[marden]

Chavez's oil gift, part II

Venezuela prez vows more cheap fuel for U.S. needy

Hugo Chavez, the fiery president of oil-rich Venezuela, is pumping up the volume - of cheap fuel oil for low-income New Yorkers.

And he's named a Kennedy as head salesman.

Individual homeowners and cooperatives in four of the city's five boroughs will be able to buy cheap fuel this winter from an oil-for-the-poor program, sources have told the Daily News.

CITGO Petroleum, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, has earmarked 25 million gallons of fuel for low-income New York residents this year at 40% off the wholesale market price.

That's enough fuel to heat 70,000 apartments, covering 200,000 New Yorkers, for the entire winter.

Chavez launched the program last December in the South Bronx and other parts of the Northeast. CITGO delivered 1million gallons of discounted oil to three nonprofit South Bronx housing groups in a pilot project.

This winter's expanded program will be administered by Citizens Energy Corp., the Massachusetts nonprofit company founded by former Rep. Joseph Kennedy. The company ran similar pilot efforts last year in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

This year's program will go beyond the South Bronx to Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens - and now individual homeowners and cooperatives will be eligible, in addition to the nonprofit housing groups, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-Bronx) said.

In order to qualify, the homeowner or co-op members will have to meet the same income eligibility requirements as the federal government's lowincome energy assistance program.

For thousands of fixed-income senior citizens in this town who own their own homes and worry about rising fuel bills, the Chavez program will be an early Christmas gift.

No wonder the Venezuelan leader and his Bolivarian Revolution have become Latin America's biggest headache for the Bush White House and its buddies at ExxonMobil and Chevron.

While the oil companies rake in obscene profits by the hour from the high price of oil, Chavez, who is in town this week for the UN General Assembly, keeps devising new schemes to use Venezuela's oil bonanza to benefit the needy around the world.

Last year, Chavez offered up to 8 million gallons to the South Bronx groups, but only 1 million was actually delivered because of delays in launching the project and a mild winter, Serrano said yesterday.

Still, more than 8,000 residents in 2,800 South Bronx apartments saw big savings in their fuel bills from the pilot effort, Serrano said.

One of those was Patrice White-McGleese, 36, who lives with her husband and three children in a building operated by the Mount Hope Housing Corp.

"We received deductions in our rent each month that totaled $300 for the heating season," White-McGleese said yesterday.

The Bronx program became difficult to launch, Serrano said, because most residents in his district are tenants, not homeowners, and CITGO officials wanted ironclad guarantees that the fuel savings would benefit the residents - and not end up in the pockets of landlords.

So each nonprofit housing group had to sign a lengthy contract with CITGO that promised to pass on 60% of the fuel savings to tenants as rent credits and the rest for buildingwide improvements.

White-McGleese got to personally thank Chavez during a visit to Venezuela in April. She was part of a delegation from the pilot cities, and was flown by CITGO to Caracas to tour the country and meet with local housing groups.

"I wanted to see for myself and not just listen to what our State Department tells us," White-McGleese said. Anyone who is actually helping to reduce her bills deserves to be heard, she figured.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-382122c.html

There is no other way and no better way he could help divide U.S. public opinion than to alienate the minority poor against the American mainstream and the U.S. government.

The ultimate 5th column effort.

Using the Hezbollah model used to buy loyalty in Lebanon and legitimizing it with the approval of a member of American "royalty" Joseph Kennedy.

This is ****ed up.

It's like he is making us his crack hoes.

[Cody Dawg]

Chavez is insane, period.

CRAZY.

[Sayf-Allah]

to Chavez. It's his nation's oil and they should be allowed to do what they want with it.

But it's just that kind of freedom the US can't handle. As seen by the first two replies here.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Chavez is insane, period.

CRAZY.

And you say this why exactly?

You ever notice how every non-white foreign leader who is at odds with the US government is always described as being "crazy" or a "madman"? Qaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmenijad, Noriega, Aristide, Jong-Il, etc?

OAW

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by marden

There is no other way and no better way he could help divide U.S. public opinion than to alienate the minority poor against the American mainstream and the U.S. government.

The ultimate 5th column effort.

It's not as grandiose as removing a dictator from power, and probably not as self-serving, either.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

to Chavez. It's his nation's oil and they should be allowed to do what they want with it.

But it's just that kind of freedom the US can't handle. As seen by the first two replies here.

Yeah? How about not running the state-run oil company into the ground and using the profits to help his own people? Instead he uses the one resource his poverty-stricken country has to showboat on the international stage. There are a lot of words I can think of to describe that behavior, 'freedom' isn't one of them.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by OAW

You ever notice how every non-white foreign leader who is at odds with the US government is always described as being "crazy" or a "madman"? Qaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmenijad, Noriega, Aristide, Jong-Il, etc?

Don't forget Hitler. Oh wait, he was white, and that doesn't fit with your agenda. My bad. Scratch that.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Don't forget Hitler. Oh wait, he was white, and that doesn't fit with your agenda. My bad. Scratch that.

Well, that and Kim Jong is legitimately batso.

[itai195]

I think Stalin was also considered to be a pretty crazy mofo

[OAW]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Don't forget Hitler. Oh wait, he was white, and that doesn't fit with your agenda. My bad. Scratch that.

Hitler was generally described as being evil. Not crazy.

OAW

PS: Stalin too. You see descriptions of him as "dictator", "communist", "evil", "mass murderer", etc. But generally not "crazy".

I just find it to be an interesting phenomenon.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by itai195

Yeah? How about not running the state-run oil company into the ground and using the profits to help his own people?

Where did you get the "running the state-run oil company into the ground from"?

And have you actually taken 5 minutes to check the programs he has instituted to help the Venezuelan people?

Try googling for Plan Bolivar 2000 and then just the Bolivarian Missions. Just for starters.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OAW

You ever notice how every non-white foreign leader who is at odds with the US government is always described as being "crazy" or a "madman"? Qaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmenijad, Noriega, Aristide, Jong-Il, etc?

That may not be the best list of examples. If you take Chavez out of the list, then the statement "these people are crazy" isn't even all that controversial. Besides which, depending on whose definition you use (the Census Bureau's definition comes to mind), Chavez is white.

[itai195]

Yes I have heard of the programs, I read. Yet the poverty rate in his country has risen in recent years.

As for PDVSA, link. Here's a juicy excerpt.

I love how Chavez accuses PDVSA of hiding its profits and then requires it to transfer its profits directly to a secretive bank account he manages rather than to the central bank. Irony?!

It takes Venezuela ten times more wells than Saudi Arabia to produce a third of the oil. No wonder that at the height of its expansion in 1997, PDVSA was investing $5.4 billion, according to Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy.

But when President Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, he started squeezing even more money out of the firm. By 2000 investment had fallen to $2.5 billion. Mr Chávez accused PDVSA of hiding its profits from the government through deceptive accounting. He also questioned the firm's expansion plans and overseas acquisitions. Above all, he decried its relative autonomy and appointed a number of hostile bosses to impose his authority.

PDVSA's management, naturally, resented this. They joined a general strike in December 2002, along with half of the firm's 40,000 employees. Most of the skilled staff, including engineers and technicians, stopped work for two months. Since—like patients in intensive care—many of PDVSA's wells require constant monitoring and treatment, says Mr al-Shereidah, the strike killed lots of them. Analysts estimated that Venezuela lost as much as 400,000 b/d of production capacity for ever, not to mention billions of dollars in revenue.

But the worst was still to come. Mr Chávez denounced the strikers as saboteurs and sacked them all. The toll was highest among skilled workers: two-thirds of managers and technical staff went. At a stroke, PDVSA lost almost all of its most experienced and best-qualified employees, with an irreplaceable understanding of the idiosyncrasies of its wells and fields.

Critics say that the government restaffed the firm with incompetent cronies and placemen. Contractors whisper that it is having trouble spending even its reduced investment budget. Bids take months longer than necessary to complete, one contractor complains, because the procurement staff cannot get their technical specifications straight. Others point to an increase in fatal accidents and fires at PDVSA's refineries as proof that its workers are no longer up to snuff.

Staffing has certainly become more political. Mr Chávez's cousin, Asdrubal, runs the firm's shipping arm. The president's brother, Adan, helps to co-ordinate the company's subsidised oil sales around the Caribbean as ambassador to Cuba. Those who signed a petition advocating a recall election for Mr Chávez complain that they cannot get jobs at PDVSA or its contractors.

Politics has begun to intrude into the firm's strategy, too. Mr Chávez wants PDVSA to do less business in the United States and more in Latin America. In the name of regional integration, he is pushing for an expensive natural-gas pipeline from Venezuela to Brazil, which would “bring gas that does not exist to markets that do not exist”, in Mr Giusti's view. In theory, the hugoducto, as the pipeline is sarcastically known, will be a money-making venture, but Mr Chávez has also dragooned the company into all manner of charitable works. He insists that the firm spend a tenth of its investment budget on social programmes, and has pledged its help, in the form both of cheap oil and technological assistance, to allies from Argentina to the Bahamas.

Clearly, Venezuela's oil company no longer operates at arm's length from the government. Its head, Rafael Ramírez, is also the Minister of Energy and Oil. “The president tells PDVSA to commit suicide, and he says, ‘Yes sir!'” gripes Elie Habalian, a former Venezuelan representative at OPEC, with a mock salute.

The company is also becoming more secretive. It has de-registered its refining subsidiary, Citgo, at America's Securities and Exchange Commission, and so no longer files any public reports to the organisation. In Venezuela, the Ministry of Energy and Oil has only just released the 2003 edition of its annual statistical compendium on the company's performance. Its finances are certainly getting murkier: it now transfers much of its earnings directly to a development fund controlled by Mr Chávez, rather than sending them all to the central bank as it used to.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Millennium

That may not be the best list of examples. If you take Chavez out of the list, then the statement "these people are crazy" isn't even all that controversial. Besides which, depending on whose definition you use (the Census Bureau's definition comes to mind), Chavez is white.

Let's keep it real here. The Census Bureau's definition of "white" is rather uh, shall we say ... "creative". We both know that Chavez would not be considered your typical WASP. He wouldn't even be your typical WASC (white anglo-saxon catholic). But I digress ...

Let's take him out of the list for the sake of discussion. And let's put Ahmenijad and Kim Jong-Il to the side for now. Everyone else in the list was cool and not described in such terms until they ran afoul of US foreign policy. Then all of a sudden they were described as "crazy". Now back to Ahmenijad. The question remains ... what makes him crazy? And let's not get into the whole "mystical experience" thing because if we are going to go there then we have to be fair and get into Bush's belief that "God speaks through him". Yet people don't describe Bush as "crazy". A lot of other things ... but never that. And what is known about Kim Jong-Il's mental state considering how the country and its leadership is extremely reclusive and our own intelligence agencies admit that they have very little information on what goes on inside that country? On what specific basis are these judgments made?

The bottom line is that it's easy to simply parrot something that is said in the media or by a US government official. It's another thing entirely to back it up with those little things called "facts" or at a minimum, some semblance of a logical argument.

OAW

[itai195]

For Ahmadinejad, the calculus is pretty simple and is as follows:

Holocaust Denial = Crazy

[Dr Reducto]

I hate Chavez. His policies have caused the forfeiture of all my families assets in Venezuala that we couldn't get out to the US. I would be happy if he were assasinated.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OAW

Let's keep it real here. The Census Bureau's definition of "white" is rather uh, shall we say ... "creative".

Why do you do "race classifications" of people in the first place? That itself sounds racist to me.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by marden

There is no other way and no better way he could help divide U.S. public opinion than to alienate the minority poor against the American mainstream and the U.S. government.

The ultimate 5th column effort.

Using the Hezbollah model used to buy loyalty in Lebanon and legitimizing it with the approval of a member of American "royalty" Joseph Kennedy.

This is ****ed up.

It's like he is making us his crack hoes.

I have no sympathy for this point of view. The only reason this program is working and becoming more popular is because the Bush administration basically tells the poor in this country to go f***k themselves.

Clearly this is a political move by Chavez and a good one at that. If he has enough oil to make this a nationwide program then I have feeling sentiment might change on Chavez here in the U.S. However, I'm sure the administration will do something to prevent that.

[PB2K]

HAHA, this is a cool move, you have to give it to Chavez

[pooka]

Man, it ****ing amazes me. If it walks like a douche, and quacks like a douche, then it's more than likely a douche. How Chavez rose to star**** status that he has today is beyond me. I got it.

head of state + point out how stupid Bush is = awesome-o

Suddenly your dictator4life plans are swept aside and you're high-fived by the chess club for standing up to the jocks on the world stage. Guess what? Calling George Bush an idiot is like saying deaf people talk funny. Duh. All you brain-trusts do is rally support for "Our Team" at home and get another round of ****heads elected. Puts your nuts where your mouths are and start practicing what you preach. Take the moral ground and chill out. Stop your shrillish bitching and moaning and maybe these dark days will pass.

BTW, OAW, you left Robert Mugabe off your list of rebels whack-jobs without a cause.

Remeber folks, the enemy of my enemy is probably an asshole too.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by itai195

For Ahmadinejad, the calculus is pretty simple and is as follows:

Holocaust Denial = crazy

Well I keep seeing this accusation being made but I've yet to read it for myself anywhere. I came across a full, unedited transcript of his recent 60 Minutes Interview with Mike Wallace and found this ...

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: But with regards to the Holocaust --

MR. WALLACE: Yes --

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: -- well, my question is, if something has happened, I am sure that there are very clear evidence out there available. And this is something which has had a hand, if I can use that word, in the equations and the formulas of the past 60 years.
And on the pretext of this, a land has been occupied. Millions of people have been made refugees. Thousands of people to date have been killed, sir. Thousands of people have been put in prison. Well, at the very moment, a great war is raging because of that.
So apparently this was an important issue. If this is real, then they should let everyone research it. Everyone should talk about it. And once it is prohibited -- of course, research and talking about it is prohibited -- that brings about questions. If it is a reality, well, it will only help if we do more research on the subject.
My question was not this, to be honest with you, in the first place. What I did say was that if this is a reality, if this is real, where did it take place?

MR. WALLACE: In Germany. In Germany.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Who caused this? In Europe --

MR. WALLACE: In Europe.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (In English.) In Europe.

MR. WALLACE: If I may, so what you are suggesting -- one moment -- what you are suggesting, then -- that Israel should be over in Germany, because that's where the Holocaust took place?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (Through interpreter.) I'm not saying that, mind you.
Well, if an atrocity was committed in Germany, or Europe for that matter, why should the Palestinians answer for this? I'm not saying that the answer to the Holocaust led to the establishment of a government. This is something that the British and the Americans are saying. I am saying that if this happened, the Palestinians must not pay for this or be responsible for this. They had no role to play in this. Why on the pretext of the Holocaust they have occupied Palestine? This is the question that Western media -- mass media never bothered with, and to date, I have not received an answer. I think that they have to provide answers to this question. If they do just that, many of the outstanding issues will be resolved automatically. Please remember that we are saddened when a person is killed in any part of the world.

But of course, the western media ignores the fundamental point of his overall statement and harps incessantly on phrases such as "if this is a reality ... " or "if an atrocity was committed ..." without any regard for the rest of the sentence let alone the context of the entire statement.

OAW

[marden]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I have no sympathy for this point of view. The only reason this program is working and becoming more popular is because the Bush administration basically tells the poor in this country to go f***k themselves.

Clearly this is a political move by Chavez and a good one at that. If he has enough oil to make this a nationwide program then I have feeling sentiment might change on Chavez here in the U.S. However, I'm sure the administration will do something to prevent that.

You have a point but the key is not going to be to become a socialist state. Yet, there is a growing segment of the impoverished who really do need the kind of benign liberal big daddy government that conservatives want to minimize.

If this segment of the population can be bought, if Chavez' gesture proves that the donated oil has alienated the loyalties of the people to the government, we must ask how that would practically help Chavez. Or his cronies.

He is developing a resistance movement within the USA and he's doing it right in our face.

If or when the time comes which Americans will side with them and which ones would stay loyal to Washington?

And maybe there's no danger of divided loyalties now, (although there are plenty of subversives running around these days) but what else might they do to drive the wedge in further?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well I keep seeing this accusation being made but I've yet to read it for myself anywhere. I came across a full, unedited transcript of his recent 60 Minutes Interview with Mike Wallace and found this ...OAW

Point taken that his case is more complex than simple holocaust denial, but you might have missed this one.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

Or this one, this one, this one, and this one. It doesn't matter that he has a larger political statement to make, those who engage in revisionist history generally do so in order to make a political statement. Otherwise, why bother?

[marden]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Ali0817.htm
The Importance of Hugo Chávez
by Tariq Ali
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 17, 2004

The turn-out in Venezuela last Sunday was huge. 94.9 percent of the electorate voted in the recall referendum. Venezuela, under its new Constitution, permitted the right of the citizens to recall a President before s/he had completed their term of office. No Western democracy enshrines this right in a written or unwritten constitution. Chavez' victory will have repercussions beyond the borders of Venezuela. It is a triumph of the poor against the rich and it is a lesson that Lula in Brazil and Kirchner in Argentina should study closely. It was Fidel Castro, not Carter, whose advice to go ahead with the referendum was crucial. Chavez put his trust in the people by empowering them and they responded generously. The opposition will only discredit itself further by challenging the results.

The Venezuelan oligarchs and their parties, who had opposed this Constitution in a referendum (having earlier failed to topple Chavez via a US-backed coup and an oil-strike led by a corrupt union bureaucracy) now utilized it to try and get rid of the man who had enhanced Venezuelan democracy. They failed. However loud their cries (and those of their media apologists at home and abroad) of anguish, in reality the whole country knows what happened. Chavez defeated his opponents democratically and for the fourth time in a row. Democracy in Venezuela, under the banner of the Bolivarian revolutionaries, has broken through the corrupt two-party system favoured by the oligarchy and its friends in the West. And this has happened despite the total hostility of the privately owned media: the two daily newspapers, Universal and Nacional as well as Gustavo Cisneros' TV channels and CNN made no attempt to mask their crude support for the opposition.

Some foreign correspondents in Caracas have convinced themselves that Chavez is an oppressive caudillo and they are desperate to translate their own fantasies into reality.. They provide no evidence of political prisoners, leave alone Guantanamo-style detentions or the removal of TV executives and newspaper editors (which happened without too much of a fuss in Blair's Britain).

A few weeks ago in Caracas I had a lengthy discussion with Chavez ranging from Iraq to the most detailed minutiae of Venezuelan history and politics and the Bolivarian programme. It became clear to me that what Chavez is attempting is nothing more or less than the creation of a radical, social-democracy in Venezuela that seeks to empower the lowest strata of society. In these times of deregulation, privatization and the Anglo-Saxon model of wealth subsuming politics, Chavez' aims are regarded as revolutionary, even though the measures proposed are no different to those of the post-war Attlee government in Britain. Some of the oil-wealth is being spent to educate and heal the poor.

Just under a million children from the shanty-towns and the poorest villages now obtain a free education; 1.2 million illiterate adults have been taught to read and write; secondary education has been made available to 250,000 children whose social status excluded them from this privilege during the ancien regime; three new university campuses were functioning by 2003 and six more are due to be completed by 2006.

As far as healthcare is concerned, the 10,000 Cuban doctors, who were sent to help the country, have transformed the situation in the poor districts, where 11,000 neighbourhood clinics have been established and the health budget has tripled. Add to this the financial support provided to small businesses, the new homes being built for the poor, an Agrarian Reform Law that was enacted and pushed through despite the resistance, legal and violent, by the landlords. By the end of last year 2,262,467 hectares has been distributed to 116,899 families. The reasons for Chavez' popularity become obvious. No previous regime had even noticed the plight of the poor.

And one can't help but notice that it is not simply a division between the wealthy and the poor, but also one of skin-colour. The Chavistas tend to be dark-skinned, reflecting their slave and native ancestry. The opposition is light-skinned and some of its more disgusting supporters denounce Chavez as a black monkey. A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chavez was even organized at the US Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology.

The bizarre argument advanced in a hostile editorial in The Economist this week that all this was done to win votes is extraordinary. The opposite is the case. The coverage of Venezuela in The Economist and Financial Times has consisted of pro-oligarchy apologetics. Rarely have reporters in the field responded so uncritically to the needs of their proprietors.

The Bolivarians wanted power so that real reforms could be implemented. All the oligarchs have to offer is more of the past and the removal of Chavez.

It is ridiculous to suggest that Venezuela is on the brink of a totalitarian tragedy. It is the opposition that has attempted to take the country in that direction. The Bolivarians have been incredibly restrained. When I asked Chavez to explain his own philosophy, he replied:

'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labour and never forget that some of it was slave labour, then I say 'We part company'. I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said 'You must pay your taxes'. I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias.'

And that's why he won.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by pooka

BTW, OAW, you left Robert Mugabe off your list of rebels whack-jobs without a cause.

I didn't mention him. But he certainly fits the bill. He only became "crazy" after he instituted a program to confiscate the land owned by whites and distribute it to his nation's poor. And this of course caused him to run afoul of the British government directly (the former colonial power and homeland of those getting their land snatched) and the US government indirectly. The thing is that the typical Westerner has no clue that approx. 4000 whites own half of the arable land in Zimbabwe ... acquired through colonization (In the former Rhodesia) and passed down to the descendants of settlers .... while the other half is shared by 11 million blacks ... the native, indigenous people. So now Mugabe is a "dictator" and heads an "oppressive regime" and pursues "racist policies" according to the Western press ... all while basic mathematics is conveniently ignored.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by itai195

Point taken that his case is more complex than simple holocaust denial, but you might have missed this one.



Or this one, this one, this one, and this one. It doesn't matter that he has a larger political statement to make, those who engage in revisionist history generally do so in order to make a political statement. Otherwise, why bother?

With all due respect, the first three links (CNN, YNet, and The Jerusalem Post) were the typical things you see in the mass media. Excerpts and snippets. The last one from Spiegel actually had a complete transcript. And he essentially made the same point that he did in the link that I posted.

Again, I've yet to read where he has outright denied the Holocaust. What he has done question the extent of it and the geo-political changes that have occurred as a result of it. Now of course, that is essentially the same thing in the minds of some. And while I don't doubt the Jewish Holocaust given my background I can see how someone from a culture that isn't constantly bombarded year after year with reminders of it (TV shows, movies, documentaries, textbooks, etc) and who likely has had little to no contact with Ashkenazi (European) Jews could be considerably more skeptical.

Then again, it could all be skillful politics on his part. Deftly riding the fence in that regard to agitate your enemy and garner support throughout the "street" in the Muslim world. Which is precisely why I don't get caught up in all that BS and try to focus on the real issue in his statements which is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

OAW

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OAW

I didn't mention him. But he certainly fits the bill.

Holy ****, you're a trip. Let's see, we got the scary dark skinned people covered. Hmm. Alexander Lukashenko?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by OAW

I didn't mention him. But he certainly fits the bill. He only became "crazy" after he instituted a program to confiscate the land owned by whites and distribute it to his nation's poor. And this of course caused him to run afoul of the British government directly (the former colonial power and homeland of those getting their land snatched) and the US government indirectly. The thing is that the typical Westerner has no clue that approx. 4000 whites own half of the arable land in Zimbabwe ... acquired through colonization (In the former Rhodesia) and passed down to the descendants of settlers .... while the other half is shared by 11 million blacks ... the native, indigenous people. So now Mugabe is a "dictator" and heads an "oppressive regime" and pursues "racist policies" according to the Western press ... all while basic mathematics is conveniently ignored.

OAW

Now about this program... how would you feel if someone came and took your house from you, quartered the land, and gave it to the poor in your area, completely screwing you in the process?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by marden

You have a point but the key is not going to be to become a socialist state. Yet, there is a growing segment of the impoverished who really do need the kind of benign liberal big daddy government that conservatives want to minimize.

And just why does the economic model of Venezuela concern you?

Originally Posted by marden

If this segment of the population can be bought, if Chavez' gesture proves that the donated oil has alienated the loyalties of the people to the government, we must ask how that would practically help Chavez. Or his cronies.

He is developing a resistance movement within the USA and he's doing it right in our face.

A resistance movement to what exactly?

Originally Posted by marden

If or when the time comes which Americans will side with them and which ones would stay loyal to Washington?

And maybe there's no danger of divided loyalties now, (although there are plenty of subversives running around these days) but what else might they do to drive the wedge in further?

And just what does "staying loyal to Washington" entail?

The reality is that the poor in America are busy trying to survive day to day. I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that 95+% of them have no idea that Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government. But if they can get some cheap gas or heating oil then they'll definitely take it. Most Americans couldn't even tell you who Hugo Chavez is. Fifth columns? Oh please!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Now about this program... how would you feel if someone came and took your house from you, quartered the land, and gave it to the poor in your area, completely screwing you in the process?

I suppose it would depend upon one's grasp of history and sense of justice, n'est pas?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by marden

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Ali0817.htm
The Importance of Hugo Chávez
by Tariq Ali
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 17, 2004

......

And one can't help but notice that it is not simply a division between the wealthy and the poor, but also one of skin-colour. The Chavistas tend to be dark-skinned, reflecting their slave and native ancestry. The opposition is light-skinned and some of its more disgusting supporters denounce Chavez as a black monkey. A puppet show to this effect with a monkey playing Chavez was even organized at the US Embassy in Caracas. But Colin Powell was not amused and the Ambassador was compelled to issue an apology.

So much for Chavez being considered "white" huh Millennium?

It is ridiculous to suggest that Venezuela is on the brink of a totalitarian tragedy. It is the opposition that has attempted to take the country in that direction. The Bolivarians have been incredibly restrained. When I asked Chavez to explain his own philosophy, he replied:

'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labour and never forget that some of it was slave labour, then I say 'We part company'. I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society. Our upper classes don't even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said 'You must pay your taxes'. I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias.'

And that's why he won.

And just how does his winning negatively impact your day? Why exactly in his statement or in his program in general do you take issue with? The man was democratically elected. 4 times. The last time overwhelmingly. The real question is does the US government believe in democracy ... or does it believe in democracy only when the winners bow to US foreign policy?

OAW

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by marden

You have a point but the key is not going to be to become a socialist state. Yet, there is a growing segment of the impoverished who really do need the kind of benign liberal big daddy government that conservatives want to minimize.

If this segment of the population can be bought, if Chavez' gesture proves that the donated oil has alienated the loyalties of the people to the government, we must ask how that would practically help Chavez. Or his cronies.

He is developing a resistance movement within the USA and he's doing it right in our face.

If or when the time comes which Americans will side with them and which ones would stay loyal to Washington?

And maybe there's no danger of divided loyalties now, (although there are plenty of subversives running around these days) but what else might they do to drive the wedge in further?

I think its a bit premature to say there is a "resistance movement" developing here. I haven't heard of any successful pro-socialist movements in the United States because of this oil program.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

You ever notice how every non-white foreign leader -no matter how bad a dictator or complete scumbag- who is at odds with the US government, is always idolized or has an endless string of excuses made up for them by the left? Qaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmenijad, Noriega, Aristide, Jong-Il, etc?

OAW

Yes, I've noticed.

[Dakar]

If Hussein & Jong-Il are being idolized by the left, I want whatever you've been smoking.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakar

If Hussein & Jong-Il are being idolized by the left, I want whatever you've been smoking.

Those two fall under the 'endless string of excuses' category.

And for anyone idolizing anyone on that list: I don't want to be anywhere near whatever it is you've been smoking.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Those two fall under the 'endless string of excuses' category.

That I can buy.

Edit: Though I'm not sure what excuses have used for Jong-Il and for what purpose.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Originally Posted by OAW
You ever notice how every non-white foreign leader -no matter how bad a dictator or complete scumbag- who is at odds with the US government, is always idolized or has an endless string of excuses made up for them by the left? Qaddafi, Hussein, Chavez, Ahmenijad, Noriega, Aristide, Jong-Il, etc?

OAW

Yes, I've noticed.

Changing my words and attributing it as a quote? How quaint. Rather than get sucked into this ridiculous left vs. right foolishness, I suggest you read a book and examine the historical record. The US government has a long and storied history of supporting "dictators and complete scumbags" ... especially when such support served the interests of corporate America. But I imagine you are too caught up in ideology for simple facts like that register with you.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Dude, drop the racial profiling already.

Like the liberals are always saying - "not everything is black or white".

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Dude, drop the racial profiling already.

Like the liberals are always saying - "not everything is black or white".

Hahahaha, welcome to the new polarized America.

Everyone is either with Bush or against Bush. There is no middle ground, politicians and radicals are forcing people to the extremes whether they want to or not.

[Spliffdaddy]

Aw hell, America has been 'polarized' my entire life.

Almost as if I caused it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by OAW

With all due respect, the first three links (CNN, YNet, and The Jerusalem Post) were the typical things you see in the mass media. Excerpts and snippets. The last one from Spiegel actually had a complete transcript. And he essentially made the same point that he did in the link that I posted.

It seems pretty clear to me when he calls the Holocaust a 'myth.' This guy is the leader of massive nation, so I don't think cultural excuses fly either. What you're saying is that you ignore the fact he's stoking hatred because you happen to agree with his conclusions.

[Spliffdaddy]

Oh! I figured it out.

Hugo Chavez isn't a Democrat and won't be running for election in November.

Wow. He sounded just like Nancy Pelosi and that Durbin guy. I just figured he was a liberal Democrat.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by OAW

The US government has a long and storied history of supporting "dictators and complete scumbags" ... especially when such support served the interests of corporate America. But I imagine you are too caught up in ideology for simple facts like that register with you.

OAW

Who are we supposed to do trade with and buy oil from in regions where the choice is between "dictators and complete scumbags" and far worse dictators and complete scumbags? As much as I wish it were possible for the U.S. to be complete isolationists and not be dependant on international trade, we need the oil. I hope I live to see the day that we develop an alternative fuel technology. The sooner we develop hydrogen powered vehicles the sooner these tin horn dictator's money will dry up to nothing and they can eat sand. And Chavez; His workers party is collapsing. It won't be long before his head is on a stick.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by itai195

What you're saying is that you ignore the fact he's stoking hatred because you happen to agree with his conclusions.

C'mon, baby, it's all about The Ends™

Where's your skewed grasp of history and sense of justice?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Who are we supposed to do trade with and buy oil from in regions where the choice is between "dictators and complete scumbags" and far worse dictators and complete scumbags? As much as I wish it were possible for the U.S. to be complete isolationists and not be dependant on international trade, we need the oil. I hope I live to see the day that we develop an alternative fuel technology. The sooner we develop hydrogen powered vehicles the sooner these tin horn dictator's money will dry up to nothing and they can eat sand. And Chavez; His workers party is collapsing. It won't be long before his head is on a stick.

Well if it was all about oil then I could see your point. In fact, I would have more respect for our so-called leaders if they would just say that it's about the oil. But they don't. They talk about lofty ideals like "freedom" and "democracy" ... counting on the ignorance of the majority of the American people (many of whom couldn't even find Iraq or Iran on a map if their life depended on it) with respect to history to not notice that its rhetoric and its actual behavior are often two different things.

Having said that, this sort of behavior isn't always about critical resources such as oil. It's about any commodity where Western companies can make money. For instance, there is the history of the United Fruit Company ... which is still around today as Chiquita Brands ... whose activities in Central America over bananas and other fruit led to rampant exploitation, support of dictatorships, and military coups. The term "banana republics" ... used to describe two-bit military dictatorships in Central and South America ... was coined as a direct result of this particular company. The bottom line is that historical record clearly indicates that US foreign policy is driven by the economic interests of corporate America. "Freedom", "Democracy", and all that jazz is cool ... as long as it doesn't get in the way of the bottom line.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by itai195

It seems pretty clear to me when he calls the Holocaust a 'myth.' This guy is the leader of massive nation, so I don't think cultural excuses fly either. What you're saying is that you ignore the fact he's stoking hatred because you happen to agree with his conclusions.

What I'm saying is that such rhetoric diminishes his credibility in the West, but that doesn't mean the man is "crazy". Like I said, I think he is being politically shrewd and manipulative with all that mess. But regardless, his assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is right on the money.

The Bush Administration is supposedly advocating democracy in the Middle East. Of course, when the Palestinians elected a Hamas government that sh*t went out the window real quick. But just imagine if Ahmadinejad's suggestion was actually implemented. Imagine if the Israelis and Palestinians (those in Israel and the Occupied Territories) had a democratic referendum on the form of government that would be implemented in the Holy Land? Would the US government ever support a democratic proposition like this? Or is democracy only cool when European Jews can maintain an artificial majority by displacing the indigenous Palestinians?

OAW

[marden]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well if it was all about oil then I could see your point. In fact, I would have more respect for our so-called leaders if they would just say that it's about the oil. But they don't. They talk about lofty ideals like "freedom" and "democracy" ... counting on the ignorance of the majority of the American people (many of whom couldn't even find Iraq or Iran on a map if their life depended on it) with respect to history to not notice that its rhetoric and its actual behavior are often two different things.

Having said that, this sort of behavior isn't always about critical resources such as oil. It's about any commodity where Western companies can make money. For instance, there is the history of the United Fruit Company ... which is still around today as Chiquita Brands ... whose activities in Central America over bananas and other fruit led to rampant exploitation, support of dictatorships, and military coups. The term "banana republics" ... used to describe two-bit military dictatorships in Central and South America ... was coined as a direct result of this particular company. The bottom line is that historical record clearly indicates that US foreign policy is driven by the economic interests of corporate America. "Freedom", "Democracy", and all that jazz is cool ... as long as it doesn't get in the way of the bottom line.

OAW

Why do all of the boys looking for a utopian working class hero so readily ascribe to the latest candidate leader, nation or government, qualities that aren't really there?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/intarch/...la-gunson.html

But Chavez has never made any secret of his disdain for representative democracy. He prefers ‘participatory’ democracy. Chavez’s own party – the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR) – has never held an internal election for its leadership. That leadership is appointed by Chavez himself. And Venezuela’s Chavista-dominated legislature is little more than a rubber stamp for the administration. The president is the ultimate arbiter. Dissent is punished with exclusion. Thus, even while they defend the regime against its adversaries, many leftist activists have grown wary of the Chavista model.

It is a fact that one achievement of Chavez is his convincing many of the excluded poor that they have a stake in the Venezuelan system. But the true role of the masses is that of supporting chorus to the active protagonist of the president.

[...]

He was also quick to rewrite the constitution. This was done via a constituent assembly in which his followers held 97 per cent of the seats despite their obtaining just 60 per cent of the vote. (More than half the electorate did not vote at all).

Although the constitution espouses a positive cornucopia of social, cultural, economic and human rights, it also contains the seeds of an authoritarian system. Most dangerously, perhaps, it abandons the principle of non-intervention in national affairs by the armed forces. As recommended by erstwhile Chavez adviser and Argentine neo-fascist Norberto Ceresole, the armed forces have effectively been turned into the real party of government.

As so often in Latin America, the law and constitution are at the mercy of the presidency.

[...]

The president is thus free to violate the constitution as often as he likes, and several dozen clear breaches have been recorded. One of the clearest examples is the disappearance of more than US $2 billion approved by parliament for deposit in a stabilisation fund set up to iron out the fluctuations in oil income. The president admits he used the money for a different purpose (to pay wages, he claimed, though without presenting evidence), and has said he would do so again if need be. To no one’s surprise, the prosecutor has taken no action.

All this would matter less if Chavez had fulfilled his election promises – an end to corruption, the alleviation of poverty, a renovation of the justice system, and so on. Not only has none of this happened, the country is much worse off in every respect.

[...]

Is Chavez a champion of anti-globalisation? Hardly. He has welcomed foreign capital with open arms, and done nothing to stop the catastrophic decline in the domestic private sector. Private banks, the largest of which are foreign, have made handsome profits as the population’s living standards have plummeted. And the destruction of national oil company PDVSA will oblige the government to hand over chunks of Venezuela’s strategic oil industry to foreign concerns.

Looking for a worker's utopia or hero?

Keep looking.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by OAW

But regardless, his assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is right on the money.

His assessment of the conflict is that Israel should be wiped off the map. Yeah in polite quarters he'll say he really meant that it should relocate to Europe, there should be a democratic referendum, etc and maybe those opinions are more palatable to some people. But that's not what he says to his own people. Maybe if the man was stoking hatred that potentially threatened the lives of your family members you'd agree that he's insane, but fortunately that's apparently not the case for you.

BTW, calling the Palestinians 'indigenous' is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? What about the Canaanites? Or is it okay to displace indigenous populations if you did it hundreds or thousands of years ago? And are all the subgroups of Palestinians indigenous? Are the Jews who lived in Palestine and were once called Palestinian Jews indigenous? Are Druzes, who once were called Palestinians too, also indigenous and if so why do they have to live under Jordanian, Syrian, and Lebanese occupation?

Anyway, I am derailing the thread so... whatever, we can leave it at that.

[marden]

Originally Posted by OAW

What I'm saying is that such rhetoric diminishes his credibility in the West, but that doesn't mean the man is "crazy". Like I said, I think he is being politically shrewd and manipulative with all that mess. But regardless, his assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is right on the money.

The Bush Administration is supposedly advocating democracy in the Middle East. Of course, when the Palestinians elected a Hamas government that sh*t went out the window real quick. But just imagine if Ahmadinejad's suggestion was actually implemented. Imagine if the Israelis and Palestinians (those in Israel and the Occupied Territories) had a democratic referendum on the form of government that would be implemented in the Holy Land? Would the US government ever support a democratic proposition like this? Or is democracy only cool when European Jews can maintain an artificial majority by displacing the indigenous Palestinians?

OAW

Start a new thread for this, please.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by OAW

Having said that, this sort of behavior isn't always about critical resources such as oil. It's about any commodity where Western companies can make money. For instance, there is the history of the United Fruit Company ... which is still around today as Chiquita Brands ... whose activities in Central America over bananas and other fruit led to rampant exploitation, support of dictatorships, and military coups. The term "banana republics" ... used to describe two-bit military dictatorships in Central and South America ... was coined as a direct result of this particular company. The bottom line is that historical record clearly indicates that US foreign policy is driven by the economic interests of corporate America. "Freedom", "Democracy", and all that jazz is cool ... as long as it doesn't get in the way of the bottom line.

OAW

What is the alternative to a free market system then? Yes, corporations and democracies end up doing business with dictators, because much of the world comes down to dealing with bad men, or really bad men. What if the whole world was communism? Would there still not be a need to for nations to trade with each other and do business with each other? Because not too many places have all the resources needed to be self-sufficient and not have to engage in trade with other nations. Whatever economic system a nation has, there has to be some form of management of that system. If that management is a democratic govt with a free market economy, there has to be management of that, which means there are going to be some abuses, some corruption, and some dealing with leaders that we would like to not on moral grounds. If that management is communism, not only do you have the potential for abuses, corruption, et cetera, but history has shown over and over again that no matter how good it sounds in theory, communism always leads to tyranny. Humans just don't seem capable of that much power without also becoming that much more corrupt and repressive of others. Which is why the govt should not be controlling all or even most of the wealth. IN other words, as bad as it is to have to deal with regimes we could otherwise tell to take a hike because they are repressive to their populations, would you rather live in a country where our govt controlled all the industries? Because that is what it would take and I don't think would be a good trade off. There would that much more oppression in the world.

What if the system of management was a Worker's trade union? Would that system not be just as vulnerable to corruption and abuses of power? This is why I believe that the free market (with the proper amount of regulations) is still the superior economic model because there are built in corrections more so than when an economy is owned and controlled by a central govt or any central authority. Plus the fact that a central authority is just too inefficient and incompetent to handle a large economy. Communism and socialism also kill personal motivation and creativity. It inspires mediocracy at best. Human nature such, that most of us are not willing to put all we have into the social good vs. seeing a direct reward.

The problems that get pointed out regarding capitalism and the free market and how this is somehow the underlying reason "everything is cool as long as it doesn't get in the way of the bottom dollar" is true but is a problem of human nature. Does Communists China not do business with dictators and complete scumbags? I think they are getting ready to or already have a pipeline deal with Sudan. The Islamic militias in Northern Sudan are committing genocide on Secular African tribes. When these Islamic militias were killing Christians all through the 90's, the left was silent. However, now many of them are calling for our military to get involved. Why now and not when they were slaughtering Christians? Maybe because now it can be used as a weapon to Bash Bush with?

Just once, I'd like to hear someone like you to propose the solutions to how to make the world a better place (that is realistic based on human nature, rather than a utopian dream) instead of just blame all that is wrong in the world on America, our govt, and our economic system. Please, lay it all for us.