ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:12 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON - Sen. Norm Coleman said Wednesday he hopes his upcoming meeting with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will help to ease strained U.S.-Venezuela relations.

"There's been a lot of incendiary rhetoric between Venezuela and the U.S.," Coleman said in a telephone interview from Brazil, where he was on the third day of a six-day trip to South America. "Chavez has been democratically elected. I'm hopeful we can tone down the rhetoric and see if we can establish more productive relations."

Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, plans to have dinner with Chavez on Friday night.

Chavez, a leftist former paratroop commander, has accused the United States of playing a key role in a short-lived 2002 coup against him. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has denied that, and has expressed concerns that Chavez has become increasingly autocratic.

U.S. officials have also criticized Venezuela's plans to buy helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. The United States is concerned that the weapons, or those they replace, could wind up in the hands of rebel groups fighting in Colombia.

Chavez refers to Rice as "Condolencia," and has called her "pathetic."

But there have been some easing of the verbal barbs lately. Rice told The Washington Post editorial board last week "we can have good relations with Venezuela at any time."


http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11268851.htm
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:33 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Quote:
U.S. officials have also criticized Venezuela's plans to buy helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. The United States is concerned that the weapons, or those they replace, could wind up in the hands of rebel groups fighting in Colombia.



The real threat, IMO, is that, while the Venezuelan army will have the new rifles, the old weapons will be given to Chavista support civil groups, who are organized militarily.

A scary thought. And a possible thing, too.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:37 pm
Scary is a gentle way of saying it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 11:56 pm
Re: Venezuela Watch
blatham wrote:
Condi Rice's odd concentration on Venezuela during her confirmation hearing suggested that maybe the administration is gearing up a PR campaign against Chavez. Though Chavez was democratically elected, and though he survived a recent nation-wide vote, the administration appears to be unhappy with certain socialist policies and ties to Cuba. Of course, Venezuela also has huge oil reserves.


What?

A PR Campaign!

Can nothing stop these mad dogs?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 06:03 am
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 06:37 am
The Heritage piece is a paradigm example of how a population gets "educated" to throw their support behind political and military incursions on another state. If and when we begin seeing much more of it (from 'think tanks' like Heritage, news outlets like Fox, etc which serve as the advance propaganda arm of the administration) we will know that action is imminent. That Chavez is in power as a consequence of a democratic election (and re-election) will become quite irrelevant. That he said something sexual about Rice, that he likes Castro, that he doesn't like unfettered US power/aggression, etc will trump all else. Not mentioned, of course, is the oil.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:04 am
Two evils do not make a good.
The fact that Chávez is Anti-US does not mean he's truly progressive.
The fact that he was elected by the people does not make him a democrat (one has to see the conditions under which his re-election was organized and doubt about his legitimacy).
Of course I would be against any US intervention in Venezuela. But only as I was about Iraq. IMHO, the thing that makes Chávez better than Hussein is his love of baseball. Not much more.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:21 am
fbaezer

I haven't meant to suggest Chavez is god's gift to democracies everywhere. What I am pointing to is:
1 - that any US intervention (covert and/or overt) will have scant to do with freedom and liberty for Venezuelans (though that will be the PR line) but will be driven by America's thirst for oil (Carter Doctrine) and its desire to control political events in the region based on its own notions/perceptions of self-interest and
2 - that one can pretty easily predict how the propaganda precursor steps will play out.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:38 am
bookmark
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 07:31 pm
Blatham

It would appear that you are an apologist for Chavez. What possible good will come of his actions to consolidate his power so that he can change the constitution and become dictator for life. You seem to think that you can predict the actions of the US. It is my prediction that he (Chavez) will support the insurgents in Columbia (Yes, I will call them insurgents for now) and that he intends to become Dictator for life, following his hero Castro.
Is that what you would like to see?

It would appear that you will support anyone who thumbs their nose at the US. Some neighbor you are!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:20 pm
Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Friends encourage friends to be civil. Friends tell friends when they're wrong.

I think your raybans are rose-colored and you've bought all the hype and the bullshit you've been fed since grade school, Rayban. Your government has been responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents the world over. Time to remove the blinkers and see American foreign policy for what it is.

It's really quite astonishing that so many Americans seem to relish being in a state of palpable ignorance and what's even more astonishing is that it just doesn't square with an free and open society.

Take a gander at this article. Really, who are the terrorists?

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/j/health.htm

This present campaign is a paradigm of Washington's pattern of accusing others of doing what Washington is planning to do or has already done. Even three New York Times reporters--Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William Broad--in their 2001 book, Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War, acknowledge U.S. contingency plans for bioterrorism against Cuba beginning soon after the revolution in 1959.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 10:55 pm
JTT

Friends don't use a bundle of absolutes to tell friends they are full of s**t...Please don't make unfounded allegations about the millions of innocents that the US has allegedly killed.....give me a valid source for that accusation.

I don't consider "Z" magazine a valid source........are you one of the "move-on.org" distortion artists?

BTW......What free and open society are you hiding in........you seem to want to remain anonymous but yet ready to snipe from the sidelines.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 11:16 pm
rayban is your own location known? I can't see it.

Anyway it's clear that the US is lining up Chavez for the oil. The process is just too transparent. Small wonder that Mugabe felt he could rig the elections and do his Dictator thing in Zimbabwe because it doesn't have oil. If it did I have no doubt that the White House would be lining him up for some serious treatment.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2005 11:47 pm
Quote:
JTT

Friends don't use a bundle of absolutes to tell friends they are full of s**t...Please don't make unfounded allegations about the millions of innocents that the US has allegedly killed.....give me a valid source for that accusation.

I don't consider "Z" magazine a valid source........are you one of the "move-on.org" distortion artists?


I'm saddened to say that this is just so typical, Rayban. The source, if you had taken even the smallest amount of time to find out, is Rutgers University. Your response is to move the issue away from the issue with tangents. You didn't even read it, I bet. Here's what followed the quoted part.


http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/j/health.htm

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 04:35 am
rayban

Nah, I don't think America is the big satan.

But it isn't difficult to observe how so many people around the world have come to think that so. Past policies have frequently caused much harm and the increasing level of bluster and claims of American exceptionalism coming out of America (from officials and citizens) do not inspire confidence.

Quote:
"Nationalism provides one clue to the difference between the strategy and philosophy of Clinton and those of George W. Bush and to the difference between an American approach which seeks legitimacy for American hegemony and one which makes a public cult of the unrestrained exercise of American will."
(from page 11, America Right or Wrong, Anatol Lieven)
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:26 am
Blatham

I see you're back to your hero, Lieven...............I wrote some stuff about his obsession with "American Nationalism" which you never bothered to reply to. It was on another thread, the title of which I can't seem to remember. You and your hero are dead wrong about America but I'm certain you wouldn't take my word for it..........after all I'm only a 70 year old witness to your "American Nationalism" but then, you folks who have never lived in this country will always "latch on" to any thesis that is intellectually presented as long as it is critical of our motives and culture. Try reading another intellectual who will convincingly portray the "other side of the coin"..........Victor Davis Hanson.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:32 am
rayban is it necessary to live in a country to be able to critique its culture and in particular its foreign policy?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:50 am
goodfielder wrote:
rayban is your own location known? I can't see it.

Anyway it's clear that the US is lining up Chavez for the oil. The process is just too transparent. Small wonder that Mugabe felt he could rig the elections and do his Dictator thing in Zimbabwe because it doesn't have oil. If it did I have no doubt that the White House would be lining him up for some serious treatment.


If it wasn't obvious Goodfielder, I'm a proud citizen of the USA. I really laugh at the plethora of conspiracy theories about OIL being our ONLY motive for taking any action.

JTT

Yes, I know it was from Rutgers.........so what? If you want a RELIABLE source, try Foreign Affairs Mag. Then I will read it. Please don't bother with anymore of your high school debating techniques.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:59 am
goodfielder wrote:
rayban is it necessary to live in a country to be able to critique its culture and in particular its foreign policy?


It certainly isn't............as long as you have an "open mind" and are super critical of the information being presented. This "saying" is a little over the top but after 70 years of observing: I only believe about half of what I see and NOTHING of what I read.

rayban
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:26 am
Quote:
If it wasn't obvious Goodfielder, I'm a proud citizen of the USA. I really laugh at the plethora of conspiracy theories about OIL being our ONLY motive for taking any action.


Well I didn't want to be presumptuous rayban. I sort of guessed it but it's nice to know. And yes I would imagine that you're getting plenty of humour out of the plethora of conspiracy theories. Probably as much as I am watching the stream of justifications for the invasion and occupation coming from the White House. "If this is Tuesday it must be...feedom, no wait, WMD...no that was Monday.." Sorry, it's too easy a target. Of course it's oil, nothing else makes sense.


Quote:
It certainly isn't............as long as you have an "open mind" and are super critical of the information being presented. This "saying" is a little over the top but after 70 years of observing: I only believe about half of what I see and NOTHING of what I read.


Good, I feel better. I mean the current foreign policy is abysmal from my point of view. The domestic policy looks pretty bad too but since I don't live in the States it doesn't affect me. But the economic policy will affect me because it's the old story, if America sneezes the rest of us get a cold and since your economy is in such a parlous state - sadly - I'm concerned that the incompetence will damage the rest of us.

Anyway since this is in writing you won't believe it. No matter. Time will make us either seers or liars.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Venezuela Watch
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/05/2022 at 01:57:47