Venezuela craves Nukes

[Enigma]

Chavez: Venezuela interested in nuclear technology
Sunday, May 22, 2005 Posted: 2:26 PM EDT (1826 GMT)
CARACAS, Venezuela (*******) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government was interested in nuclear energy and could start talks with Iranian partners to study possible atomic and solar power projects.
Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States and a leftist ally of Communist Cuba, said Venezuela and other Latin American countries could develop nuclear energy as an alternative power source for civilian purposes.
"We are interested too, we must start working on that area... the nuclear area. We could, along with Brazil, with Argentina and others, start investigations into the nuclear sector and ask for help from countries like Iran," Chavez said on his regular Sunday TV program.
"It is for development, for life, for peace and energy," the president said during the program broadcast at an event in Caracas for Iranian companies.
Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, is a key energy supplier to the United States, but its relations with Washington have soured since Chavez came to office six years ago promising to fight poverty with a raft of social reforms.
Chavez has backed Iran, branded by Washington part of an "axis of evil," in Tehran's dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program. U.S. officials accuse Iran of secretly working to produce nuclear arms, but Tehran says its atomic program is only for civilian energy uses.
"I am sure the Iranian government is not making any atomic bomb," Chavez said, repeating support he gave during a visit by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to Venezuela in March.
Venezuela is rich in heavy crude oil and natural gas. About 75 percent of its electric power is generated by state-run hydroelectric plants.
A self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary, Chavez says he is offering an alternative to U.S. "imperialism" and accuses Washington of trying to oust or kill him. Supporters applaud his education and health programs to help the poor.
He has strengthened political, energy and economic ties with China, India and Russia as an alternative to Venezuela's traditional alliance with the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/22/chavez.nuclear.reut/index.html

My Prediction: U.S politicians : “more oil” Bush: “ah a Violation = Full scale invasion”

[Bluezoo]

This guy will some day occupy Noriega's cell. Who want's to wager on this?

[joe mama]

"I am sure the Iranian government is not making any atomic bomb," Chavez said...

Hey! The whole world can relax about Iran! Chavez is sure they're not making a-bombs! Thank You Jeebus!

[walford]

...then nuke Venezuela. Next problem?

[fremen]

I don't see what the big deal is, Venezuela is a soveriegn nation with the right to develop alternative energy sources. Besides, other Latin American countries have had nuclear energy programs for a long time now, like Mexico and Brazil for example.

[walford]

This is the 'big deal':

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.html
...Al Santoli, Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, told the Free Congress Foundation’s radio news service that Venezuela, an oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez’s military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela as Chavez’s guests. He is Venezuela’s Allende.

In a new report, the American Defense Council notes that not only does China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.

Shane Connor, a Texas businessman who has traveled several times to Venezuela and interviewed military officials who have quit the Chavez regime, tells AIM that Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, a former pilot for Chavez, has revealed his own role in the payment of $1 million from the regime to al Qaeda after 9/11. Connor said this disclosure made headlines in Venezuela but not in any major American newspapers. Connor also said there is evidence that a controversial bioweapons lab reported to be in Cuba has been secretly transferred to Venezuela. The location has been posted at www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, a Web site in English for opponents of the Chavez regime...And from another thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39597&start=0): Chavez not as nutty as some may think he is:

Analysis: Chavez will arm the people (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050225-030514-6916r)
...The government has said the country must be prepared for "asymmetrical warfare" against "imperialism," a warning Chavez issued after making a substantial weapons purchase from Russia, including 100,000 AK-47s, 40 combat helicopters and antitank and antiaircraft missiles. Venezuela has also been negotiating with Russia's Rosoboronexport to purchase MiG fighter aircraft...The United States needs to openly question the relationship with countries that sell arms to hostile powers.

The fact that Chavez would use the term 'assymetrical warfare' -- a term coined in the Pentagon -- is worrisome. Not only is he throwing down the gauntlet that he intends to continue harboring narco-terrorists who are operating outside of his borders. He is indicating that he expects to succeed in foiling any U.S. attempt to stop him.

But there's another reason for the arms buildup and bellicose rhetoric:

...Retired Adm. Ivan Carratu, former director of the Institute for National Defense Studies in Caracas, said the government's frequent announcements of an alleged U.S. invasion were meant to promote nationalism with the purpose of uniting a people divided by Chavez and his policies."Venezuelans are not prepared to go and fight a war against foreign intervention," he said. "Chavez is arming sectors of the population in order to squash the opposition."

The Bush administration has sharply criticized Venezuela's purchase of Russian weapons, stating the deal could fuel a regional arms race that could destabilize the region."The problem is, what if those rifles end up in the hands of criminal and militant groups which operate in the Americas," said Roger Noriega, U.S. assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

He told CNN said he was referring to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, the Colombian rebel group on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations that operates in Venezuela.

"There are criminal groups that have operated with impunity on Venezuelan territory, apparently with the support of the government, and there are also other groups in other countries of the Americas, with whom the Venezuelan authorities have maintained contact that operate against the democratic governments of the region," he said.It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.Allende was not a bad guy he just was not the USA's guy, now Pinochet was a bad guy.

I really don't find aim.org to be fair or balanced it has that FOX feel about it most of the time.

[walford]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.Allende was not a bad guy he just was not the USA's guy, now Pinochet was a bad guy. I really don't find aim.org to be fair or balanced it has that FOX feel about it most of the time.AIM is unabashedly conservative/libertarian. They are not trying to be 'fair or balanced,' they are commentators not reporters. They use research to point out the liberal bias in the media. Consider this piece I wrote for them about Google: http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov19.html

[callous]

Can't we just send a couple nukes to Chavez? ;)

[Oddbod]

Can't we just send a couple nukes to Chavez? ;)

Express delivery by air to any part of the Country................ :P

[Nightsky]

oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez’s military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela

reportedly Darth Vader has also joined their ranks ...

sorry, but this sounds like too much speculation based on too little evidence., especially the last part of it...

[foxtrot023]

oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez’s military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela

reportedly Darth Vader has also joined their ranks ...

sorry, but this sounds like too much speculation based on too little evidence., especially the last part of it...

No kidding. I think Chavez is a nut case, and he will probably be ¨ejected¨ from power in the near future, but I wonder were they got the reports that Al Qaeda members are being brought into Venezuela? maybe in the same place they got the iraqi WMDs or SH and AQ links? perhaps Chavez should hire Galloway to defend him in from of the US congress

[GAFES]

I don't see what the big deal is, Venezuela is a soveriegn nation with the right to develop alternative energy sources. Besides, other Latin American countries have had nuclear energy programs for a long time now, like Mexico and Brazil for example.

I totally agree.

[Knutsen]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.

I'm going to read between the lines. This statement, together with the focus of the article and the opinions of those who agree with it and agree with invading Venezuela, is a repugnant justification of the 30000 innocents killed by those who didn't like Allende.

Remember Peter Pan? When a child says he doesn't believe in fairies, a faity dies... This is the same. When people like these (the ones who write the article) talk about freedom, democracy and the "good" side, something dies in the "good side".

You talk about invading countries as if it was a video game. You drop a couple of bombs and democracy is restored. You never think about the innocents killed, you never think about the consequences.Yes, sometimes this kind of actions are needed, but we are entering into a dangerous vicious cycle in which anyone who disagrees with the US automatically becomes a danger for national security and blah blah blah.

PS: I hate Chavez, you can read previous posts by me about it.

[GAFES]

This is the 'big deal':

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.html
...Al Santoli, Senior Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, told the Free Congress Foundation’s radio news service that Venezuela, an oil exporting nation ruled by a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, is more of a national security problem than Iran. Santoli, who served as a top congressional aide, says Chavez and Castro are helping run guns to the Colombian terrorists. There are currently more than 350 U.S. military advisers in Colombia and the number is growing. He says Chinese special forces are now training Chavez’s military, and that there are reports of al Qaeda members being brought into Venezuela as Chavez’s guests. He is Venezuela’s Allende.

In a new report, the American Defense Council notes that not only does China control ports at each end of the Panama Canal, it dominates seven of the 10 major global shipping chokepoints.

Shane Connor, a Texas businessman who has traveled several times to Venezuela and interviewed military officials who have quit the Chavez regime, tells AIM that Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo, a former pilot for Chavez, has revealed his own role in the payment of $1 million from the regime to al Qaeda after 9/11. Connor said this disclosure made headlines in Venezuela but not in any major American newspapers. Connor also said there is evidence that a controversial bioweapons lab reported to be in Cuba has been secretly transferred to Venezuela. The location has been posted at www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, a Web site in English for opponents of the Chavez regime...And from another thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39597&start=0): Chavez not as nutty as some may think he is:

Analysis: Chavez will arm the people (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050225-030514-6916r)
...The government has said the country must be prepared for "asymmetrical warfare" against "imperialism," a warning Chavez issued after making a substantial weapons purchase from Russia, including 100,000 AK-47s, 40 combat helicopters and antitank and antiaircraft missiles. Venezuela has also been negotiating with Russia's Rosoboronexport to purchase MiG fighter aircraft...The United States needs to openly question the relationship with countries that sell arms to hostile powers.

The fact that Chavez would use the term 'assymetrical warfare' -- a term coined in the Pentagon -- is worrisome. Not only is he throwing down the gauntlet that he intends to continue harboring narco-terrorists who are operating outside of his borders. He is indicating that he expects to succeed in foiling any U.S. attempt to stop him.

But there's another reason for the arms buildup and bellicose rhetoric:

...Retired Adm. Ivan Carratu, former director of the Institute for National Defense Studies in Caracas, said the government's frequent announcements of an alleged U.S. invasion were meant to promote nationalism with the purpose of uniting a people divided by Chavez and his policies."Venezuelans are not prepared to go and fight a war against foreign intervention," he said. "Chavez is arming sectors of the population in order to squash the opposition."

The Bush administration has sharply criticized Venezuela's purchase of Russian weapons, stating the deal could fuel a regional arms race that could destabilize the region."The problem is, what if those rifles end up in the hands of criminal and militant groups which operate in the Americas," said Roger Noriega, U.S. assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

He told CNN said he was referring to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, the Colombian rebel group on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations that operates in Venezuela.

"There are criminal groups that have operated with impunity on Venezuelan territory, apparently with the support of the government, and there are also other groups in other countries of the Americas, with whom the Venezuelan authorities have maintained contact that operate against the democratic governments of the region," he said.It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.



Chinese special forces?
Venezuela has very capable SF groups. I dont thnink they need them.
http://www.fav-club.com/foe.htm

http://www.armada.mil.ve/utiles/galeria/imagenes/016.jpg

http://www.armada.mil.ve/utiles/galeria/imagenes/008.jpg

[caridon]

@ walford"

Lets se what we have here.

first we have desperate attempts to connect Chaves with Castro, the ultimate US bogeyman

Next we have a lot of unsubstanciated allegations about everything from Weapons of mass destruction to supporting terrorist (specificaly Al-quaida)
(this almost sounds like the lies before the iraq invasion, cant they att least come upp with something original ?)

Lastly we have another bunch of unsubstanciated claims of supporting "terrorists" in colombia.

The only thing in that pile of inuendo that can be corroborated is that Wenezuella has purchased a small number of Automatic rifles, some (unarmed) "commbat" helicopters and AT- and AA missiles. This it is claimed will start a regional arms race. As other south american regimes (like colombia) have simmilar capabilities without the US complaining, this sounds more like sour grapes to me.



It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.
like the USA ?

If you can present somthing more solid than unfounded allegations from a rightwing thin ktank from the same country that supported the latest military coupe in Venezuela i might take you seriously. Untill then you are barely worth refuting.

/C

[caridon]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.Allende was not a bad guy he just was not the USA's guy, now Pinochet was a bad guy. I really don't find aim.org to be fair or balanced it has that FOX feel about it most of the time.AIM is unabashedly conservative/libertarian. They are not trying to be 'fair or balanced,' they are commentators not reporters. They use research to point out the liberal bias in the media. Consider this piece I wrote for them about Google: http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov19.html

funny. if you go to http://www.aim.org/
you will find their motto on the second row.
i quote "For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting"
so Bacilluspolymyxa was totaly correct in questioning their slant
or did you miss that ?

/C

[walford]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.Allende was not a bad guy he just was not the USA's guy, now Pinochet was a bad guy. I really don't find aim.org to be fair or balanced it has that FOX feel about it most of the time.AIM is unabashedly conservative/libertarian. They are not trying to be 'fair or balanced,' they are commentators not reporters. They use research to point out the liberal bias in the media. Consider this piece I wrote for them about Google: http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov19.htmlfunny. if you go to http://www.aim.org/ you will find their motto on the second row. quote "For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting" so Bacilluspolymyxa was totaly correct in questioning their slant or did you miss that ? /CThey hold journalists accountable for biased reporting, they do not claim to be reporters themselves. As is stated in their mission statement AIM is a "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage."

Given that I had worked for them for over a year, you might consider the possiblity that I might know the organization better than someone posting anonymously on a message board [which I am not (http://utopia-unmasked.us/AboutTheAuthor.html), by the way].

Of course none of you have even attempted to refute any of the allegations made about Chavez in the AIM article or in the other source I cited. Instead you are attempting to divert the argument toward the veracity of a COMMENTATOR. This is a subset of the Red Herring fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html).

Is Chavez flirting with Castro? Is he supplying safe haven to narco-terrorists who attack Venezuela's neighbors? Is he flirting with al Qaeda, the People's Republic of China, etc.? In other words, is it a bad thing for the the likes of Chavez to have nukes?

No informed answer is given. Nice evasion attempt, though.

[Laworkerbee]

@ walford"

Lets se what we have here.

first we have desperate attempts to connect Chaves with Castro, the ultimate US bogeyman

Next we have a lot of unsubstanciated allegations about everything from Weapons of mass destruction to supporting terrorist (specificaly Al-quaida)
(this almost sounds like the lies before the iraq invasion, cant they att least come upp with something original ?)

Lastly we have another bunch of unsubstanciated claims of supporting "terrorists" in colombia.

The only thing in that pile of inuendo that can be corroborated is that Wenezuella has purchased a small number of Automatic rifles, some (unarmed) "commbat" helicopters and AT- and AA missiles. This it is claimed will start a regional arms race. As other south american regimes (like colombia) have simmilar capabilities without the US complaining, this sounds more like sour grapes to me.



It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.
like the USA ?

If you can present somthing more solid than unfounded allegations from a rightwing thin ktank from the same country that supported the latest military coupe in Venezuela i might take you seriously. Untill then you are barely worth refuting.

/C

Pull your head out of your A**, Castro and Chavez practically sleep together, and now your going to sit there and defend this guy who is supporting Narco-terrorists like your cocaine habit, gimme a break.

[Laworkerbee]

No worries Chavez won't see the sun rise in '06. I know a few people in Caracas who will dance in the streets the day he is dead, I hope Columbia helps Chavez's "opposition" group's to rid him of this Earth.

[Laworkerbee]

http://www.chileblog.com/spaw/images/tempo/chavez_castro.jpg

Here's your buddies here


http://www.sapere.it/tc/img/Storia/Farc/ribellieln_home.jpg

Supplying the only guerrila movement in the world that operates without the support of the people, because Chavez gives them safe haven and the worlds love of cocaine


:fork:

[WARPIG]

@ walford"

Lets se what we have here.

first we have desperate attempts to connect Chaves with Castro, the ultimate US bogeyman

Next we have a lot of unsubstanciated allegations about everything from Weapons of mass destruction to supporting terrorist (specificaly Al-quaida)
(this almost sounds like the lies before the iraq invasion, cant they att least come upp with something original ?)

Lastly we have another bunch of unsubstanciated claims of supporting "terrorists" in colombia.

The only thing in that pile of inuendo that can be corroborated is that Wenezuella has purchased a small number of Automatic rifles, some (unarmed) "commbat" helicopters and AT- and AA missiles. This it is claimed will start a regional arms race. As other south american regimes (like colombia) have simmilar capabilities without the US complaining, this sounds more like sour grapes to me.



It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.
like the USA ?

If you can present somthing more solid than unfounded allegations from a rightwing thin ktank from the same country that supported the latest military coupe in Venezuela i might take you seriously. Untill then you are barely worth refuting.

/C

Pull your head out of your A**, Castro and Chavez practically sleep together, and now your going to sit there and defend this guy who is supporting Narco-terrorists like your cocaine habit, gimme a break.

Give me a break is about what I was thinking too.

Chavez's mouth is more of a danger than anything his military can muster or buy right now. His extreme anti-US rhetoric as of late is merely setting off alarms. He has gone to great effort to back up his mouth buy strengthening his military. If the US military puts a lot of money into uniforms, some small arms upgrades and hi-tech optics, buys several unarmed Predator UAV's..... would that tell you that the US is prepping for something? Even though Predators aren't armed.. and small arms upgrades are common...don't those changes lead to others?

What kind of proof would it take to prove a relationship between Chavez and Castro? Or that Chavez is looking to bolster his military, or that he is playing both ends against the middle with Columbia and the FARC?

If Columbia is putting money into their military and making it stronger is it reason for concern? Possibly but not probably. If a country is making a point to take opposition to it's neighbors or previous allies, and then bolsters it's military and seeks offensive capabilty..is that probable or just posible?
What kind of intel would be convincing?
How about having family from Venezuela working and living in Caracas but want to be here in the US?
How about closing the US embassy?
No, that must just be sour grapes.
Chavez is doing everything he can to emulate Fidel Castro. He is taking his moves right out of the Cuban Dictatorship playbook. Strong rhetoric against the US. Calling us Imperialists, diverting all of the country's financial strength into the military all the while telling the vast majority of lower class that he is a revolutionary fighting to make life better for them.

FARC and other paramilitary have been known for their well funded and strong logistical network. Terrorists from all over the world know tha Margarita Island is were you get money laundered.

Chavez is just another wannabee dictator using words like "revolutionary" as misdirection for a communist flavored regime. He emotes and compares himself to Simon Bolivar in history to build himself up as a hero.

If your view of the world is only as big as the television.. well, don't expect that new 50" flat screen will make you any smarter.

[fremen]

Exactly! Chavez' mouth is full of hot air. He's an idiot on the international scene, but he is in no way a threat to the United States. I will admit though, that he is a problem, but a problem exclusively of the Venezuelan people.

P.S. Using Allende as a comparison to Hugo Chavez is not a smart idea. Allende was a Socialist, so what? He was democratically elected by his people. In his place the U.S. helped to install a murderous anti-democratic right-wing dictator responsible for the deaths of thousands of Chileans. But I guess Augusto Pinochet was O.K. with the U.S. since he was "friendly". Who the hell cares for the many, many innocents he tortured and muredered...right?

[Knutsen]

Using Allende as a comparison to Hugo Chavez is not a smart idea. Allende was a Socialist, so what? He was democratically elected by his people.

Exactly, but i want to point out that although Chavez started a failed coup in 1992 (someone correct me , i'm not sure about the date), he's been democratically elected since his first term as a president. The huge difference between Allende and Chavez are both president's policies. You simply can't compare Allende and Chavez. Well, you can't unless you are ignorant about their actions

[caridon]

@ walford"

Lets se what we have here.

first we have desperate attempts to connect Chaves with Castro, the ultimate US bogeyman

Next we have a lot of unsubstanciated allegations about everything from Weapons of mass destruction to supporting terrorist (specificaly Al-quaida)
(this almost sounds like the lies before the iraq invasion, cant they att least come upp with something original ?)

Lastly we have another bunch of unsubstanciated claims of supporting "terrorists" in colombia.

The only thing in that pile of inuendo that can be corroborated is that Wenezuella has purchased a small number of Automatic rifles, some (unarmed) "commbat" helicopters and AT- and AA missiles. This it is claimed will start a regional arms race. As other south american regimes (like colombia) have simmilar capabilities without the US complaining, this sounds more like sour grapes to me.



It is difficult to respect the sovereignty of a government that has no such respect for its neighbors.
like the USA ?

If you can present somthing more solid than unfounded allegations from a rightwing thin ktank from the same country that supported the latest military coupe in Venezuela i might take you seriously. Untill then you are barely worth refuting.

/C

Pull your head out of your A**, Castro and Chavez practically sleep together, and now your going to sit there and defend this guy who is supporting Narco-terrorists like your cocaine habit, gimme a break.


OK show me exactly where i stated that i SUPORTED Chavez.

I questioned the source for the allegations, That is not support.
but the distinction might be to hard for you to understand.

/C

[caridon]

http://www.chileblog.com/spaw/images/tempo/chavez_castro.jpg

Here's your buddies here


http://www.sapere.it/tc/img/Storia/Farc/ribellieln_home.jpg

Supplying the only guerrila movement in the world that operates without the support of the people, because Chavez gives them safe haven and the worlds love of cocaine


:fork:

and the top photo connects with the bottom one how ?
and your proof that FARC is the only guerilla without popular support ?
(although I give you great credit for not using the T-word to denote them)

/C

[caridon]

http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13.htmlHe is Venezuela’s Allende.Allende was not a bad guy he just was not the USA's guy, now Pinochet was a bad guy. I really don't find aim.org to be fair or balanced it has that FOX feel about it most of the time.AIM is unabashedly conservative/libertarian. They are not trying to be 'fair or balanced,' they are commentators not reporters. They use research to point out the liberal bias in the media. Consider this piece I wrote for them about Google: http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov19.htmlfunny. if you go to http://www.aim.org/ you will find their motto on the second row. quote "For Fairness, Accuracy and Balance in News Reporting" so Bacilluspolymyxa was totaly correct in questioning their slant or did you miss that ? /CThey hold journalists accountable for biased reporting, they do not claim to be reporters themselves. As is stated in their mission statement AIM is a "a non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that critiques botched and bungled news stories and sets the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage."

Given that I had worked for them for over a year, you might consider the possiblity that I might know the organization better than someone posting anonymously on a message board [which I am not (http://utopia-unmasked.us/AboutTheAuthor.html), by the way].

Of course none of you have even attempted to refute any of the allegations made about Chavez in the AIM article or in the other source I cited. Instead you are attempting to divert the argument toward the veracity of a COMMENTATOR. This is a subset of the Red Herring fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html).

Is Chavez flirting with Castro? Is he supplying safe haven to narco-terrorists who attack Venezuela's neighbors? Is he flirting with al Qaeda, the People's Republic of China, etc.? In other words, is it a bad thing for the the likes of Chavez to have nukes?

No informed answer is given. Nice evasion attempt, though.

First off, The cite used is written by AIM. therefore it is perfectly allright to question their slant. AIM has a clear right-wing leaning and are therfore not a neutral source.

It is not a "argumentum ad hominem" because that requires the argument to be about "irrelevant personal qualities" so if i claimed that AIM's boss wore pink slippers and therfore you cant trust them it would be "argumentum ad hominem " But examining the political slant of a organisation when judging a bit of political writing. is perfectly OK
as a TV lawyer would say -Goes towards proving intent,your honor.

Now back to the critisism:
It is NOT my job to dissprove the allegations made (especially as it is imposible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Chaves did NOT do xxx)
It is the accusers jobb to prove his allegations.

The links you cited do NOT stand upp to the light of day. Everyone cited has a bone to grind and are HIGHLY biased.
some examples.
The Texas businessman http://www.freerepublic.com/~shanec/
Free Congress Foundation’s http://www.freecongress.org/

Show me some decent links to respected (outside extreme-rightwing American circles) organisations that claim these things.

I will agree that Chavez is friendly with Castro. but that by itself is not a crime. (unless you live in America) As Chaves is a socialist it would be logical for him to seek trade and commerce with other socialists. (and sofar it seems to be beneficial for both countries. We will have to se how the long run becomes)


And on the subject of red Heerings. your first job is to prove that Chavez is interested in nuclear bombs not just nuclear power.

/C

[walford]

First off, The cite used is written by AIM. therefore it is perfectly allright to question their slant. AIM has a clear right-wing leaning and are therfore not a neutral source.

It is not a "argumentum ad hominem" because that requires the argument to be about "irrelevant personal qualities" so if i claimed that AIM's boss wore pink slippers and therfore you cant trust them it would be "argumentum ad hominem " But examining the political slant of a organisation when judging a bit of political writing. is perfectly OK
as a TV lawyer would say -Goes towards proving intent,your honor.Pointing out that the source is coming from a point of view does not refute the allegations. It is pure evasion. It is a red-herring ad hominem attack because you are ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the arguer. I reject the implication that an argument is invalid simply because of who the arguer is unless the source has a history of lying. The burden is upon YOU to show any inaccuracies in Mr. Kincaid's assertions.
Now back to the critisism: It is NOT my job to dissprove the allegations made (especially as it is imposible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Chaves did NOT do xxx) It is the accusers jobb to prove his allegations.

The links you cited do NOT stand upp to the light of day. Everyone cited has a bone to grind and are HIGHLY biased.
some examples.
The Texas businessman http://www.freerepublic.com/~shanec/
Free Congress Foundation’s http://www.freecongress.org/You have ignored the multiple sources in the other article:
Analysis: Chavez will arm the people (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050225-030514-6916r)
It also has many quotes from Chavez himself asserting that he his increasing his military strength and buying weapons from our friends the Russians among others.

Show me some decent links to respected (outside extreme-rightwing American circles) organisations that claim these things.The mainstream media has only a passing interest in the story, so only those with agendized views on both sides are discussing it. You can take the Worker's World approach:
http://www.workers.org/2005/world/cuba-0616/

Or the Christian Broadcast Network's view:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.asp

I invite you to compare the veracity of the assertions and primary sources cited therein.

I will agree that Chavez is friendly with Castro. but that by itself is not a crime. (unless you live in America) As Chaves is a socialist it would be logical for him to seek trade and commerce with other socialists. (and sofar it seems to be beneficial for both countries. We will have to se how the long run becomes)What binds these two is not ideology, but anti-Americanism. Castroism is about naked power brutally held into place by force. It remains to be seen if Chavez will suffer to be elected out of office peacefully. Given that he is already jailing dissidents, I would be very surprised.

And on the subject of red Heerings. your first job is to prove that Chavez is interested in nuclear bombs not just nuclear power./CYour job is to show that there should be no concern that someone with such a track record of hostile rhetoric/activity and a friendly relationship with another hostile tyrant should acquire the means of developing nuclear weapons -- especially with Cuban and Chinese military 'advisors' in country. Anyone familiar with nuclear technology knows that all fission reactors produce the fissile materials necessary to produce nuclear weapons. As is the case with Iran, we have another oil-producing nation claiming to need nuclear power for peaceful [i.e. energy-producing] purposes.

[fremen]

Using the picture of Castro and Chavez together proves that Chavez is guilty of what exactly? It's absolute childish bull****. Castro has been around for sooooo long that there are probably pictures of him with hundreds of world leaders, if not more.
Hey, I think Castro was also in cahoots with Pope John Paul II, I seem to remember them in a picture together. Maybe the Vatican was trying to acquire nuclear weapons itself?

[martinexsquaddie]

if i was chavez I'd be buying rpgs and those disposable fuel air rockets aks and dragnovs.
so any usa type invasion too remove him would run into iraqi style resistance assymetric warfare works and its cheap and makes pentagon planners nightmares and its cheap and effective :(

[caridon]

First off, The cite used is written by AIM. therefore it is perfectly allright to question their slant. AIM has a clear right-wing leaning and are therfore not a neutral source.

It is not a "argumentum ad hominem" because that requires the argument to be about "irrelevant personal qualities" so if i claimed that AIM's boss wore pink slippers and therfore you cant trust them it would be "argumentum ad hominem " But examining the political slant of a organisation when judging a bit of political writing. is perfectly OK
as a TV lawyer would say -Goes towards proving intent,your honor.Pointing out that the source is coming from a point of view does not refute the allegations. It is pure evasion. It is a red-herring ad hominem attack because you are ignoring the argument in favor of attacking the arguer. I reject the implication that an argument is invalid simply because of who the arguer is unless the source has a history of lying.

If you think that the bias of a source is irelevant when judging the truth content of ALLEGATINS made by the source. Then i assume that i'ts ok if i use for example Hamas webpage to refute them. I bet i can find one that claims that all "agents of the great satan" are liers.

Your see how ridicoulus that is, so the bias of the page is rellevant.


The burden is upon YOU to show any inaccuracies in Mr. Kincaid's assertions.

Here you are so far out wrong that it is not even funny. This behavour might have been ok for the witchhunts of the middle ages but today the burden of proof lies on the Accuser. You have made VERY serious accusations (not assertions) And it is upp to YOU to prove that they are correct. And the more serious the Aaccussations the more importatn the proof are. and you have NO proof for this, just third hand rumours.




Now back to the critisism: It is NOT my job to dissprove the allegations made (especially as it is imposible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Chaves did NOT do xxx) It is the accusers jobb to prove his allegations.

The links you cited do NOT stand upp to the light of day. Everyone cited has a bone to grind and are HIGHLY biased.
some examples.
The Texas businessman http://www.freerepublic.com/~shanec/
Free Congress Foundation’s http://www.freecongress.org/
You have ignored the multiple sources in the other article:
Analysis: Chavez will arm the people (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050225-030514-6916r)

I have not. Mainly because the Artickle states nothing dammiging against Chavez . The artickle tries to make a normal purchase of small arms and MANPADS into a great controversy. I would like you to show me countries whose military does NOT include this type of weapons (the only ones i can think of is the Vatican and Monco.) so the Artickle is a red herring designed to make the accusations in the other artickles look good.


It also has many quotes from Chavez himself asserting that he his increasing his military strength and buying weapons from our friends the Russians among others.

and why is this wrong? because he dosent by them from the US ? I thought that A nation had the right to arm its military ? Or does that only go for countries "approved" by the US ? Somtimes it seems like that when you follow these forums.



Show me some decent links to respected (outside extreme-rightwing American circles) organisations that claim these things.The mainstream media has only a passing interest in the story, so only those with agendized views on both sides are discussing it. You can take the Worker's World approach:
http://www.workers.org/2005/world/cuba-0616/

I cant se the rellevance of theis artickle to the subject att hand. Please cite the parts you find rellevant


Or the Christian Broadcast Network's view:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.asp

Once again how is this rellecant. it cited no primary sources. it just makes allegations. If a thousand persons tell a lie does it make it less of a lie ?
(my point being that there have been som many artickles and opt-eds making accusations that pepole think it is the truth. but I have never seen any proof.)


I invite you to compare the veracity of the assertions and primary sources cited therein.

Neither had any primary sources so they are equaly bad.



I will agree that Chavez is friendly with Castro. but that by itself is not a crime. (unless you live in America) As Chaves is a socialist it would be logical for him to seek trade and commerce with other socialists. (and sofar it seems to be beneficial for both countries. We will have to se how the long run becomes)What binds these two is not ideology, but anti-Americanism. Castroism is about naked power brutally held into place by force. It remains to be seen if Chavez will suffer to be elected out of office peacefully. Given that he is already jailing dissidents, I would be very surprised.

And on the subject of red Heerings. your first job is to prove that Chavez is interested in nuclear bombs not just nuclear power./CYour job is to show that there should be no concern that someone with such a track record of hostile rhetoric/activity and a friendly relationship with another hostile tyrant should acquire the means of developing nuclear weapons -- especially with Cuban and Chinese military 'advisors' in country.

I'l take upp that discussion when you have proven your allegations. right now you have nothing exept normal armspurchses and political rethoric
(and if political rethoric is dangerous then the world should invade the USA. remember the crusade speach ?)


Anyone familiar with nuclear technology knows that all fission reactors produce the fissile materials necessary to produce nuclear weapons. As is the case with Iran, we have another oil-producing nation claiming to need nuclear power for peaceful [i.e. energy-producing] purposes.
On this subject you are TOTALY wrong. It requires a special type of nuclear reactor to produce the right types of fissile materials for nuclear matereals. this is why the soviet union used grafite cooled reactors and why the US have (had ?) military reactors. Even if you build a reactor capable of producing the rigth wastematereal, you have to refine it, this is a slow,costly and LARGE. prosess that can be fairly easily detected.

And on the read hearing of "why would a oilrich country need nuclear power". Unlike the US most of the world have realised that the era of cheap oil is ending. Prudent countries are looking for alternate sources of energy to minimice the impact of rising oilprices.
Prudent Oilproducing countries are looking for alternate sources of energy to maximice the profit from their oilreserves.

If you can make more money by selling the oil and bying uranium to make power than from burning the oil for power you would be a fool not to.

[Rictor]

Supplying the only guerrila movement in the world that operates without the support of the people, because Chavez gives them safe haven and the worlds love of cocaine

proof? So far, I have seen not one single iota of evidence to support these claims, though God knows they're repeated often enough. Don't throw accusations around unless there is some pretty solid evidence backing it up.

It's like Goebells said, the lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

[WARPIG]

Supplying the only guerrila movement in the world that operates without the support of the people, because Chavez gives them safe haven and the worlds love of cocaine

proof? So far, I have seen not one single iota of evidence to support these claims, though God knows they're repeated often enough. Don't throw accusations around unless there is some pretty solid evidence backing it up.

It's like Goebells said, the lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

What would you consider proof? Some of us aren't on the CIA's distro list.

How about first hand accounts from Venezuelans who see it on a daily basis? How about conversation from people working in his military?

Chavez supports the FARC under the table. He is playing with fire right now because he has turned over some FARC personalities to the Columbian Gov, but is still letting them operate within the VE borders.

Keep in mind there is a very blurred line between the FARC and the Columbian Drug lords. Neither of which are being policed very well along Venezuelas borders.

[Rictor]

Proof means something I can look at, the authenticity of which is widely verified, and which shows a direct links between FARC and Chavez. Basically, something good enough to take to court. It's a pretty bad excuse that the CIA has evidence, but is unwilling or unable to release it, so we have to just believe in the inflamitory rhetoric without proof. By that same logic, Rumsfeld can claim that Jamaica is planning to invade the US with highly trained warrior monkies, and I am expected to take his word for it, because no one has to show evidence to the great unwashed masses.

Trust me, if the CIA or any other intelligence agency had a single bit of evidence, it would be plastered all over the headlines, as the final and incontrevertible proof that Chavez in Satan the Lord of Darkness. But they haven't released anything, so it stands to reason they don't have it.

[fremen]

Totally agree with Rictor. Afterall, we all remember the incredibly "accurate" proof that was used to try to sell the war with Iraq. WMD's, maps of production facilities all over the country, witnesses, supposed links to Al-quaida, etc. It all turned out to be some pretty good bull****.

[walford]

Don't consider yourself victorious if I no longer respond. You're beginning to bore me.



Or the Christian Broadcast Network's view:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.asp
Once again how is this rellecant. it cited no primary sources. it just makes allegations. If a thousand persons tell a lie does it make it less of a lie ? (my point being that there have been som many artickles and opt-eds making accusations that pepole think it is the truth. but I have never seen any proof.)No primary sources? This is but one of several in the article: Speaking by phone from the Krome Detention Center in Miami, Lieutenant Jose Colina told us, "I was present in meetings in which members of the Cuban government were trying to change the ideology and indoctrinate officials of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, especially those of the National Guard. Without a doubt they were pointing out that we had to fight imperialism, capitalism and its top representative, the United States -- which is also the main cause of poverty and misery in Latin America."I wonder how much proof you would require from an anti-American source.

And this:


Anyone familiar with nuclear technology knows that all fission reactors produce the fissile materials necessary to produce nuclear weapons. As is the case with Iran, we have another oil-producing nation claiming to need nuclear power for peaceful [i.e. energy-producing] purposes.On this subject you are TOTALY wrong. It requires a special type of nuclear reactor to produce the right types of fissile materials for nuclear matereals. this is why the soviet union used grafite cooled reactors and why the US have (had ?) military reactors. Even if you build a reactor capable of producing the rigth wastematereal, you have to refine it, this is a slow,costly and LARGE. prosess that can be fairly easily detected.Having one on one conversations with nuclear engineers and having seen the reports from elsewhere, we certainly are in no position to preclude Iran or Venezuela's capability of producing fissile materials. There is no doubt that they desire to have them. This must not happen.

What is most important about this issue -- and the main subject of this thread -- is whether the likes of Chavez should have nukes. His well-documented hostile rhetoric, close relationships with other hostile regimes and demonstrable commitment to destabalizing the region are each within themselves enough to cause concern. The combination of all of these factors make it clear that Chavez should not have the ability to kill millions with the touch of a button. Period.

In fact, sensible non-proliferation principles dictate that even friendly powers should not have nukes. There are plenty already. For the interests of peace and stability, every effort should be made to ensure that no currently non-nuclear nations on the Western hemisphere should obtain nukes.

We should be working toward reduction of those that are currently in existence. Dictators throughout the world must be shown that the pursuance of nuclear weapons will not serve as a deterrent, nor will it enhance prestige. Instead they should be made to understand that nuking up will only serve to bring diplamotic isolation -- or worse. Tragically, appeasement is the favored response and we are not the safer for it.

To allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own wholesale the ability to do the same outside of their own borders is utter madness, plain and simple.

[Rictor]

1. If your country posses nukes, and is actievely developing new ones, neither you nor your country have the right to preach non-proliferation. This is double standrd, as simple as that. I agree with you that the elimination of all nuclear weapons should be a goal for humanity to pursue in ernest, but that does mean selectively, one applicable to those who happen to be disliked by the United States. It applies to everyone equally, or not at all.

2. In the hostile relationship between Chavez and the US, ask yourself who is to really blame? Despite being a democratically elected leader, and United States has consistantly supported the opposition and is at best complicit in the coup attempt. Maybe you're not aware of the fact, but immediatley after siezing power, the opposition disbanded all democratic insitutions, including the Parliment, Supreme Court, Electroral Commision (or whatever the equaivalents of these are called). The United States has consistantly interfered in the internal affairs of Venezuela in a way that no one on Earth would dare to interfere in the internal policies of the US. They have tried their best to discredit and overthrow a democratic figure. There would be no problems, if the US simply left Venezuela the hell alone, and not attempted to pull the same **** they did in Chile in the 70s, with horrifying results.

3. Regarding Chavez's alleged support of FARC and others, I have four arguements. They are as follows.

1.Proof
2.Proof
3.Proof
4.Remember the Nicaraguan contras? Hypocricy seems to be the order of the day.


To allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own wholesale the ability to do the same outside of their own borders is utter madness, plain and simple.

False, false and false. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so.

[walford]

When considering the likes of Chavez having the ability to kill millions with the touch of a button, his hostility alone is convincing enough that it would be irresponsible to allow him to have nukes. To place a moral equivalency between what the US government is doing and that of Venezuela is beyond amoral.

Insofar as the implication that it was bad to support the Contras is concerned, to argue that the US should have stood idly by while more Cuban/Soviet-backed dictatorships were allowed to fester is patently absurd. Grenada and Nicaragua were Soviet satellites and had to go, period. Nicaragua was sending in support for guerillas who were fighting to install another one-party state in El Salvador.

At the time [the late ‘80s], I had a letter published in The Washington Times suggesting that the Contras be kept fully mobilized on the Nicaraguan border to pressure Ortega to have free elections. Indeed, for the first time in the history of the Communist International, a Soviet-backed dictatorship fell peacefully via democratic elections. This is something to be ashamed of? I think not!

As bad as the authoritarian regimes [that the US supported during the Cold War] were, what Moscow and Havana had planned for the Americas was far worse. We have nothing to apologize for in resisting their objectives. If it were not for such meddling [lest we forget], both hemispheres would be under a conglomerate of dictatorships. The places where we failed fell into tyranny because we lacked resolve to remove the aggressor – as in Viet Nam.

The Hard Left had plenty of criticism for US ‘interference’ but spared no such admonishments for the constant Soviet/Cuban ‘exportation of revolution’ in the Third World that made it necessary. You will notice that when the Cold War ended, so did such US support for authoritarian regimes to prevent a vacuum that would be exploited. Thus democratization ensued in the Americas and elsewhere, bringing with it growing prosperity.

For that America has nothing to apologize for either.


To allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own wholesale the ability to do the same outside of their own borders is utter madness, plain and simple.False, false and false. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so.You will note the 'and/or' in my GENERAL statement. And I hold the credibility of my sources over anonymous message board posters. No offense.

[WARPIG]

Proof means something I can look at, the authenticity of which is widely verified, and which shows a direct links between FARC and Chavez. Basically, something good enough to take to court. It's a pretty bad excuse that the CIA has evidence, but is unwilling or unable to release it, so we have to just believe in the inflamitory rhetoric without proof. By that same logic, Rumsfeld can claim that Jamaica is planning to invade the US with highly trained warrior monkies, and I am expected to take his word for it, because no one has to show evidence to the great unwashed masses.

Trust me, if the CIA or any other intelligence agency had a single bit of evidence, it would be plastered all over the headlines, as the final and incontrevertible proof that Chavez in Satan the Lord of Darkness. But they haven't released anything, so it stands to reason they don't have it.
Reason is a concept very rare in this forum. Thank you for proving that.
I guess if the only proof that you would accept comes from the TV, then the world is only as far as your remote will reach.
I mentioned personal accounts from Venezuelans I know because simply waiting fro Geraldo to report it is not enough. Just because CNN doesn't report it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. THe CIA doesn't run to the news media when they turn up evidence as a matter of habit.
My view of Chavez comes from the same news sources that everyone else reads, research on his history as it is reported from supporters and his opposition, and directly from people who live under his rule.
Chavez's government is spending money on their military, has the resources to deploy their National Guard against striking oil workers.. yet is selective about protecting their border lands. If your name was on the referendum to oust Hugo Chavez, don't count on help from the government when someone in your family is kidnapped for ransom. Ranch owners and politicians are often targeted as victims for extortion. Is it coincidence that the bulk of the victims oppose Chavez? It must be, no physical proof or news report was generated to prove that fact. I guess when I see it on the TV, then it will be true.

The US has done little more than have some strong words about Chavez. Yet because the criticism comes from the US, opinion and bias make it easy to cast insult at President Bush and the US.

Talk to some people who have slowly watched their freedoms erode away.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Lets look at it this way.

Name one country that wouldent build a nuke if they could build one overnight?

[walford]

...if the CIA or any other intelligence agency had a single bit of evidence, it would be plastered all over the headlines, as the final and incontrevertible proof that Chavez in Satan the Lord of Darkness. But they haven't released anything, so it stands to reason they don't have it....Just because CNN doesn't report it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. THe CIA doesn't run to the news media when they turn up evidence as a matter of habit...There is a well-documented history of the NY Times, CNN, The Washington Post, CBS, etc. ignoring news that do not suit their agenda.

When stories leaked out that Miskito Indians were being ethnically cleansed from their ancient homelands for purposes of political division under Daniel Ortega's Sandinista dicatatorship, a WP reporter was asked why the story was not being investigated. She replied that she 'did not want to hurt the revolution.'

Furthermore, if Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid wished to throw away a 25+ year career as a media watchdog, he wouldn't do so by printing lies about a pissant like Hugo Chavez. As much as AIM is hated by the mainstream press, any such deception -- or even honest errors -- would be immediately seized upon and trumpeted by the Harpies of the Left.

I know Mr. Kincaid and trust his word over any of you.

Lets look at it this way. Name one country that wouldent build a nuke if they could build one overnight?A country that knew it would face a united international community that would economically, politically and diplomatically isololate any country that acquired nuclear arms -- especially if the government oppressed its people at home and fomented violence abroad.

Instead, tragically, there are enough milquetoasts in the West willing to stand upon moral relativism to excuse any government having the ability to kill millions, despite past actions and present rhetoric. A nuclear-armed Chavez would be a great tragedy for the emerging democracies in the region. Many may choose to compromise their principles of limited representative government in order to appease their newly 'powerful' neighbor.

Recent history has shown that an advantage in resolve can potentially overcome a disadvantage with respect to technological/economic power.

[foxtrot023]

Lets look at it this way.

Name one country that wouldent build a nuke if they could build one overnight?

Germany
Italy,
Spain,
Sweden
Japan,
Australia

All these countries have the ability but have not done it

[fremen]

When considering the likes of Chavez having the ability to kill millions with the touch of a button, his hostility alone is convincing enough that it would be irresponsible to allow him to have nukes. To place a moral equivalency between what the US government is doing and that of Venezuela is beyond amoral.

Insofar as the implication that it was bad to support the Contras is concerned, to argue that the US should have stood idly by while more Cuban/Soviet-backed dictatorships were allowed to fester is patently absurd. Grenada and Nicaragua were Soviet satellites and had to go, period. Nicaragua was sending in support for guerillas who were fighting to install another one-party state in El Salvador.

At the time [the late ‘80s], I had a letter published in The Washington Times suggesting that the Contras be kept fully mobilized on the Nicaraguan border to pressure Ortega to have free elections. Indeed, for the first time in the history of the Communist International, a Soviet-backed dictatorship fell peacefully via democratic elections. This is something to be ashamed of? I think not!

As bad as the authoritarian regimes [that the US supported during the Cold War] were, what Moscow and Havana had planned for the Americas was far worse. We have nothing to apologize for in resisting their objectives. If it were not for such meddling [lest we forget], both hemispheres would be under a conglomerate of dictatorships. The places where we failed fell into tyranny because we lacked resolve to remove the aggressor – as in Viet Nam.

The Hard Left had plenty of criticism for US ‘interference’ but spared no such admonishments for the constant Soviet/Cuban ‘exportation of revolution’ in the Third World that made it necessary. You will notice that when the Cold War ended, so did such US support for authoritarian regimes to prevent a vacuum that would be exploited. Thus democratization ensued in the Americas and elsewhere, bringing with it growing prosperity.

For that America has nothing to apologize for either.


To allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own wholesale the ability to do the same outside of their own borders is utter madness, plain and simple.False, false and false. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so.You will note the 'and/or' in my GENERAL statement. And I hold the credibility of my sources over anonymous message board posters. No offense.

Your level of hypocrisy knows no bounds and is astounding. That the United States "has nothing to apologize for" and "to allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own, etc., etc." shows either extreme ignorance or extreme hypocrisy. To forgett all the murderous, corrupt, and immoral right-wing dictators that the U.S. supported (and still does, i.e. Egypt) throughout the years, like Fulgencio Bautista (Cuba), Anastacio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), and the military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala, and many others, is outright either ignorant or thinking that you're dealing with children. You claim that a right-wing dictatorship is better than what the Communist had to offer, so you must think that it is better to starve to death or be hacked to death by a right-wing death squad than to lack "freedom" but have access to education and free medical attention? I don't think that all those who were murdered by U.S. backed right-wing governments around the globe or who starved to death thanks to their corruption are waving U.S. flags in heaven and saying "thank you for saving us against communism". Oh, and the "destabilize your neighbors" part, I don't think that any country in the western hemisphere can compete with the U.S. for the title of that one. Also, who the f**k gives the U.S. the right to moralize and preach to the world about weapons of any kind? The U.S. makes or has made every weapon type known to man and spends 1/2 of what the whole globe spends on weaponry. If you ask me, this is the greatest immorality of all, given the vast numbers of people around the world who die of disease or starve to death each year. You bitch about Venezuela "supposedly" wanting nuclear weapons while you have enough weapons to vaporize the world, keep developing new ones, have a list of countries you want to invade (all rich in oil by the way), and spend more money on weapons than the whole world combined. If that is not called double standard, I don't know what is.

[Rictor]

walford, let me say it again. Possesion of nuclear weapons applies to everyone equally or not at all. Which means if you support complete nuclear disarmament of all current and potentional nuclear powers, great. But if you say that Country A can have nukes, because you happen to like them, but Country B can not, because you do not like them, that my friend is hypocricy and no one is obliged to follow such absurd rules.

The United States has by far the longest and bloodiest history of interventions in South and Central America, so any talk about "destabilization", which by the way is comletely unfounded, is beyond ridiculous. The fact is that "they were Commies" is not now, nor was it ever, a legitimate excuse to overthrow democratic governments and support murderous death-squads. All people have the right of self determination, and if they choose a Leftist government, that is their choice.

And in case you haven't noticed, Latin America seems to more or less like Chavez. The US has tried many times to get other Latin America countries to stand against Chavez, and always been rejected. The only power the US has left is with Colombia and certain pragmatists (like Lula) who would rather not force a confrontation, but are clear that they stand with Venezuela. Expect Chile, Bolivia and Mexico to follow in the next year or so.

[walford]

Your level of hypocrisy knows no bounds and is astounding. That the United States "has nothing to apologize for" and "to allow those who jail dissidents, destabilize their neighbors and/or demonstrate no compunction against slaughtering their own, etc., etc." shows either extreme ignorance or extreme hypocrisy. To forgett all the murderous, corrupt, and immoral right-wing dictators that the U.S. supported (and still does, i.e. Egypt) throughout the years, like Fulgencio Bautista (Cuba), Anastacio Somoza (Nicaragua), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), and the military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala, and many others, is outright either ignorant or thinking that you're dealing with children. You claim that a right-wing dictatorship is better than what the Communist had to offer, so you must think that it is better to starve to death or be hacked to death by a right-wing death squad than to lack "freedom" but have access to education and free medical attention?By all means Cuba is the best place to live in the Western hemisphere -- and if it isn't, it's America's fault anyway, right?. To resist such a lifestyle spreading is everything to be ashamed of. So what if the authoritarian regimes that we supported no longer get such aid because there is no Soviet Union with its Casto proxy to spread 'revolution' elsewhere. What temerity have we to assert that El Salvador is better off not having the [Soviet/Cuban/Sandinista-backed] FMLN take over? How dare we say that Nicaragua is better off with out Ortega?

I don't think that all those who were murdered by U.S. backed right-wing governments around the globe or who starved to death thanks to their corruption are waving U.S. flags in heaven and saying "thank you for saving us against communism". Oh, and the "destabilize your neighbors" part, I don't think that any country in the western hemisphere can compete with the U.S. for the title of that one.Yes indeed. Visualize the world without the United States having interfered so much in the 20th century. The Soviet Union's Cold War activities certainly deserved no criticism, only the United States. It is only a coincidence that both right and left-wing dictatorships have fallen by the score since the fall of the Soviet Empire.

Also, who the f**k gives the U.S. the right to moralize and preach to the world about weapons of any kind? The U.S. makes or has made every weapon type known to man and spends 1/2 of what the whole globe spends on weaponry. If you ask me, this is the greatest immorality of all, given the vast numbers of people around the world who die of disease or starve to death each year. You bitch about Venezuela "supposedly" wanting nuclear weapons while you have enough weapons to vaporize the world, keep developing new ones, have a list of countries you want to invade (all rich in oil by the way), and spend more money on weapons than the whole world combined. If that is not called double standard, I don't know what is.Yes, let us all stand and lament the American Empire, upon which the sun never sets. Ask the Filipinos what happens when you ask American military forces to leave. As we all know, having a McDonald's franchise is the moral equivalent of what the Belgians did to the Congo during the early 20th century. We are taking the best land, shipping the resources outward, importing American families and using the natives as laborers and servants. That's what we're doing in Iraq right now, no?

The United States of America is by far the most evil, corrupting nation that has ever existed in the history of mankind. We should have let Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Tojo et al divide up the world after all. It certainly would be a better place if we did.

[walford]

walford, let me say it again. Possesion of nuclear weapons applies to everyone equally or not at all. Which means if you support complete nuclear disarmament of all current and potentional nuclear powers, great. But if you say that Country A can have nukes, because you happen to like them, but Country B can not, because you do not like them, that my friend is hypocricy and no one is obliged to follow such absurd rules.That's right. Any objection to a country like Iran having nukes for example is just superficial. Its simply because we don't LIKE them. Maybe it's the shape of their beards. It certianly couldn't be the support for Hezbollah and the daily chanting of 'Death to America/Israel.' In this moral equivalent world, there are no universal principles of right and wrong. A country that publicly stones women [not men] to death for adultery is the same as one that does not allow women to be members of the Augusta Country Club. Who are we to judge an equally valid culture? Obviously we should not object to the mullahs having a nuclear button to push! They have shown how responsible they are, after all.

Insofar as Chavez is concerned, the burden of proof that he has Cuban and Chinese troops in country, is jailing dissidents, providing safe haven to narco-terrorists etc. should be high, even when nuclear weapons are concerned. It should be similar to Shari'a law in a rape case. Only if 4 Leftist eyewitnesses are willing to make a public statement to CNN, LeMonde, al Jazeera etc. are we to believe it. Failing that, the accusers should be burned alive.

As we all know, Chavez having nukes is no worse than the President of the United States, because America [if anything] is WORSE than Venezuela could ever be. Everybody knows this.

[fremen]

Finally we agree!!!! :lol:
And I thought I was talking to some some ignorant right-wing fascist that only reads what is in his interest!

For your information, so we can see the "real" size of the "enormous and growing" threat that Venezuela is to its neighbors, the rest of Latin-America, to the United states, and indeed to the world, let us look at Venezuelan military spending as compared to many other countries by the CIA.

(Note: for all other countries spending is for the whole year 2004, while U.S. spending is only for the first three months of 2003)
Number 1, United States, $370,700,000,000
Number 13, Brazil, $11,000,000,000
Number 19, Mexico, $6,043,000,000
Number 32, Colombia, $3,300,000,000
Number 44, Venezuela, $1,690,000,000

Notice the difference in spending between Venezuela and its two closest neighbors? The Brazilians and the Colombians must be ****ting in their pants!
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html

[Rictor]

Wow, so this is the standard now? If you're better than Stalin, it's all good?

No. Just becuase some nations, or in fact many nations, have done worse does not excuse anyone. I don't know what you think about the Left, but I don't know anyone who goes around praising Stalin, Kim Il Sungl and Mao. But they're gone, and what's more their crimes are universally acknowledged. I can't very well go around crticizing the USSR, since they no longer exist. It would be a very short, not to mention pointless, conversation.

The fact is that the US maintains a huge military presence aborad, often times against the clear wishes of the locals. The fact is that it has intervened, both military and politically, many times in the past against freedom and peace. This does not mean that America can do no right, but it also does not mean that they can do no wrong.

Here's a simple rule of thumb: is Place X (the place where you want to adminsiter a specific policy) within the territory of the United States? No? Then you have no authority. National sovereignty and all that. Does Fidel Castro kill babies and eat their bones? Too bad, he's not within US jurisdiction.


That's right. Any objection to a country like Iran having nukes for example is just superficial. Its simply because we don't LIKE them. Maybe it's the shape of their beards. It certianly couldn't be the support for Hezbollah and the daily chanting of 'Death to America/Israel.' In this moral equivalent world, there are no universal principles of right and wrong. A country that publicly stones women [not men] to death for adultery is the same as one that does not allow women to be members of the Augusta Country Club. Who are we to judge an equally valid culture? Obviously we should not object to the mullahs having a nuclear button to push! They have shown how responsible they are, after all.

Insofar as Chavez is concerned, the burden of proof that he has Cuban and Chinese troops in country, is jailing dissidents, providing safe haven to narco-terrorists etc. should be high, even when nuclear weapons are concerned. It should be similar to Shari'a law in a rape case. Only if 4 Leftist eyewitnesses are willing to make a public statement to CNN, LeMonde, al Jazeera etc. are we to believe it. Failing that, the accusers should be burned alive.

As we all know, Chavez having nukes is no worse than the President of the United States, because America [if anything] is WORSE than Venezuela could ever be. Everybody knows this.

First of all, the burden on proof is on the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Do you believe that Chavez is jailing dissidents (I assume of course that we're not talking about those who participated in the coup)? Great, prove it. In fact, you have an advantage. The entire US intelligence establishment is on your side. Do you think he sacrfices virgins to Quetzequatl? Fine, show me documents, pictures or something along those lines. Then I might believe you. So far, I have seen nothing. If I'm missing something, by all means enlighten me.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that Iran is more hostile towards the US than the US is towards Iran? Do you remember the Axis of Evil speech? Do you remember the numerous statements to the effect that Iran is next up after Iraq? If that doesn't count as hostility, I don't know what does. For ever mullah in Tehran chanting "death to America" there is a blogger in Austin typing "death to the Mullahs". Yes, the Iranian clergy are bastards, but that's an internal matter. You have to learn to distinuish between assholes, like Saddam and Kim Jong Il, and madmen. The Irainian mullahs are not crazy, they may be evil but that's different. Imagine that Iran gets a nuke tommorow, with enough range to reach Washington. Do you think they would launch? No, it would be suicide. And furthermore, Iranians have a very legitimate reason to be pissed at the US (Shah and all that).

Right now, all you have against Chavez is that you don't like him. Without proof, or even the likelyhood of proof, in any wrong-doing, including internal repression, you ain't got a leg to stand on. As far as I'm concerned, he is democratically elected and democratically ruling figure, and until someone can prove me wrong with actual evidence, I will contintue to think that. Not innuendo, or name calling, or whatever. Actual court-of-law type stuff. Then maybe I, and the world, will listen.

[walford]

Wow, so this is the standard now? If you're better than Stalin, it's all good?

No. Just becuase some nations, or in fact many nations, have done worse does not excuse anyone. I don't know what you think about the Left, but I don't know anyone who goes around praising Stalin, Kim Il Sungl and Mao. But they're gone, and what's more their crimes are universally acknowledged. I can't very well go around crticizing the USSR, since they no longer exist. It would be a very short, not to mention pointless, conversation.But we can continue to criticize what the United States did during the Cold War, can we not? Bringing up the horrid support for authoritarian regimes in the Third World is certainly valid, but the Soviet/Cuban adventurism that precipitated it is competely irrelevant.

The fact is that the US maintains a huge military presence aborad, often times against the clear wishes of the locals. The fact is that it has intervened, both military and politically, many times in the past against freedom and peace. This does not mean that America can do no right, but it also does not mean that they can do no wrong. That's right. That is why the US military is deployed abroad by force. The Filipinos asked us to leave and we went Tiananmen Square on their asses. Right? Or did we?

Here's a simple rule of thumb: is Place X (the place where you want to adminsiter a specific policy) within the territory of the United States? No? Then you have no authority. National sovereignty and all that. Does Fidel Castro kill babies and eat their bones? Too bad, he's not within US jurisdiction.Castro's Cuba is a democratic, pluralistic society that should serve as a model for all mankind. He has socialized medicine and 'free' education after all.

First of all, the burden on proof is on the accusers. Innocent until proven guilty. Do you believe that Chavez is jailing dissidents (I assume of course that we're not talking about those who participated in the coup)? Great, prove it. In fact, you have an advantage. The entire US intelligence establishment is on your side. Do you think he sacrfices virgins to Quetzequatl? Fine, show me documents, pictures or something along those lines. Then I might believe you. So far, I have seen nothing. If I'm missing something, by all means enlighten me.Oh, it's so motivating to go out and get proof for you. I'm sure that it will be dispassionately received. As soon as I can get Dan Rather, Daljit Daliwala et al to show interest, you'll be the first to know. Hey a nuked-up Chavez is nothing to worry about. Better than Bush, right? Come on, say it. You know you want to!

Secondly, do you honestly believe that Iran is more hostile towards the US than the US is towards Iran? Do you remember the Axis of Evil speech? Do you remember the numerous statements to the effect that Iran is next up after Iraq? If that doesn't count as hostility, I don't know what does. For ever mullah in Tehran chanting "death to America" there is a blogger in Austin typing "death to the Mullahs". And that's exactly the same thing. After all, in Iran, they have a free press and the United States is a totalitarian society.

Yes, the Iranian clergy are bastards, but that's an internal matter.That's what they keep saying in Southern Lebanon and Israel.

You have to learn to distinuish between assholes, like Saddam and Kim Jong Il, and madmen. The Irainian mullahs are not crazy, they may be evil but that's different. Imagine that Iran gets a nuke tommorow, with enough range to reach Washington. Do you think they would launch? No, it would be suicide. And furthermore, Iranians have a very legitimate reason to be pissed at the US (Shah and all that).Given that the mullahs are the Almighty's Chosen and stand to be granted access to the vaunted 72 virgins, we certainly have no concern that such people would put their lives at risk killing the Infidel, right? Otherwise we would have to believe that they would strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves up in pizzerias, discos or buses -- or fund others to do the same. And as we all know, that doesn't happen. And even if it did, they would suddenly become sensible possessing ICBMs with multiple separately targetable warheads aboard.

Right now, all you have against Chavez is that you don't like him.Yes, indeed, I woke up one morning and irrationally decided that I simply disliked Hugo Chavez for no good reason. Oh, of course, I have no education/knowledge (http://utopia-unmasked.us/AboutTheAuthor.html) in these matters. Anyone who doesn't agree with you -- being one of the Illuminati -- is by definition just plain stupid.

Without proof, or even the likelyhood of proof, in any wrong-doing, including internal repression, you ain't got a leg to stand on. As far as I'm concerned, he is democratically elected and democratically ruling figure, and until someone can prove me wrong with actual evidence, I will contintue to think that. Not innuendo, or name calling, or whatever. Actual court-of-law type stuff. Then maybe I, and the world, will listen.We know how easy proof of repression is in a repressed society, hm? And I really care if you listen. :hug:

[fremen]

Basically what walford is saying Rictor is that no, he really doesn't have any proof. :|

[walford]

Basically what walford is saying Rictor is that no, he really doesn't have any proof. :|What he's saying is that he has found sources already, the Philosopher Kings don't like them and he doesn't feel like searching for those from sources of which they may approve.

[fremen]

Basically what walford is saying Rictor is that no, he really doesn't have any proof. :|What he's saying is that he has found sources already, the Philosopher Kings don't like them and he doesn't feel like searching for those from sources of which they may approve.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[walford]

And the Illuminati have yet to 'prove' that Chavez having nukes is beneficial -- or even benign. Instead they argue that there is a moral equivalency. Thus there is no common point of reference.

[Rictor]

Where things stand now, the opposition (including you) is saying "Chavez is a dictator" and many others (including me) are saying "Chavez is a hero". You have offered nothing but words. On the other hand, my reasons for liking Chavez are well documented, for examples the various Missions that have benefited the vast majority of Venezuelans, in most cases those who have always been excluded economically, socially and politcally from having a say in their future.

Think what you will, that is of course your right, but don't pretend that your views are anything more than opinions. Come up with something concrete, then we'll see. As it is, your accusations ring hollow.

[walford]

If a tree falls in a forest and CNN doesn't report it, does it make a sound?

If the Mainstream Media are not interested in investigating allegations of Chavez jailing dissidents, allowing Cuban and Chinese troops into Venezuela, providing safe haven to narco-terrorists etc. then there is no cause for concern. Chavez can continue to be your hero and you should be completely sanguine about a nuclear-armed Venezuela.

For my part, I hope Hugo understands that he risks airstrikes if a facility capable of producing fissionable material is found -- quite the opposite of the deterrence/prestige he was hoping for, no doubt. In the meantime, our government is openly aiding dissidents. Our Betters on the Left might not approve, I know. Given their foreign policy track record, that in itself is proof positive that it should be done.