is a blue sky?” The tough quesions first, eh?

By: David

David — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:40:45 +0000

Chavez is simply the next Castro. He’s already ruining Venezuelas economy and oil industry. He’s already threatened foreign investors, so expect to see foreign investment drop. Expect to see the educated immigrate to other countries. But at least he makes comments against Bush and the U.S. Entertaining, but hardly valuable to the average citizen of Venezuela.

Chavez is also calling for OPEC to raise the cost of oil, demonstrating what a complete idiot he is. So he hurts the U.S. economy. So what, he also hurts the E.U. and China’s economies. I doubt that will win him many friends.

So play the oil as weapon card. It won’t destroy the U.S. In fact, it would be good for the U.S., it is probably what it will take to force the U.S. to find alternative forms of energy. We eventually have to get off oil anyway. And then how valuable is oil to anyone?

By: KB

KB — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:16:43 +0000

This was simply wonderful, wasn’t it? Chomsky’s book going from #20,000+ to the top ten overnight. What’s great to watch is how the media haven’t gotten into the substance of it at all. The way they’ve presented it is to try and make a link between their already incorrect perception of Chavez as another “anti-American” “Hitler” (It’s only okay if we call folks names remember), and the even more naive perception which a few of the more naive illiterates in society think of as Chomsky’s “anti-Americanism” which is equally non-existent. One thing is for certain. They will probably NOT allow Chomsky on the tube, or anyone familiar with his works anyway, who can point out that most of the substance which Chomsky writes about, and which Chavez, along with most of the rest of the world already know, is, in fact, accurate. It will probably get about as deep as allowing some pseudo-patriotic Oliver Kamm-type liar on the tube to try and discredit both Chavez and Chomsky simultaneously, thereby, and ironically, re-confirming most of Chomsky’s theses about the media anyway. The more they attack Chomsky, the more his writings will be confirmed. Let’s sit back and watch. By the way, notice how when the media keeps repeating the “Chavez continues to believe that the U.S. was behind the coup…” they never give any reasons why this might be considered a plausible notion. I mean, only the entire history of the U.S. intervening in South and Central American coups wouldn’t be any reason to consider this as plausible. Must just be a mixture of irrational machismo and paranoia. Hmmm…. Just where IS that “liberal media” which I keep hearing about? I smell sulfur, too!KB

By: David

David — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 21:57:22 +0000

Hi Kimmey, we already get about half of our electricity from coal. It’s also a lot cleaner now. But that’s beside the point. My point is that we have alternatives to importing oil. We are going to have to stop our dependency on imported oil anyway. For three reasons at least.

1. Reserves are decreasing. Energy needs in the western nations will only increase, and this is without considering China and India’s increasing energy needs.

2. It’s getting too expensive. Future sources will only be more expensive. And that’s not including military spending. So, oil is just not worth it.

3. Oil is not the only game in town. The world uses it because the technology is easy to understand, it’s easy to transfer oil energy, and it was relatively abundant and cheap. That is no longer so.

The sources of energy I listed in my previous post are an intermediate step to new forms of energy, we need science to create the new technologies needed to collect energy. Energy is abundant.

The Palestians also bought weapons, and many of the leaders transfered it for their own benifit. It’s our money to give or not give.

I’m not interested in bringing democracy to the Middle East. I don’t see a lot of interest in democracy in the M.E. anyway. They can decide their own fate. It’s not worth our blood, and our money can be spent at home on other things. For example, energy.

Iran is not our problem. Much of the world is concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not just the U.S. Thus, the world can take care of Iran. Egypt just announced that they too are interested in nuclear energy. Expect to see Saudi Arabia express interest in the very near future.