georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:25 pm
I guess Blatham's point is that even though we are not intervening in Venezuela, we have done such things before and can therefore be considered guilty of doing so in Venezuela as well. Go figure.

Perhaps though he will find a way to blame the United States for Chavez' ascent to power.

I agree with fbaezer, this is a tragedy and a disaster for the Venezuelan people - a result of a long tradition of venality in government there. Moreover, Chavez promises to be far worse than any of his predecessors, and cerrtainly worse than the somewhat limping democracy Venezuela had gradually established after decades of intermittent military rule.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:32 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I guess Blatham's point is that even though we are not intervening in Venezuela, we have done such things before and can therefore be considered guilty of doing so in Venezuela as well. Go figure.

It's called Original sin, sir, and Mennonites like Blatham have been wallowing in it for millenia.

Thanks for your updates, fbaezer. I wish I could say something about them; but there are so few intelligent things to say about the mess that Chavez is making of Venezuela.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:35 pm
Cute reference, but I wouldn't blame it on the Mennonites. Secular liberals and environmentalists do it far more.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:42 pm
Operation Camelot comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:06 pm
fbaezer wrote:
It this Venezuela Watch or Bad Old American Imperialism in Latin America Watch?


Not to put too fine a point on it, but my initial post which started this thread states...
Quote:
The purpose of this thread is to maintain an on-going account of administration statements about Venezuela/Chavez.


That said, I have not the slightest quarrel with updates and commentary on what Chavez is up to.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:11 pm
george said
Quote:
I guess Blatham's point is that even though we are not intervening in Venezuela, we have done such things before and can therefore be considered guilty of doing so in Venezuela as well. Go figure.

No. My point was explicit. US foreign policy always comes accompanied with the patina of "we are here to help the poor local folks, that's our motivation for being here and doing stuff". And it is often a flat out lie.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:14 pm
blatham wrote:
george said
Quote:
I guess Blatham's point is that even though we are not intervening in Venezuela, we have done such things before and can therefore be considered guilty of doing so in Venezuela as well. Go figure.

No. My point was explicit. US foreign policy always comes accompanied with the patina of "we are here to help the poor local folks, that's our motivation for being here and doing stuff". And it is often a flat out lie.


Word.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:22 pm
blatham wrote:
fbaezer wrote:
It this Venezuela Watch or Bad Old American Imperialism in Latin America Watch?


Not to put too fine a point on it, but my initial post which started this thread states...
Quote:
The purpose of this thread is to maintain an on-going account of administration statements about Venezuela/Chavez.


That said, I have not the slightest quarrel with updates and commentary on what Chavez is up to.


Point taken.
Good that you don't have "the slightest quarrel" with news about Chavez himself. I happen to think Chavez himself is the real issue, not the US administration statements about him. I care very little about the US administration.

... and all this time I was thinking: "those gringos [vancouverite in Manhattan included] always self-absorbed with THEIR government", stupid me.
My fault for not reading the small print... and thinking that Chavez & Venezuela were what mattered.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:26 pm
fbaezer

And I understand your USA-always-central grievance. I apologize for how this must come across to you. I have no real excuse other than a particular focus of personal interest.

But my invitation to post any/all information on Venezuela was completely sincere.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:35 pm
fbaezer wrote:


The National Assembly approved today a referendum for a new Constitution, which would institutionalize the "Bolivarian Revolution".

This is the content of some of the new articles:

-The presidential mandate goes to 7 years, with indefinite reelection.
-The President can decree, at any moment, a "State of Exception", which "will be prolongued as long as the causes that motivated it persist". During it, the State can detain citizens without presenting charges and impose press censorship.
-The Supreme Court will not be able to pronounce itself about the constitutionality of any "State of Exception" decree.
-The President can administer, at his discression, all international reserves.
-The government controls the Central Bank, which would lose its autonomy.
-The President will name the Governor of the Federal District, thus preventing the people of Caracas -the opposition's stronghold- from their right to elect their local authority.
-New municipalities, states and federal cities will be created; in all of them, "the national power will designate the respective authorities".



Hmm, not all that much different than what's gone on in the good ole US of A for the last number of years. Why go to the trouble of a referendum when you can simply just ignore a constitution?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:37 pm
Blatham, given Chavez' latest actions and the now unambiguous tyranny he has created in Venezuela, do you now conclude that your original preoccupation with what the Bush Administration might say or do against this regrettable regime was misplaced and ill-advised? In a word, were you wrong????
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 09:40 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Blatham, given Chavez' latest actions and the now unambiguous tyranny he has created in Venezuela, do you now conclude that your original preoccupation with what the Bush Administration might say or do against this regrettable regime was misplaced and ill-advised? In a word, were you wrong????


That's three words, George and once again, you're wrong and your ire is sadly misplaced. Stop whining about the mess all the other countries are in when your own is in such a sorry state.

You've got cars sitting on blocks, dog **** 'til hell won't have it, weeds abounding, the fence in a sad state of repair, and you're moaning about the neighbor's yard. Give us a break, George! Turn that finger around and point it where it should be pointed.

You have a home-grown "regrettable regime" that you could actually do something about but instead all you want to do is deflect from your own mess. Has Chavez been the cause of upwards of 50,000 Iraqi deaths. Was Chavez the cause of millions of Vietnamese deaths. Was Chavez the cause of tens of thousands of butchered Nicaraguans. The list is not endless but it's mighty long.

[No question marks because the questions are rhetorical. You don't possess anywhere near the degree of honesty needed to answer such questions.]
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 10:19 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Blatham, given Chavez' latest actions and the now unambiguous tyranny he has created in Venezuela, do you now conclude that your original preoccupation with what the Bush Administration might say or do against this regrettable regime was misplaced and ill-advised? In a word, were you wrong????


george
First, I think you'll have trouble finding something I've written here which stands as a defence of Chavez's moves re civil liberties/democracy. Let me know if you do.

Second, I was wrong about him in that I didn't expect he would move as far as he has done towards permanent dictatorship.

But, as a third point, I see no reason to consider that this administration's motives have much or even anything to do with the welfare of Venezuelans. If a dictatorship in Venezuela corresponded with perceived US interests for resource extraction, then that wouldn't be a significant problem for the US and we could expect serious support for that dictatorship even to the extremity of support for paramilitary death squads who would be taking out 'enemies' of that friendly dictatorship (leftists, union leaders, catholic nuns, etc).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 08:28 am
pssst.... Pakistan

(I just opened a thread on this new situation. I decided to keep things simple and title it "Pakistan" rather than some other options, eg "Dictatorships the US likes").
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2929649#2929649
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 11:02 am
JTT wrote-

Quote:
You've got cars sitting on blocks, dog **** 'til hell won't have it, weeds abounding, the fence in a sad state of repair,


I watched the marathon races from NYC on Sunday in order to have a look at the city. It looked squalid in a good number of areas.

And the TV production was poor as well.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 12:13 pm
blatham wrote:
george
First, I think you'll have trouble finding something I've written here which stands as a defence of Chavez's moves re civil liberties/democracy. Let me know if you do.

Second, I was wrong about him in that I didn't expect he would move as far as he has done towards permanent dictatorship.

But, as a third point, I see no reason to consider that this administration's motives have much or even anything to do with the welfare of Venezuelans. If a dictatorship in Venezuela corresponded with perceived US interests for resource extraction, then that wouldn't be a significant problem for the US and we could expect serious support for that dictatorship even to the extremity of support for paramilitary death squads who would be taking out 'enemies' of that friendly dictatorship (leftists, union leaders, catholic nuns, etc).


Good to see your acknowledgement of your initial error in focus with regard to Venezuela. The intent of the tyrant has indeed proven itself far more harmful to the Venezuelan people than the supposed intent of the U.S. government or President Bush.

I believe that you are extrapolating from carefully selected but atypicaL incidents to mischaracterize the nature of U.S. interventions, across the board. There is no doubt that we overestimated the danger of the export of Soviet influence in many local revolutionary movements in this hemisphere and in other areas, and that economic self-interest has played a part in our motivations. However the fact also remains that we underestimated Soviet intentions just as often, and that these questions often trumped our economic interests. We had no particular economic interest driving us in Greece, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, or El Salvador. In Chile there was only the investment in copper mining, but that was, at most, a minor consideration in the play of events.

The facts simply do not support your prejudices in this matter.

What has been the cumulative account of the human misery and suffering created by the even worse (than Venezuelan) tyranny in Castro's Cuba? or that in North Korea? To what extent is the situatiuon today in Chile, Nicaragua and El Salvador better that it would have been had the revolutionary movements there succeeded?

These questions are of course not easily answered. However some allowance for these benefits must be made in your analysis if it is to be taken as anything more than mere propaganda.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:42 pm
george

We might as well drop this.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 09:54 pm
Some have made it a long way being toe the line brown-nosers, haven't they, George?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 10:48 pm
Looks like I'll have to be pissed at everyone tonight.

Your implication that george is a brown-noser is grossly unjustified. He's a far better guy with far more integrity, smarts and accomplishment than you've granted him. I (and others) don't let george off the hook for his nationalism or his ideology but an insult of the nature you've just thrown his way is low and lousy.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:28 pm
8 Injured After Anti - Hugo Chavez March


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 7, 2007

Filed at 7:20 p.m. ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Gunmen opened fire on students returning from a march Wednesday in which 80,000 people denounced President Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power. At least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, officials said.

Photographers for The Associated Press saw at least two gunmen -- one wearing a ski mask and another covering his face with a T-shirt -- firing handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd. Terrified students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived.

National Guard troops gathered outside the Central University of Venezuela, the nation's largest and a center for opposition to Chavez's government. Venezuelan law bars state security forces from entering the campus, but Luis Acuna, the minister of higher education, said they could be called in if the university requests them.

Antonio Rivero, director of Venezuela's Civil Defense agency, told local Union Radio that at least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, and that no one had been killed. Earlier, Rivero said he had been informed that one person had died in the violence.

The violence broke out after anti-Chavez demonstrators -- led by university students -- marched peacefully to the Supreme Court to protest constitutional changes that Venezuelans will consider in a December referendum.

The amendments would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials.

The protesters demand the referendum be suspended, saying the amendments would weaken civil liberties in one of South America's oldest democracies and give Chavez unprecedented power to declare states of emergency.

''Don't allow Venezuela to go down a path that nobody wants to cross,'' student leader Freddy Guevara told Globovision.

Chavez, who was first elected in 1998, denies the reforms threaten freedom. He says they would instead move Venezuela toward what he calls ''21st century socialism.''

The Supreme Court is unlikely to act on the students' demands, given that pro-Chavez lawmakers appointed all 32 of its justices.

Hundreds of National Guardsmen and police in riot gear were posted along the march route to prevent clashes between protesters and Chavez sympathizers, but they were restricted from entering the campus.

---



I guess the "children of the tycoons" are starting to get their comeuppance.

Same with General Baduel. Chávez called his former Defense Minister a "traitor", a "lackey of the right wing" and "a tool of Imperialism".
Does anyone here think the US government has to do anything with Baduel? I personally don't.
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 20
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2022 at 06:36:00