some people may not believe it is right to nationalize resources, too bad. Roughly 48%(2002) of the population lives below the poverty line, you have deficiencies in public health and schooling, and the majority of national produce is being exported at subpar prices, and you're still going to defend the right's a select few to get rich exploiting workers, paying subpar wages, and keeping a very large chunk of the country's economy under complete dominance, whilst people starve. Humanitarian needs take priority.
Again, the solution to this is not to nationalize everything. You're trampling the rights of the individual just as badly as a corrupt CEO. Instead you have to impose moderate reforms. Unions, labor laws, etc. Social reforms. Not nationalization. The only reason it may work for Venezuela now is because they have extremely lucrative oil reserves, and once those are gone, they'll have no free market income to back them up. Watch what happens to poverty then.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
the funny thing is, i often find chomsky and chavez to be too tolerant and moderate. i don't believe in democracy as the correct system. i only believe in it as a way to distabilize current political establishment.
Socialism is also completely flawed, don't call me a communist, there are some things of communism with wich i identify, but the system as a whole is utopic.
some people may not believe it is right to nationalize resources, too bad. Roughly 48%(2002) of the population lives below the poverty line, you have deficiencies in public health and schooling, and the majority of national produce is being exported at subpar prices, and you're still going to defend the right's a select few to get rich exploiting workers, paying subpar wages, and keeping a very large chunk of the country's economy under complete dominance, whilst people starve. Humanitarian needs take priority.
I suggest that you define "multiple sources", and i sencirely hope that your not talking about the US media. I also suggest that you define "extremist", because on issues regarding the war the whole world is extremist in it's views according to what you just said.
More media hate-mongering. No, You can't counter something like the comprehensive books that Chomsky writes with simple news sound bites. What you can do is read a variety of opinions in different journals, books, and films. The problem with most people who claim to be "in the know" about certain political topics is that they've read one or two books and totally latched onto that book's arguemt without looking elsewhere. Chavez is obviously a socialist extremist, and the fact that he promoted Chomsky's book at the UN should tell you something about the book itself.
As for Chavez himself, you do realize that he was involved in an attempted coup against the democratic government in 1992? You also do know that the ongoing protest in Venezuela are not just a few "mid-upper class" factory owners. There was a recall election in 2004 with millions of supporters and mass marches in the street. Hell, there were even a few kids on this website from Venezuela talking about how they wanted the regieme out. You see, not everyone thinks it's right to seize private property and nationalize it.
You don't solve the problem of workers rights by confiscating everything and turning to socialism. Chavez is a wackjob, showing total ineptness in international politics, and parading around in bright red shirts like he's trying to spark some kind of modern-day Global Communist Revolution for Greater Glory of Worker's Blah Blah Blah Insert Communist Rhetoric Here.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
I suggest that you get your information from multiple sources that vary from Noam Chomsky, who is, in all honesty, an extremist and biased in his views.
I suggest that you define "multiple sources", and i sencirely hope that your not talking about the US media. I also suggest that you define "extremist", because on issues regarding the war the whole world is extremist in it's views according to what you just said.
I assume the erosion you spear of is the nationalization of natural gas and oil resources that doesn't favor US economic interests. Likewise the establishment of a better social security network that benefits the poor, the raise of taxes for the minuscule sector of the population that manages most bussiness in the country, and is closely linked in international trade to the US.
The so called opposition you speak of is similar to pinochet's supporters during his days of power in chile. Mid-upper class, highly religious and conservative, and completely out of touch with the poor masses that form the majority of the population.
Originally posted by speed: it is correct and justified even if chavez praised bush they would still consider him an enemy because his economic policy doesn't favor US corporations. That said, the CIA was involved in the coup d'etat that tried to eliminate Chavez in 2002, and replace him with a ultra-right wing military dictatorship that would favor US investment. I suggest you read Noam Chomsky., you'll get a much better perspective of things.
And his name is Chavez, not Chanez ¬¬
I suggest that you get your information from multiple sources that vary from Noam Chomsky, who is, in all honesty, an extremist and biased in his views.
As far as it being "correct and justified", why don't you take a look at how rational and productive international relations are usually carried out.
And as for Chavez, the guy is eroding the democratic institutions of Venezuela, and there are large numbers of Venezuelans who are pissed at his government and at his election, which is a much better explaination for the coup attempt rather than some vauge conspiracy theory.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
it is correct and justified even if chavez praised bush they would still consider him an enemy because his economic policy doesn't favor US corporations. That said, the CIA was involved in the coup d'etat that tried to eliminate Chavez in 2002, and replace him with a ultra-right wing military dictatorship that would favor US investment. I suggest you read Noam Chomsky., you'll get a much better perspective of things.
This is called a standoff. It is not the same thing.
quote:
'small-scale cold war.'
Metaphors obviously mean nothing to you. If we take the Cold War to be the standoff between the two superpowers of the United States and the former Soviet Union, then a standoff between the US and North Korea would be similar, but on a much smaller scale. Korea is not even close to the USSR in terms of influence or power.
quote:
If no one would ever risk nuclear holocaust then why are countries trying to get Nukes?
If you didn't trust your neighbor and saw him stockpiling guns, wouldn't you do the same? Mutually assured destruction. I would have thought that blindingly obvious.
quote:
I really don't understand what you mean by this.
Clearly. A terrorist organization does not need to worry about retaliation because it doesn't have a country. It can easily sneak in a dirty bomb and detonate it in the middle of a large city. Quick, easy, and nigh undetectable. Nothing like a gigantic flying tube with a warhead in it.
the thing I find amusing about hugo chavez calling any one in a postion of power a devil is that if any one in his own country did said that about him that person would "vanish"
Very true.
And you can hold some one with a gun hostage if yours is bigger or the person is not willing to use thiers. I don't think the US is willing to use a nuke anymore because the cowardly hippies have made nuclear weapons bad.
BREAKING NEWS: According to North Korea's Offical News Agency N. Korea just tested a nuclear weapon. News article.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
You can't hold someone with a gun hostage, even if you have one too
The please explain why we have returned to the bargaining table every time N Korea wants to. Also, please explain what Pakistan and India are doing right now. Are they not holding each other hostage?
quote:
If anything, NK's development of a nuclear weapons program will lead to a small-scale cold war. No one will risk nuclear holocaust.
When there is a threat of a nuclear attack there is no such thing as a 'small-scale cold war.' If no one would ever risk nuclear holocaust then why are countries trying to get Nukes?
quote:
Besides, it's already been proven that small, efficient terrorist organizations have succeeded where big, nuke-wielding countries have failed.
the thing I find amusing about hugo chavez calling any one in a postion of power a devil is that if any one in his own country did said that about him that person would "vanish"
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to threaten the region and hold free nations across the world hostage.
You can't hold someone with a gun hostage, even if you have one too. Not even Kim Jong Il is stupid enough to launch missiles at any country or an ally of a country that also has nukes. If anything, NK's development of a nuclear weapons program will lead to a small-scale cold war. No one will risk nuclear holocaust. Besides, it's already been proven that small, efficient terrorist organizations have succeeded where big, nuke-wielding countries have failed.
Originally posted by marine16: Sure - Hugo can say whatever he wants. I believe in free speach. But if he wants to get any help from any other countries other than Iran, Cuba, and North Korea then I suggest he stop saying such things. All it was a desperate attempt to try to gain the polls in Venezuela so he is no longer 20 points behind for the coming election.
His threats and concerns are of little merit because he wont be in office much longer anyway.
Yeah, I guess Irael is intimidating palestine - if you consider palestine blowing up school busses israeli intimidation.
Sorry it doesn't matter what you say anymore, you have no credability anymore. You have proven yourself to be a lier.
Mod Edit: no threats please Hydrok
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GreenLanternMod,
Sure - Hugo can say whatever he wants. I believe in free speach. But if he wants to get any help from any other countries other than Iran, Cuba, and North Korea then I suggest he stop saying such things. All it was a desperate attempt to try to gain the polls in Venezuela so he is no longer 20 points behind for the coming election.
His threats and concerns are of little merit because he wont be in office much longer anyway.
Yeah, I guess Irael is intimidating palestine - if you consider palestine blowing up school busses israeli intimidation.
I am not saying that things are not out of control in that region and that BOTH side have made many mistakes that have contributed to the insability and violence. But Isreal pulled out of Gaza one year ago (soldiers ripping thier countrymen out of churches and homes to the delight of the liberals and palestinians), and they are still being murdered. I guess that was not good enough.
quote:
Every cause has an effect, the effect is palestinian resistence, the cause is israeli oppression
Every cause has an effect, the effect is Isreali military actions, the cause is Palestinian and Arab terror attacks.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
Terrorists can be democratically elected too. Hamas supports and promotes the destruction of Israel. They want to bring terror upon the Israeli citizens.
Syria supports terrorists like hezbollah, hamas, and countless other groups through funding, weapon supplies, and harbor.
hamas are democratically elected, hezbollah are a liberation organisation. The 1st is fact the 2nd is matter of opinion.
quote:
Isreali children cannot even get on a abus to go to school without the fear of being blown to pieces. I guess this is ok with you.
and is israeli intimidation of palestinians ok? i have heard 1st hand accounts of israeli brutality against innocent civilians of gaza, we have all seen the horrific video of the father sheltering his young child only to be both left dead after a hail of israeli bullets.
Every cause has an effect, the effect is palestinian resistence, the cause is israeli oppression...funded and supported by the US government. There is evil on both sides, neither sside can justify their most atrocious actions, but the lesson we have to learn is that both sides have their bennefactors, israel has the US, and palestine has hezbollah, aided and abetted by syria and iran.
'it's better to have your ministers inside the tent pissing out than outside, pissing in'
Topics 
