Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Hugo Chavez Threatens to Cutoff Oil Sales to U.S.
ap.google.com — President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets. "If you end up freezing Venezuelan assets and it harms us, we're going to harm you. Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the US. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger"
AshScholl- 1897 diggs
- digg it
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -214/+306So let's see. Chavez "nationalizes" (read "seizes") the assets of foreign oil companies in Venezuela, "in the name of the people". When those companies sue for redress and start winning in courts of law, he starts to whine, seeth and threaten. Remember when he so 'benevolently' gave discounted oil to the poor in the US and useful idiots like one of the Kennedy kids make commercials for him? What about the poor people now Hugo? When will people wake up and realize Chavez is just another thug?
I guess this is socialist justice at work.- notque, on 02/11/2008, -110/+273"Chavez "nationalizes" (read "seizes") the assets of foreign oil companies in Venezuela, "in the name of the people"."
Chavez nationalized the Venezuelan assets that were previously sold off to foreign oil companies by Rafael Caldera Rodriguez. Rafael used the money gained by this to enrich himself, and the Venezuelan upper class. The majority of the population didn't benefit as revenue for social programs was taken up as profit for Exxon.
Chavez has been willing to pay these companies, which in my mind he shouldn't as the debt is illegitimate. Every oil company took the generous offer Chavez gave except Exxon. Exxon has not said how much it wants from Venezuela but has said that it's assets were valued at $750 million at the time they were expropriated. That was 41.7 percent stake in the Cerro Negro project.
In free markets, if you choose to make a deal like Exxon has, you accept the risk. It's a business deal, and there is risk involved. In this case, Exxon wants the population of Venezuela to pay, including the majority that didn't see any benefit from the privatization.
A nation has sovereignty over it's own national resources. Many countries have done this before undoing the reckless behavior of previous administrations. That's the risk involved, and if companies want to accept that risk that's their onus to do so.
"When those companies sue for redress and start winning in courts of law, he starts to whine, seeth and threaten."
It isn't how free markets work, although that's certainly how the system works in the U.S. (which is not a free market.) Sovereignty over natural resources is vital, and many countries have expropriated resources from privatization.
This is also overwhelmingly what the population of Venezuela wants for obvious reasons. He is performing his duty as a leader to enact the population's will, something that has gained him sharp criticism from the U.S.
I'm going to break these comments up into bits so that I don't lose a whole comment. Apologies for the multiple posts in advance.- ZenFountain, on 02/11/2008, -120/+117Are you PR for the Venezuelan government? It's become comical that in nearly every Chavez submission you're on the scene blowing sunshine up his ass and farting rainbows of socialism.
At any rate, more idle threats from Señor Kooky.- notque, on 02/11/2008, -57/+41Why do you choose to be a voluntary North Korean, and listen to what dear leader says without the research project required to find out the truth?
- ZenFountain, on 02/11/2008, -31/+44Ah of course, invoke willful ignorance on those who disagree with you. I merely inquired why you're on the scene and on the defensive in every Chavez related submission. If Chavez doesn't want to sell oil to the evil capitalistic gringos fine, someone else will buy his oil and we'll buy the oil they were previously buying. That's how a market works, if he actually goes through with this threat (which he won't) it will only change distribution.
- Arkaris01, on 02/11/2008, -19/+32Zen... no one else will buy his oil. Venezuela's oil is some of the worst on the market, including Saudi Arabia. There might be one or two other nations that can refine the crude that he is selling into something that is actually usable other than us. We buy the lowest grade crude for him, which is one reason we are not sitting at 5 dollars a gallon already. ((Oil on the open market might be 100 a barrel, but Venezuela's oil is a lot closer to 60)) Chavez might cut us off for a few weeks, maybe even a month, but we have 1.2 trillion barrels of oil above ground here in the US, our reserves will out last his need for the greenback.
- archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -11/+38ZenFountain, you did not even address a single point raised by notque...it's kind of hypocritical to attack him on matters of substance when your own post is lacking in that regard.
- p0s3r, on 02/11/2008, -23/+6@robinohio1
Please take a basic economics course.
- 1longtime, on 02/11/2008, -45/+23Chavez stole an election, UN monitors or not.
How can you people champion this man?- Valleye, on 02/11/2008, -10/+22I find it hard to believe that he stole the election. If he had stole this election I would find it difficult to believe that he would allow his constitutional changes to be defeated.
Surely he had the power to fix the referrendum too but they were defeated. Seems like evidence that he still respects the voters. - ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -9/+18Bush ACTUALLY STOLE TWO ELECTIONS and the UN has declared our elections unsound.
- RGWX, on 02/11/2008, -12/+12"Near dictatorship" makes me laugh. And oh yeah those Bush critics are SILENT. I noticed how cowed and frightened the Times Editorial page is...how Olberloon won't whisper Bush's name for fear of the death squad...how the Democrats stay locked in their silent, terrified minority in Congress...how the left wing bloggers all sit quietly, never posting a word of criticism. Yep...that's the place. Bush's America.
I'm sure you believe the "stole two elections" line...but if Bush can steal elections, could you explain 2006 for me, please?
Your other critiques of Bush range from economically ignorant (jobs, manufacturing) to naive ("illegal wars") to reprehensible (your disgusting 9/11 fantasy) and don't really merit more of my time. - gevurah, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2I dug you by accident. I figure I should post a quick correction and insult.
You are a gibbering idiot. Please read a book. - HaywoodGiablomi, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1@ RGWX:
I think "dictatorship" is still a stretch myself -- at least for the moment -- however:
1. Even the criticism of The NYT is light at best. In my mind their real negligence is not front-page "reporting" of the fact that two officials in Ohio are now doing time for rigging recounts. How many here are aware of that?
2. Democrats locked in near silent, terrified minority? Of course not. They're supposedly the majority opposition party and yet name one important issue on which they have not caved. Sure, they stamp their feet, make a bit of noise in protest, and posture. But in the end their boiled-shrimp backbones take over. Name *one* significant issue that Bush hasn't gotten his way. Face it, they are the Washington Generals against the Harlem Globetrotters. And who in God's name in a so-called "opposition party" enters office saying "impeachment is off the table?"
3. Olbermann is in such a minority as to be irrelevant and, I suspect, he's more a media opposition/accountability token.
4. As far as silencing critics, What the f#!@ is a "free-speech zone?" That, by definition makes everywhere else along the motorcade route a "NON-free-speech zone." If that's not shutting down criticism, I'll kiss your ass.
- Valleye, on 02/11/2008, -10/+22I find it hard to believe that he stole the election. If he had stole this election I would find it difficult to believe that he would allow his constitutional changes to be defeated.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/11/2008, -6/+49Beyond just annoyance at your typical rant on Chavez -- as if saying that he has a point, means that we are with Al Qaeda, and worshiping Stalinist Commies. What the Hell is so bad about Socialism ZenFountain?
Really, the people are starting to wonder if it's a bad word. It sounds to me like the difference is; Socialism means building schools and railroads, and Capitalism means, spending that money on a private company to build a bomb to blow up the schools and railroads in another country -- and then paying a subsidiary of that company to rebuild the schools and railroads at cost plus.
Socialism is just a word. Venezuela has had some improvement and some sore spots with the autocratic Chavez. Hopefully, he will be voted out of office. But at least he did something about the rampant corporate corruption -- their country had no control over their own assets.
The US, has over 9 Trillion $ in debt -- created in such a way, that it just benefited the people lobbying to rob it. I'm expecting, that there will be a big push to nationalize our assets and go after these carpet baggers. Really, most of the nations debt is to robber barons and the trust funds of the kids like George Bush who helped them.- ZenFountain, on 02/11/2008, -11/+14I have nothing against social services that are actually in place to help people in a positive, long term and sustainable way. You don't see me criticizing French or Canadian social services do you? It's Chavez's methodology that annoys me and I sincerely believe that in the long term he'll be viewed as having done more harm than good. He cleared out the old cronies, put his own in power and has done so much fiddling in the non-petroleum sectors of the economy that they are now totally reliant on oil exports, and that's why Venezuela will aways be a country of haves and have-nots, barrios and oil barons. Why do you think poor countries like India and Chile have been able to create stable, growing economies with democratic governments while Venezuela is doomed to swing between plutocrats and socialist?
- ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -2/+15His methodology? Raising royalties on oil revenue from 1-17% to 20-30%? That's hardly STEALING companies, it's called taxes.
- RGWX, on 02/11/2008, -13/+8"What's wrong with socialism?"
Wow...how about the history of utterly failed socialist states and their dismal human rights records, their collapsed economies and their slow strangulation of freedom, innovation and creativity? Or shall we consider their propensity for slipping in to authoritarianism and brutality? Market capitalism, international trade and entrepreneurship is a functioning, proven model for improving the lives of people. The lives of the Chinese people have improved much more dramatically from participating in the capitalist world economy. Contrast that to Mao's miserable experiments...great at killing people. Prosperity and freedom? Not so much.
Chavez is just the latest pain in the ass socialist bully-boy. He'll be gone soon enough. - Breepee, on 02/11/2008, -1/+11@RGWX:
wow, socialism != communism, dude.
The whole of Europe calls itself proudly socialist, and they're doing pretty OK. Not to mention China btw, which in reality has little to do with true communism, but anyway. - freedomkeeper, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0"The US, has over 9 Trillion $ in debt..."
Actually, it's more like $12 trillion, but what are the overall assets of this country? How much do you owe on your house, your car, your credit cards, versus what you own outright? As the richest nation in the world, $12 trillion in foreign debt is actually not too bad. Not to mention the fact that a lot of this debt is created by all of the benevolent generosity spread around the world. The world is a better place due to our debt, just as you would be doing good even if you put your donation to red cross on your mastercard. I swear, economics 101 should be a requirement before people are allowed to utilize their freedom of speech.
- freedomkeeper, on 02/11/2008, -5/+0Could I just point out that capitalism built the greatest railroad system the world has, that of the U.S.?
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -57/+41Why do you choose to be a voluntary North Korean, and listen to what dear leader says without the research project required to find out the truth?
- smacksaw, on 02/11/2008, -33/+126I think your oratory skills are getting better but I find it hard to believe that you can ignore both sides of that issue.
I don't know how you can invoke "free markets" and the buyouts. You are purposely omitting half of the story and obfuscating the truth with a far rosier picture than it was.
These "oil companies who participated in a free market transaction" as you put it were cornered. Did they receive full value for their investment? Yes or no. No excuses, no long-winded beautification of the justice of Chavez. Did they get back what they put in? Was it fair? I'm not asking you to make a false analogy about free markets being a risk. If you say that you are saying that dealing with Chavez is a risk because you never know if he's going to reneg on a deal.
Here's an interesting analogy. 8 businesses in Brooklyn get muscled for protection money by organised crime. Their only crime is that they chose to open a business in a neighbourhood that was populated by gangsters. 7 of the 8 realise that the police are paid off and won't help them so they pay into a protection racket. But 1 of the 8 do not. So whatever happens to them is their fault.
What is particularly insidious about this entire thing is that regardless of the bribes taken by politicians, these evil corporations invested in exploration and infrastructure in Venezuela. They were not given TRUE FREEDOM. Not a real choice. Because Venezuela can make laws to have whatever they do be legal. It doesn't matter what the contracts are if the courts interpreting them are politicised by Chavez.
Finally, I think you are very clever in your populist rhetoric about national resources being a sovereign right, but sovereignty implies something about doing things oneself. I don't see how sovereign Venezuela's oil resources were if they were compromising that sovereignty to allow others to develop it.
Really, if Venezuela were sovereign and self-sufficient they would remove all of the infrastructure and expertise gained by these multinational oil conglomerates and do everything themselves from scratch.
You - you love the socialists and Chavez. The people who go against you in these threads are braindead right-wingers who hate Chavez. Me? I just hate hypocrisy and half-truths. What do I get for that? Dugg down by both of you. I love that, however because people will Digg a person up or down not for the veracity of their statements, but for the populism of the message. And in threads like this which are rife with populist propaganda there is little use for fairness or honesty in debate. As evidenced by your continued popularity, this is at best semi-factual cheerleading.
I just think it's a shame that when a topic like this comes up it turns into a propaganda war. We won't solve these issues until we illuminate them completely. You can't get people to be fair if they can't get both sides of the story. If Venezuela and Chavez are really that important to you I think you should hold their feet to the fire when they do wrong. Countries and leaders are not great because of blind loyalty. In fact, that sort of thing creates dangerous leaders and nations. See: Bush + Evangelicals.
And I'm not defending Exxon. ***** Exxon. But ***** Chavez as well. Neither of these entities are better than the other.- TritonX, on 02/11/2008, -41/+37Chavez doesn't seems that bad. The media wanted to portrait it as the next south american dictator because of that referendum thing but I think it was an honest error from his side. He seems to please the majority of his citizens and the standards of living have improved since he came to power, the only "problem" I see with him is that he doesn't bow to the US. We need more leaders like this that are not afraid to confront the empire.
- MeanYogurt, on 02/11/2008, -15/+29"He seems to please the majority of his citizens and the standards of living have improved since he came to power"
There weren't massive food shortages before he came to power. - alk509, on 02/11/2008, -18/+42Speaking as a Venezuelan (living in the U.S.) with all of my family and friends still living there, I must ask: What in the ***** are you talking about? How is rampant unemployment, inflation, infant mortality and crime (just to name a few things) an improvement of standards of living?
- Draked, on 02/11/2008, -24/+7Yeah "Honest Error" for sure. Dictator Chavez needs make sure he doesn't get in the way of America and the oil she needs, we've all seen how that turned out for Saddam.
- TritonX, on 02/11/2008, -9/+10I saw a report few months ago, don't remember from where, but it was talking about the Chavez revolution. While everything is not perfect, from what I understood, it still was better than before and efforts were made by everyone to improve their situation. For a dictatorship they are not that bad, the medias there have more freedom than in the US. Maybe some of you think the standards went down, but from what I was told, before Chavez, the poorest classes weren't part of the social system, no education, no banking, nothing. The poorest part of the town weren't even printed on the city map, they were ignored, cast-away. What I meant by honest error, is that since he was elected 2-3 times in a row, I guess he thought his peoples wanted him forever, that said, he didn't forced his will on his people, they voted against, it's the status quo and I don't think nobody got killed over it. The question is, does poor and rich Venezuelans have more or less opportunity for a fulfilled life than before? Repairing decades of social injustice is never easy.
- Xchus, on 02/11/2008, -8/+16I'm from Venezuela, currently living in Venezuela (I used to live in the US). I'm just going to back up what MeanYogurt said, in my life I have seen food shortages in Venezuela. Also, I would like to add that what the media shows is complete BS, Chavez is completely insane, literally. Things are the same, nobody has gotten any richer or poorer, Venezuela still the same, lots of money to steal and no improvements, we just have another corrupt President that is crazier than the rest...
- archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -3/+14@alk509
Infant mortality rates, though relatively stable, are lower in 2007 than they were in 2003. Unemployment and inflation have both decreased dramatically since 2003.
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/infant_mortali ...
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/unemployment_r ...
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/inflation_rate ...
The crime rate *is* pretty high, I'll give you that, but I think it's dishonest to ascribe this solely to Chavez. So it seems to me your view of things over there is slightly askew. Could it be that your family is part of the upper middle class? Then of course they'd have the impression that they are worse off, since the society is now more egalitarian. Well, them's the breaks: the need of the many outweigh the need of the few... - BabyWookie, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2"There weren't massive food shortages before he came to power."
Having food on the shelves does not do you much good, when you can't afford to buy it.
- MeanYogurt, on 02/11/2008, -15/+29"He seems to please the majority of his citizens and the standards of living have improved since he came to power"
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -31/+31I'll be back to respond to you on the content of your statements, but I thought while I have a second before I leave, I might as well deal with the attack on my character.
"You - you love the socialists and Chavez."
I don't "love" Chavez. I've disagreed with him several times, including on the referendum. I think he is way too focused on creating a cult of personality with his changes. I don't like "strong" leaders, I don't like leaders at all.
I do agree with the majority of his changes, simply because the population agrees with the majority of his changes. That is the major barometer of his actions that matters to me.
"The people who go against you in these threads are braindead right-wingers who hate Chavez. Me? I just hate hypocrisy and half-truths."
So what have I been less than truthful about? You may disagree with my assessment of things, but I have been honest with the facts. Although you shouldn't believe either of us, and should look for the facts yourself and make that determination.
"What do I get for that? Dugg down by both of you."
I dugg you up, and had you as a friend for a long time even when I disagreed with you. That stopped when you started attacking me. I am not the issue.
"And in threads like this which are rife with populist propaganda there is little use for fairness or honesty in debate."
Show where a fact I stated was not honest.
"As evidenced by your continued popularity, this is at best semi-factual cheerleading."
I will be back to respond strictly to your on topic, with content statements.
Although my suggestion will not be heeded, I would suggest you assume good faith in my responses, and respond in kind.
I have watched you, as you have watch me, and I think generally you are a reasonable person. When it comes to these threads, you tend to stop that in favor of attacks with no evidence.
If you'd like to have a relationship where we can discuss issues, I would like that as well, but you're going to have to start treating me as a human being as opposed to a Chavez himself.
"You can't get people to be fair if they can't get both sides of the story. If Venezuela and Chavez are really that important to you I think you should hold their feet to the fire when they do wrong."
I do. The fact that you stated this again shows you don't understand my positions. Since I know I've seen you on most of these threads, and I state them many times, I question how much of my post you read, and how much you skip.- JAVandiver, on 02/11/2008, -24/+8So tell me... How does Noam Chomsky's rectum taste?
- iainc, on 02/11/2008, -15/+15***** Chavez, another Dictator in the making. ***** Exxon who keep America hooked on foreign oil.
- Nossie, on 02/11/2008, -7/+25Exxon doesn't keep America hooked on foreign oil... America keeps America hooked on foreign oil.
You cant blame Chavez for leveraging what he believes is a better position when America has been sucking the world dry of Oil for the last 40 years. You should be asking your government why they haven't been investing more in alternative fuels and your urban planning advisors why all those malls were built way outside of towns...
We (e.g the Brits) could also ask you Americans why you sold us decrepit mothballed battleships for WAY over inflated prices (that we are actually still paying for) during the second world war AND your demands for the break-up of the British Empire.. but we don't... business is business afterall. - TritonX, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2.
- jackkerouac, on 02/11/2008, -16/+4Because you ***** couldn't make the battleships yourselves. If you want cheap battleships ... make them yourselves.
- Nossie, on 02/11/2008, -7/+25Exxon doesn't keep America hooked on foreign oil... America keeps America hooked on foreign oil.
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/11/2008, -12/+43Do you even know how Exxon got the business in the first place?
Mobil and later, ExxonMobil has been hiring mercenaries all over the world since at least the 50's. They are a disgusting corporation that uses brute force and violence to gain business in third world countries.
The most recent example would be Indonesia:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=74
Chavez is the return of the pendulum for Venezuela. This country has been exploited and manipulated for decades. They finally managed to fight back, that's all it is really. Exxon gained its place in Venezuela with bribes, assassinations, coups, guerillas and other illegal means. Attempts have been made on Chavez's life, now why would he even consider Exxon's legitimacy?
I hate nationalisation, normally. I'm very much against socialism. But Venezuela needs socialism right now, it's the only way they can regain control of their country. Venezuela is in a transition, they are becoming owners instead of borrowers. And they have this right because they are a sovereign nation.
- TritonX, on 02/11/2008, -41/+37Chavez doesn't seems that bad. The media wanted to portrait it as the next south american dictator because of that referendum thing but I think it was an honest error from his side. He seems to please the majority of his citizens and the standards of living have improved since he came to power, the only "problem" I see with him is that he doesn't bow to the US. We need more leaders like this that are not afraid to confront the empire.
- Scyla, on 02/11/2008, -15/+37So when did Rafael Caldera steal the money? Proof? Do you forget Caldera is the man that pardoned and freed Chavez from Jail? How is it possible that with Oil at $20 a barrel Caldera built 5x the houses Chavez has built every year with the oil at $100? Also, the Venezuelan goverment made a decition to give Exxon a contract. Exxon didnt force the goverment to accept. So now Chavez doesnt like the deal and expects Exxon to lose the money? The reason Exxon has sued PDVSA is because it doesnt have the liquidity or ability to pay. PDVSA inquired $17.000.000.000 of debt only during 2007. How is Chavez a "good" man when people in his own country have to make 4 hour lines justo buy milk? (never had this kind of problems before). There is no milk, no eggs, no beef, NOTHING. Our supermarkets are empty!! our economy is ***** (26% inflation in 2007).
- 1longtime, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7Thanks for posting. It helps to see a personal view of the situation.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/11/2008, -11/+16Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" -- there have been at least 3 attempts on Chavez's life, sponsored by the USA. This is what happens to Latin American leaders who don't roll over for American companies (really, multinationals -- but it's business and they own the American muscle). Caldera could have refused the generous offer from Exxon, and the next guy who replaced him after he was dead could have also made the same choice. Well, Chavez did, and the press has been after him ever since.
By the way, this is NOT an endorsement of Chavez, or Communism or beating puppies. This "yer either wid us or agin us" crap is getting pretty tired.- Xchus, on 02/11/2008, -10/+5I'm not a Chavez supporter, but that crap "sponsored by the USA"? please! if the US wanted Chavez out, he would have been gone decades ago. That ***** is just a PR stunt made by Chavez...
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -0/+10@xchus
just like fidel castro right? - JigoroKano, on 02/11/2008, -3/+8@Xchus
I hate to break this to you but the U.S. government isn't that competent. - charlescheese, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Right and Castro has been SOOO effective in the world with his "revolution" right? I hear the people in Cuba are really well off. $10 a month and a new (read 1950's) once every decade. Fidel has RUINED Cuba. Destroyed it totally. Chavez WILL do the same thing to Venezuela.
- Alpione, on 02/11/2008, -8/+16You can directly blame socialism and its price controls for the shortages. Chavez sets the price very low, which looks good to those who ignorantly swallow up "populism." Yet it's impossible for the suppliers, including small family farmers and manufacturers, to make a profit on these goods when they have to sell them at a virtual loss. So they stop producing and shortages occur. This is what happens when a country lacks a free economy and has a leader only concerned with consolidating his own power (the referendum, anyone? The Soviet Union, anyone?)
Even that moron is finally realizing that these price controls kill an economy - Chavez recently increased the allowable prices on many goods. - archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -3/+11Actually, inflation for 2007 was 16%, compared to 31.20% in 2003, so things are getting better.
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/inflation_rate ...
The food shortage issue is serious, but it's more complex than saying it's Chavez' fault alone. Here's an interested overview of the issue:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/738/38209
- Isoptera4, on 02/11/2008, -6/+26Remember the good old days when Iran tried to nationalize its oil and the US and Britain arrested their president and we destroyed their democracy.
- Jlaugh, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5Yeah so far that's cost us so much money in debt that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying it off. Hopefully we won't be doing that invading Iran anytime soon.
- solid12345, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4Only half the story. Mossadegh was a puppet put into power by the political party that assassinated the previous prime minister. He was a power-hungry bastard just as much as the Shah.
- PxCxG, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7Notque, your whole argument centers around the notion that Exxon is taking a risk and should have to live with the outcome -- and I agree, they are taking on risk. However you ignore the other side that Chavez also is taking on risk when he choses to seize assets -- and that risk is the possibility of having courts award damages to Exxon, in the form of portions of Venezuela's assets in foreign countries. So yes, Exxon does take on risks, but action in courts of law is one of the methods that they can use to mediate that risk. So basically, Chavez is free to seize assets, but he shouldn't bitch about it if he winds up losing in court because, to paraphrase you," that's the risk involved, and if [chavez] want[s] to accept that risk that's [his] onus to do so."
Besides, we all know there's no way he not selling to the US. Though to be honest, I hope he doesn't -- that way he won't be in office long.- notque, on 02/11/2008, -5/+4This is a temporary injunction, and will be appealed. So far from what I've read, Exxon will not win the case, although I certainly need to spend more time studying the issue. It hasn't been that long since this occurred.
Yes. There are risks, like the U.S. may attempt another coup against him. That's a risk as well, and you accept it if you wish to improve conditions for the country, and follow the will of the population. - PxCxG, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3@notque...
What does the US government have to do with anything? We're talking about chavez and exxon.
And why are you taking about assassination attempts like Chavez is some sort of brave hero? He's not -- if he were brave, then he would sack up and stop with all the empty threats and actually stop selling oil to the US. But no, he's too much of a pussy to do it and a hypocrite who talks big about how he's against the big evil US, but at the same time is in bed with the US talking a big payday with american money.
I can't wait to see chavez out of power -- he's ruining his country and Venezuelans deserve better than him.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -5/+4This is a temporary injunction, and will be appealed. So far from what I've read, Exxon will not win the case, although I certainly need to spend more time studying the issue. It hasn't been that long since this occurred.
- MacSpoofing, on 02/11/2008, -11/+10So Chavez "nationalizes" (a socialist euphemism for 'theft') Exxon's assets in Venezuela . You see no problem there.
When US and Exxon goes after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA **in Europe and America**, its an action directed at the Venezuelan people?
You liberals are a funny people.- Jlaugh, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4One of the first things the United States did when we became a country is steal the land of the British loyalists who lived here and we booted out the British corporations which we thought where praying on us. Why can we do it, yet when we are taking advantage of others we cry foul claiming it's so unfair?
- MacSpoofing, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2@Jlaugh
The closest example you could find was from 1776? When, save for the newborn nation of United States, there were no democracies, little to no individual rights and no civil liberties in the world?! And you haven't even addressed my point! To reiterate, I wanted to know why the original poster had a problem with Exxon trying to reclaim their lost investments by going after the foreign assets of the state run Venezuelan oil company, and at the same time have no problem with Venezuela nationalizing foreign assets in their country. By his logic, Venezuelan assets in USA and Europe are fair game.- Jlaugh, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1If the CIA goes into a country and institutes a coup, helps sets up a puppet government and then our companies come in and make sweetheart deals with the corrupt politician we put in power do you think that the deal we make with him will be a fair deal for his country, or will he just line his pockets with wealth that belongs the people of his nation?
The 1776 example is on I mentioned because we, as a nation might try "doing on to others as we would like done to us". I believe the golden rule should apply in business and government... go figure.
- Jlaugh, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1If the CIA goes into a country and institutes a coup, helps sets up a puppet government and then our companies come in and make sweetheart deals with the corrupt politician we put in power do you think that the deal we make with him will be a fair deal for his country, or will he just line his pockets with wealth that belongs the people of his nation?
- sgglynn, on 02/11/2008, -3/+6"A nation has sovereignty over it's own national resources. Many countries have done this before undoing the reckless behavior of previous administrations. That's the risk involved, and if companies want to accept that risk that's their onus to do so."
Hopefully soon it will be this easy for us to undo the damage of the Bush Administration - dan222555, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3I have to confess I clicked on this story just to see notque get all on his buddy Hugo's balls....and he has not disappointed. He loves the man like a brother yet I still don't understand why we hasn't moved there yet...
- Xenufield, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3You like to omit the fact that those resources would still be untouched without the infrastructure built by Exxon and others. Chavez is causing massive shortages and inflation. If this infrastructure wasn't in place, he'd have no oil money to try and keep his socialist failures afloat.
- charlescheese, on 02/12/2008, -3/+2Wow, so if you sell me something, and several years later my wife takes control of the finances and bitches about it, she can just come take it back from you? Wow, that's awesome.
Here's the deal. I hope Chavez and BS bluster DOES cut off oil from the US. That would be awesome. It would totally destroy Venezuela's economy, I mean quite a bit more than Chavez already has, and hopefully the loser would be gone sooner. The people of Venezuela WILL regret Chavez. He's putting that country back into the stone age, and it will hurt them for a long time to come.
- ZenFountain, on 02/11/2008, -120/+117Are you PR for the Venezuelan government? It's become comical that in nearly every Chavez submission you're on the scene blowing sunshine up his ass and farting rainbows of socialism.
- JigoroKano, on 02/11/2008, -59/+118So the U.S. doesn't have to follow international law when it comes to war, but how dare Venezuela steal Venezuelan assets from these fine U.S. companies who certainly obtained them fairly and behaved as model citizens.
- kazamx, on 02/11/2008, -13/+29your forgetting that Americans believe that the rules are different for them.
- Jlaugh, on 02/11/2008, -3/+19No we don't believe that. We are a nation of mostly law abiding citizens. Our corporations and government on the other hand act like they own the world and everyone in it.
- smotpoker, on 02/11/2008, -10/+5@jlaugh
The "its everyone else but me" attitude doesn't help us out all that much either. Half of us sit idly by and ignore all kinds of atrocities our authorities and government commit on almost a daily basis; the other half of us crouch ready to attack anyone who opposes it, somehow certain that if we can just manage to oppress a few more people a little bit longer decades of FAILED legislation/policies might finally pan out.- Jlaugh, on 02/11/2008, -3/+10Your making an assumption that I think it's everyone else but me. I think there are a lot of good hearted people in our country, but our government and our entire system is predatory and has always been so. Yet at the same time we attempt to train our children to be good moral people. So the United States is a paradox.
- smotpoker, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1@jlaugh - Actually, I assume that yourself and most people have a tendency to turn a blind eye when people are in need/being hurt and dismiss any form of dissent or attempts to help them. I also believe that most people place too much emphasis on cosmetics without any attempt to peer beneath the surface.
Everyone seems to completely ignore/forget the completely dynamic nature of society/humanity and assume things just ARE or just HAVE to be for some unknown reason, so rather than attempt to change anything, They [eventually start to] adapt and wind up completely supporting/endorsing it 90% of the time.
After all, why try to change things that have finally begun to favor you? Many/most people would prefer others suffer indefinitely so that they might attain a relatively small benefit (tax cut, etc).
I don't think teaching our children that you don't give the homeless people money because they are getting what they deserve or are probably scamming is all that moral, but that is what many/most people seem to do. They also condone childish games/behavior/views way too much, which inevitably leads to validating them to some degree throughout adulthood
Millions are hurt/hindered daily because of faulty could/might/probably assumptions, heavily weighed to favor the assumer's current disposition. We are all guilty of such thinking but we fail to realize how adversely many of our actions might affect those around us, their thinking, and their subsequent actions.
Trusting people based on whether they wear a tie or live/work etc isn't all that moral either. Nor is it ok to take people's freedom or favor them based on how much money they have but we still have/condone/permit/support legislature that do specifically that because you feel the alternative might force you to... use generic hair products and remember to turn off lights to save money?
This is the disposition of way too many people. Sure they do the right thing when someone's watching or it won't take more than 5 minutes... if they aren't completely scared, of course... how many times have you picked up a hitch hiker?
Taking the safest/most personally beneficial course is RARELY the [most] moral choice (though that doesn't make it inherently immoral either), yet that is the defacto disposition of most Americans.
I suppose such dispositions aren't so bad in/of themselves when applied only to personal matters, but when it becomes acceptable/common practice to apply them to business/government/authority decisions and conduct as well, the result is a big problem.
We have a big problem.
- charlie0950, on 02/11/2008, -6/+14since when is Exxon the US?
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -2/+7i was about to ask the same.. everyone here's acting as if chavez raped their sons.
get it: exxon rips off you too - BeefBaron, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Since your elected government officials all get a nice little cut from the oil companies for earmarks and party favors.
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -2/+7i was about to ask the same.. everyone here's acting as if chavez raped their sons.
- ilovemaria, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3another turd that doesnt realize that it'll get flushed if the USA goes down
- kazamx, on 02/11/2008, -13/+29your forgetting that Americans believe that the rules are different for them.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -58/+113"Remember when he so 'benevolently' gave discounted oil to the poor in the US and useful idiots like one of the Kennedy kids make commercials for him?"
That's actually an interesting story. A group of Senators approached the 8 major energy corporations and asked if they could provide some assistance to poor people in the United States to get through the winter which was particularly harsh that year. These people couldn't pay their bills due to increasing oil prices. They got one response, from Citgo, the Venezuelan owned company, and that one company did indeed provide low cost oil.
"When will people wake up and realize Chavez is just another thug?"
You're going to have to bring up some specific evidence of your charge. On the general nature, Venezuela in a recent poll from a well respected Chilean firm had the highest satisfaction of Democracy in Latin America. Pretty striking change for a country that has it's first leader who has done anything for the poor.
"I guess this is socialist justice at work."
It is.- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -25/+32I don't know what a "well respected Chilean firm" means in the polling biz, but thousands of Venezuelans have voted with their feet and moved to the US, south Florida mostly. When a "democrat" likes Chavez seeks to become President, with all encompassing powers, for 50 years, and sends his thugs out to intimidate the media and voters, that isn't a shining model of anything good. I will give you one thing though, trying to intimidate media and the population IS one of the hallmarks of command and control economies and governments, because it has never worked historically.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -14/+22If you're familiar with the politics of Latin America, a "well respected Chilean firm" is quite obvious to who I'm referring to. Although of course you could always ask for the source.
The non-profit NGO Latinobarómetro.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3075- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -12/+17What about the rest of it...intimidating the media...sending thugs out at voting time...we don't need an NGO to read those factors.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -20/+23@lgfaphile
You don't need an NGO to read about those factors when you've already made up your mind based on the U.S. media which is giving you a picture of the world that helps in it's own objectives.
When you start saying "you don't need evidence", you've already accepted that you're a voluntary North Korean that listens to what dear leader says. - lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -12/+12Actually, North Korea is another example of a command and control economy...so it is ironic you would use it as a putdown. Be that as it may, are you saying Chavez has not shut down critical media and sent his "agents" out at voting time? I have many Venezuelan ex-pat friends, so I don't have to get my information from the media, though I note that the media in the US, EVEN the US media, is far freer then anything allowed by your hero Hugo.
- Dotmeister, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Chavez didn't shutdown any news agency. He just didn't renew the contract. Something like what's going to happen to PBS in the States. (in the sense that it could be shutdown)
- satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4You need to grow up a little. People from every country in the world immigrate because they do not like their country of origin. Many of these immigrants will complain about their former countries bitterly. Well they hated their on country so much, they left it. That takes some effort to do.
What you forget is that USA has the same people. I personally know a fair few people who have immigrated from USA because of the horrible economic and social situation it has been in for the past 40 years. Doesn't that make USA a horrible place for it's citizens? The reality is that USA was not the right place to live for these people. If USA was that bad, there would have been an a mass exodus, or a civil war. This is the same situation for Venezuela today. Some of the elite who profited from stripping Venezuelan assets under past governments have left and taken their families for fear of reprisals. These people are now complaining and "telling the truth" (read lying and/or exaggerating every little flaw) over and over.
USA has recently gone to war in Iraq using the pathetic exaggerations of Iraqi immigrants as an excuse. USA has continued a blockade of Cuba on the word of Cuban immigrants. In fact, every country that USA, the Republican party, or US corporate interests have an issue with is treated in the same way. USA had Russian defectors. USA used them for propaganda. USA is not told of the Americans who defected to the USSR. In fact, the USSR had so many, they refused entry to some Americans.
So the Neocons want America to turn against Venezuela today, so we hear over and over from people who are, or who are just claiming to come from Venezuela about how horrible it is for all Venezuela today. If you look just a little more closely, you will find the vast majority of the population would not have any other leader.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -14/+22If you're familiar with the politics of Latin America, a "well respected Chilean firm" is quite obvious to who I'm referring to. Although of course you could always ask for the source.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/11/2008, -3/+14Chavez has been pretty autocratic, and I suppose that a lot of people in top-notch jobs run by US corporations were hurt. Others, might have had their opinions shaped by the upheaval. Some got a better deal -- some got a worse deal. Whenever you change the status quo -- this happens. The poor and exploited have no place to go but down, so you don't have a major exodus from America yet -- it takes resources and a definite level of discomfort.
Any more Republicans with their Reagan-style Kleptocracy and I think the US is going to have a major exodus. This sounds like when we used to make fun of the Canadian Dollar. Pro-American bigots are just as bad as "America is the root of all evil" complainers -- perhaps worse. Because they have so much hubris and don't work to make America a better country. You don't become good by singing your praises -- you shut up and do the right thing, or stand up and scream that you aren't doing the right thing.
Seizing Venezuela's assets is not the same thing as their repatriation of Oil companies. They are a sovereign country. It's pretty much like us telling Dubai -- sorry, but Mr. Bush was a traitor to America when he sold you our ports and weapons manufacturing companies, so here is some money and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.- Jlaugh, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9The United States has had over a million citizens move to Canada since the sixties. The problem with that is that the US swung even more towards corporatism without internal criticism. If the left loves our country they will stay and fight tooth and nail to regain some semblance of what America used to stand for.
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -25/+32I don't know what a "well respected Chilean firm" means in the polling biz, but thousands of Venezuelans have voted with their feet and moved to the US, south Florida mostly. When a "democrat" likes Chavez seeks to become President, with all encompassing powers, for 50 years, and sends his thugs out to intimidate the media and voters, that isn't a shining model of anything good. I will give you one thing though, trying to intimidate media and the population IS one of the hallmarks of command and control economies and governments, because it has never worked historically.
- toasty168, on 02/11/2008, -35/+25http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_ ...
*****, if anyone's a thug, it's Bush and his cronies. Imagine if someone threatened to freeze US assets even if the US was in the wrong... we'd probably invade their country.- snatchmstr, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4You're an idiot.
- toasty168, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3yeah of course, the U.S. is a shining becon of freedom and democracy. anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. *sarcasm*
- snatchmstr, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4You're an idiot.
- yngtimmy, on 02/11/2008, -18/+43I personally know a girl who's family SENT her to the the US to get away from Chavez. She actually filed for political asylum when her visa was up. She likes Venezuela but you can plainly see its bad when its own residents send their children away.
- AndreiOttawa, on 02/11/2008, -20/+24You think that no American parents send their kids to Canada, UK, Australia, etc. to get away from Bush?
- tehxen3, on 02/11/2008, -13/+13No. But many more Canadians, Australians, Brittish etc. want to live in the US.
US has freedom of speech, you can say anything against Bush, administration, government and you won't be touched.
Chavez's people aggressively hunts down and closes all opportunities for employment etc. for anyone who speaks out against him.- AndreiOttawa, on 02/11/2008, -3/+8"No. But many more Canadians, Australians, Brittish etc. want to live in the US"
Not any more... - satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -4/+1Actually, you have that the wrong way around. I cannot say anything about Canada, but Australia seems to have one for one immigration, and New Zealand is a haven for Americans escaping Americas economic and social climate. In fact while in New Zealand some time ago, I knew over a dozen Americans personally who had permanently moved their whole families to New Zealand. The earliest immigrant family arrived in New Zealand in 1967. Not one of these people even consider visiting America now, so they have absolutely no interest in returning to USA.
USA PROBABLY seems a great country if you live in the third world, but if you live in the first world, USA seems like a pretty crap place to live. - tehxen3, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Not according to statistics. But it may be true in your little parallel canadian universe.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1... and the Bush administration has been happily doing something about all those freedoms.
According to the Bush family -- Bin Laden is no longer on their Christmas card list. Yes, and the only place you know this is from George Bush's lips.
- AndreiOttawa, on 02/11/2008, -3/+8"No. But many more Canadians, Australians, Brittish etc. want to live in the US"
- mike17032, on 02/11/2008, -7/+10If they are retarded, maybe. And thats good, the more tards we flush N to Canada the better for the rest of us.
- ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -6/+17Venezuela has freedom of speech. Hell, the coup organized against him was spurred on by cable networks that bashed him openly.
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -3/+5@ AndreiOttawa: "No. But many more Canadians, Australians, Brittish etc. want to live in the US
Not any more..."
Citing what for statistics...I am not sure about Canada, but virtually every other nation that has immigration with the US has far more people going to the US rather then the other way round. - satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4@ lgfaphile
And you are quoting Fox News as your source? Seriously, I have been hearing all sorts of trash like this. Your media massages the truth until it is a lie. We have heard ***** like this from Americans gullible to believe it for decades now. We have even heard from one gullible American that every country in the world receives financial aid from USA. He heard it on the news so it had to be the truth.
I will respond to both. The aid statement was funny. We were in New Zealand at the time, and know a fair amount of the history of the country. This happened just after one of the worst American fire seasons on record. New Zealand has sent free fire management software (USA did not have management software at the time), money and firefighters to help (as did many other countries). We know for a fact that New Zealand receives no financial aid from the American government. New Zealand has had no disaster in modern times so USA has sent no aid money either. But since New Zealand has sent more than $10 million for the 911 widows, and the same again for the Katrina survivors. The richest country in the world receiving aid on many fronts from a little country on the arse end of the world. Now do you seriously believe that England, Cuba, Australia, China, Vietnam and dozens of other first world countries, and third world American enemies receive any form of official aid from USA?
Now your immigration statement. You have to be one of the most gullible people in the world if you believe that tripe. New Zealand takes many times the number of immigrants from USA Than ever immigrate to USA. Australia is about even in numbers. I do not have much information about the other countries around the world, but in the past 15 years there has been a mass exodus of Americans to Ireland. So your "every other nation" statement is patently false. Your media has been lying to you. If you changed that statement to "many other nations" then you may be close to the truth.- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1@satanswetnipple:
How about lowering the hyperbole dial on your mental keyboard...90% of what you said was insult.
You mentioned only your belief about NZ, IR and AU. Got any facts to cite? I'll give you NZ and AU. Any others? What do you suppose the totals are for all nations?
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1@satanswetnipple:
- tehxen3, on 02/11/2008, -13/+13No. But many more Canadians, Australians, Brittish etc. want to live in the US.
- albrad84, on 02/11/2008, -5/+22I happen to have many Venezuelan friends here in the U.S. and I spent some time in Veneuzuela myself. Most of them came here on temporary job assignments, but have since managed to become permanent residents. Many of them have been trying (unsuccessfully) to get their extended family into the U.S., as well. They absolutely love their country and hope they can go back someday, but the conditions in Caracas (and other parts of the country) have continually worsened since Chavez took power and they seem to be worsening at an even higher rate today.
By the way, great article in the Washington Post today on how Chavez might be slowly losing his grip: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...- Xchus, on 02/11/2008, -4/+4he already lost it... many of his supporters are turning their backs on him at the moment... Chavez ***** it up big time with the food shortages....
- satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Just like the dozen Americans I know who will never return to USA. They left because they did not like the economic and social situation in USA, and they hear it is getting worse.
Americans have no trouble getting their families to places like New Zealand. I wonder what that says about USA?
You can find unhappy people in every population. The ones that immigrate are the most likely to be the most unhappy. It takes effort to immigrate. You need to be pretty unhappy with your country of origin to start with (I myself am an immigrant, but I did not consider USA. I try not to be one of the many angry immigrants).
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/11/2008, -9/+9it really depends who they are. your friend's parents are probably rich and believe in the opportunities markets give them to take from the disadvantaged.
- DCGaymer, on 02/11/2008, -2/+9The Miami condo market has seen a HUGE influx of Venezuelan's. Not enough to fix the market....but certainly a larger portion of buyers than from anywhere else.
- satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2And that is a good example of the situation. The Venezuelan upperclass made money off prior governments, but hate Chavez. In fact the upperclass funded and supported the coup of Chavez after he was legitimately voted in.
Now who would be stupid enough to even suggest that the poor of Venezuela are immigrating to USA and buying up Miami condos? The poor of Venezuela seem pretty happy with their choice, and could never afford to fly to USA, and absolutely never afford a Miami condo.
These Miami condo buying upperclass are the people from Venezuela in USA complaining about how horrible it is in Venezuela since the election of Chavez. Think about it.
- satanswetnipple, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2And that is a good example of the situation. The Venezuelan upperclass made money off prior governments, but hate Chavez. In fact the upperclass funded and supported the coup of Chavez after he was legitimately voted in.
- rickpdx, on 02/11/2008, -7/+13Yes, and your friend's family is probably one of the elite wealthy class whose parasitic lifestyle would be threatened by any move toward economic justice in Venezuela. Let's face it. The only "political" problem the elite class faces is being unable to control the government so they can manipulate it to protect their self-interest. It's pretty much the same here in the US.
- solid12345, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6I knew a Venezuelan student at college. His dad placed his family business in his name and sent him to America to study. As long as he was in America the government could not take his business legally.
- howea, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Yes, it just shows people can enter a richer country on political asylum, they will.
Venezuelans have always wanted to go to the U.S (and Mexicans, Columbians ...)- specialK16, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1"Columbians"
'nuff said
- specialK16, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1"Columbians"
- AndreiOttawa, on 02/11/2008, -20/+24You think that no American parents send their kids to Canada, UK, Australia, etc. to get away from Bush?
- Joab, on 02/11/2008, -27/+19STFU Igfaphile, look up a little history and just how America has ***** around with Venezuela in order to get its Oil.
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -17/+7Very intelligent response, I must say. Impressive even by lefty wingnut standards.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/11/2008, -20/+42So, what you are saying is; that Exxon stole the resources of Venezuela "fair and square," and that their country just needs to "move on." Apparently, you don't know the process of assassination and bribes that goes into getting a great deal on a nations resources. Don't you find it amazing, that a country can't just decide to use its own resources?
Though I think you have a point, that seizing assets like money, is like taking over the oil company. But these oil companies have been well compensated for their crimes. These oil companies are pretty damn evil, but I suppose, being totally ignorant of how the world works makes you a Conservative foreign policy wonk.- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -9/+4...and your need to be insulting in response to my comment makes you what...a putz?
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -6/+9Of course a country can just decide to use its own resources. But when they can't develop them themselves, and companies make investments of millions of dollars in order to do that, just seizing the infrastructure is called expropriation by diplomats...it would be stealing if it were you. Venezuela has a very thick kind of crude, not easily extracted or refined. Since Chavez threw out the Yanqui engineers, production has dropped precipitously. We shall see how well his mismanagement inures to the benefit of the people of Venezuela.
- AndreiOttawa, on 02/11/2008, -5/+12I don't even understand how a private foreign company claim the right to natural resources of a sovereign nation.
- StGhurka, on 02/11/2008, -4/+8They had a contract with the Venezuelan government and paid royalties. It may have been a bad deal for Venezuela, but it was the deal they agreed to when they didn't have the capacity to extract those resources themselves.
- ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -2/+9And Venezuela kicked the company out using what we here in the United States call eminent domain. They threw some cash at them and said GTFO.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1"And Venezuela kicked the company out using what we here in the United States call eminent domain. They threw some cash at them and said GTFO."
>>Yes, well, that has been the meaning of "Sovereignty" for the past couple thousand years.
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -5/+6They don't have a right to the resources themselves, they have a right to royalties they have paid for and they have invested millions in infrastructure to extract and refine the oil. Those things were taken when Chavez expropriated the assets of the oil companies that exist in Venezuela. The oil companies have now sued Venezuela in the United States and are attempting to seize other assets as recompense.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Until Companies can get pregnant, or die of cancer -- they don't really have any rights beyond those that a given government gives them.
That's where the whole "financial risk" aspect of business comes in. Nobody at Exxon is going to lose their home or die -- unlike the exploited citizens.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Until Companies can get pregnant, or die of cancer -- they don't really have any rights beyond those that a given government gives them.
- StGhurka, on 02/11/2008, -4/+8They had a contract with the Venezuelan government and paid royalties. It may have been a bad deal for Venezuela, but it was the deal they agreed to when they didn't have the capacity to extract those resources themselves.
- DangerCollie, on 02/11/2008, -21/+15"When will people wake up and realize Chavez is just another thug?"
So, anyone with a beef with us is a thug? It really doesn't make any difference. He's not making idle threats. Venezuela is either fourth or fifth (depending on the year) on the list of countries sending us oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ ...
It won't be convenient, but they'll be able to find other buyers for their oil easier than we can replace 10% of our oil imports. This is what you get with 8 years of Reagan and 12 years of two different Bush family energy policies. Dependency on "thugs" like Chavez, and real thugs like the Saudis. To get some of those revenues back we have to resort to selling them weapons systems. Now there's a great idea: send more guns to the most unstable region on the planet.
Then try to imagine one or two countries cutting us off combined with a natural disaster like another hurricane or fire at a refinery. We'd see 6/gallon gas...when you could find any.
How's that giant SUV looking now?- jackkerouac, on 02/11/2008, -5/+6You really know nothing about the quality of Venezuela's oil, do you? Read a book.
- poidh, on 02/11/2008, -17/+17I knew you'd get some nutty fruitcake replies dude. Digg never fails to deliver.
- sporg, on 02/11/2008, -1/+22Anything which pisses in Exxons pool makes my day better.
- blackjack75, on 02/11/2008, -4/+4Exxon's pool is called the ocean. They put their ***** in it and we bath in it. Don't reverse the roles.
- sporg, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Anyone who wants a nice little glimpse into the things that Exxon gets up to in Central America please watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwyAA2Zt8CI
Warning it may cause you to become unplugged. - sporg, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1My mistake this is the one I meant to link to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fLzelMyjBOw&feature=rel ...
This documentary has ten parts.
- odigity, on 02/11/2008, -2/+14I would say the story is more complicated than that. I do not like Chavez's socialist philosophies (I'm a libertarian), but he is a principled person (not a Stalin), and he has done good by his people, and most importantly, the US has ***** him hard over and over (thank you CIA, again). Go to google video and search for "the revolution will not be televised". Excellent documentary about the US involvement in the military coup against Chavez.
- Khannea, on 02/11/2008, -12/+6Chavez is a hero for standing up against the evil dominator. I hope he will win and crush the US.
- akamurph, on 02/11/2008, -6/+3you're a tool.
- blackjack75, on 02/11/2008, -5/+5Stalin stood against Hitler and actually defeated him. That doesn't make him a good person.
Ok, Godwin me down. I deserve it.
- mightydavefish, on 02/11/2008, -7/+8Gee, maybe we'll admit that about chavez when you rightard neocon ***** admit the truth about Bush.
Given your total lack of integrity and honesty when dealing with our own leaders you are unqualified to judge others.
The opinion of some LGF ***** is always the same. "BUSH GOOD, EVERYONE ELSE BAD".
Someday you rightards will be forced to admit that Bush and Chavez are the same thing.- skulljar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1you actually spelled "Retards" totally wrong.
- Herostratus, on 02/11/2008, -2/+7Awwww,
Wait I get it... We're all supposed to feel bad for the poor little rich kids once referred to as the Bourgeoisie. All those poor rich people who made so much money exploiting the 3rd world oil fields. How am I going to sleep at night, oh woe is me.
I know how to make it all better. From now on I will no longer buy my gasoline from anyone but Citgo...
Oh wait, stupid me... I was already doing that! - maxmccabe, on 02/11/2008, -4/+5http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-373950057 ...
before you start lapping up the america media tell you watch this!- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Excellent film link!
The War On Democracy by John Pilger outlines how the USA has repeatedly used military coups in South America to destroy democratically elected leaders who would not beg at the feet of the USA.
The USAs opposition to democracy is nothing new, killing thousands of civilians to work out more profits for American corporations is standard practice. It is disgusting to see unarmed peasants cut down by American weapons in the hands of cold blooded murderers.
Is it so difficult to negotiate international business dealings, without violence ?
I would rather pay a few more cents per gallon for fuel, than have my government slaughter children in the name of transnational corporations.
http://video.google.com/videopopup?q=http%3A%2F%2F ...
- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Excellent film link!
- Bodhinature, on 02/11/2008, -2/+6Is someone crying about Exxon Mobile's toes? Is this the same Exxon that just posted a 40 billion dollar profit, breaking its own record just set in 2005, which was a world record as the most profitable corporation in the HISTORY OF THE FRIGGIN' WORLD?
Exactly why should I care about Exxon Mobile's paltry hundreds of millions that they might not get? They can suck a monkey nut. - dcm1104, on 02/11/2008, -5/+1Dogbert has already spoken on this subject:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/adonovan/dilbert/dilbe ... - LeeSoong, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2How is he punishing the USA by not earning money off of his Oil ?
It's a bluff - his economy would implode without the constant flow of cash from oil sales.
Unless he is going to sell all of his oil on the Iranian Exchange, IOB - that just happened to open today...
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm
From the timing, it looks like his comments are aimed at artificially driving up the sale price of oil for Iran's benefit.
Way to go Hugo ! You're strategy is crystal clear to digg users... - slythfox, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2I don't agree with Igfaphile's post at all. Chavez has been consistently framed as an "evil" being by our government and press when it is not so.
Chavez cutting oil to the US may hurt Venezuela, but it is a risk Chavez is apparently willing to make. And there's always a possibility that it may not hurt Venezuela, because they can try to shift their market to other countries. And, while I'm not sure why exactly the US wants to cut off assets, but if they do it once, they could probably do it again, which means even more lose for Venezuela.- ManoWar, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2there is a group in Washington sitting on the bench waiting. He failed his bid to become president for life. The million dollar question is does he step down or attempts to take power to resist the evil USA. If he does attempt to take power with force he will be killed. Its not fair to the Venezuela people to let this mad man run wild.
- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1He already said he would step down and obey the will of the people and the laws of the constitution.
What kind of business will he run after he is no longer president ?- ManoWar, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Lets hope he does for everyone.
- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1He already said he would step down and obey the will of the people and the laws of the constitution.
- ManoWar, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2there is a group in Washington sitting on the bench waiting. He failed his bid to become president for life. The million dollar question is does he step down or attempts to take power to resist the evil USA. If he does attempt to take power with force he will be killed. Its not fair to the Venezuela people to let this mad man run wild.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -110/+273"Chavez "nationalizes" (read "seizes") the assets of foreign oil companies in Venezuela, "in the name of the people"."
- Indyanna, on 02/11/2008, -49/+35He's looking for a way to force the U.S.'s hand; looking for something that will get a military reaction out of the U.S. To what end? That's what I don't know. Unless it's to make a situation in which Iran would ally with Venezuela - ?
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -32/+75"He's looking for a way to force the U.S.'s hand"
My understanding from the history is the matter is the U.S. is looking for a way to force Venezuela's hand. Exxon could have accepted the buyout like other oil companies did, but they intend instead to create as many problems as possible for Venezuela, including having other countries seize assets.
Remember, the U.S. is the country that committed a coup on Hugo Chavez in 2002 that was successful for 2 days until the population revolted. The U.S. installed a dictator that immediately disbanded the supreme court, nullified the constitution, and the privatization of PDVSA, turning it over to a U.S. company linked to President George Bush and the Spanish company Repsol; plus the sale of CITGO, the U.S. subsidiary of PDVSA, to Gustavo Cisneros and his partners in the north: as well as an end to the Venezuelan government's exclusive subsoil rights.
An Article from Le Monde I think is quite good in regard to a lot of your line of questioning.
http://mondediplo.com/2002/06/01edito
"This is likely to be the scenario for overthrowing Chavez: there will be a coalition of the well-to-do, bringing together the Catholic Church (represented mainly by Opus Dei), the financial oligarchy, the employers’ organisations, the bourgeoisie and corrupt trade union leaderships - all repackaged as "civil society". The owners of major media will collude in a mafia pact to support the campaigns that they will each launch against the president, in the name of defending that "civil society". The media will function as a factory of lies and will fire public opinion with facile slogans: "Chavez is a dictator" - even though the country has not one single political prisoner. "Chavez equals Hitler" (5). The media will yell the message that "Chavez must go".
As media owners conspire at the overthrow of a democratic president, the press and TV will brandish terms - "the people, democracy, liberty" etc. They will mobilise street demonstrations and any attempt by the government to criticise them will be immediately described as "a serious assault on freedom of expression", to be reported to relevant international organisations (6). At the same time they will revive the insurrectional strike and encourage ideas of a coup and an assault on the presidential palace."- TritonX, on 02/11/2008, -5/+22That was in 2002, but isn't it what they did in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chili, Peru and probably many more. History is repeating so much quicker these days and nobody seems to care.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9I'm guessing Exxon got some good old US taxpayer largess, to raise a fuss and not take the money and go.
I think, after our invasion of Venezuela to help George Bush oil companies make money -- Chavez has been pretty damn diplomatic. - Rodman930, on 02/11/2008, -8/+7I dugg you up, but the US didn't commit a coup on Chavez in 2002, they simply had avanced knowlegde that it was going to happen and didn't warn him. It was the upper class in his country that did it.
- mightydavefish, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5YOu keep telling yourself that.
The US government was involved far more than they will admit.
But of course they deny everything they do. - Frnnkdlxx, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Wait wait wait. You're telling me that even though the Government and people of Venezuela admitted that U.S military planes and CIA personell weren't involved, that the U.S had nothing to do with it... Have you even investigated what happened? They clearly say that US forces were responsible in the entire affair. Stop reading wikiipedia.
- mightydavefish, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5YOu keep telling yourself that.
- nycmac247, on 02/11/2008, -10/+1-
- Frnnkdlxx, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2I don't know man. All I know is, he just agitated the Biggest state sponser of terror, the most powerful rogue nation, the greatest dictatorship on the planet... He'd better be ready for Al CIAda to begin destroy key infrastructure .*looks at watch* 5 minutes ago.
- Bodhinature, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Iran and Venezuela are already allied.
- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Hugo is making noise to frighten the oil futures market.
Uncertainty of supply drives up bidding and the price of oil increases.
Hugo changes his mind, and continues to sell oil, but now his country increases more oil profits!
Threatening the flow of oil is like printing your own money,
the more noise he makes, the higher the price goes...
In effect, he is benefiting all the other oil suppliers too, because they also will get paid more per barrel of oil !
Hugo should threaten to stop pumping oil all together (and change his mind later...)
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -32/+75"He's looking for a way to force the U.S.'s hand"
- Zacktopia, on 02/11/2008, -73/+22Do we really want to keep paying Hugo? Didn't think so. Let's just go get it and knock him out in the process. The Saudis won't like it, but we've got extra whoopass saved for them as well.
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -21/+5Plus, the supply lines are shorter then Iraq and the food is better to boot.
- Wartyboskfapped, on 02/11/2008, -5/+14When are you signing up?
- Khannea, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Sure attack Venezuela. C'mon, don't brag or bluff or pound your chest. Do it.
Alienate entire South America. Destroy the US economy. Alienate the entire world. Overextend and collapse, twice as hard as the USSR did.
The US is slowly collapsing anyways, let's make it happen a little faster. I'll love it.
- canewediggit, on 02/11/2008, -18/+8hotter women too. with boob jobs. lots of boob jobs.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -16/+26"Let's just go get it and knock him out in the process."
The U.S. has been trying, however the majority of the population is against it.
To the U.S. there are only two options. Do what we tell you, or we will punish you. John Perkins explains this quite clearly in his two books, both of which audio copies are available on the Pirate Bay. - Wartyboskfapped, on 02/11/2008, -8/+18OK, hero, when are you signing up? Not signing up? Oh, what a surprise.
- rz8472, on 02/11/2008, -3/+5Thats what he wants us to do? As totalitarian as he may be, he still can draw upon massive support from the lower classes which have been screwed over by elected presidents for the last 30 years; I wouldn't be surprised if they were at least a little radicalized, not to mention formed into "National Guard" units created by Chavez to resist an American attack. Urban warfare in Caracas will make Baghdad look like a cakewalk.
Not to mention that we need to learn how to TALK with our enemies, given the whole lot of good "cowboy diplomacy" is doing us now. - greenm1981, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9Please think before you post.
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3you're a monster. probably mostly evil
- Khannea, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2There it is, spelled out, the REAL AMERICA. This monstrosity needs to die, at any cost.
- Bodhinature, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Whoopass for the Saudis? You mean the same Saudis that we gave 30 billion dollars to last fall? That Saudi Arabia?
- r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1You know, that money you're paying for monthly internet *could instead* go to 12 packs of Coors Lite and a subscription to the Auto Racing Network. That way, everyone wins!
- DeepFriedFetus, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1This is what I'm hearing: "Hey Terrorists! Venezuelan guerilla fighters! Attack us! Please come on our soil and kill thousands of innocent Americans! Destroy us! Now!"
- lgfaphile, on 02/11/2008, -21/+5Plus, the supply lines are shorter then Iraq and the food is better to boot.
- LukasSmith, on 02/11/2008, -53/+73If he cut off oil to the US he would also hurt Venezuela. He cant make money giving all his oil free to his Latin American friends. Whats sad is even though he calls himself a revolutionary without that oil money his revolution would be over.
- canewediggit, on 02/11/2008, -15/+49actually he can get away w/ it because of deals in place w/ iran and china. oil isn't hard to sell these days.
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -7/+26Heavy crude like Venezuela has actually is. There are only so many places that can refine it. Although I disagree with the basic thrust of all the comments I've read so far.
- canewediggit, on 02/11/2008, -13/+11oh c'mon. we can at least agree that venezuelan girls are hot and many of them have fake *****.
- Bhima, on 02/11/2008, -2/+19I'd have to make a *very* thorough investigation before I agreed to that.
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4i wouldn't say fake
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Like Chavez, your crude is pretty difficult to refine canewediggit.
- canewediggit, on 02/11/2008, -13/+11oh c'mon. we can at least agree that venezuelan girls are hot and many of them have fake *****.
- Amazetbm, on 02/11/2008, -3/+10He has heavy sour crude. There aren't too many places that can refine it and the US accounts for 60% of his business while his oil accounts for 10% of our oil imports. His impacton us would be minimal while he would be shooting himself in the foot. Chavez and about as bright as Bush. Why would Iran strike a deal with a country to import and/or refine oil that has less of a demand that what they have under their own soil?
- StGhurka, on 02/11/2008, -1/+12"while he would be shooting himself in the foot"
No, he'd be shooting himself in the head. Seriously, he's playing a game of brinkmanship he can't possibly win.
I hate to say it, but part of me hopes he tries - it would spike gasoline so high that inside of a year people would be so desperate for fuel efficient vehicles that they won't be able to give away H2s and Excursions. It would be the impetus we'd need to get a real energy policy in this country.
"Why would Iran strike a deal with a country to import and/or refine oil that has less of a demand that what they have under their own soil?"
They wouldn't. They couldn't if they wanted to. Iran's refining capacity is so bad they can't even refine their own oil and have to import pretty much all of the gasoline they use.
Refining capacity is the choke-point and the oil markets hold their breath every Wednesday morning when the refinery utilization numbers are released by the Energy Information Administration (part of the DOE). - ukfoole, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Holy crap! Someone else who realizes this... and is on digg... impossible.
It isn't just that the US processes 60% of his oil, the other places that could possibly refine it wouldn't want it as they are on the other side of the world and already get their oil from their own sources.
This kind of extortion may look good to the uninformed masses and average pro-Chavez digger, but the actuality of it is if he does this, next year he will be blaming the evil "Bush... err.... who is the new president?" for the ills he has put on his own people.
- StGhurka, on 02/11/2008, -1/+12"while he would be shooting himself in the foot"
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -7/+26Heavy crude like Venezuela has actually is. There are only so many places that can refine it. Although I disagree with the basic thrust of all the comments I've read so far.
- blorc, on 02/11/2008, -9/+9I don't know why Lukas is getting dug down. He's right.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019 ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019 ...
Even Dilbert knows it.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/adonovan/dilbert/dilbe ...- noodless, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Well if Lew Rockwell says it true it must be. Did you know he was responsible for writing those racist Ron Paul newsletters? That man is so out there, he thinks any government intervention means you're a commnist dictator and he'll lie through his teeth to make that point.
- nonymous666, on 02/11/2008, -8/+3China is glad to buy whatever oil the U.S. doesn't get.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Um, actually not. China has no capacity to refine the Venezuelan crude, which is high in sulfur.
- saska, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1If Chavez follows through, it's going to shuffle the oil markets, but it has a chance of backfiring. Perhaps other oil-selling countries would like to have the US's business enough to sell at reasonable rates, while Venezuela must find someone else to buy the oil they're not selling to the US. Everybody needs oil, and those who have oil need to sell it in order to use it as a triumph of power.
- 2bees, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2chavez wont dare to cut off oil, he can't back up his mouth with his ass. reason is he NEEDS the refineries in the US because oil in his country is too CRUDE and for other countries to do the refining would be too costly. That reason is the shipping factor. Too far for other countries to bother. Chavez is talking out his azz, again.
- DSizzle, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Whether or not it would hurt Venezuela is not an issue. A friend of mine who just moved here (U.S.) from Venezuela has informed me of this president, and past presidents that have no regard for their country.
Wait...this kind of reminds me of another president....
- canewediggit, on 02/11/2008, -15/+49actually he can get away w/ it because of deals in place w/ iran and china. oil isn't hard to sell these days.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -51/+37Damn shame the CIA no longer conducts political assassinations . . . .
- yellowcakewalk, on 02/11/2008, -19/+33Yeah, sure. A lot of that wet work in Lebanon these past couple of years sure smells like CIA / Mossad black ops. How about the death squads they operate in Iraq? "CIA no longer conducts political assassinations" LMAO.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/11/2008, -21/+16...A lot of that wet work in Lebanon these past couple of years sure smells like CIA / Mossad black ops.........
An opinion based on your extensive knowledge of the Splinter Cell series, no doubt.- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -13/+11mmmm -- why bother? The yellow - (what an appropriate descriptor) - fruitcake is convinced anyone to the right of Lenin is a Fascist. He flies formations with demented denny kookcinich in the UFOs.
- StGhurka, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4Oops, dug you down too quick, biscuits. Next time use quotes instead of periods.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/11/2008, -21/+16...A lot of that wet work in Lebanon these past couple of years sure smells like CIA / Mossad black ops.........
- notque, on 02/11/2008, -16/+32We tried against him in 2002. We committed a coup against him that almost succeeded and put in a dictator who immediately nullified the constitution, disbanded the supreme court, and sold off the oil to a company his fishing buddy George H. W. Bush owned a portion of.
- boxofpaperclips, on 02/11/2008, -22/+2that's because they never did. Illegal.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -10/+12OK, you were born 1980? Became aware of the wider world sometime when bubba was playing "wet the cigar" in the Oval Office? No offense, mac, but you are a bit naive in this matter. Take a look at world events 1946 - 1961 with an eye to the deaths of political figures inimical to US national security interests. It wasn't like the CIA left a confession at the scene.
There is a world of difference between "illegal" and "wrong." Today it is "illegal" to arrange for chavez to have an accident, but it would not be "wrong." Nor need it be detectable. The means to kill from at least two hundred yards in complete silence, 100% lethality and with no chance of the detection of the cause existed long after this practice was declared "illegal." AFAIK, it was only as a consequence of the Church hearings the remaining stocks were destroyed in the 1970s, but one can always hope someone had the brains and patriotism to keep some and the technological data in a safe place against the day when lefties are put back under their rocks. If you go into the microfiche of the public portions of the Church hearings you will see photos and descriptions of this. This one sounded like science fiction then, it still sounds like science fiction and I can only imagine what was kept entirely behind closed doors.- archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7Actually, it would be wrong. The man was elected fair and square. You can't be for democracy, and then assassinate democratically-elected leaders when you don't happen to agree with them...
Also, murder is considered "wrong" by just about every moral code out there. Just so you know.- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4In instances like chavez, castro, etc., the term is "vermin control," not "murder."
- glasnostic, on 02/11/2008, -5/+5Iconoclas's world view:
if you have brown skin and or are Muslim, and you kill over political, economic, or religious conflicts, you are a terrorist.
if you are an american republican and are killing anybody who is not an american republican, you are a hero. - archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3Iconoclast25: again, the position you are taking is both immoral and anti-democratic.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/12/2008, -3/+4Hey archie, go back to diddling Veronica as you clearly live in a very naive two-dimensional comic book world. You have the chutzpah to suggest leaving castro and chavez alive, much less in power is "moral?" As to "democratic," the means by which castro took power and both have governed falls about as far from that tree as possible. Nothing anyone could do to remove those two, especially castro, from the ranks of the living would be remotely "immoral," no more "immoral" than shooting a rabid dog.
glassy, I realize that even with both hands and a color-coded diagram, you are too stupid to find your own ass, but just because I detest the religion and hate the terrorists doesn't mean I give a damn about skin color. Never have. Stupidity, yeah, but, hey, this society is permissive and drooling idiots like you are encouraged to walk the streets and think you are as good as normal folks before you head back to the group home. Oh, and you are also incorrect about "american (sic) republican (sic)" but I'm certain those distinctions are WAY over your itty bitty head. Put me in touch with your minder and I'll explain it to her. She's paid good money to babysit the droolers. - archiesteel, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1Iconolast: first, using insults is a good sign that a) you're juvenile, and b) you don't believe your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own.
Next, we're talking about Chavez here, not Castro. Don't try to change the subject. Chavez was democratically elected, and he abided by the results of last year's referendum. So yeah, advocating his murder is anti-democratic - but then again, it doesn't seem like you have much respect for democracy in the first place.
Now, as far as political assassinations go, they're not only immoral, they're also ineffective. How many times have they achieved the further goals of the assassins? Almost never. Instead, they tend to create martyrs, and tend to create *more* antagonism towards the guilty party, not less.
As for their being immoral, well murder is immoral by *any* civilized standard - but then again I don't expect you to know much about being civilized. You see, not only do I not live in a two-dimensional cartoon world, but I clearly understand how things really are better than you do. You live in your own comic book world, one of violence and machismo, but it's only because you refuse to face your own irrelevance and powerlessness with regards to world event. You are a scared child, lashing out at intangible enemies created by your neo-con masters. Insult me all you want; I, myself, pity you.
- archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7Actually, it would be wrong. The man was elected fair and square. You can't be for democracy, and then assassinate democratically-elected leaders when you don't happen to agree with them...
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/11/2008, -6/+12The CIA can't commit an illegal act because it is immuned to prosecution. JFK made sure of it. They don't have to testify about anything and they create their own budget. It's a separate entity that acts as a world government.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -17/+7Ah, look what slithered out from its Canadian rock: ass wipe, the yellow draft dodger. Sorry, coward, you lost any right to comment on this nation by running away. Far better than you sacrificed themselves over the past 250 years so your ilk could cower in their bodily wastes amongst the dust bunnies under their beds. As much as I detest the left generally, you are the paradigm of "despicable."
- ElAssoWipo, on 02/11/2008, -7/+11You're suicidal and it shows. Do it. It could only benefit the rest of mankind. You're a waste of skin and bones and everybody hates you, your own mother included, I'm sure.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -9/+4Awww . . . po' widdle ass wipe . . . having your cowardice public knowledge is embarrassing, is it? Since you wish to make a familial comment, it must be a great relief for you to know your kids don't despise your cowardice because clearly you were never man enough to have any.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -17/+7Ah, look what slithered out from its Canadian rock: ass wipe, the yellow draft dodger. Sorry, coward, you lost any right to comment on this nation by running away. Far better than you sacrificed themselves over the past 250 years so your ilk could cower in their bodily wastes amongst the dust bunnies under their beds. As much as I detest the left generally, you are the paradigm of "despicable."
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5actually, it's become fact with the recent disclosures of thousands of formerly classified documents. you can't deny it any more and retain credibility, and you have to start paying attention when those documents verify the insider accounts we used to mostly dismiss
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -4/+4Who's denying it? I'm mourning the fact the gutless maggots of the left hamstrung the CIA. The 'illegal' comment is simply one of a naive younger person who came to age when we had that gutless douche ankle-pants running about masquerading as president and seemingly unaware of world events before it became acceptable, much less fashionable, for Democrats to be wussy girly men. Of course, in today's dimocrap party there *may* be males, but there are virtually no *men,* as the treatment of Joe Lieberman, who is liberal but principled was demonstrated in 2006 by the wimps.
- SuperVepr308, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2Well said.
- glasnostic, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2projecting again? tisk tisk.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s03-uspo.htm ...
"WASHINGTON –
They call themselves the Band of Brothers, about 50 men - and a few women - all Democrats, all opposed to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and all military veterans."
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -4/+4Who's denying it? I'm mourning the fact the gutless maggots of the left hamstrung the CIA. The 'illegal' comment is simply one of a naive younger person who came to age when we had that gutless douche ankle-pants running about masquerading as president and seemingly unaware of world events before it became acceptable, much less fashionable, for Democrats to be wussy girly men. Of course, in today's dimocrap party there *may* be males, but there are virtually no *men,* as the treatment of Joe Lieberman, who is liberal but principled was demonstrated in 2006 by the wimps.
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -10/+12OK, you were born 1980? Became aware of the wider world sometime when bubba was playing "wet the cigar" in the Oval Office? No offense, mac, but you are a bit naive in this matter. Take a look at world events 1946 - 1961 with an eye to the deaths of political figures inimical to US national security interests. It wasn't like the CIA left a confession at the scene.
- Rodman930, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3/sarcasm?
- Iconoclast25, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3Entirely serious.
- Khannea, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1I would sure as hell love some foreign power to conduct some political assassinations inside the USA.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3No need. Ted Kennedy only has a couple of years left in that liver anyway.
- xatx2, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2i know, ***** that mother *****
- yellowcakewalk, on 02/11/2008, -19/+33Yeah, sure. A lot of that wet work in Lebanon these past couple of years sure smells like CIA / Mossad black ops. How about the death squads they operate in Iraq? "CIA no longer conducts political assassinations" LMAO.
- Pitofdoom, on 02/11/2008, -36/+9If his UN speech was against Russia or China, do you think he would have gotten out alive !!
If we pirate every ship leaving his port, what will he or anybody else do about it ?- ivandir, on 02/11/2008, -2/+8America the mob?
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3it wouldn't be a surprise if that happens... that's the american way
- nonsequitur666, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0Well said. *ROARING APPLAUSE*
- Khannea, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2And lo, the beast shows it's true colors. I have always known, and now everybody else knows. Evil.
- Pitofdoom, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1In pirating their ships I did not say we would steel it's value.
I know then I should not have used the word pirate.
- Pitofdoom, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1In pirating their ships I did not say we would steel it's value.
- yellowcakewalk, on 02/11/2008, -33/+267When the PM of Iran nationalized the oil in 1952, to protect his country's national resources from the exploitation by the rapacious British Petroleum, the CIA overthrew him an installed a reign of terror under Shah Reza Pahlavi and his gestapo SAVAK. Hundreds of thousands were murdered and tortured. In 1979, the people rose up against the bloody Shah and installed the bloody Ayatollah. Welcome to the Iran we have today. You are all sure you want to go down that road in Venezuela?
- SuperMoses, on 02/11/2008, -5/+76People don't like to think that far ahead.
- pianomahnn, on 02/11/2008, -1/+30Clarification: Elected officials don't think that far ahead.
- chrisk9, on 02/11/2008, -1/+11Or behind.
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5people don't like to think. period.
- Kisama, on 02/11/2008, -35/+6Carpet bomb with nukes until it's a glass factory and we can see the oil from space.
- rayraym0fucka, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4that made me laugh.
...but we shouldn't start nuking anyone ;p
- rayraym0fucka, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4that made me laugh.
- HarryWatson00, on 02/11/2008, -21/+13In the history of US politics it has always been the lesser of two evils. We take what we need from the countries and install someone who will leave us alone long enough to think. Maybe not the best solution but the only one we have....unless we want to continue to try and instill democracy everwhere. Its just the only way to do it. These 3rd world countries only understand one thing. Power through violence. Its a terrible truth and unfortunately we (the american people) don't understand that. No other country in the world has people who think like we do. That is why we are unique.
- darkcthulhu, on 02/11/2008, -5/+9Yeah, this country is full of a bunch of thinkers. The SHEEPLE have spoken!
- GhettoCash, on 02/11/2008, -6/+10Venezuela is a democracy. They voted for Chavez to become president, if they don't want him anymore. They just won't vote for him in the next election. They guy stands up to the US, and that takes courage.
@ what harryWatson00 is saying that we should just let the US and british take everything?
I like this Chavez guy, because he isn't afraid. But of course they are gonna try to overthrow him if he does that. That's why he's becoming partners with Iran and *****. He aint stupid.- Joab, on 02/11/2008, -1/+8The CIA already tried to fund an overthrow of the government and the people took to the streets until Chavez was returned.
- drgmdp, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2"These 3rd world countries only understand one thing. Power through violence."
now tell me.. who the ***** hell do you think you are?
and there're people who still wonder why everyone hates the US...
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5wrong, if a weak country has stuff we want, we keep them weak. if they try to enable themselves, we beat them down. It's the new colonization. we don't put our flag on your soil like we used to, now we just put our corporations there. what is the greater of the two evils you speak of? legitimate trade? I can't imagine what you're comparing our new colonization to to consider it the lesser of two evils...
- skulljar, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I call it economic warfare.
- roodammy44, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Of course.
And the populations of other countries are slave-like sub-humans who are only good for manual work
Most of the people in north and south america BOTH CAME FROM EUROPE.
And people before then all came from AFRICA
We're one race, and people who have travelled can tell you that everyone's pretty much the same all around the world.
It's the bigots like you in every country that we all feel ashamed of.
Maybe one day the US will be a third world country and the south americans will be saying "those 3rd world countries only understand the world through the barrel of a plasma rifle" - Claverhouse, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Yep. The whole world reveres the perpetual renunciation of power through violence noted throughout American history.
- archiesteel, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5Iran *was* a democracy when the CIA helped orchestrate the coup against Mossadegh. I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water - you're basically justifying international bullying. It is not a terrible truth, but rather the admission that the US' foreign policy often amounts to thuggery.
- warnergt, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2Mossadegh had put off elections beyond what was allowed by the Iranian constitution. It wasn't clear that there would be elections ever again and the country was becoming a puppet of the Soviets.
If Bush were
- warnergt, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2Mossadegh had put off elections beyond what was allowed by the Iranian constitution. It wasn't clear that there would be elections ever again and the country was becoming a puppet of the Soviets.
- SuperMoses, on 02/11/2008, -5/+76People don't like to think that far ahead.
