Hugo Chavez

In Venezuela, you blink, people die. On average nearly 50+ people get assassinated/killed every weekend in Caracas.

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 Ch�vez and Morales were elected



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

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.

Graham:  I am sure you appreciate candor so I shall not try to BS you.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 10:27

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.

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 Ch�vez 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 Per�n, C�rdenas 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 Ch�vez.

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.

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. :)

gcle:

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 23-May-2006 at 19:19

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: www.securityaffairs.org 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. :)