Chavez Is Dead...

[arlean]

Great discussion. I enjoyed you all on both sides of the issue. That´s what MAKES a good discussion, various points of view. I especially appreciate those who treat everyone with respect, including those they don´t agree with. It´s a sign of class!

I never cease to be amazed by the support that Hitler had. Were people blind or what? is what I wonder. I do agree with El_Queso, whether we are discussing Bush, Chauvez or any other leader, the rule of law is a good starting point. Even if they are elected, if they do not observe the law of the country and willfully violate it, in my opinion they are moving to the dictator side of the equasion. I think Hitler proved that a dictator can be an elected leader.

And these days, with corrupt elections even in the U.S. (this last election, in one precinct 109% of the votes went for Obama. Go figure!) it is hard any more to say WHO really is democratically elected. So I think the rule of law has to be our criterion.

 

[Jaredberryman]

I hope you are right, but I do not share your optimism, specially with so much oil being at risk. Also, many might think: how much opposition can a bunch of lazy "Juan Valdezes" put up after all? Little they know that you DO NOT want to fight South Americans in the jungle.

80% of the US's oil that is imported is imported from Mexico. It's fictitious that we somehow must have oil from Venezuela or some other middle eastern country. The only way that something like that could happen is if the oil companies (which are few) that put money into Obama's campaign fund "convinced" Obama to do something, because they think they could get filthy rich from buying and selling Venezuela's oil. There aren't enough oil companies that supported Obama. And then he would have to find a way to sell it to the public. What you are saying is almost totally absurd. People in the United States do not like war, because it means their sons and (now) daughters will die. So don't worry.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Great discussion. I enjoyed you all on both sides of the issue. That´s what MAKES a good discussion, various points of view. I especially appreciate those who treat everyone with respect, including those they don´t agree with. It´s a sign of class!

I never cease to be amazed by the support that Hitler had. Were people blind or what? is what I wonder. I do agree with El_Queso, whether we are discussing Bush, Chauvez or any other leader, the rule of law is a good starting point. Even if they are elected, if they do not observe the law of the country and willfully violate it, in my opinion they are moving to the dictator side of the equasion. I think Hitler proved that a dictator can be an elected leader.

And these days, with corrupt elections even in the U.S. (this last election, in one precinct 109% of the votes went for Obama. Go figure!) it is hard any more to say WHO really is democratically elected. So I think the rule of law has to be our criterion.

Of course, the Florida results of 2000 were utterly transparent and uncontroversial.

 

[camberiu]

People in the United States do not like war, because it means their sons and (now) daughters will die. So don't worry.

I wish this was universal, but recent history shows otherwise and gives me plenty of reason to worry.


1991 – Iraq and Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm:
1992–2003 – Iraq. Iraqi no-fly zones:
1992–1995 – Somalia. Operation Restore Hope
1993-1995 - Bosnia. Operation Deny Flight
1994–1995 – Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy
1995 – Bosnia. Operation Deliberate Force:
1998 – Iraq. Operation Desert Fox
1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach
1999 – Serbia. Operation Allied Force
2001 – War in Afghanistan
2003–2011 – War in Iraq
2011 - Libya. Operation Odyssey Dawn

Plus the fact that the US military spending is more than all other countries in the world, COMBINED, gives little credence to he claim that "[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] People in the United States do not like war". Finally, the peace loving USA has a LONG history of military interventions in Latin America for the benefit of US corporate interests. But hey, don't take my word for it. You can hear directly from the mouth of US Marine General Smedley Butler, the most decorated war hero in US History. So yeah, I think I have plenty to worry about.[/background]

 

[Joe]

To be fair, I don't think the names Bush, Obama and the term "Rule of Law" go well together at all.

Maybe Chavez and Obama have more in common than meets the eye.

 

[camberiu]

Maybe Chavez and Obama have more in common than meets the eye.

The tragic irony is not even Cristina, with her very long list of shortcomings as a politician, ever tried to make such claims.

 

[Joe]

The tragic irony is not even Cristina, with her very long list of shortcomings as a politician, ever tried to make such claims.

At least some Argentines and Venezuelans are fighting the repression, the Americans are docily accepting more oppression every day. They are told that these new laws don't effect them only "the Terrorists."

It's not that the American public is stupider, it's just that the Americans have a much more sophisticated propaganda machine that make Cristina's efforts look laughingly amateurish by contrast.

 

[jp]

80% of the US's oil that is imported is imported from Mexico.

Not sure this is true at all.
http://www.eia.gov/p...s/companylevel/

People in the United States do not like war, because it means their sons and (now) daughters will die.

Also not sure this is true...
http://en.wikipedia....tary_operations

 

[JoeGillis]

The reference to and video of Smedley Butler should be clarified for those not familiar with the man.

Butler blew the whistle on a plot to overthrow the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933; his speech was a result of that incident.

Butler died in 1940; the video is of an actor reciting Butler's speech.

 

[Matiasba]

Look, your comments are partly quite interesting, but over the years I got tired of so many Latin Americans who blame everything that went wrong in their countries on supposed U.S. conspiracies. Surely, there have been a couple of very dirty games played during the Cold War, and more recently, think of the Exxon case in Ecuador (I loathe multinationals anyway). However, I am glad that the Castro criminals have been successfully contained by the U.S. in a couple of cases.

The Argentine military dictatorship was mostly an Argentine internal affair. The Soviet Union was happy to help the military government during the Falklands war. That is disgusting when I think of the usually left-leaning disappeared, especially when they were not violent militants. I personally think America was tolerant of several military dictatorships because of power politics and the containment of communism. However, I do not believe that it was some kind of American master plan..

But nowadays this grand rhetoric about U.S. imperialism is just a cover-up for terrible goverments and different oppressing power structures. For Chávez, practically everything was a U.S. conspiracy. Frankly, I'd say that the influence of the U.S. in Latin America is rather low nowadays and I have also gotten the impression that it isnt really interested anymore in what happens down south. Still, I'd always prefer U.S. involvement in internal affairs, however flawed, over Iranian influence.

low influence of the US in Latin America?
you must be kidding!!

Latin America is still is americas backyard, as it used to be along the XXth century. This may be changing with China, but TODAY, the us rules and controlls latin America military, economicaly and culturaly.