It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Venezuela threatens anew to turn off oil spigot to US

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:38 PM
If we wanted Chavez gone bad enough....he would be gone.

They WILL not stop the oil as this man is not stupid. He is playing the crowds. When and IF the price of oil drops and he hs to actually run the country without all the free giveaways.....his popularity will fall quickly. Many in that country want him out....

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by edsinger

Popycock! Venezuela is destabiliazing the whole region , just as Cuba and Castro wished.

Wait by "destableizing the whole region" you mean lessening US control over soverign states in South america?

So a "stable" country is a US lapdog Panama or Costa Rica?

Oh ok.. in THAT case you right.. they are destablilizing the region and anyone telling the american where they can go is all right IMO.

I dont think Castro cares what Chavez is up to but i think like me he cheers for anyone giving the middle finger back to the US.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:48 AM

Originally posted by edsinger
If we wanted Chavez gone bad enough....he would be gone.

They WILL not stop the oil as this man is not stupid. He is playing the crowds. When and IF the price of oil drops and he hs to actually run the country without all the free giveaways.....his popularity will fall quickly. Many in that country want him out....

Free giveaways? What naive world do you live in??? THe US gives NOTHING away for free. The US is like the baddest druggie pusher of them all... Anyone enlisting for any 'freebies' are in for a real treat when the US starts demanding all sorts of pay-back. 'Free' does not just mean monetary compensation you know. You or your people pay back many, many times over.

It is like doing favours for the mob. You will be expected to pay back some day and you can bet it will be duplicated or triplicated by that time.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:28 AM

Who cares? Unless Venezuela cuts off its oil exports to the world completely, this will have little effect on the United States. If Venezuela is selling 3M barrels/day to the US (and I have no idea what the actual amount is), if they cut us off and instead sell to Europe, for instance, Europe will no longer need 3M barrels/day from another supplier such as Saudi Arabia or Russia. The US will just buy the excess capacity that they now have.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:31 AM
If you drive a car you should care. Venezuela is one of the top ten oil producing countries in the world.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:54 AM
Again, why does it matter? Oil is traded on global markets, guys. Even if he goes through with it (and he won't) world oil supply is going to remain the same, as is demand. Unless he cuts everyone off, this will have minimal impact on the US. It just sends Venezuela's oil production somewhere besides the US, but it will create excess supply somewhere else in the market and that supply will be bought by the US.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:15 AM
Oh hum, la-di-dah, another "hero" in the struggle against the "imperialistic" U.S., Mr. Chavez is making threats. Well woop-di-doo!!! Give him a round of applause, or at least a cookie or smiley-face sticker or something. Everybody knows how hard it is to pick on the US, so this man is couregeous right? B.S., he's playing internal politics, the Government in Venezuela owns Citgo and is so heavily enchrenched in the US oil market that it has no alternatives but to continue supplying us oil. He knows this, we know this, so what is the point of making the threats? No point really, just good politics if you are a socialist with falling poll numbers or need a new policy passed into law but have weak support.

America's policies: The new witches of Salem. It's easy to make the US look evil when you have a backward view of the world. Why didn't Chavez just say "burn 'em at the stakes, the heritics...."?

How retarded. Don't most of you realize by now that it's just political rhetoric? Long winded anti-american speeches designed to rally the common Venezuelan when the polls start to sag. Schroeder and Chirac tried this, and oh the woes, has anything changed in the relationships between them and the US? Nope, business as usual. But a good "evil Americans" speech certainly helps deflect attention from a leader's own short-comings or failings.

If the US does have any real problem with Chavez it's that he's a strong advocate of socialism and he's heavily engaged with Castro. We have an aweful lot of people who just shove off from the beaches in Cuba on pieces of plywood because socialism is such a backwards political idealogy that it's better to drift on the open ocean towards possible freedom than live in the crap they do. Why the heck would we support the spread of poverty famine and dictatorship known by the term "socialism"? Not enough illegal immigration from Latin America, so what, we need to support a moron running his country into the ground and try to sread it to other countries in Latin America? That's "real stabilization" I guess, and pushing democracy is what, harmful somehow?

YAWN The U.S. needs to learn their lesson alright, everone else is good and moral and just and we are just bullies. Never heard that one before....... not unless you count Saddam, Bin Ladin, Castro, Kim Jong Ill, or any leftist history/theater/art/journalism major carrying a copy of Karl Marx's writings around campus.

BTW, a man like Chavez who led a failed military coup in an attempt at a dictatorship before his eventual election really burns my biscuits when he calls anyone a bully.

Actually this post makes little or no sense but I typed it and it seems a waste to just delete it, so take it for what it is, a rant from a guy with a hangover (me, I have the hangover not Chavez so far as I know).

[edit on 8/18/2005 by looking4truth]

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by nikelbee

Free giveaways? What naive world do you live in??? THe US gives NOTHING away for free. The US is like the baddest druggie pusher of them all... Anyone enlisting for any 'freebies' are in for a real treat when the US starts demanding all sorts of pay-back. 'Free' does not just mean monetary compensation you know. You or your people pay back many, many times over..

You need to read it again, its not the US in which I was refereing to. Chavez has spread the oil wealth around (not a bad idea really but the method is all wrong). He is Anti-US and has lead most of the poorer people in that country to think that all their problems are the US's fault. THat country at one time was one of the most stable in South America and was growing in has now become a Cuba II.

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:42 PM
Frankly I'm surprised it's taken so long.

Right-wing America has been gunning for Chavez for quite some time; hilariously even insisting on a rerun of the Presidential elections that brought him to power - with a level of verifiability, observation and scrutiny that should have had the Bush administration blush.......which he, Chavez, again won by a thumping margin.
All fair and above board.

But then democracy in South and Central America is only acceptable when it gives an answer the USA approves of, right?

No doubt the USA will continue to try to manipulate the events in Venezuela and no doubt such crass interference will be as counter-productive as always, not that that will stop anyone, huh?

Anyhoo for a more balanced look at what is going on try this link out, here's a sample -


Within the last few months, we have seen the systematic publication of inconsistent and false information about Venezuela in several US media outlets.
The frequency of publication and the clear bias of the information signal a coordinated campaign to shape and strengthen negative perceptions of Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez, and his administration.
Different media outlets use mutually reinforcing talking points to falsely present the idea that President Chavez’s government is a threat to its neighbors and to the US.

The aim is to isolate the Venezuelan government through the repetition of false statements, stereotypes, and the exploitation of fear within American public opinion.

The three most common negative storylines put forward in the US press are supported by arguments that have never been substantiated. Many of the most frequent allegations have long been discredited by independent analysts.

Storyline Aa) President Chavez supports international terrorism.
Frequent arguments:a.1) Chávez supports guerrilla groups and other “terrorist organizations” in the region.
a.2) Chávez harbors Colombian guerrillas.
a.3) Venezuela is not tough enough on terrorism.

Storyline Bb) Chavez poses an imminent threat to democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
Frequent arguments:
b.1) Chávez has begun an arms race, which is a threat to its neighbors and the region.
b.2) The newly acquired weapons could end up in terrorists’ hands.
b.3) Chávez “intervenes” in other countries’ internal affairs and destabilizes democracy in Latin America.

Storyline Cc) The Chavez Administration is rapidly moving towards autocracy.
c.1) The Venezuelan government does not respect human rights and impris-ons political opponents.
c.2) Venezuela does not adhere to standards of democracy.
c.3) Being democratically elected is not enough to be considered a democrat-ic government.
c.4) Chávez has concentrated power across all institutions; he does not respect private property and he attacks freedom of expression through legislation.

Period analyzed: January to February 2005 Media outlets analyzed:The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, Los Angeles Times, The South Florida Sun Sentinel, CNN, Fox News, Financial Times, Dow Jones Newswires

De-contextualization: This strategy consists of using declarations, quotes, orfacts without providing their original context. This is a common mechanism when referring to President Chávez’s statements. For instance, many statements made by President Chavez on Venezuela’s land reform are used by the media to imply that this initiative is being carried out arbitrarily, when in fact there are clearly defined rules for the reallocation of land.
Anonymity: Comments or explanations are often presented by anonymous sources, usually purported to be high-ranking military, State Department, or US administration officials. In this way, biased statements, arguments, and opinions can be transmitted to the general public.

Presentation of Opinions as Facts: Opinions and value judgments are intro-duced and presented as facts. For example, in a recent report by The Miami Herald, the reporter presented as fact that “Washington has been trying for years to avoid a confrontation with Chávez…” However, this is an opinion attributed to US Under-Secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, not a fact (Chávez Arming to Fight Attack by US, The Miami Herald, February 12, 2005.)

Falsification of Facts: Presenting false information or data in news stories, or modifying the sequence of events to distort the perception regarding the facts, is another widely used tactic.
One example is the alleged acquisition of Russian MiG fighter jets by the Venezuelan government, a myth frequently perpetuated in articles, even though such a purchase never took place.

Disproportionate Use of Sources:
Basing stories exclusively on sources that are opposed to the Venezuelan government is common practice, and illustrates the overtly biased nature of news.
False Description of Sources: Sources that are vocally opposed to the government are often presented as “neutral” or “objective.” Ex-officials who are currently active members of the opposition have been quoted as if they still held their governmental posts.
Political party activists are often described as belonging to “civil society,” while sources that openly support the government are referred to usingterms such as “Chavista groups,” “Chávez-backed governor,” etc.

Drawing Negative Links:
Information about Venezuela has been arbitrarily linked to unrelated events, such as the situations in Iraq or Afghanistan. In some stories, paragraphs related to Osama bin Laden or Colombian guerrillas immedi-ately follow paragraphs about Chávez. This establishes a non-existent association.
Likewise, some web pages visually associate violent news with news about Venezuela by presenting them in the same space.

Spreading a Political Agenda through a Multiplier Effect: Negative story-lines are elaborated and quickly disseminated to the opposition media in Venezuela. Examples include op-eds extremely critical of the government, published by American newspapers, which are instantly translated and distributed in Venezuela by the opposition media.

Defamatory Depictions:
Using figures of speech that enhance or degrade a person or group according to their political position towards the Venezuelan government is common practice. Individuals or groups that support the government are presented as violent, aggressive, and intolerant. On the other hand, the individuals or groups that oppose the government are presented as pacifist, civic-minded victims of violence, or persecution.

Emphasizing the Negative: When there is news or a statement that negatively affects Venezuela, the media tends to amplify it. However, when something positive occurs, such as Venezuela’s cooperation with Colombia in drug interdiction initiatives, the media tends to ignore the story.

Reiteration (the Goebbels effect):
The repetition of false statements over and over again until accepted as truth is a technique the media employs widely. This repetition of misinformation aims to shape a certain opinion (“Venezuela headed toward a dictatorship,” “Chávez supports Colombian guerrillas,” etc.), reflecting the bias of the news outlets.

Information Imbalance:
Versions of events or opinions that run counter to that of the government are widely disseminated in order to overshadow or obscure alternative perspectives.

Statistical Manipulation:
The media may use non-official figures, or manipulate official data to back up their claims. Statistics are often cited without specifying their source. During the recent flooding in Vargas state, for example, original reports of casualties and damage were exaggerated by opposition sources that were never identified.

News is presented in a sensationalistic manner. For example, the decision to modernize the weapons used by the Venezuelan armed forcesis described as an “arms race,” “arms for the Colombian guerrillas,” “exportingviolence,” or “preparation for war with the US.”

According to an investigation published by the American media watchdog organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Miami Herald, The Los Angeles Times, TheChicago Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor quote pro-opposition spokespeople just over five times more often than spokespeople supporting the Venezuelan government.
The report studied the publication of non-institutional sources — related with neither government nor opposition — for 30 consecutive months (from April 12, 2002 to October 12, 2004). The report mentions, for instance, that Michael Shifter, a vociferous critic of Venezuela’s President, is quoted 44 times within this period of time as opposed to 35 pro-government quotes. In other words, one source alone (Mr. Shifter) totaled 20.1 percent of all the quotes made in these newspapers about Venezuela during almost a two and a half year period, as opposed to a total of 16 percent from pro-government sources during the same period. Interestingly, the number of anti-government sources cited totals thirteen compared to just six pro-government sources.

In early 2005, it became public that the George W. Bush administration has been paying journalists to promote its policies through the media. Also, it was revealed that the Pentagon has been maintaining several web pages that promote its policies in Eastern Europe and the Arab countries.

At the moment, the Inspector General of the Pentagon, Mr. Joseph Schmitz, has opened an investigation regarding this strategy of paying journalists to write articles and opinion pieces to influence public opinion in favor of the American government.
In January 2005, Mr. Bush’s government was found to have paid “independent” journalist and commentator Armstrong Williams approximately $241,000 to promote an education bill in the media. During the campaign, Williams failed to reveal his contract with the government to the public.
In addition, the US Department of Education paid approximately $700,000 to a public relations firm to produce videos about the education bill pushed by President Bush, as if these were independent news items rather than a propaganda campaign.
In the end of January 2005, the Washington Post also revealed that columnist Maggie Gallagher, known for her defense of Bush’s policies on marriage, had received a contract of $21,500 to promote this policy.
(1)In each case, the contracts between the government and journalists were keptprivate, and journalists were portrayed as “independent.” The US Congress has denounced this practice of “secret propaganda” as “ illegal, “dangerous,” and “unethical.”
(2)Two cases that show a clear link between State Department policy and media coverage are of greater relevance to the Venezuelan situation. In the early eighties, the US State Department managed the Office for Public Diplomacy (OPD),a group headed by Otto Reich to promote US policies in Latin America. Financed by the Reagan administration, OPD used the US mainstream media to generate support for the Contras, a counter-revolutionary group fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. A major part of this campaign consisted of developing an opinion template that qualified the Sandinistas as “terrorist,” “anti-democratic,” and “dangerous.”
In October 1987, the US General Accounting Office (GAO) published a report affirming that the OPD was staging an illegal “black propaganda” operation. The GAO declared that OPD was secretly publishing press and opinion pieces in US media outlets with the intent of garnering support for the US government’s policies in Central America.
The Office of the Comptroller General discovered that the OPD prepared press articles that discredited the Sandinistas, supported US policy towards Nicaragua, and were published as if they had been written by independent sources not linked to the Reagan administration. Based on this evidence, the OPD was shut down in 1987 for failing to comply with federal guidelines.
Historical antecedents demonstrate that the US government is willing to bribe journalists to get their message across or promote its domestic and foreign policy agenda.
In light of this, would anyone be surprised if the Bush administration paid US journalists to criticize Venezuela’s democracy and further its attempts to isolate President Chavez?

TOPICArms Buildup
MEDIUM/DATEMiami Herald. February 12, 2005.
STATEMENTSTitle: Chavez Arming to Fight Attack by US.“Washington has been trying for years to avoid a confrontation with Chavez.” ''We've tried to establish common ground with the Venezuelan government,”Noriega said... “But, unfortunately, President Chávez has sabotaged our efforts.”
“Other agreements include the purchase of 40 helicopters and possibly of Russian MiG 29 fighters.”

Presentation of opinions as facts: In this case, the reporters present the following opinions as “facts”, when one of them is an “impression” and the other an opinion by US Undersecretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega.
Reiteration (the Goebbels effect): For example, the MiG 29s topic has been repeated over and over again by the press. This reporter repeats it without pro-viding a source confirming this event.

As the Venezuelan President and Vice-president have often reiterated, the arms to be purchased from Russia will replace the Armed Forces' obsolete weapons and strengthen the country's defensive capacity, especially along the border with Colombia.
Just as all sovereign countries-including the US, which has recently approved the biggest military budget in its history (close to $500 billion)-Venezuela has the right to safeguard its sovereign territory.
At no time has the Venezuelan government expressed intentions to enter an armed conflict with the US, much less to plan a "war" as the Miami Herald mentions.
In fact, the Venezuelan government has asserted that the military equipment will be used to increase protection along the border and defend its sovereignty against any aggressor.

Autocracy, Dictatorship,Attacks on private property
MEDIUM/DATEFinancial Times. January 13, 2005.
STATEMENTS Title: Peasants 'unlikely to reap rewards of Venezuela land reform'
“The war against the estates is the oxygen of this revolution,” Chávez said earlier this week, just before the arrival in this State of a group in charge of deciding the future of a large farm called “El Charcote.”
"Business leaders and cattle ranchers see Mr Chávez's pursuit of a land reform programme as a clear and dangerous sign of the government's further radicalisation, particularly because such a programme challenges property rights."
De-contextualization: Taken out of context, the statement was linked to an act that is "presented” as proof of the arbitrary nature of the government's actions.
Excerpt of national broadcast from which statement was extracted
ecree for the reorganization of tenancy and use of agricultural land.Monday, January 10, 2005: “The struggle and victory against non-producingestates is like oxygen for this revolution, it is an essential part of the life of this
“The last census produced the following figures: Less than 5% of landowners or occupants in Venezuela-please take notice-less than 5% own almost 80% of the land in Venezuela.
Admirals, Generals, Governors...a democracy thatallows such a situation of unfairness is losing its democratic character.”

MEDIUM/DATEThe Wall Street Journal. January 21, 2005
STATEMENTSTitle: Should Chavez Be on the List Of Terrorism Sponsors?
“Reliable sources say that Interpol advised Venezuela a year ago that Granda was a wanted man.”
“Another good reason to take Chávez seriously is that there are alarming reports that suggest he may be bent on arming his revolutionary cadres all over South America.”
Notice that the source of the first quote is identified only as an adjective -"reliable" - rather than an identity. This is how biased statements, arguments, andopinions are transmitted to the general public.
Interpol archives demonstrate that Granda's international capture was requested on January 9th, 2005, one month after his kidnapping in Venezuela.
The Colombian Minister of Defense Jorge Uribe said in December 2004 in an interview with Venezolana de Televisión that the allegation that Venezuela protects Colombian guerrillas was only a rumor.
Research team:Ministry of Communication and Information: William Castillo / LiviaSuárez / Luis Delgado Sources: FAIR Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting / The Pew ResearchCenter for the People and the Press

Media outlets analyzed: The Washington Post / The New York Times / TheMiami Herald / Los Angeles Times / Chicago Tribune / Christian ScienceMonitor / Fox News / Financial Times / The Sun Sentinel / Voice of America /The Wall Street Journal / The Washington Times / CNN / Dow Jones NewswiresMore information available at:

Why is Venezuela a threat to the US?
Chávez’s Real Advantage
Venezuela is an example to follow The real Venezuelan threat consists of teachers, doctors, athletes, coaches, and volunteers. This battalion of hope is distributing books and vaccines to the poorest and most secluded slums and towns and reinvesting the country’s oil revenues for the benefit of all Venezuelans.
Venezuela has a vibrant democracy, one in which popular participation is the key to success. This is a democratic model that aims to uphold national identity and values, secure the nation’s sovereignty,and promote a multipolar international order that guarantees peace and respectfor all nations. Who would feel threatened by such proposal?

Accumulated (May 2003 - February 2005)
Graduated students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,314,790MISIÓNROBINSONIIAccumulated (September 2003 - February 2005)New students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,262,621Misión Robinson is a national literacy plan that aims to eradicate illiteracyfrom Venezuela.

14HEALTH CAREMISIÓNBARRIOADENTROCases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148,533,707Medical consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94,345,099Families visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13,507,288Nursing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19,770,245Health education activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52,686,709Ophthalmology cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,738,503Odontology consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7,580,539Saved lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22,835Childbirth assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,463. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BARRIOADENTROSPORTSPROGRAMPeople benefited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,301,506Misión Barrio Adentro is a program that provides free medical treatmentand health education to Venezuela’s poorest communities.DIET AND NUTRITIONMISIÓNMERCALSoup kitchens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,970Soup kitchens beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .595,500Nutritional supplement beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201,152Mercal Protection beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .405,841Total beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,202,493Commercial NetworkTotal establishments13,490People benefited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9,800,000Total sales average (daily tons)May 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,952Regional purchases average (daily tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .May 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .364Misión Mercal is a distributing network for inexpensive quality food andbasic staples that seeks to confront extreme poverty and hunger.

OTHER MISSIONS MISIÓNRIBAS Accumulated (October 2003-February 2005)Students benefited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .700,535MISIÓNSUCRELatest report (February 16, 2005)Students benefited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284,271MISIÓNVUELVANCARASLatest report (February 23, 2005)People benefited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282,584 * Misión Ribas is a secondary school program that allows Venezuelans to finish high school.*
Misión Sucre is a scholarship program that helps poor Venezuelans go to col-lege. * Misión Vuelvan Caras is a program that prepares people for employment by training them in a particular sector that is specific to their location of residence.

Is Venezuela Really Isolated?
US media outlets tirelessly repeat that President Chávez is “isolating Venezuela from the rest of the world.”
Despite evidence to the contrary, the mainstream media reiterates this frame as factual. Between January and March 2005, Venezuela has initiated several interna-tional efforts to consolidate its economic position in the region.
In Latin Americaalone, agreements have been signed with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile,among others. Diplomatic relations with Colombia are strong and ongoing integration projects have been strengthened.

Venezuela is rapidly becoming the engine for a unified South America and promotes regional integration and development by negotiating fair energy contracts.
President Chávez has also signed agreements and consolidated alliances with countries such as France, Spain,China, Russia, Iran, Qatar, and – for the first time – India. Industrialized nations,as well as emerging markets, are investing heavily in the areas of energy, infrastructure, transport, basic industries, agro-industry, and services, to name a few,and there have been solid advances in joint research, health care, and high tech-nology projects.

" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

[edit on 19-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Corinthas

Originally posted by edsinger

Popycock! Venezuela is destabiliazing the whole region , just as Cuba and Castro wished.

Wait by "destableizing the whole region" you mean lessening US control over soverign states in South america?

So a "stable" country is a US lapdog Panama or Costa Rica?

Oh ok.. in THAT case you right.. they are destablilizing the region and anyone telling the american where they can go is all right IMO.

I dont think Castro cares what Chavez is up to but i think like me he cheers for anyone giving the middle finger back to the US.

Yeah, we are you britain?
you guys, or in fact any european country has alot of room to talk
How come when i look on a map i see "Dutch antilles" "british columbia" blah blah. Well, buddy you can take your middle finger and put it where the sun dont shine because you and all of you imperialist europeans are hypocrites.

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:54 PM
You forgot U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

Now shut up.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:45 AM

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You forgot U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

Now shut up.

Well what about the Philippines? Wasn't that war booty too?

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:58 AM

Originally posted by deltaboy
btw Chavez accuses the U.S. of attempted coup even though there is no proof of that. all the Bush admin says is that they dont believe in Chavez for he lets the leftist rebels to roam freely and terrorizing Latin America. since then Chavez is pretty much pissed off. enough that he wants to threaten the cut off of oil to the U.S.

There is a lot of proof if you actually go out and look.
A lot of documents that were released under the Freedom of Information Act prove that the US was funding Venezuelan opposion groups that later participated in the Coup of Chavez. They gave them funding even though they said they were planning a Coup. They even sent a letter of congratulations after the Coup took place.

You don'y have to take my word or the word of a leftist website.
Look at the document from the US government itself, even though it's whitewashed a little it does confirm the the funding took place and confirms that the were told of the plans for a Coup.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by AceOfBase]

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:55 AM
Well I for one would send a letter of congrats also.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 07:11 AM
All those links and pieces of evidence showing the original idea of Venezuela and Chavez in particular not to be any kind of threat to the USA at all, rather, to be the target of repeated US attempts at interference in their internal affairs and what response do we see?

Those who elsewhere bleat about freedom and democracy suddenly couldn't care less about any of that (nor the likely counter-productive negative effect such actiities inevitably have on the US and their fellow countryfolk when they rebound) and just blindly cheering on the lies and these blatent anti-democratic and anti-freedom illegal activities of their US gov.

Just cos the Venezuelans dared to (repeatedly) freely and fairly elect a guy concerned with tackling their own internal affairs in a manner the current US 'right' think is too left-wing.

But then when have those on the 'right' ever bothered even attempting any kind of consistancy, hmmmmm?

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Just cos the Venezuelans dared to (repeatedly) freely and fairly elect a guy concerned with tackling their own internal affairs in a manner the current US 'right' think is too left-wing.

Which internal affairs are you reffering to? The supplying of arms to colombian leftests trying to throw out the government there in a bloody conflict or the "skirting" of the arms sanctions on Cuba by giving them weapons in exchange for "technical" training? How about the fact that Venezuela owns CITGO and has been cheating on their taxes here in the U.S.?

I think you'd change your tune a bit, sminkeypinkey, if it was happening to the UK, arming countries and groups you are under Treaty to oppose, screwing your government out of money, and making threats that could cause a huge spike in oil prices and screw up your economy. It's easy to support Chavez when it's not your economy, your troops and allies troops, and your government involved. If Chavez was deliberately provoking the UK, would you still herald him?

Oh yeah, wasn't he "freely" elected only after getting out of jail after his last failed attempt at a military coup? The face of freedom huh? He's not the man he'd like to have people believe he is, he is making all the moves, like centralizing his power, and as a former military commander he has been building up the military hugely and expanding it's powers and roles in order to maintain power there. He may have won a democratic election, but he's a committed socialist, how many more elections is he going to bother having before throwing out that idea all together?

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:34 PM
If you bothered reading anything beyond the propaganda currently pouring out of the US media you'd see that the allegations you are merely repeating have little or no basis in fact.

......and let's try tuning into reality here, huh?
It is laughable to claim Chavez is responsible for the current state of the oil market when one considers the effects of US military, foreign and economic policy, not forgetting the over-excitable western loons actually operating the buying market who push prices ever higher with every passing rumour!

I realise the word "socialist" gives you guys a weird frisson and starts you all quivering but it isn't so scary to anyone else and certainly doesn't have the loopy automatic equation with communist it does in the US.

To speculate that there will be no more elections in Venezuela just cos you don't like their govs politics (as if Chavez is their entire gov anyway) is ridiculous and typical of the kind of extremist rubbish coming out of many in the US right now.

It appears that anyone who says they are prepared to stand up to US bullying (cos they only tried to subvert their democratic elections, right?
) and who chooses a path of their own is to be labelled a threat (no matter that there is no evidence - hmmm, shall we compare Venezuelan interference in Sth American countries compared to the USA's
and trashed accordingly.

Maybe if the US didn't try to throw its weight around so much in the first place there wouldn't be so many fed up with them, huh?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in