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
Aydin View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
  Quote Aydin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Hugo Chavez
    Posted: 22-May-2006 at 23:27
In Venezuela, you blink, people die. On average nearly 50+ people get assassinated/killed every weekend in Caracas.
 
Chavez is like what Ahmadinejad is to Iran.
Back to Top
Aydin View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
  Quote Aydin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 01:30
Originally posted by Illuminati

he definitely uses fear as a tactic. He's boosted his military signifigantly by claiming that the US is going to invade. even though the Bush hasn't the political capital to do so, not to mention the US has a huge deficit and an over-extended military. In short....he's using fear tactics to help him push along his political agenda. While at the same time criticiing Bush for using fear as a tactic. Chavez is the typical hypocritical politician.

in terms of his "liberalism", i'd say he's jsut your average ideological left-winger using nationalism and the promise of a socialist revolution to stay in power. Time will tell whether or not his economic policies work. they could, but he'd have to get most of south america and latin america to turn away from free-trade deals with Washington, something which he hasn't been too successful at. He has to be successful, he's already disliked by alot of economically powerful nations and groups because of his economic policy. Time will tell though. should be interesting to see ho whis policies turn out.
 
Indeed. And he uses statements by the Christian Conservatives such as Pat Robertson [who is a moron I might add] to convince his people.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 05:58
Originally posted by Aydin

In Venezuela, you blink, people die. On average nearly 50+ people get assassinated/killed every weekend in Caracas.
 
Chavez is like what Ahmadinejad is to Iran.

I don't think you can blame Chavez for that (or at least not completely). It already happened bevofre Chavez, and similar things happen all over Latin America, in countries with both leftist and rightist governments.

Originally posted by Maharbbal

On the one hand they are dictators and no one can back them for this reason.

Both Chvez and Morales were elected



Edited by Mixcoatl - 23-May-2006 at 05:59
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: 23-May-2006 at 07:56

Mixcoatl:

Both were elected and both, I suspect, will be in power until they are forced out.  They will fall back on that "I was elected" rubric whenever they are called to account.  Elective politics was a convenience that has served its purpose.
 
They both have made it clear that their ideal political model is Cuba's, and we remember the last election there, right?
 
In short, don't look for term limits for these two.
 
 

 

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: 23-May-2006 at 08:13
I completely agree with illuminati when he says that Chavez is an ideologue which is his strenght, his weakness, why he must be respected and why he has to be turn out.

BTW The all-private dogma is also an ideology that works hardly better than the other one. For a succesful nationalization see 1980's France!

M.
I am a free donkey!
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: 23-May-2006 at 09:37
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

And as far as the oil reserves, don't be surprised if he attempts to sell some of it to the Chinese.  Not good. 
 
Why not? Their money's no good?
Not beneficial for the hemisphere. 
 
Again, why not?
A security concern if someone else gains influence in Venezuela. 
 
Whose security?
 Hmmm, spheres of influence; lines of commerce and communication; a "democratic" government called into disrepute.
 
See Hugo rant; hear Hugo bark!  Watch Hugo screw up.  Who he needs to watch may not be the US, it may be Brazil.
 
 
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: 23-May-2006 at 10:25
Graham:  I am sure you appreciate candor so I shall not try to BS you.
 
(I)  The Chinese have been trying for some time to acquire possession or control of natural resources to deny them to the West (that means you too).   A kind of economic asymetrical military strategy.  Goal:  ace out the West (US) in east Asia.
 
(II)  Believe it or not, Latin America is part of the West. Wink  It does not consist of just the "Anglosphere."  Let's not be so naive as to think the Chinese would give a damn about Venezuelan (or Bolivian) social problems.  They would exploit the resources because they are there to exploit, just like BP, Petrobras, or anyone else.  The benefit would disproportionately go to China not the Latin Americans.  Once you sell it control is more difficult to regain.  And, a sale price is usually a deep discount to value over time.
 
(III)  To be perfectly frank, the security of the United States would be impacted by the presence and influence of a strong power in Venezuela.  That is not in our interests, and that is what matters to me.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 10:27
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: 23-May-2006 at 10:43
I will make two points on Hugo Chavez.

1. Hugo Chavez is an invention of the Bush. Bush created Hugo Chavez as he created Ahmadinejad by pursuing flawed international policies and the war in Iraq.

Bush disrupted the Iraqi oil production with this war, which in turn disrupted world supply at the time when India and China's demand for oil has sharply gone up.

The war in Iraq has made US foreign oil dependency grow from about 45% in 2000 to about 65% today.

This gives leaders of nations with oil a lot of power. Should I remind people that both Iran and Venezuela have oil?

Furthermore, by commiting US troops on Iraq for 15 to 20 years, as many Pentagon analysts say that it will take the U.S. to fix the problems as long as we "stay the course," this means that the military capabilities of the U.S. to strike Iran or Venezuela are diminished.

Both Venezuela and Iran understand this, so both leaders know that they can defiantly talk strongly against the U.S. with no real repercusions.


2. I will remind everyone here that the style of Chavez and Ahmadinejad are not that differently from that of Bush. Look, I exchanged "Bush" for "Chavez" in these two texts, changed some name of countries, and the critizism against Chavez applies to Bush as well:

Malizai makes my point for me. Bush is about as democratic as his buddy Putin. He can always fall back on the "but they elected me" excuse, but I don't see this man giving up power. He will turn out to be a working class caudillo, and he and his clique will be just as corrupt.

And as far as the oil reserves, don't be surprised if he attempts to sell some of it to the Chinese. Not good. Not beneficial for the hemisphere. A security concern if someone else gains influence in the United States. Hmmm, spheres of influence; lines of commerce and communication; a "democratic" government called into disrepute.

See Bush rant; hear Bush bark! Watch Bush screw up. Who he needs to watch may not be the Iraq, it may be Iran.


No one can deny that George Bush is doing what he thinks is in the best interest of his people. That much is a given. Yet, I don't think he's that smart of a leader. Bush however, is an ideologue. The question is how far will he go and what tactics will he use to ensure that his ideology is pushed forward when times get rough. he's already shown himself to be a little hot-headed and his rhetoric isn't the best when it comes being someone that others would want to do business with. Not to mention he uses the same fear-mongering tactics that bush uses to gain and maintain popular support.

Personally, i think he's an economic moron. You can't privatize too much in world where everythig is based on a global economy. People may not like that fact, but it is the truth. He also isn't a strong supporter of human rights and freedom. He merely sides with those who oppose his enemies.....and that makes him no different than any other corrupt politician out there.


I personally feel uneasy with Chavez not because of his rhetoric but because of his anti-democratic actions. I feel the same way about Bush.

Maybe we should forget about ideologies and try to focus on which leaders promote or diminish democracy in their country, and let those who live in those countries fight against anti-democratic regimes, regardless of them belonging to our political side or not.
    

Edited by hugoestr - 23-May-2006 at 10:48
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: 23-May-2006 at 11:05
Pikeshot,

1. I will remind you that today's China was made by the U.S., and their economic growth has been a function of the U.S. demand for their cheap junk.

2. Hugo Chavez is no threat to the U.S. I still have to see evidence for that.

3. Hugo Chavez is free to sell Venezuelan oil to whomever he wants. We are for a free market, right? If China pays more for it, capitalism says that he should sell it to the Chinese.

4. Finally, the U.S. cannot go around claiming that it wants democracy in the world if it doesn't respect the will of free, democratic nations because they disagree with their political decisions.

If the U.S. is only going to allows those goverments that favor it, then we should come clean about the U.S. imperialistic goals and deal with the consequences and give up any claims for moral high ground.


If Americans are still committed to the values of liberty, democracy, and free trade, we should attempt to live them then.
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: 23-May-2006 at 11:53
hugo, we are going to disagree on this (as with other things).
 
All this what's fair is fair stuff needs to be reserved for the playing field.  Who "created" China has nothing to do with this.  It is not Hugo (the other one) who would be a threat.  That is not what I said.
 
I am for the security interests of the United States first, and free markets (that have never really existed anyway) must come down the list somewhere.  If some capitalist God willed it, would not the Asian reserves of UNOCAL have been sold to China?  Maybe it was a good price.  That was not the point.  It was quashed for security reasons.  Did you give any thought to my point about Chinese governmental-resource strategy?  One might think you had moved to Beijing.  Wink
 
And I realize Dwight Eisenhower is long gone, and pretty much forgotten, but if you want to see the "Model" of a military-industrial complex, don't look at the United States, look at China.
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 12:23
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 12:04
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Both were elected and both, I suspect, will be in power until they are forced out.  They will fall back on that "I was elected" rubric whenever they are called to account.  Elective politics was a convenience that has served its purpose.
 
They both have made it clear that their ideal political model is Cuba's, and we remember the last election there, right?
 
In short, don't look for term limits for these two.

Perhaps in the case of Chvez you're right, but the majority of the population supports him. I know it's not an ideal solution, but it's quite difficult to get rid of somebody who has the support of the majority of the people, even if he's not democratically. Don't get me wrong, I don't like his authoriatarianism (I do like his economic policies though), but there's very little one can do against it. And if you want to compare him with other people, I think Pern, Crdenas or Vargas are better comparisons than Ahmadinejad or Castro.

As for Morales, he has been elected president only a few months ago. I think it's too early to judge about that. Actually I trust Morales more than Chvez.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 23-May-2006 at 12:05
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: 23-May-2006 at 12:20

hugo, I missed your post previous to my last response to yours.  That one belongs in the "Blame it all on America Forum."  I think the moderator is Noam Chomsky.

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: 23-May-2006 at 13:48
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Graham:  I am sure you appreciate candor so I shall not try to BS you.
 
(I)  The Chinese have been trying for some time to acquire possession or control of natural resources to deny them to the West (that means you too).   A kind of economic asymetrical military strategy.  Goal:  ace out the West (US) in east Asia.
 
Isn't 'trying to acquire possession or control of natural resources' what everybody does?
 
At least they're doing it peaceably - they aren't occupying countries like the old Soviet Union. Or even the British, the French, the Americans....
 
I don't see how you can call it a 'military' strategy.
 
 
(II)  Believe it or not, Latin America is part of the West. Wink  It does not consist of just the "Anglosphere."  Let's not be so naive as to think the Chinese would give a damn about Venezuelan (or Bolivian) social problems. 
 
 
Neither, on the record, would anyone else. And what do you mean by 'the West'?
 
 
They would exploit the resources because they are there to exploit, just like BP, Petrobras, or anyone else.  The benefit would disproportionately go to China not the Latin Americans. 
 
 
The question at issue is not whether the Venezuelans will do better than China out of the deal. It's whether the Venezuelans will do better out of a deal with China than one with the big oil corporations.
 
Once you sell it control is more difficult to regain.  And, a sale price is usually a deep discount to value over time.
 
True whoever you sell it too. But as far as I can see Chavez isn't selling control to anyone. He's taking it back.
 
[/QUOTE]
(III)  To be perfectly frank, the security of the United States would be impacted by the presence and influence of a strong power in Venezuela.  That is not in our interests, and that is what matters to me.
 
[/QUOTE]
 
Well, that at least is honest if a bit paranoiac. China isn't exactly garrisoning Venezuela you know. What's in your best interest is to stop guzzling oil so that you can give Chavez or the Saudis or whoever the finger. And stop borrowing money from China: having China as a major creditor you can't afford to displease is worse than having China influential in Latin America.
 
That's really the only long-term choice you have.
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: 23-May-2006 at 14:07
No, it falls under the "America take responsibility for yourself" forum. :)


Besides, that is an easy way of dismissing my points. Please, tell me:

Hasn't the U.S. increased his dependency on foreign oil because of the war on Iraq?

Doesn't having more dependency on foreign oil give power to Chavez and the Iranian leader?

Doesn't having our troops committed in Iraq make it impossible for us to deploy them in some other, more important area in the world?

And isn't Bush cocky, loud, and aggressive when speaking to the world? Remember "with us or against us"? Do you remember who broke international weapons treaties as soon as he got into office?

How is this blaming the U.S. when I am talking about a facts here?

I will talk about what we can do about Chavez in the next post :)
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: 23-May-2006 at 14:19
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

hugo, we are going to disagree on this (as with other things).

All this what's fair is fair stuff needs to be reserved for the playing field. Who "created" China has nothing to do with this. It is not Hugo (the other one) who would be a threat. That is not what I said.


I am for the security interests of the United States first, and free markets (that have never really existed anyway) must come down the list somewhere. If some capitalist God willed it, would not the Asian reserves of UNOCAL have been sold to China? Maybe it was a good price. That was not the point. It was quashed for security reasons. Did you give any thought to my point about Chinese governmental-resource strategy? One might think you had moved to Beijing. [IMG]height=17 alt=Wink src="http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>


And I realize Dwight Eisenhower is long gone, and pretty much forgotten, but if you want to see the "Model" of a military-industrial complex, don't look at the United States, look at China.





Pikeshot,

Please understand that I am not attacking the U.S. but explaining cause and effect, and hinting to a meaningful solution.

China is only strong because we made it strong and we keep it strong.

Our business leaders sent our jobs there. We keep buying their cheap products. And we have funded a war from their credit.

All Americans are busily strengthening our would-be greatest enemy.

If we were serious about weakening China, we would reduce our dependency--yes, dependency--on its labor pool and their money. Without the U.S. market, China's economy will cool down enough so that it can't afford an arms race.

The same goes for Hugo Chavez. If the U.S. reduces its dependency on foreign oil, a dramatic drop in the price of oil can topple Chavez. This already happened in history.

In the late 1980s, populist president Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexico also barked, ranted, and threatened the U.S. while the price of oil was high. When the price of oil fell, he became very silent, and his popular support disappeared.


The U.S. doesn't need to fight any of these leaders. It can peacefuly destroy their power, if only the had the political will and the willingness to sacrifice for the country, especially big businesses that profit from the current situation, like WalMart and the oil corporations. :)
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: 23-May-2006 at 19:02

hugo:

I agree, in theory, with some of what you say.  In order to realize your vision, there must be a new strategic macro-policy that none of us can influence.
 
Here is a link to a journal of security affairs with an article that complements our debate here:
 
 
See the artcle "Thinking Beyond OPEC" by Frederick Cedoz
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 19:38
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: 23-May-2006 at 19:11
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. 
 
QUOTE:  "At least they are doing it peaceably"  Is that supposed to be comforting?
 
Is the concept of the West really that foreign to you?
 
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:
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 19:19
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
  Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-May-2006 at 20:19
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
At least they're doing it peaceably
 
How're they're doing it isn't the point.  The point is that they're meddling in our hemisphere and they can't just expect us to sit there and let a tin-pot dictator and our greatest potential rival start mucking around in our sphere of interest.  They could be handing out free milk and cookies to all Venezuelans and we would still be just as mad.
Member of IAEA
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: 23-May-2006 at 22:47
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

hugo:


I agree, in theory, with some of what you say. In order to realize your vision, there must be a new strategic macro-policy that none of us can influence.


Here is a link to a journal of security affairs with an article that complements our debate here:




See the artcle "Thinking Beyond OPEC" by Frederick Cedoz




I read the article. Even though I agree with many points, I disagree with many of its major points.

First, believing that OPEC is a failure is a joke. They have failed to control prices; that is why they are are making more money than ever. Frankly, it is a failure that the OPEC can live with.

Second, the author doesn't understand Mexican history or culture in regards to oil and privatization. So he recommends a solution that is so culturally innapropriate that it can never be implemented.

Mexicans celebrate oil expropriation day. They have had bills and coins celebrating the event. It is the symbol that Mexicans will not let foreigners come and exploit the riches of the country while Mexicans get nothing but exploitation in return.

And the promises of future prosperity with privatization will fail to persuade since the massive privatization of many key sectors of the economy of the late 1980s and 1990s failed to translate into prosperity for the nation.

Furthermore, it is not up to the US to dictate the rate of extraction of oil to Mexico.

And the last point illustrates a major failure of these and similar ideas: the total self-centeredness of the authors in solely advancing U.S. interests. It never occurs to the author to even think how the U.S. can persuade Canada and Mexico to change their production to benefit the U.S.

For example, if the U.S. is so hot to get more Mexican oil, they can provide the advance technology to the Mexican nation in exchange for preferential treatment in oil sales.

Or The U.S. could come to some migration reform that treats Mexican immigrants with dignity, instead of building an insulting wall and militarizing the border.

But of course, none of this things cross the mind of such a selfish, self-centered, ideologue as the author. It is just me, me, me. Not, wait, even better: me, me, me, and do it my way, my way, my way.


The greatest flaw of the author is his failure on advancing a proven and effective solution: reduce national demand.

The most obvious way is to demand high efficiency standards from cars. The U.S. since the 1990s have literally burned their national security with big, wasteful vehicles.

Another one would stop fighting doomed wars that are a resource trap. :)



    
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: 23-May-2006 at 23:04

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.
 
 
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 0.076 seconds.