»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Hugo Chavez
| The Alley |
|
Hugo Chavez |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. So here’s someone who’s threatening war to protect the right of one country to afford ,by virtue of it’s borders, (1.1 miles inside), sanctuary to those killing people of another. How do we with regards to Columbia respond? To make it interesting: How do you think Obama would repond? How do you think McCain would respond? John . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Chavez is a complete idiot. He tried to make a power play to remain president and was voted down, his popularity is waning, the economy is faltering and he's using the action against Columbia as an event to turn the attention elsewhere. He is praying to God for no war while he is attempting to provoke one. He is warning Columbia not to try anything while amassing troops at the Columbia border and threatening to nationalize all Columbian businesses. He is fooling no one, not even the Venezuelan people. McCain would ignore him unless or until Chavez makes a provocative move. Obama? Who knows? He's probably asking, "Where's Venezuela?" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I've noticed that when we speak about the real world as is before our own eyes instead of words talk tapers off . . . . |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
I've noticed that when we speak about the real world as is before our own eyes instead of words talk tapers off . . . I've noticed that the real world before our oun eyes varies significantly from eyeballer to eyeballer. Maybe talk drops off on real world issues because people who view the world in a different manner than the majority are tired of being bushwacked. Jim |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
An interesting comment. It says a lot... |
||
|
matronmedusa Member
since 2008-03-08
Posts 89Alabama, USA |
With so many different voices, it seems we could have quite a lovely choir; but intstead we choose to create a lot of racket. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you Jim. Bob K. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
This seems to be the same story we were told about Iraq. With variations it's the story we've been told before about, say, Grenada and Panama. Why? And why do we so frequently accept the same sad cry of Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! so unquestioningly? It makes me question my own learning curve. Does anybody here think highly of the Colombian terrorist group FARC? Have we forgotten that they regularly kidnap American citizens and hold them for ransom? That they have a large stake in the cocaine trade? That we've been funding actions against them for more than 30 years? Meaning we, the American people. Or are we simply having another hissy fit about the Venezuelans actually electing somebody that our right wing government doesn't admire? Democracy is Okay so long as those foreign folks do what we think is best for them? They'll understand when they grow up? These are the same folks who brought you Iraq and upped the price of crude oil to over 100 dollars a barrel wanting to take another major source of oil off the market (Venezuela was once our primary source of American oil) and bring the cost of crude oil even higher? If our government is considering a military intervention, what forces are they considering using? What supplies will they use to keep those forces functioning? How will they care for the forces once the fighting is over? Are they going to fund these forces with the same sort of tax cuts that have put us so far in the hole at this point that we are selling are highways and bridges to the French and Spanish? If we're concerned about Venezuelan freedom, maybe we could allow them to run their own elections and their own democracy. If we're concerned about Colombian freedom, why not let the U.N. deal with it and take a back seat for once? As for Colombia, we don't seem to have done them a lot of good over the past 30 years or so, though I'm certainly open to being convinced I'm wrong. Somebody is trying to sell us a more than slightly used wolf pack. If they can't interest us in Iran, perhaps we might buy a slightly anaemic and mouldy boogy man in south American. Anybody in the market? I should warn you though, the price will be much higher than you can afford. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “why not let the U.N. deal with it” Oh Yeah, that will work. “As for Colombia, we don't seem to have done them a lot of good over the past 30 years or so,” They’ve spent lives trying to do themselves good against the likes of Chavez for which we’ve given them money to help. Of course what is money? And what is one more "South" American country more or less? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I know you tend to see all your enemies on the left, but farc is and always has been a right-wing paramilitary force. The point of view that they've supported, as I understand it, has always been yours, or very much like yours. Chavez is on the other end of the political spectrum. I know you reflexively see that as bad, but in this case I think your facts may be wrong. Chavez is nobody's Mr. Wonderful. I'm not going to try to idealize him or convince you he's above reproach. But he is the elected President and he has political legitimacy there. When his term ends, the people have said they want him out of office, but they've also said they want him to serve his full term. If somebody in Canada or Mexico was acting the same way, you'd be agitating for the same sorts of responses, same as we did in 1812 and 1849. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I know you reflexively see that as bad, but in this case I think your facts may be wrong. Sorry, Bob, but I believe your assumptions are ill-founded. I can speak with a a little authority on this, having lived in the country for almost 8 years and am still in weekly contact with many people there. Chavez is a bad egg. The middle and upper classes despise him. The educated despise him. He was elected because he appealed to the poor, which is the larger amount of the population and has been for as long as I can remember, going back to the early 60's, in my case. Even the poor are against him now because he has not delivered on promises to them. He has shut down radio stations opposing him. He has had university students march against him. When he tried to rewrite the constitution to stay in office, it was defeated. Believe me when I tell you that many Venezuelans anxiously await the day his term is over. Venezuelans on the whole are wonderful people. They believe in freedom and individual rights. They have always been U.S. friends. He does not sit well with them. He jumped into the fray in this fiasco to deter the facts that the country is in dire straits under his control. Now, that he sees that didn't work and the Venezuelan population isn't buying it, he is backing off. He is offering to drop the whole thing if Columbia drops filing charges against him in the world court. I can assure you he is losing sleep over the computer documents linking him to being a FARC supporter to the tune of over 300 million dollars in aid. He is a huge fan to Castro and has said openly that he would want Venezuela to be run under the same type of government as Cuba, with im at the head, of course. If you or anyone would like to throw American politics into this brew, be my guest, but it is off the mark. This is all Chavez and it won't be the last time he will be at the center of some such controversy and you can rest assures that when his term is finally over, he will not go gently into that good night. I know you tend to see all your enemies on the left, but farc is and always has been a right-wing paramilitary force. The point of view that they've supported, as I understand it, has always been yours, or very much like yours. There is no left-wing, right-wing signifigance here. FARC is a terrorist group who deals in drug running, kidnapping and murder. To say their point of view is similar to the right wing point of view in the US is, at the very least, ridiculous. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Thanks Mike. Bob; neither Hitler or Stalin or any the likes of either get or have ever gotten a free pass from me. . [This message has been edited by Ron (03-11-2008 03:48 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Balladeer, Always interesting to talk politics. I'm not sure how far apart we are here, though, if you look. I said that Chavez was freely elected and continues to be legitimate leader of his country. After telling me that Chavez is a bad egg and that the upper classes and the educated don't like him ("upper classes" makes sense of course, because of the different economic points of view. "The educated" not liking him doesn't make sense because it suggests that everybody who's educated has the same point of view, and that simply doesn't happen anyplace. Even here, you have right wing and left wing intellectuals, and South America is, as I understand it, much the same way. My assumption here is that if somebody agrees with Chavez, you are unwilling to credit him or her with being an intellectual. I may be selling you short here, as I have done on more than one other occasion, and if so, I'm sorry, but on the face of it, without something more solid , your account simply doesn't compute for me. Even so, you do say that Chavez was put into office by the poor, who are and who have been the majority of voters in that country. Why an appeal to the actual interests of the poor should be anything other than useful for a man who is trying to be elected is a puzzle to me. If I recall my newspaper reading over the last several years, the poor have kept him in office because they though he was doing a decent if imperfect job and have refused to put aside a perfectly useful time limit on length of time in office wisely placed in their constitution. They're not stupid. If many anxiously await the day he leaves office, I say terrific, it's their privilege. It's their country, after all. If I can put my own annoying rhetoric aside, Chavez is imperfect. Depending on where you come from politically, his qualities may range from a minion of Satan to a serious crimp in your plans for Venezuela to to salvation of the people from the upper class oligarchy. There is nothing in this mix, however, that hasn't been said about any important American president from at Least Lincoln onward, both for good and ill. What I think this says is that Venezuela has produced a leader worth discussing who is willing to stand up for his constituency. I dislike our current president here, but would have to grant him the same distinction. I think actually Chavez was more likely to have been democratically elected than Bush, given the brouhaha here in Florida and Ohio over the last two cycles, and the way that many of us feel things were handled. If indeed Chavez did support FARC as you say and it can be proved in world court, where, by the way, I would imagine some of the decisions WE have been making over the past eight or so years might be interestingly evaluated, then he ought to be tried after he finishes his term and appropriate jail time should be served. I think that seems fair. I also think that war crimes trials for some of our own people should be considered, as we thought about for President Pinochet. "Disappearing," torture, and execution are all against international law, Most are against the Geneva convention, and most of them are instruments of terror. Terror, if you remember, is what we are supposed to be fighting. I think, after leaving office, if it is appropriate then to bring charges, charges should be brought in world court— same as with officials in our own government for any sort of similar offenses, right? Being honest, democratically elected leaders of a democratic people, our own leaders would certainly demand the same treatment, knowing that it was a just and honest course to be taken in all situations when such charges might honestly be levied. And that a fair and evenhanded resolution might be expected by all. quote: Dear Huan Yi, Nor would I have expected otherwise. I have never given them a pass either. My problem is a tendency to be blinded by my own high beams. [This message has been edited by Bob K (03-11-2008 05:59 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike, Sorry, I just noticed this comment, and wanted to reply. I really don't know what McCain would do. Until recently, I thought I could count on McCain to keep a steady course. I hope I am misreading his vote against his own anti-torture legislation. I have always admired the man, even though I don't like all his political positions. I can still allow that the guy can be flawed and be worthy of admiration. Even though I'm a life-long democrat, I've had feelings of admiration for many republicans, Senator McCain included. I simply have trouble with many of the republican social positions and some of their economic positions. This isn't the place to go into details. I don't understand your comment about Obama. Do you have any evidence that he's particularly more ignorant about geography than other United States Senators or Lawyers? I've missed that. You could have made it with some accuracy about the current President Bush while he was running for the office; because made, if I remember correctly, a fair number of errors about heads of state and the names of governmental ministers that he'd been expected to have some knowledge about. There was a fair amount of amusement in the media about that as I recall, and jokes on the late night talk shows. Jay Leno, maybe? David Letterman? I also seem to recall him making several errors about geography as well. Can you recall what those were? because they seem very vague to me at this point. Now I don't recall anything of the sort happening with Mr. Obama. Do you actually recall Mr. Obama saying something like this? He's normally so very much more articulate. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Mike! RE: "There is no left-wing, right-wing signifigance here. FARC is a terrorist group who deals in drug running, kidnapping and murder. To say their point of view is similar to the right wing point of view in the US is, at the very least, ridiculous." Dissent: Let's pray these are abberations, but the CIA involvement in drug running during VietNam and Iran/Contra is pretty much a matter of record, and kidnapping and torture have somehow infiltrated the CIA/Military consciousness as an acceptable way of "doing business" at the moment. I don't know about politically motivated murder on the part of government agencies, so I won't get too outrageous. Is it strident to suggest that unchecked NSA wiretapping of US citizens represents a diminuation of the privacy of innocents? Or that the notion of a National Identy Card, or a mammoth data base containing, presumably, "everything about everyone" is somehow incorruptable and in the Nation's best interest? I think one would have to categorize these notions as being "right wing," if only because I don't hear much left wing espousal or appreciation for the same. There seem to be relationships indeed between FARC and rougish actions or sanctions by the US Ultra Right. It hurts me when the irresponsible "Right" demonizes the "Left," and vice versa. There are individual demons on both sides. spitting out vituperation. They have nothing to do with the majority of folks in this country (I think) who recognize that "Left-wingers" here are centrists anyplace else, and "right wingers" here, are centrists more than anything else. I think we have to acknowledge, on both sides, that there are rogue agencies and undemocratic agendas in the government right now, and both sides would like to change that. I use "sides" in terms of the average thoughtful citizen, not the extremists of either variety. There is wonderful stuff going on in this country. There is terrible stuff going on in this country. Who gets to take a whack at improving the wonderfulness and diminishing the terribleness will be a matter of middle-ground consensus. Just to rant, IMO the election of Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, or Senator McCain to the Presidency will not spell doom for the Democracy. The election of a neo-Nazi or hardcore Stalinist might, but that dosen' seem to be in the offing at the moment. No matter how questionably a rogue agency might act or is acting, there remains a likelihood that the next President of either ilk will act to reign in the abberations. Best, Jimbeaux  Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Jim, Chico Marx was wrong; this is a Sanity Clause. You are that Sanity Clause. A pleasure to hear somebody say things more calmly than I'm able to at this point. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gotta love it. What has been injected into a conversation about a recognized terrorist organization that murders and kidnaps people while running drugs, reportedly now supported by a President of a country that would like to turn it into a Cuba state, has shut down tv and radio stations that oppose him, and has a large part of the freedom-loving citizens of the country against him? Well, we get references to.... granting him the same distinction as Bush references to Florida and Ohio election results war crimes trials against our own people should be considered CIA involvement in drug running NSA wire-tapping of U.S. citizens relationships between FARC and roughish actions or sanctions by the US Ultra Right. Terrible and wonderful stuff going on in this country kidnapping and torture is an acceptable way of doing business by the CIA and military Wow! I've never seen so many fingers point in so many different directions. Ok, Bob. If this has somehow led you to inject Bush and Florida elections into the conversation which has nothing to do with either Bush or the florida elections, then be my guest. That seems to be the standard way of doing things anyway. his qualities may range from a minion of Satan to a serious crimp in your plans for Venezuela Bob, I have no plans for Venezuela. I don't understand your comment about Obama. It's called tongue-in-cheek, Bob. Try it sometimes. You may like it |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, So sorry I didn’t recognize you being tongue in cheek. I get easily lead astray, these days. I am but an innocent in these discussions, which is why I so look forward to these discussions with you. Truthfully, Mike, I do enjoy them. You may not have caught the pieces in my posting where I was reasonably straightforward about Chavez being at best a mixed bag. I am not one of those who idealize him. I do think he is a mixed bag and I will repeat that opinion now. He’s at best a mixed bag. I find it difficult to respond more directly to you because your use of the passive voice through your posting, until the point of your mention of Bush and the Florida Elections. At that point you are able to be specific and say that a discussion of this has nothing to do with comments about Chavez. quote: Being in the active voice, and a something you say about me, I feel I should respond to the point. I was reacting to quote: which I saw and still see as an attack on Chavez’s legitimacy. I may not love or even like Chavez very much, but his election was legitimate. It was confirmed a few years later, though his efforts to change the constitution were wisely voted down by the Venezuelan people. In your dislike for Chavez, you gave me the impression that you were discounting his legitimacy. That doesn’t seem in question to me. My response was to point out that Chavez was at least as legitimately elected as President Bush. I felt this a fair point and I still think it is one. I believe that I might fairly apply your comment about Chavez with at least as much accuracy to both the Venezuelan and the American peoples when I venture to quote you deliriously out of context in saying about our very own Mr. Bush, “Believe me when I tell you that many Venezuelans anxiously await the day his term is over.” Mr. Bush’s legitimacy has been discussed at length here, and for many of us it remains a sore and open question. What Mr. Bush’s activities may be in regard to provoking conflicts and subverting our own constitution remain a much more immediate and personal threat for me than what Mr. Chavez is doing in South America. I am still unhappy about many of Mr. Chavez’s actions. The fact that my politics are left wing makes me more unhappy rather than less; I expect more from Chavez. I am pleased, I must say, that you have no plans for Venezuela; you did have me worried there. I never know in which country you’re going to strike next, Balladeer. You’re like the wind. This is tongue-in-cheek, right? I’m hoping eventually to get this down. What I was talking about, however, as I suspect you may have managed to figure out, was not the second person singular pronoun, but the more political second person plural, as is occasionally used when a person speaks of groups or political parties or governments, such as perhaps the government of Cuba or The United States, were one to address them directly by saying, You are doing a very interesting job; or You are not serving the interests of all your people; or Mr Chavez has put a serious crimp in your plans for Venezuela, a generally freedom loving country that is located next to Colombia. I think you were purely funning with me, Mike, when you suggested I thought you had nefarious plans for such a country as Venezuela. But back to your comment about Obama. Thank you for letting me know that it’s called tongue-in-cheek. After your kind pointers, I’m still struggling with the concept. I must confess I thought you might be trying for something of that nature; but I dismissed the notion out of hand. I was so sure you’d want your tongue-in-cheek stuff to be funny. I’ll keep working till I get it, Balladeer. Keep giving me those vital instructions on how it’s done. On a non-tongue-in-cheek note, thanks for the feedback on the 14 line poem. I don’t like that you’re right, but you are. A good call. Best from here. Bob K. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I was so sure you’d want your tongue-in-cheek stuff to be funny. You're a quick study, Bob.  (I'd be willing to wager that even your martinis are dry)  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
