Chavez to U.S.: 'Go to hell, gringos!'

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

It's a slow process, george, like being nibbled to death by ducks.

Amazing then that you appear so insensitive to the rather large gulps Chavez is taking in Venezuela.

I see no logical consistency in your apparent position. It doesn't take more than a very superficial knowledge of the unhappy history of the past century to see the harm comiing to the people of Venezuela at the hands of this self-proclaimed Marxist dictator.

0 Replies

But why do we care if he is a dictator or not?

We've gotten along so well with any number of dictators over the years. Reagan thought the apartheid government of South Africa was just ducky. And the list goes on and on.

I think Lord Ellpus has a real point. If all this guy did was to export coffee to us, he could say anything he wanted and the most he'd get is a two inch AP article designed for burying on page 7 of your local newspaper. Something like

Quote:

Venezuelan Leader Assails US

Caracas, Venezuela (AP) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez assailed the US today, calling for an end for it's influence in Latin America and other regions.

He also called for the installation of "21 st Century Socialism" in the Latin American nation.

And that would be that.

Oil changes everything.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Oil changes everything.

Our insatiable addiction to oil products changes everything. It is convenient to put it all on the governmental bureaucracy, but we SUV-driving, pesticide-spraying citizens have to put ourselves up there too, as co-conspirators who are unwilling to cut back on or replace oil consumption.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

But why do we care if he is a dictator or not?

We've gotten along so well with any number of dictators over the years. Reagan thought the apartheid government of South Africa was just ducky. And the list goes on and on.

I think Lord Ellpus has a real point. If all this guy did was to export coffee to us, he could say anything he wanted and the most he'd get is a two inch AP article designed for burying on page 7 of your local newspaper. Something like

Quote:
Venezuelan Leader Assails US

Caracas, Venezuela (AP) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez assailed the US today, calling for an end for it's influence in Latin America and other regions.

He also called for the installation of "21 st Century Socialism" in the Latin American nation.

And that would be that.

Oil changes everything.

Huh?

Hasn't the US long intervened in South America whenever they thought a leftist regime...whether dictatorish or normally democratic...might perturb American economic and political interests there?

I agree that the US historically has no problem with South and Central American dictators who support US interests, and that therefore proposing that the US, policy wise, gives a hoot about how Chavez treats his people is a furphy, but I think seeing the reaction to Chavez as being only about oil is overly simplistic.

0 Replies

I disagree, Deb.

If Chavez was just the President of some tinpot little South American country that had no oil, he would be portrayed, IMO, as some sort of comic figure who ran a "banana Republic". I can imagine all the jokes about him on programmes such as Letterman.

He would receive column inches in the USA press, but it would be much more in the way of slapping him down through dismissive humour.

But once a leader shows that he can pose a real threat to the USA, either economically (threat of cutting off oil or considering the payment for that oil in Euros, as opposed to Dollars, for example) or militarily (bay of pigs, supposedly harbouring terrorists etc) THEN he will come in for a severe filthy tricks campaign, at the very least.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to what was said earlier in this thread, Chavez does NOT need the USA. He doesn't NEED to sell his country's oil to the U.S.
It may lead to a lessening of oil profit if he had to send his oil further afield, but those profits would still be immense.

Look at Saudi Arabia for instance. They send their oil to countries all over the world, and I don't see them making a loss on the whole deal.

I say again.....the USA should be nice to him (constructive negotiations, genuine assistance in development programmes etc) if they want to secure a sufficiency of Venezualan oil for the future. OR......they will have to try and get him deposed or worse, through meddling and more serious tactics.

It seems they've tried the second option already, and have failed, pissing him off big time.

Wouldn't it now be sensible to somehow try and get option one into action?

Oh, and George.... just because someone has never been to a certain country, doesn't mean to say that he/she can't hold an opinion or two regarding the situation.

If I'm correct, GWB had never set foot in Iraq before he kicked their door in with a size 11 American hobnail boot, had he?

Maybe I'm wrong....maybe he went there during his extensive overseas duties whilst serving his country with the Military.

From the knowledge that he portrays regarding that part of the world, it would appear that GWB thinks Iraq is sandwiched somewhere between a country called Allahville and another called Terrorland.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

I disagree, Deb.

If Chavez was just the President of some tinpot little South American country that had no oil, he would be portrayed, IMO, as some sort of comic figure who ran a "banana Republic". I can imagine all the jokes about him on programmes such as Letterman.

He would receive column inches in the USA press, but it would be much more in the way of slapping him down through dismissive humour.

But once a leader shows that he can pose a real threat to the USA, either economically (threat of cutting off oil or considering the payment for that oil in Euros, as opposed to Dollars, for example) or militarily (bay of pigs, supposedly harbouring terrorists etc) THEN he will come in for a severe filthy tricks campaign, at the very least.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to what was said earlier in this thread, Chavez does NOT need the USA. He doesn't NEED to sell his country's oil to the U.S.
It may lead to a lessening of oil profit if he had to send his oil further afield, but those profits would still be immense.

Look at Saudi Arabia for instance. They send their oil to countries all over the world, and I don't see them making a loss on the whole deal.

I say again.....the USA should be nice to him (constructive negotiations, genuine assistance in development programmes etc) if they want to secure a sufficiency of Venezualan oil for the future. OR......they will have to try and get him deposed or worse, through meddling and more serious tactics.

It seems they've tried the second option already, and have failed, pissing him off big time.

Wouldn't it now be sensible to somehow try and get option one into action?

Oh, and George.... just because someone has never been to a certain country, doesn't mean to say that he/she can't hold an opinion or two regarding the situation.

If I'm correct, GWB had never set foot in Iraq before he kicked their door in with a size 11 American hobnail boot, had he?

Maybe I'm wrong....maybe he went there during his extensive overseas duties whilst serving his country with the Military.

From the knowledge that he portrays regarding that part of the world, it would appear that GWB thinks Iraq is sandwiched somewhere between a country called Allahville and another called Terrorland.

Well, as far as I know Chile, for instance, has no oil, but the USA, through the CIA, was happy to help assist the downfall of its democratically elected leader, Allende, leading to Allende's murder, the torture and killing of thousands of Chileans, and the installation of a fairly brutal dictator, just as one small example of US intervention in the south.

I do not think they react all that more savagely to oil than to other interests being perceived as threatened.

Our only difference is that I think some of you are over privileging oil as a trigger for US enmity towards regimes that do not suit its purposes.

Not that, as far as I can tell, Chavez is anyone to write home about.

(To stem the torent of shrill accusations of anti Americanism, "you support terrorists" and the like that can be expected after such a comment, I do not think that the US reacts especially differently from the way other imperia powers, such as the UK, have reacted in their time in these matters. Yawn...as should be obvious, but it seems it needs to be stated each time.)

0 Replies

A Dictatorship Rises

0 Replies

I thought that the American right loathed Chavez and thought him a raving socialist lunatic who talked too much and needed to be ignored.
Why the attention to him now?

0 Replies

James Surowiecki had a piece in the Jan. 8, 2007 New Yorker titled "Synergy with the Devil", in which he laid out a description of the growing entwinement of the US and Venezuela during and despite the rhetoric going on.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/070108ta_talk_surowiecki

With the recent business - since Jan. 8 - about Chavez announcing he would act by decree, I can see it's reasonable to fear serious changes re the oil situation, and thus fear some action by the US (good grief).

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

(To stem the torent of shrill accusations of anti Americanism, "you support terrorists" and the like that can be expected after such a comment, I do not think that the US reacts especially differently from the way other imperia powers, such as the UK, have reacted in their time in these matters. Yawn...as should be obvious, but it seems it needs to be stated each time.)

I totally agree with that point, Deb. The UK has behaved despicably in the past, regarding the support of Dictatorships, or trying to influence a regime change here and there.

I disagreed with Thatcher and the way that she shielded Pinochet, and I am currently disgusted with the way Blair thinks that the UK should still be doing this sort of stuff today. I'm alluding to the Iraq debacle, of course.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of oil when it comes to these situations though.
Sources of energy, who's got it, who hasn't and who wants it, will play a major part in some real underhand, nasty and violent events throughout the world over the coming one or two decades, IMO.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

I thought that the American right loathed Chavez and thought him a raving socialist lunatic who talked too much and needed to be ignored.
Why the attention to him now?

I think you have it backwards. The attention is being sought by Chavez with his staged theatrical insults. Here on A2K it is coming from Chavez apologists who, like elpus, propose that we kiss his ass because he has oil.

This is a loathsome, spineless tactic, unworthy of serious people, and worse it is a foolish and ineffective way to handle such a bullying, clownish dictator.

In the first place, as history amply demonstrates, Chavez will very quickly wreck the economic incentives that drive Venezuela's economy. The waste and needed subsidies will grow even faster than the price of oil, and declining output of that commodity (a result of government ineptness) will eventually reduce their income, whether in dollars or euros. The victims will be Venezuelans, niot American conservatives.

The United States faces no real danger from Chavez, except in his potential ability to spread his destructive political movement. Ecuador and Bolivia can self-destruct as well with little impact on this country. Perhaps if the contaigon reached Panama or Mexico we would have a reason to be copncerned, however, the political currents in these far better developed countries have been in the opposite direction.

I agree with elpus that prior visits to a country are not a prerequisite for accurate judgements on its political situation. My question was more a suggestion that he apply a little more concrete analysis and reference to comparative events in our collective histories.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
I thought that the American right loathed Chavez and thought him a raving socialist lunatic who talked too much and needed to be ignored.
Why the attention to him now?

I think you have it backwards. The attention is being sought by Chavez with his staged theatrical insults. Here on A2K it is coming from Chavez apologists who, like elpus, propose that we kiss his ass because he has oil..............

Well, the USA chose to kick arse as far as Iraq's oil was concerned, and look where it's got you. Of course, the war on terror was given as the reason, but hey ho...how fortunate to have all this oil lying around now we've whupped them, eh lads?

Maybe kissing would be a better, more productive tactic and not result in so much bloodshed.

Oil is king, as far as your country is concerned, and Venezuala has MASSIVE stocks of the stuff.

With the likes of China coming into the modern day industrial world and consuming oil at an ever increasing rate of knots, the regular and guaranteed supply of oil becomes ever more important.

America will do what it has to, in order to keep the flow up and running.
If that means metaphorically kissing the odd gluteous maximus here and there, I'm sure your leaders will take a deep breath and do it.

Business is business, after all.

Of course, they could always try to depose him again, or worse.......but then they run the risk of pissing him off even more if they fail for the second time.

0 Replies

My SUV thirsts for free Iraqi oil. Any timeline for when that oil will be coming our way Lord Ellpus?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

My SUV thirsts for free Iraqi oil. Any timeline for when that oil will be coming our way Lord Ellpus?

Just as soon as they find those goddam weapons. That's what they are waiting for. And then comes the flood.

0 Replies

It is very interesting to observe the lengths to which people will go to preserve and cling to illusions which have no foundation in fact.

There has been no reduction or restriction of US oil imports fropm Venezuela. There is a well-developed world market for petroleum, and oil, once it is pumped and sold, becomes a fungible international commodity. Pipelines and the like can create some dependencies of sorts between source and consumer, because of the ease of transport & distribution. However, once the oil is put in a ship, it doesn't matter very much how far it must travel - and that is the case with US oil imports from Venezuela.

While it is true that the British Empire attempted to exercise direct political and military control over its sources of oil, initially in Bahrain & Kuwait, and later in Iran & Iraq, that has not been the US practice. We instread invested in oil field development and purchased the products, even submitting to partial nationalization of our investments by producing countries. To be sure, we had close diplomatic relationships and worked hard to favorably influence policies, but, apart from our complicity in restoring the Shah of Iran (whose father was first placed on his throne by the British) we have not tried to exercise direct political control. Elpus is merely projecting systematic British imperial practices and vices on the United States.

It is worth remembering that the U.S. rapidly depleted huge petroleum reserves during two world wars, which on the Allied side were largely fought with American oil. (Unfortunately gratitude is not a lasting thing.)

Whether one supports or opposes our intervention in Iraq, there is no evidence (or even plausible argument) suggesting that securing ownership of Iraqi oilfields was the purpose. There is certainly an indirect reason relating to petroleum sources -- we want to see a continuation of the free market for the stuff and a more stable political situation in the Persian Gulf than has existed since the British and the French seized it all from the Ottomans in 1914-1918 (and subsequent). Whether we have improved or worsened the situation is a proper subject for separate debate. (Those who point to the current situation in Iraq should refresh themselves on the History of that country and the surrounding region since the British thoroughly destabilized it between 1914 and 1921.).

I wonder if Elpus will advocate more energetic kissing of Russia's ass by the major European powers in view of their far greater (compared to the U.S. & Venezuela) , real-time dependence on Russian gas and petroleum, supplied by pipeline.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

dlowan wrote:

(To stem the torent of shrill accusations of anti Americanism, "you support terrorists" and the like that can be expected after such a comment, I do not think that the US reacts especially differently from the way other imperia powers, such as the UK, have reacted in their time in these matters. Yawn...as should be obvious, but it seems it needs to be stated each time.)

I totally agree with that point, Deb. The UK has behaved despicably in the past, regarding the support of Dictatorships, or trying to influence a regime change here and there.

I disagreed with Thatcher and the way that she shielded Pinochet, and I am currently disgusted with the way Blair thinks that the UK should still be doing this sort of stuff today. I'm alluding to the Iraq debacle, of course.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of oil when it comes to these situations though.
Sources of energy, who's got it, who hasn't and who wants it, will play a major part in some real underhand, nasty and violent events throughout the world over the coming one or two decades, IMO.

Oh sure....no disagreement there.

My point is that the US is pretty hair trigger in acting aggressively in Central and South America, in a sort of "our back yard" way...perhaps like the UK in Ireland?....I think there would be a campaign against Chavez even sans oil.

0 Replies

Chavez to U.S.: 'Go to hell, gringos!'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know