In which Hugo Chávez re-discovers religion.
On Sunday night, shortly after he handily won reelection, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's controversial President-cum-dictator surprised the world in a speech to his constituents by announcing, "The Kingdom of Christ is the kingdom of love, of peace; the kingdom of justice, of solidarity, brotherhood, the kingdom of socialism. This is the kingdom of the future of Venezuela." Not exactly the words one expects to hear from the mouth of a socialist.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Franco
#21 " Clavos
Anyway, I see you finally made it over to the Middle East, did you remember to take your burkha?
LOL
27 - Christopher Rose
CLAVOS: Please don't forget the comments policy precludes ad hominem attacks so, much as you may disagree with Moonraven's views, let's leave out the snide insults like calling her Moonraving, lest I find myself compelled to start editing this thread. Also, as a BC writer, you could consider setting a better example to our visitors...
28 - Clavos
Quite right, Mr. Editor.
My lapse is probably due to my lack of "journalist credentials and ethics."
29 - D'oh
If so Clavos, what's the excuse for editors Bambinek and Nalle?
Don't let it get to you, though we may disagree at times ourselves, I give you full credit for being reasonable and willing to discuss sticky points.
One would hope all that still counts for something among readers, it does to me.
30 - Franco
Clavos,
I have to say that you’re one of blogcrites most ethical and cleanest discussion/debaters out there. You are also one of the true champions against ad hominem attacks on others. In ever blog I have ever been involved in with you, you are always to one calling down others for ad hominem attacks regardless if they are directed at you or at others. All of BC management should be thankful for it..
Christopher Rose is politically correct on his statement of BC’s ad hominem attack policy, and about his authority to start editing this thread. However, he must have been away from or asleep at the switch for a few weeks when moonraven (AKA) marthe raymond (assuming another name is also a BC violation) posted more then 30 posts riddled with some of the nastiest ad hominem attacks I had ever seen at BC or other blogs as well. I never saw anything quite like it. I clearly remember it and Dave surly would too. Where was Christopher Rose then.
I have to say that though all that ugly besiegement, you remained a gentleman, you held on to your ethics and did not let her drag you down into the mud. A feat that Christopher Rose would have had to admit was almost super human considering at voracity of the attacks. You held up BC policy as good or better then anyone I have ever seen. You earned the Purple Heart and the Silver Star in that battle. However, it is obvious from Christopher’s post, one clearly doesn’t get any credit for those metals in another battle to even commit the tiny of sins..
I look at it this way. After experiencing that besiegement of ad hominem attacks first hand, which we all did, no one could blame even Mother Teresa for shipping in an appropriate name change on such an attacker. I certainly forgive you.
I guess you are really getting called out more for being a BC writer with example standards to uphold then anything else. I hope that is truly the case even though Chris did use the word “also” which I found disturbing
Well Clavos, when you’re at the top making the big bucks, it has to stop somewhere.
31 - troll
sorry 'bout that Clavos -
32 - Dave Nalle
CR: Please don't forget the comments policy precludes ad hominem attacks
I thought the policy was against personal attacks, not ad hominems as such. I mean, there's no problem if I say "Eurocentrists like Christopher are often mistaken for socialists," but if I say "Eurocentrists like Christopher are usually fatuous nannynoses," that might be unacceptable.
D'oh: If so Clavos, what's the excuse for editors Bambinek and Nalle?
I can't speak for JB, but much of my editorial experience has been working for partisan political house organs, so a certain amount of excessive rhetoric was tolerated or even encouraged. I think it makes life more fun.
Dave
33 - Clavos
D'oh, Franco and troll,
Thank you, gentlemen.
34 - Clavos
Mister Comments Editor,
Dave Nalley has raised an interesting question here:
"I thought the policy was against personal attacks, not ad hominems as such."
What say you?
35 - Matthew T. Sussman
You're just saying that because you're ugly.
36 - Clavos
Suss,
I know you are, but what am I?
37 - ss
Clavos & Franco:
Ireland was an impoverished nation of small farms and big slums until it realized it's small size and young population meant it was poised to cash in on the new economy. They got their financial house in order (painful, in a poor country), shook off traditional views, invested whatever they could in education, and offered incentives for foriegn investment (also painful in a poor country)
They then (largely) skipped industrialization and became a leader in high tech services. In one generation they've become one of the wealthiest countries (in terms of per capita income) in the world (14th wealthiest, I believe)
It seems like Costa Rica should be poised to do the same. I don't see any reason all of Central America and the larger Carribean countries couldn't do just as well with that strategy, though it may take a while a longer.
For the larger countries, like Mexico, competing with an emerging China seems to be a kick in the ass with no easy answer.
Ican't claim to be an expert, but that's how it looks to me.
38 - ss
As far as America trying to maintain it's influence, I'm with moonraven on that, though for different reasons.
There's a great documentary called 'Our Brand is Crisis' that details mistakes made by several American politicos that actually helped Evo Morales expand his base of support and eventually take over by riot induced elections
These mistakes include
1) American free market development experts forced American raised President Quiroga into unpopular decisions concerning a deal for using a port with a neighboring country (I've forgotten which one) that the neighbor had actually taken from Bolivia in a war 100+ yrs ago,
2) An American political consulting firm brought Quiroga from behind to win election, but did it by smearing a rival who was a moderate populist (at least compared to Evo)
3) An American ambassador who evoked the War on Terror, compared Morales to bin Ladin, and threaten the Bolivian people with sanctions if they elected Morales. As a result, Morales found new support in the cities and among the middle class
As I said, the end result of these moves was a President to unpopular to sustain his own government and the only opposition left standing, Morales, istigated unrest and moved in and took control
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out we had a hand in the failed coup against Chavez. Since he kept power, it seems to have made him even bolder and given him an even freer hand to buy rifles, arm his thugs, stifle critism, and rewrite the constitution as he sees fit.
In short, we (in the US) are now so bad at meddling in other peoples affairs that the more we do the more likely we'll get the result that hurts ourselves the most AND hurts the country where we meddle the most.
We should just stop thinking of other countries as ours to manipulate before we manage to make it any worse.
This doesn’t mean I support American isolationism, but the arraogant, our way or else approach is even worse.
39 - Clavos
An excellent example, ss.
This is just the kind of thing I would like to see the US helping our neighbor nations to accomplish.
As I pointed out in #16, instead of (or perhaps in addition to) simply giving them money, or even foodstuffs, we should be helping them to improve their own economies along the lines of the Irish example you cite.
For one thing, too often the money (and even the food) is stolen by corrupt officials, and doesn't reach those it's supposed to help. For another, even when distributed properly, the money and food are soon gone, the problems of the people aren't resolved, and they've learned nothing to help them work their way out of the morass.
40 - D'oh
Then the question would be - do you still feed them while you are thinking up this new plan?
Just curious.
41 - moonraven
Newsflash: Ad hominem attacks ARE by definition personal attacks--ad hominem means, literally, DIRECTED AT THE PERSON:
"A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.)."
Ad hominem attacks are the only response I have ever received from any of the posters on this forum--I have been attacked for both my SUPPOSED political affiliation as well as for my Native American background.
The twisted logic of those attacks boils down to this: that I cannot possibly be right because I am a commie pinko with whom you all have ideological differences.
However, I deal in information--carefully checked out IN THE FIELD--and have zero tolerance for ideological discussions, since I subscribe to no ideology.
As for Clavos' ethics--he's now saying that he's a used boat salesman in Carl Hiasson Country--but a few months back he was supposedly living in Mexico and therefore said he had credentials to challenge me, a longtime Mexico resident. By his own admission he did not have the money for a plane ticket to Caracas, so I find it astonishing that in this short period of time he packed up, moved to Florida and established a thriving business in used boats (although I suppose if those boats are the high speed launches used by the drug cartels maybe it would be possible). I don't believe it for a minute. And an ad hominem logical fallacy application would be the following: Clavos lied about his place of residence and his occupation, so he couldn't possibly be telling the truth about anything else.
He also has spent most of his energy "outing" me in the sense of posting personal information that is available from a Google search. (If that is not an ad hominem approach, I'll eat it.)
He has NEVER refuted--with facts--a single statement or piece of information I have posted on this site. NOR have any of the rest of you.
The group of posters that crops up on this site whenever there is a piece involving Venezuela appear to have no experience of the country, nor of its president, but the very word SOCIALISM sets them off like a car bomb in downtown Bagdad.
Do you do the same thing when there is a piece about one of the SCANDINAVIAN SOCIALIST countries--NORWAY, for example, which is a major petroleum producer and has had a revenue distribution scheme in place for many years that is considerably more radical than that of Venezuela?
Norway is the second richest country per capita in the world--right after Luxembourg and right above Switzerland.
Try calling a few of those Norwegians raving commie pinkos and see how they react to you.
42 - troll
calling you 'moonraver' is not an attack on your politics or ethnicity...it's a statement about how you come across in your comments
I've tried a couple of time to tap your impressions of Venezuela and Chavez's behavior...you've responded with generalized vitriol
so with all due respect [Edited] imo people who are in perpetual attack mode are useless
43 - moonraven
Specific to troll: I am not the least concerned by anything Chavez does. Most of the folks in Venezuela are not concerned either. The country is in an ecoonomic boom--19% growth in 2004, almost 10% in 2005 and so far more than 10% this year. That's higher than China's! The dicussion of changing the term limits specified in the Constitution has been raised because most folks in Venezuela want to see the Bolivarian project conotinur to unfold.
Term limits in Latin America have provided AT BEST for alteration of two corrupt parties (Venezuela and Mexico are both good examples of that--and in fact the alteration of parties in Mexico has put the country in the worst straits it has seen for almost 100 years).
The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was supposedly fought because Diaz was in power for more than 30 years. The result: the PRI party was in power for over 70. (Neoliberal pundit Mario Vargas Llosa called it "The Perfect Dictatorship".)
What's happening in Venezuela--or even as I type this in Cochabamba, Bolivia, at the South American Summit--has nothing to do with political parties or ideology. It's about the recovery of human dignity and integration to form a power bloc.
Someone mentioned Bolivia earlier--about how it became landlocked: as a result of losing The War of the Pacific. A few years back Chavez said "I dream of swimming on a Bolivian beach" and Chile withdrew its ambassador in Caracas. It may not be such a far-fetched, radical idea anymore....Bolivia's new presidents are discussing that--and a host of other changes--at this very moment.
The world of politics is a fast-moving arena--where only the reactionaries like Bush/Cheney dig in their heels and refuse to move forward, to consider alternative ways of dealing with the rest of the folks on the planet.
I don't think they are models worth imitating. Not by a longshot.
s
44 - moonraven
Wow, troll--talk about projection! You wrote:
"so with all due respect - fuck you...imo people who are in perpetual attack mode are useless"
They may well be useless--I am not at all sure that whether someone is useful is the question to discuss here. What concerns me is that you don't seem to see is that you are one of them. I certainly interpret the phrase, "fuck you", as being attack mode.
And you have the audacity to wonder why I don't spend my time giving you ALL of my impressions of Venezuela and Chavez?!
I have given the ONLY information about Venezuela and Chavez that has ever been posted on blogcritics.org. Everything else posted on this site in regard to those two topics has been either libelous or unsubstantiated opinions.
Nobody on this forum has ever shown the slightest inclination to actually inform himself about the country or the president in question.
That's what I find reprehensible.
45 - moonraven
This piece from Mark Weisbrot speaks to the original topic in the mature, well-documented manner: (Just in the offchance that someone reading this forum might actually be interested in information.)
Venezuela's Election Provides Opportunity for Washington to Change Course Friday, Dec 08, 2006 By: Mark Weisbrot - Common Dreams
President Hugo Chavez's landslide victory in Sunday's election provides an opportunity to open a new chapter of US-Venezuelan relations. It was one of the most internationally monitored elections in recent memory, with observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union once again approving the results and the process. This is the fourth time that Chavez has stood for election and won, if we include the recall referendum of August 2004, which he won by a similar margin. As the famous Brazilian sociologist Helio Jaguaribi recently remarked, Chavez is "the most elected president in the hemisphere."
This would be a good time for President Bush to call and congratulate President Chavez, and bury the hatchet with our fourth largest oil supplier. To those who object that Chavez called President Bush "the devil" just last September at the United Nations, it is worth noting that on Thursday President Bush called to congratulate left economist Rafael Correa, the newly elected president of Ecuador. When asked about Chavez' UN speech last September, Correa had commented that it was an "insult to the devil," and added a couple of choice remarks of his own about President Bush which do not need to be repeated here.
Correa responded graciously to President Bush's overture and praised him as "noble" for calling. The day after our own Congressional elections, a reporter reminded President Bush that the new House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi had recently called him a liar, incompetent, and dangerous, and asked how he could work with her. He replied that "if you hold grudges in this line of work, you're never going to get anything done."
Well said. Now why not apply that philosophy to Venezuela? The Congressionally appointed Iraq Study Group is calling for dialogue with Iran and Syria. Here is a democracy just a few hours flight from Miami, which has never done anything to injure the United States and has always been a reliable energy supplier. Why not have engagement in this hemisphere as well?
The Bush Administration's strategy of trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors has clearly failed. Two weeks ago President Lula da Silva of Brazil took his first foreign trip, after re-election, to Venezuela, where he presided with Chavez over the inauguration of a $1.2 billion bridge financed by the Brazilian government, praising Chavez and pretty much endorsing him publicly as he headed for re-election. Most of Latin America supported Venezuela's unsuccessful bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council, despite warnings and pleadings from the Bush Administration. It seems that Washington has succeeded more in isolating itself in the hemisphere, rather than Venezuela.
It is likely that Chavez would respond positively to an olive branch, although his grudges against the Bush Administration go beyond the exchange of unpleasantries - such as Donald Rumsfeld comparing him to Hitler. The Administration openly supported the military coup against his democratically elected government in 2002, and according to the US State Department, gave financial and other support "to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." It is this and other support for Venezuela's political opposition that have done the most to poison the relationship between the two governments.*
But the hard-liners who saw Venezuela as "another Cuba" and regime change as the preferred strategy - people like Otto Reich and Roger Noriega - are now gone from the Bush Administration, and many career diplomats at the State Department would welcome a new policy of engagement, especially since Chavez is going to be president of Venezuela for another six years.
Chavez is well-known for his undiplomatic outbursts, but he also has a pragmatic side: he has very good relations with his ideological opposite, President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, despite the problems of guerilla and paramilitary violence along their 2,000 kilometer border that have led to serious friction between previous governments.
The rest of the region would also like to see this dispute put to rest. Most countries clearly reject the new "Cold War" framework on which it is based, and do not want to choose sides. And we who live in the United States really don't need more enemies in the world.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.
*Note to the editors: since these facts are well-documented but not well known in the United States, I am attaching the following explanation and documentation of the Bush Administration's support for the coup. It is also worth noting that the Administration stepped up financial support to opposition groups after the coup, including people involved in the economically devastating oil strike of 2002-2003, and USAID continues to fund organizations in Venezuela with millions of dollars but refuses to disclose the recipients.
First, according to the U.S. State Department's Office of Inspector General, "it is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." [1]
Second, and even more importantly, the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup but then denied that knowledge when it occurred, claiming that it was not a coup at all, in an attempt to make it succeed. This is a form of involvement. To take an analogy: imagine that someone tells me that they are going to kill someone, and then does so. He then claim's self-defense. If I then go to the police, with full knowledge that the crime was planned, and say that it was self-defense, I am participating in the crime. In that sense, then, Washington was involved in the coup.
During the April 16, 2002 White House press briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of a pending coup in Venezuela: "events were combustible, events were fluid. Those events were not anticipated." [2]
However, an April 6, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief (several days before the coup) states that "[d]issident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chavez, possibly as early as this month To provoke military action, plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA." [3] Intelligence briefs such as this one are typically read by as many as 200 officials in the Bush Administration.
Earlier, a March 11, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief had warned: "If the situation further deteriorates and demonstrations become more violent or if Chavez attempts an unconstitutional move to add to his powers, the military may move to overthrow him." [4]
It is thus clear that U.S. officials were briefed at the highest level about an anticipated and likely military coup against the Chavez government. Yet when the coup occurred, White House and State Department officials attempted to convince the public that it was not a coup but rather a popular uprising. (See below).
Third, the White House supported the coup government in other ways:
White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said on April 12, one day after the attempted coup: "We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations. The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. [5]"
The U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker followed the White House line stating that "undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday's crisis in Venezuela." [6]
Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico stated that "Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and France recognizing the government of [coup leader] Pedro Carmona." [7]
Similar allegations were made by Castaneda in a New York Times article that after the coup Mexico and Chile countered a coordinated effort by the U.S., Colombia, El Salvador and Spain to cobble together diplomatic support for the interim coup government. [8]
[1] A review of U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela: November 2001 April 2002, Report 02-OIG-003, July 2002, state.gov
[2] White House Press Briefing, April 16, 2002. Available online at: whitehouse.gov
[3] Full document available at: venezuelafoia.info
[4] Full document available at: venezuelafoia.info
[5] White House press briefing, April 12, 2002. Available online at: whitehouse.gov
[6] Venezuela: Change of Government, Press Statement by Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Department of State, April 12, 2002. Available online at: state.gov
[7] Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, in "Colombia, Espana, El Salvador y EE.UU. Apoyaron el Golpe," by Nancy Fara, Agence France-Presse, November 28, 2004
[8] Documents Show C.I.A. Knew of Coup Plot in Venezuela, by Juan Forero, New York Times, December 3, 2004.
Original source / relevant link: Common Dreams
46 - Christopher Rose
Any further comments on this thread that are not on the subject of Clavos' original article will be deleted in their entirety regardless of their source.
The Comments Editor
47 - Dave Nalle
Marthe, while I appreciate your desire to reprint Socialist propaganda here, please don't paste entire articles into comments. Summarize and use a link. Editors have warned you about this before. It's often a violation of copyright - though in this case likely not since it's propaganda - but it's always an abuse of the comments system.
Dave
48 - Dave Nalle
A couple of notes on the recent election in Venezuela to get things back on track.
Were you aware that Venezuela has over 3 million potential voters who don't exist? I bet you can guess who they voted for. And I'm not sure that figure counts the various middle eastern terrorists who go there for training. For more on the amusing case of the 1921 fraudulent Gonzales registrations see the Miami Herald.
And consider this. Why do the same people who object to electronic voting machines as easily used for fraud here in the US believe that the Venezuelan elections are legitimate when they are done almost entirely using these machines and run by the government which underwrites the manufacture of one of the machines most criticized here in the US. He who controls the voting machines controls the outcome of the election.
Dave
49 - Zedd
Clavos,
Great article. You reserved a lot of judgment and stopped just short of the childish "socialism bad, capitalism good, ALWAYS" position.
So far Chavez has been intelligent and thoughtful about the future of the region. The truth be told, he offers hope for this dead part of the world. The same patterns of governance and economic depletion, U.S. manipulation, have eroded the landscape, so he is a breath of fresh air, for now. I appreciate his stand against our bullying. He should speak up against what he sees as imperialism. It’s no secret that we have played around with the politics in that part of the world for quite some time. Besides, if Bush can name an Axis of EVIL, he can call Bush a devil, "El Diablo". That was hysterical. I loved that. When he said it, it was really dramatic. The statement about the smell of sulfur still lingering in the halls was poetic. I wish the Decider was that riveting... Anyway, I thought it was funny. It keeps us in check and helps us have a reasonable perspective on the level of influence that we have instead of becoming bullies because no one ever confronts us. It’s a good thing. Everyone needs someone to keep them on the ground. Besides, he is saying what a lot of people are thinking and we need to pay attention, for our own safety. Judging from the chuckles in the seats of the UN I am not the only one who enjoyed the speech.
The ending of term limits is THE alarm about Chavez. He's entering into kook mode and yes he needs to be watched closely. We however may not have the clout any longer to affect this region, thanks to Bush. Also our years of manipulation, starting wars, supporting dictators, has worn out our welcome. Our influence and contribution to the chaos over the years has been exposed and I am not sure especially now with Bush in place, if we could regain respect and influence.
However the religious spin is not new. This format is being utilized by Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. The Sandinista, in a 1997 CNN interview, said that his two role models in life are the Nicaraguan patriot Sandino, and Jesus Christ. Ha ha ha. He won his bid for president a month ago with 37% of the vote. It seems as if Chavez is joining the band wagon. I think they are both adopting a Rovian approach myself. They see how WE get all goo-goo eyed whenever a politician said something vaguely religious. They have tapped into an electorate that is fool proof (I mean GWP... come on). It’s a great tactic and it will work... for a while.
50 - Zedd
Troll,
I don't think you have a grasp of what liberation theology is.
51 - Clavos
D'oh #40:
Then the question would be - do you still feed them while you are thinking up this new plan?
Of course. In fact, I believe I said that (though as an aside) in my #39.
The most troubling aspect of our aid worldwide is that so much of it never actually gets to the people it's intended to help, but is stolen by corrupt officials for resale on black markets.
The first time I became aware of this was in Vietnam, where I found bags of rice, clearly marked with the USAID logo, for sale in village markets on more than one occasion. I even have pictures of them tucked away someplace.
Later, I looked into it further, and found that it happens just about everywhere we send aid.
I know this is not news, but my point is that if we're going to give aid in whatever form, we need to take measures to ensure that it actually reaches the end users.
52 - Zedd
Ruvy:
Not everything is about the Jews. Can you give us a break? I mean really. We are spending a lot of money and are being attacked all for the sake of Israel. Can we talk about OUR region without you interjecting JEWNESS into it? GEEZZ!! Bad enough that you have declared yourselves to be GOD'S PEOPLE (no one else) and soberly want everyone in the world to go along with you, don't you think? Put the mirror down. Enough with the self absorption.
A lot of people are thinking this... aren't you?? he he he. Seriously, enough is enough. And no I am not an anti-Semite. I’m sure you’d love that…. Another reason to go on nauseatingly about your Jewish ness and how oppressed you are in that oasis in the desert that we pay for.
53 - Zedd
Dave #48:
Just stop it with the "Libertarian" claim. You are way too partisain. Let it go. You are getting way too paranoid about Dems. Relax guy. THEY are not everywhere lurking and plotting.
Look democrats come in many forms. Those who complained about the machines may not be the same ones who championed what is going on in South America. Take a deep breath. The election is over, Bush is an idiot, the republicans lost. Lets move on.
54 - Dave Nalle
Just stop it with the "Libertarian" claim. You are way too partisain. Let it go. You are getting way too paranoid about Dems. Relax guy. THEY are not everywhere lurking and plotting.
Comment #48 wasn't terribly long. Certainly short enough that you should have noticed that I didn't mention Democrats once in it.
As for my 'partisanship', you seem to have leapt to an erroneous conclusion. I'm not partisan, I'm anti-partisan. I'm mostly just against socialists, communists and other leftist fifth columnists working against the best interests of the US if that makes it look like I'm anti-democrat it's kind of an illusion. It also makes me equally strongly opposed to the Neocons for the same reasons.
Dave
55 - Clavos
When did "partisan" become a dirty word?
Certainly, there are situations where partisanship is anappropriate and not acceptable -- news reports, for example.
There are other scenarios where I see nothing whatever wrong with partisanship -- an opinion piece, by definition, is "partisan."
"Partisan" used to mean an individual supported a specific point of view in a discipline, and didn't, if memory serves, carry any pejorative baggage with it. Now. it seems, one of the worst epithets one can hurl at another is that of partisan.
How did that happen? And why?
56 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Zedd,
"Not everything is about the Jews. Can you give us a break? I mean really. We are spending a lot of money and are being attacked all for the sake of Israel. Can we talk about OUR region without you interjecting JEWNESS into it? GEEZZ!!"
Aww, that's just too damned bad, Zedd. I didn't hear the author whine at all about my comment.
If it pisses you off, so much the better. When the politics and politicians in YOUR region shut their fucking mouths and stay out of OUR lives in OUR region, I'll keep my long Jewish nose out of your region. By the way, take your money and your damned soldiers and their shitty weapons with you when you leave. We don't need any of it. And don't let the door crack your skull as you slam it on the way out - I wouldn't want nice people with class like you to get hurt.
57 - MCH
"When did "partisan" become a dirty word?"
- Clavvy
About 15-20 years after "liberal" became a dirty word.
58 - Franco
#37 & #38 " ss
#37 " The Ireland example you post is excellent and the sacrifices the poor made to achieve this success. However these advancements from poverty to prosperity seem to be always a success story more for the North then the South.
That in and of itself is a question that needs to be studied and explained so what ever is lacking can be addressed to bridge this seeming short fall correctly so proven principle can be successfully applied, even in bigger countris like Mexico.
#38 " If you knew moonraven like Clavos, Dave, and I do, you would not able to say with a straight face that you were with moonraven on anything. That point aside, you make very good points about US failed foreign policy that has a less then successful history. Your suggestions are well heard. I posted an over simplified concept on this too in post #18.
In your comment.......American free market development experts forced American raised President Quiroga into unpopular decisions concerning a deal for using a port with a neighboring country (I've forgotten which one) that the neighbor had actually taken from Bolivia in a war 100+ yrs ago
That port you are referring to is Arica at the northern most point in Chile. The conflict you refer to was “The War of the Pacific” which involved Bolivia, Chile and Peru.
The wars roots can be traced back to Simon Boliva when he declared Bolivia’s independence from Spain in 1825, yet he failed to clearly define pacific coast National boundaries with Peru or Chile. Being a dry and seemingly useless territory no one got hot and bothered until many years later when the discovery of quno and saltpeter was found in abundance for use in fertilizers and explosives that wwere coming into international demand.
Chile was already working the area and had established industrial processing. The arguments over this once unimportant area lead to the War of the Pacific which Chile eventually won.
Both Bolivia and Peru lost territory. The results of this left Bolivia loosing its one time sea port access called Antofagasta (now part of Chile) leaving it land lock. Peru lost the port of Arica (now part of Chile) but sill Peru maintained its port access at all is Pacific ports North of Arica which Chile had captured but returned to Peru.
The unpopular decision you refer to when Bolivia worked out a deal with Chile for the right to tax-free access at the Chilean port of Arica. This arrangement still exists today and accounts for all of Bolivian exports.
I have spent a lot of time in Bolivia and Peru and have friends there and I now live in Chile. I can tell you first hand that the resentments left over from this war are still deeply rooted in the people of each country. It’s a good topic not to bring up.
Here is a classic example of current events to further my point. The Sea, The Sea, The Sea
You can googel more but its all the same emotional shit.
When you say the Americans forced the Bolivian President into an unpopular decision as if the unpopularity of it was some how the fault of the US government, it would not have mattered what foreign government, let alone the US. Anybody would be dealing with a deeply rooted and extremely unpopular topic that no one to even this day can discuss with any of these countries absent of irrational emotions running out of control. If America had not helped Bolivia with Chile to get tax-free access to the sea, they would still be without sea port access to this day. So I’m not sure if that can be considered a failed US foreign intervention. However your point is well taken. The US creates a lot of its own messes through bad decisions.
Getting back more on topic, one of Hugo Chavezs publicly stated goals for Bolivia is to swim in the Pacific Ocean of Bolivia. Nothing short of another war involving Bolivia, Chile and Peru would see his dream come true. I guess he has plans for those new Russian AK103 fully automatic rifles under his new licensing contract with Russia to build the arms factories in Venezuela, which will be cranking out hundreds of thousands if not millions in the next few years.
Chavezs failed attempt at influencing the recent Peruvian presidential elections was a set back for him and a plus for Peru and Chile. Yet Peru still deeply resents Chile over the results of the War of the Pacific. Had the Peruvian elections gone Chavezs way, I think Chile would have considered it time to increase its military capabilities and focus its military strategies.
Chavezs recent success in influencing Ecuador’s presidential election is a plus for him and a problem for Columbia and Peru.
The fact that Hugo can not contain himself to just Venezuela is making it more and more dangerous in South America each and every year.
Chavez knows he can not pull Chile in under his wings for his Bolivian Revolution. It will become a larger sticking point for him in the future as will as Columbia also. This isn’t getting any better, it is getting worse and in the worse kind of way.
I think the US should leave it up to South America to deal with Hugo. If he pisses off Chile and Columbia and Peru too much, Latin’s have a way of taking care of things too, and they can always call on the US for assistance if they so choose.
Just my opinion.
59 - Clavos
Franco,
Thanks for the excellent recap of the history of the War of The Pacific, as well as the insight into international relationships in southern South America.
As you point out, Chavez has had setbacks, most notably in Peru and in the recent election in Mexico.
Nonetheless, what makes him a "person of interest" as the saying goes, is the huge petrodollar wealth he controls and the speed with which he's arming Venezuela. It's only a matter of time before he begins to esacalate to the arming of those countries which are aligning themselves with him.
As I said in the article, he's scarier than Fidel because of all the money, though I don't think he's as smart and crafty as Castro. Castro wouldn't have let US keep him out of that UN seat.
There's an interesting opinion piece by Enrique ter Horst, a political analyst in Caracas, published in the International Herald Tribune a few days ago which says, in part:
"In the present climate, it is probably impossible to carry out a dogmatic, neocommunist revolution in Venezuela. The enormous amount of oil money has transformed the regime into a gang of accomplices, much in the mold of Haiti in the time of François Duvalier, and the socialist discourse and other ideological rituals only provide the regime with a fig leaf for what is already fast becoming a mafia- type power structure. The seeds of its destruction are already within it, even though it might take time for them to grow.
Venezuela has purchased arms worth more than $10 billion this year and is planning to purchase an equivalent amount in 2007, deeply upsetting the strategic balance in South America."
60 - Clavos
OOps, I left off the last graf of the ter Horst piece I quoted:
"Chávez's narcissistic nature has been satisfied for a while with this electoral victory, but his appetite for power is insatiable. Chávez's opponents and his neighbors must brace for a time of ever- increasing outrage and danger."
61 - Franco
#63 " Clavos
Thanks for the link artical. Excellen read.
62 - moonraven
If I wanted to post under my name, I would do so, Nalle. I am not spending my time outing clavos and posting his real name. (As if he had one....) Your disrespect is without bounds.
And I posted an entire article--and will continue to do so--because when links are posted on this forum you folks invent stuff supposedly from the stories, post it and others are too lazy to read the original article. If you behaved in an ethical manner posting the entire article with notes would not be necessary.
This has got to be the most incestuous forum I have ever looked at.
No discussion here. Just Franco posting stuff he found in a google search as if it were his own, and clavos telling him how smart and cute he is. And franco telling clavos how smart and cute HE is.
I thought that mutual stroking stuff only happened at British boarding schools.
63 - moonraven
So?
Just stating what anyone can see from even glancing at this thread.
Information you copied from your google search without citing the source doesn't qualify--it was about The War of the Pacific--in which Venezuela was not a participant--as information about Venezuela.
Just in passing:
Chile y Bolivia intercambian mensaje de buena vecindad
Reuters
09/12/2006 13:04
Cochabamba, Bolivia. Los presidentes de Bolivia y Chile intercambiaron este sábado mensajes de hermandad y buena vecindad y reafirmaron su voluntad de diálogo para resolver cuestiones bilaterales, incluida la antigua demanda boliviana de una salida soberana al mar.
El acercamiento entre el gobernante boliviano Evo Morales y la mandataria chilena Michelle Bachelet, ambos en funciones desde principios de año, se produjo en la sesión plenaria de la II Cumbre de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, en la ciudad de Cochabamba.
Morales dijo, en el discurso de apertura, que tras una historia de enfrentamientos en la región, algunos provocados por intereses externos, se abría la oportunidad de "cerrar las venas abiertas de América Latina".
Precisó que, en esa línea, Bolivia y Chile, que no tienen relaciones diplomáticas desde 1978, han comenzado a acercarse en un proceso que envuelve no sólo a los gobiernos sino fundamentalmente a los pueblos.
"Es impresionante lo que sienten nuestros pueblos", dijo Morales al mencionar encuestas que muestran en Bolivia un amplio respaldo al acercamiento con Chile, incluso a una venta de gas y electricidad "sin condicionamientos", y voces chilenas a favor de un acceso al mar para los bolivianos.
Bolivia perdió su salida al océano Pacífico a manos de Chile, por una guerra de fines del siglo XIX y lleva reclamando por décadas lo que denomina también la recuperación de su "cualidad marítima".
*
Franco, I believe Ms. Bachelet is the president of the country in which you reside?
Chavez will be swimming on a Bolivian beach before you know it.
Perhaps if you spent less time writing misogynist "reports" on this forum you could keep up with the news that involves Chile?
Just a thought.
64 - socrates
Dear Dave,
your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.And who knows with the mess in Iraq and the creeping recession the American people may throw their lot with Chavez.
65 - socrates
correction- Dear Clavos,
your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.And who knows with the mess in Iraq and the creeping recession the American people may throw their lot with Chavez.
66 - socrates
Dear moonraven,
Excellent comments.Your views on Latin America/ Hugo Chavez are honest, blunt and refreshing.
67 - moonraven
A fair number of folks in the US already HAVE thrown their lot in with Chavez--despite the propaganda machines of Fox News, CNN and the Washington Times.
Especially the folks in the 16 states who are benefitting from Citgo's program of cut-rate fuel oil.
The recent election showed that not ALL of the folks in the US are snoozing their lives away in a post-9/11 coma.
On Friday, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney submitted articles of impeachment against Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
When a critical mass of awake citizens is finally reached, those articles will be acted on.
I hope it happens before they bomb another country--specifically, my neighbor Iran.
Although--if they do that, Israel will cease to exist--so there's always some good that comes from bad things happening.
68 - moonraven
If anyone feels that wiping Israel off the map to get rid of our Jerusalem poster is a bit extreme--may I remind them of the precedent of 1) Murdering 3500 plus Panamanians to go after Manuel Noriega because he refused to be Oliver North's boy, and 2) Murdering an arrogantly uncounted (Rumsfeld dixit) number of Iraquis to go after Saddam Hussein because he wasn't the US government's boy any longer.
The two current leaders in the voting for Time's Man of the Year for 2006 are:
1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, with 25%
2. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, with 23%
The times they are a-changing....
69 - moonraven
Thanks, Socrates.
Nice to know there is someone reading this thread who isn't here to stroke another male's virtual body parts.
70 - troll
3 things:
1st...Zedd says - *Troll, I don't think you have a grasp of what liberation theology is.*
...thanks for sharing - your gratuity is appreciated
2nd...moonraven - pardon my 'audacity' in asking for your opinion and 'attacking' you to get it
rave on and enjoy
3rd...to the editor - by editing the phrase 'fuck you' you've taken BC over the line you seem to forget that most participants can take care of themselves
[Edited. Troll, you seem to forget that we have a comments policy and it's my responsibility to judge how to apply it, not some anonymous commenter such as yourself. It has nothing to do with the ability of participants ability to take care of themselves. Thanks for caring mind you. Feel free to visit a heavy metal or rap article and use all the street language that fits. Your Comments Editor.]
71 - Clavos
@#68,
Whichever of those two creeps becomes Time man of the year, he'll join such spiritual brethren as:
Adolf Hitler 1938
Joseph Stalin 1939 and 1942
Nikita Kruschev 1957
Ayatullah Khomeini 1979
An illustrious group in which either Ahmadinejad or Chavez will fit well. Perhaps they both should be named?
72 - Clavos
socrates writes:
your last line was quite amusing'If we want to maintain our influence in the region, we need to help the Latin American countries to develop their potential in a meaningful way.'
If US continues to help Latin America the way it does it may end up losing the entire region to Chavez.
Excellent point, and exactly why I say we need to address our relationships in LatAm in a meaningful way.
To continue the way we have in the past serves neither the interests of our hemispheric neighbors nor our own.
Nice to see an intelligent response to the article -- it's been somewhat dry the last few hours...
73 - Dave Nalle
I'm with Socrates and Clavos. Let's by all means help out the nations of Latin America. IMO it's about time for a Marshall Plan for that region to surround Venezuela with prosperous, hostile and pro-democracy countries so that Chavez' expansionism will wither on the vine.
It's quite true that his type of demagoguery and socialist dictatorship can only flourish where people are poor and oppressed. Address that problem and Chavez and his efforts to enslave the region go away.
Dave
74 - Franco
#73 " Dave Nalle
I'm with Socrates and Clavos. Let's by all means help out the nations of Latin America. IMO it's about time for a Marshall Plan for that region to surround Venezuela with prosperous, hostile and pro-democracy countries so that Chavez' expansionism will wither on the vine.
Dave, are we having a bad day? You’ve a little quick to jump Clavos considering he has already discredited the Marchial plan in an earlier post, and even came up with ideas on how to deal with what you say in your next paragraph. Which are not easy answers.
It's quite true that his type of demagoguery and socialist dictatorship can only flourish where people are poor and oppressed. Address that problem and Chavez and his efforts to enslave the region go away.
There ya go Dave, now you back in the grove and on target again with a bulls eye. Paragraph #2 is well said and gives us the bottom line. Have any ideas on how to do it?
75 - Dave Nalle
I don't see my first and second paragraphs as at all contradictory. The Marshal Plan was about spending American money in threatened countries bordering the iron curtain so that they wouldn't fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. What I was proposing was doing the same thing on a smaller scale to counter Chavez.
If Mathe objects to that then she can't hide behind humanitarianism any longer and might as well admit she's just a socialist stooge.
Dave