It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Chavez visits Tehran to boost ties, and to oppose the US

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Chavez visits Tehran to boost ties, and to oppose the US


www.washingtontimes.com

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his fourth trip to Iran in two years today, state media reported, as the two countries sought to strengthen ties while their leaders exhort the international community to resist U.S. policies.

Chavez, who arrived in Tehran from Saudi Arabia where he attended the weekend's OPEC summit, is expected to discuss various political and economic issues with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the official Islamic Republic News Agency
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The leftists and the fundamentalists seem to be getting together more often, to discuss ways to oppose the U.S. I'm not sure what to think about Chavez, some of the things he has done for his people are good, but his clearly leftist agenda is not a good thing in the long run IMO.

I bet another arms deal will be in the works with this visit.

www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

What ARMS DEALS?

If I am not mistaken, both - Iran and Venezuela - import arms and export oil. And they mostly buy from Russia or China. They do not have any military industry. And the last time the they got togather, they signed several deals yes - like, a joint petrochemical and steel company and a shared firm for the exploration of petroleum and to start building a car plant to produce affordable family cars, designed to appeal to consumers in developing nations.

Really SCARY!



[edit on 19/11/07 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Honestly, what do you expect him to do? He is probably the most vocal bush proponent out there. From a self preservation aspect, it only makes sense for him to align himself with Iran. The way he has aligned himself, it will be much more difficult for him to do any sort of deals with American allies. Leaving him doing deals with the likes of Iran, China and Russia.

I would be much more surprised to see him striking a deal with someone like the UK.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Souljah
 


I stand corrected, the arms deal was with Russia and North Korea, not with Iran, uh my bad.

I'm on the bubble when it comes to Chavez he was elected by his people with elections that had fewer problems than right here in the USA. But I'm not a socialist, and he is, and so are his policies.

But are you comfortable with him making deals with the likes of North Korea and Iran? I'm not saying that these nations are evil, but there leaders just might be.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
From a self preservation aspect, it only makes sense for him to align himself with Iran.


Like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

On topic: Whaaaatever. This is only news for people from the US, I guess. Anything with 'Chavez' or 'Iran' in the title seems to get their attention...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by Karlhungis
From a self preservation aspect, it only makes sense for him to align himself with Iran.


Like the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."


I do wonder if he has even tried to make any deals with the West.


On topic: Whaaaatever. This is only news for people from the US, I guess. Anything with 'Chavez' or 'Iran' in the title seems to get their attention...


And this is a bad thing?

[edit on 19-11-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
I would be much more surprised to see him striking a deal with someone like the UK.


I believe the Venezuelans are in talks to provide fuel for London transport with current Mayor, Ken Livingstone.

Having said that, you could cut Ken in half and he would ooze pure socialist ideas, so it's not surprising.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire

On topic: Whaaaatever. This is only news for people from the US, I guess. Anything with 'Chavez' or 'Iran' in the title seems to get their attention...


And this is a bad thing?


Oh, no. Far be it. But it is highly amusing.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Karlhungis
I would be much more surprised to see him striking a deal with someone like the UK.


I believe the Venezuelans are in talks to provide fuel for London transport with current Mayor, Ken Livingstone.

Having said that, you could cut Ken in half and he would ooze pure socialist ideas, so it's not surprising.


I think Chavez could promote positive change towards the West, he does have oil a excellent bargaining chip, but he is courting the likes of Iran and North Korea.

Not all socialist ideas are bad, just as all democracy/rebublic ideas are all good.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by LDragonFire]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Not all socialist ideas are bad, just as all democracy/rebublic ideas are all good.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Anti-Socialist type! I'm all for the NHS and such, but Ken Livingstone is a little OTT for my liking. It says alot that Labour (a socialist party) expelled him and he was dubbed "Red Ken".



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
You can find goods and services from Iran, Venezuela, and United states in each other's countries. It is not as if we are completely cut off from trade from each other.

As far as I know, the only sanctions against Venezuela from the Us are against arms. Again, this affects Venezuela very little, if much at all. They are not seeking to start wars with anyone, it is not necessary for them to maintain bomber fleets or tank convoys. They are able to negotiate and use diplomacy to handle any issues they have.

The only UN sanctiosn against Iran are from exporting nuclear technology to them. Again, they have a very active IT industry, a large and sufficient domestic manufacturing industry, and utilize education and scientific research in a necessary manner. Those sanctions have very little affect directly on Iran.

US imposed some financial sanctions (non-binding) against Iran, but as very little financial ealings go through directly between American and Iranian firms anyhow, it might as well be nothing.

These two countries do not need American investments, nor do they wish for them considering the very unfavorable terms they have traditionally brought upon smaller nations who do not have the force to protect themselves from mandatory extrotion in many cases.

The world is much larger than only America. There are a multitude of trade partners who would be delighted to do business that offer more equal mutual ROI/trade-options. That being said, just because other countries who have been threatened repeatedly decide to conduct more of their trade with different partners, does not mena they arre conspiring against the US.

That would be like saying everyone who does not shop at Wal-Mart is conspiring against Wal-Mart. Maybe they disagree with the policies, or choose to seek better values for their hard earned income. Same applies on a national level.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
So what is wrong with socialist ideas? I see the word used here almost like a curse word.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

Socialism is one step from being a rotten commie!

Don't you know that?

Actually Socialism is a very good idea.

I have lived in Socialism and - it can work very well!

Too bad the people in power will always be corrupt.

But that is nothing new.

[edit on 19/11/07 by Souljah]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Socialism could be good it certain rights were protected, and if everyone believed in the same religion, but to this point socialism always leads to communism:


Criticisms of socialism range from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models to condemnation of states described by themselves or others as "socialist." Many economic liberals, such as Friedrich Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, argue that the social control over distribution of wealth and private property advocated by socialists cannot be achieved without reduced prosperity for the general populace and a loss of political and economic freedoms. There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of Communist states, although some proponents of socialism reject the categorization of such states as socialist. Socialism has also been criticized for slowly evolving into a totalitarian regime when people begin to defect from supporting it. For instance, Winston Churchill during 1945 election campaign famously claimed that: a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. The UK Labour Party, however, in 1943 just before it came to power, argued: "But the rise of Hitler and the methods by which he seeks to maintain and expand his power are deeply rooted in the economic and social system of Europe. So long as the world is divided into the two nations of the rich and the poor; so long, also, as the motive to production is that of profit merely for those who own its instruments...those who live by privilege will evoke men like Hitler to defend them."
Scroll down to Criticisms of socialism



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Actually you are kind of right.

Socialism is supposed to eliminate the class struggle, which was caused by Capitalism and with it, the creation of oppression of one class by another. And as you can observe today, we also live in different social classes in modern world. Suddenly you realize, that we - the majority - are very easily compared to the working class masses of the 19th century.


Engels' 1891 postscript to The Civil War In France by Karl Marx

From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment.

Lately it also turns out to be like in the old days - that self-proclaimed Socialists are nothing more but critics who criticize capitalism and private property and in that same breath forget the PEOPLE who they are supposed to represent.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Chavez is attempting to implement a new socialism, but to this point it really hasn't been defined as to what this means. Socialism could really work, but to this point it hasn't, at least where personal freedoms come into play.


In what appeared to be a surprise to almost everyone, on January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the 21st century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the 20th century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centered.

The Meaning of 21st Century Socialism for Venezuela


I still wonder why he seems to be embracing those around the world that are not known for human rights, North Korea[weapons] and Iran[technology].



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So what is wrong with socialist ideas? I see the word used here almost like a curse word.


I know! I'm usually the one defending National Health care or such things.

I seem to have fallen into a pit when trying to describe Ken Livingstone and his political leanings. Due to the connotations of the word "socialist", which in the UK or Europe can mean something entirely different than what the McCarthyist types from the USA believe it to mean, I think I've been misunderstood.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join