Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Hugo Chavez

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hugo Chavez
    Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 08:03
Originally posted by Timotheus

You think Bush went to war in Iraq to keep his popularity up? Have you paid any attention to what's been going on in the world for the past five years?
 
Yes. I believe he invaded Iraq without necesity. In the case of Afganistan, like everyone in the planet, I agree with the cowboy that that has to be done.
 
And I know what is going on in the world in the last years. You have a substandar president now. I hope Hillary wins the next period. You need a smart person in such important possitions, indeed.
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
Hellios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
  Quote Hellios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 02:28
Chavez is too theatrical. LOL
 
 
He has strong support from the army, because he was a paratrooper.
 
 
He likes to play soldier a lot, to maintain support among the troops. LOL
 
 
 
Another reason for his continued rule is the poverty in Venezuela.
 
He has the democratic support of the majority.
 
The poor support him for the same reason the rich hate him; because he serves the poor more than he serves the rich. LOL
 
He has become a bit paranoid, because there have been some attempts to physically remove him from office, so now the "Vanguardia Chavez" protects him at all times. LOL
 
 


Edited by Hellios - 16-Nov-2006 at 03:19
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478
  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 21:26
You think Bush went to war in Iraq to keep his popularity up? Have you paid any attention to what's been going on in the world for the past five years?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 18:26
Well, he is a clown.
 
But as so many clowns, he said the truth.
 
Yes! Bush has a sulphiric smell LOL.
 
On the other hand, is pretty bad that other President has to resort to war to keep popularity growing.
 
Pinguin
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 18:02
Chvez' behaviour and anti-american rhetoric is mainly theatre. It's the only way for countries like Venezuela to maintain a prominent presence in world politics. And I have to say Chvez is rather good at that.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 17:58
Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

Latinos love throwing all their problems on the US. Past is past however, and it is time for them to move on. I can say this cause both of my parents are from Peru, and they have seen both sides of the issue from the south american and north american side. Latinos just gotta realize that their troubles wont go away with mass partying everynight!
 
First, we didn't started it Wink.
And second, don't forget this. We, Latinos, are the concience you, Americans, lack LOLLOL.
 
Anyways, people have realize by now the U.S. is not the cause of all our problems. Of some, yes, but not of all Big smile
 
Pinguin


Edited by pinguin - 14-Nov-2006 at 18:00
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 17:43
Latinos love throwing all their problems on the US. Past is past however, and it is time for them to move on. I can say this cause both of my parents are from Peru, and they have seen both sides of the issue from the south american and north american side. Latinos just gotta realize that their troubles wont go away with mass partying everynight!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 21:51
Originally posted by Timotheus

What most people don't realize is that Chavez is in severe economic trouble. He has had a bonanza over high oil prices but his social programs are too expensive to keep up.

Do any of you remember a couple of months ago when the Venezuelan state oil company sold a United States refinery to Liondell Chemical? Refineries are immensely valuable because the U.S. government does not allow them to be built. The Venezuelans sold it for a pittance, a fraction of the price. This shows how desperate Chavez is for cash. There is also serious evidence that he is deep in debt. Chavez cannot hold up his state's finances for very long.
 
Don't worry about Chavez. He is a big mouth, but does not represent a threat. He has had problems with every single Latin American country, becuase its lack of diplomacy.
 
However, I have to recognize I like his speech in the ONU LOL
 
Yes, no matter he is a Crazy man, he is the only politician with the courage enough to tell the truth.
 
He identify Bush with the evil, because the "cowboy" smells  like sulphur LOLLOL
 
And that's the truth!
 
Oh Lord. I like that very much! Big smile
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478
  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 21:34
What most people don't realize is that Chavez is in severe economic trouble. He has had a bonanza over high oil prices but his social programs are too expensive to keep up.

Do any of you remember a couple of months ago when the Venezuelan state oil company sold a United States refinery to Liondell Chemical? Refineries are immensely valuable because the U.S. government does not allow them to be built. The Venezuelans sold it for a pittance, a fraction of the price. This shows how desperate Chavez is for cash. There is also serious evidence that he is deep in debt. Chavez cannot hold up his state's finances for very long.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 19:28
LOL  Maharbbal probably has a point.  Maybe we should close this one down.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 15:18
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Hugo Chavez is the direct result of the Armenian genocide

Ok I warn myself for troiling but you guys keep repeting over and over the same arguments Hugo is a bloody bolchevik and Pikes a filthy capitalist. Now I close the thread (lol).

M.

    

You got my political affiliation wrong, and Pikeshot is not filthy

But I will take note on that.

Pike, why don't you pm me about your ideas on how to promote the history forums? :) I have many ideas; unfortunately I don't have any energy. :(

But if I work together with someone else, I can get things done :P
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 15:02
Hugo Chavez is the direct result of the Armenian genocide

Ok I warn myself for troiling but you guys keep repeting over and over the same arguments Hugo is a bloody bolchevik and Pikes a filthy capitalist. Now I close the thread (lol).

M.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 13:29
Pikeshot,

I am not upset Maybe I let my passionate Hispanic heritage take run wild for a bit

Oh, and I checked their site. Wiki is consistent with the main ideological ideas expressed by them.

I don't say that we shouldn't find other sources of oil. Even if we reduce consumption and find alternative fuel, we still need oil to create plastics, medicines, and many other products.

But reducing our demands by having higher efficiency or just but deciding to use less oil(which is possible but unlikely), must be part of a comprehensive oil plan.

Thinking that OPEC has lost its power is neo-con wishful thinking. OPEC may not be able to push prices down, but their refusal to sell will always push prices up. And they can hurt the U.S. a lot more by slowing down production.

The author attempts to sell the readers the idea that it is possible to keep our level of oil consumption and not depend on OPEC oil at the same time. This is a highly speculative idea and probably impossible to attain once put in practice.


And really, Pikeshot, I am not upset. I agree that the U.S. should find other sources of energy on the basis of national security. I disagree with the author when he doesn't include increasing efficiency and planned reduced consumption.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 12:21
Wikipedia.....yes, a paragon of responsibility and intellectual integrity.
 
hugo, I have not seen you this upset before.  I will make one last point and then I am done here:
 
The author of the article points out that OPEC (a subject of the article) is no longer able to control oil prices.  The increase in demand has outstripped their ability to pump, refine and ship it.  Neither Saudi Arabia, nor Venezuela can impact that any more.  It is unlikely that demand for oil will decline in our lifetime, so it is something we must address and adapt to.  Hence, the emphasis on other sources of carbon based resources and a strategic approach to accessing sources that are more secure and less likely to result in conflict, and cultural head butting, that has hamstrung the Middle East for over 50 years.  All the OPEC members can do right now is try to make as much money as they can.  That won't last forever, and that is not often in our interests.
 
I understand your concern and position in advocating reduction in demand, but what energy sources take the place of those where demand is reduced?  India and China have other agendas.  I think a policy predicated on reduced consumption and no other approach is unrealistic and will sadly disappoint us all.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 24-May-2006 at 12:26
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 11:10

From wiki:

JINSA's policy recommendations for the U.S. government includes: enhanced WMD counterproliferation programs, national ballistic missile defense systems, curbing of regional ballistic missile development and production worldwide, increased counter-terrorism training and funding, prior to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, increased defense cooperation with Israel, substantially improved quality-of-life for U.S. service personnel and their families, support for joint U.S.-Israeli training and weapons development programs and a rejection of any peace process with the Palestinians that is not prefaced by a full renunciation of terrorism and a full and effective Palestinian effort to combat terrorism in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas. Further, JINSA supports regime change in "rogue" nation-states known to provide support or knowingly harbor terrorist groups, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Libya, and supports a re-evaluation of the U.S. defense relationships with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.



So we owe the Iraqi mess in part to these geniuses. This should be enough of a discreditation of their opinions.

And even though I understand the need for an Isreali state, it was an error to further ally with Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East, and it is a mistake to treat the Palestinians in such a way.

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 11:00
Originally posted by gcle2003



"Published twice yearly by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs[/COLOR">, it is fast becoming required reading for those who want to go beyond the headlines, and the conventional wisdom, of U.S. national security and foreign policy in a rapidly-changing world. "


From wikipedia:


"JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Jeanne Kirkpatrick[/COLOR">, Michael Ledeen[/COLOR">, Richard Perle[/COLOR">, and James Woolsey[/COLOR">, while Vice President Dick Cheney[/COLOR">, US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton[/COLOR">, and Undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas Feith[/COLOR"> were all on Jinsas board of advisers before they entered the Bush administration."


"Founded in 1976, JINSA began as the only U.S. think tank that put "the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first," citing a concern that U.S. leaders were mistakenly neglecting the relationship between the United States and the only democracy in the Middle East[/COLOR">. "


Thanks for the information, Graham.

No wonder its hack export proposes such selfish, self-centered, self-serving ideas.

No wonder this neo-con think tank hack avoids the issue of demand reduction, since people connected with the oil industry were in their board.

I just wonder what other terrible foreign policies of the current adminstration spawn in this place.

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 10:52
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Well, the journal does say in its masthead that it is dedicated to the security of the United States and its allies.


Why is Mr. Cedoz a selfish, self-centered ideologue? He makes a case for new technologies that may now be economically feasible to exploit enormous carbon based resources in the North American continent. You and I know that "demanding high efficiency standards from cars" only goes so far. And as to persuading Mexico and Canada to change production to "benefit the U.S.," that would come from demand, not from decreasing demand.


If it is feasible to extract energy from resources you don't have to fight for, and that you don't have to pay for wars to fight, what is wrong with that? Let's look ahead and not back. That stuff about fuel efficiency has been a chimera for 30 years.


No offense, but your reaction to the article was very nationalistic.




I had a long response, but the forum timed me out of the session, and I lost it.

Here is the summary

1. I showed how Cedoz doesn't understand Mexico at all when it comes to its oil. Since Mexico is key for his plan to work, this shows how he is unqualified to discuss this issue.

What Cedoz asks is so culturally innapropriate as telling Americans to adopt Scandinavian-style welfare paid with high income and consumption taxes to solve social problems. Just as this person would show their deep ignorance about America, Cedoz has shown his deep ignorance about Mexico.

2. Cedoz is selfish because he fails to see how the US can benefit allies beyond of Canada and Mexico getting paid for oil even though the U.S. gains a lot more by having NAFTA nations meet U.S. oil demands.

The U.S. would have secure oil sources and will be able to ignore and attack OPEC nations in the future.

However, his scheme will only work if demand is reduced to the point where NAFTA oil production can meet it; otherwise the U.S. will still be dependent on OPEC.

3. The U.S. spends less of a percentage of its GDP on oil today than it did in the 1970s thanks in large part to efficiency standards. Reduction of oil demand through efficiency is a proven strategy.

Bonus:

Why is reduction of need such an abhorrent solution? If our nation is really threaten as much as conservative think tanks claims it is, why are they so unwilling to reduce our demand for oil?

We can't have it all: or we choose national security and reduce our demand for oil, or we keep consuming at the current rate and fund terrorist organization and empower anti-American leaders from oil producing countries.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 08:50
Graham:
 
We will disagree on much that is discussed here, but as far as the "West," I look at it as Europe and the cultural/civilizational outgrowths thereof.  It is not so much a geographical expression as a construct of similar cultures; similar values; similar interests (mostly and usually).
 
Japan is not part of the West; never was; never will be.  Nor the rest of Asia.  Modern Asia's face has a western mask.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 24-May-2006 at 08:55
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 07:38
Originally posted by Illuminati

He also isn't a strong supporter of human rights and freedom.
 
%^$%%^*^&Angry If i hear human rights and freedom once more in defense of US cronies i am going to puke all over.
 
Originally posted by Illuminati

He merely sides with those who oppose his enemies.....and that makes him no different than any other corrupt politician out there.
 
Hmmn, a pretty thoughtless comment. Are u trying to tell us that this line of thinking is a sign of corruption. So Winston was corrupt because he side with de-gaulle and Roosevelt for the same reason. I think u need to put ur cap back on.
LOLFollowing your logic his new year resolution should be to side with his enemies.


Edited by malizai_ - 24-May-2006 at 07:43
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2006 at 06:30
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

gcle:
 
If you deny strategic resources to an adversary (or potential adversary) it is a military strategy.  It is low tech and far cheaper than military confrontation. 
 
Well, that's an unusual definition of military. Usually 'military' refers to using the army. So 1930s Imperial preference as practised by the UK was a 'military' strategy in your view?
QUOTE:  "At least they are doing it peaceably"  Is that supposed to be comforting?
 
Yes. It comforts me. Countries that send their armies to occupy other countries tend to discomfort me.
 
 
Is the concept of the West really that foreign to you?
 
I'm aware of various concepts of 'the West'. Which is why I wondered how you were defining it.
 
Generally speaking it is restricted to first-world countries. Frequently it includes Japan, which on the face of it is silly. And so on.
 
 
And remember, it isn't paranoia if they are after you. Smile
 
None of this has happened as yet; we are brainstorming.  If you want, check out the site and article I refered hugo to:
 
 
 
I guess if I quote this from the home page, I'm being anti-semitic?
 
"Published twice yearly by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, it is fast becoming required reading for those who want to go beyond the headlines, and the conventional wisdom, of U.S. national security and foreign policy in a rapidly-changing world. "
 
From wikipedia:
 
"JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey, while Vice President Dick Cheney, US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas Feith were all on Jinsas board of advisers before they entered the Bush administration."
 
"Founded in 1976, JINSA began as the only U.S. think tank that put "the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first," citing a concern that U.S. leaders were mistakenly neglecting the relationship between the United States and the only democracy in the Middle East. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.