Why Chavez Always Wins

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Well then you and I have different perspectives, don’t we.

I guess we do.

I’m sure you’ll say it’s irrelevant, but please humor me: Have you ever lived in the US? For how long? In any case, why do you feel that you are qualified to judge how Americans would react in a hypothetical situation?

Of course it’s irrelevant. My statement was about switching places with the Iraqis. Anybody would react the same way, no matter their origin. I picked Americans because they were the instigators of the whole war on Iraq.

I asked you not to be ridiculous. Are you seriously bringing up something that happened so long ago, and the number of(AFAIK, at least mostly state, not federal) executions that take place and comparing that to what Saddam did?

I was trying to make the point that the US government kills plenty of people too. It is evidently not comparable to Iraq, but the point should be clear nonetheless. How would have 18th century Americans reacted if some foreign power invaded them? Would they have shot at them? welcomed them with flowers simply because the invaders claimed to end a genocide?

Also, keep in mind that Saddam was not opposed to the idea of going into exile.

If you are willing to maintain that the majority of Iraqis welcomed the US intervention, let me tell you that you’re seriously deluding yourself. Even the hardcore pro-war crowd is not that much out-of-touch in general. This is common sense. If you can’t see it, well…there’s not much I can do to convince you. [/quote]
L
It’s a dirty business running a government. Look, I aggree that Iraq was a mistake, I think any fool can see that. I can’t see how relentlessly beating a dead horse is going to make it get up an walk.
I don’t agree that Saddam should have been left well enough alone and some intervention was needed. If we were to aggress, I would have preferred a nice peaceful assassination. I actually, though, think Saddam could have been bought. Bush though Saddam was an immoral asshole who needed to be taken out, I think that Saddam was an immoral asshole, whose thirst for material things and power could have been used to achieve American goals with out the hassle of war. Not as sexy or fulfilling as defeating evil with war, but probably more effective.
What needed to happen was to eliminate Iraq as a threat to our interests, eliminate funding and support for terrorists, and establishing an American military presence in Iraq, all the while having the side effect of reducing the inhumanity of the Iraqi government.
I think such things could have been established with a combination diplomacy, bribes and the threat of military actions. I think money and hookers would have been more successful than daisy-cutters.
The reason I believe we could have done this with Iraq, vs. other ME countries is because Saddam was secular. He wasn’t driven but religious dogma or rhetoric. He was driven by money and power that’s a lot easier to deal with that ideology and belief. Iraq was unique in this, it would not work with Iran or Syria, etc.
Make no mistake, Iraq was a problem and it had to be dealt with one way or the other. The U.S. took the hard road, removing and replacing the entire infrastructure of a country is no easy feat and steps could have been taken to make it less difficult, but much of this was driven by emotion, good vs. evil and ‘We’re going to get your ass’ mentality. Bush thought that if he freed the Iraqi people from Saddam’s vicious rule, that they would be thankful and loyal. His mistake came way before the war. He thought he could win people over; he misunderstood the power of religious rhetoric inspiration. People listen to preachers, religion is the most powerful influence on the minds of people. If an Imam preaches hate and intolerance, there is not a bomb in the world that can fix that.
In the end, because we took such a hard road, we cannot leave, the blood bath would be epic. Trust me, we ALL want to leave. You know this, bitching about it won’t help.

82

[quote]pat36 wrote:
It’s a dirty business running a government. Look, I aggree that Iraq was a mistake, I think any fool can see that. I can’t see how relentlessly beating a dead horse is going to make it get up an walk. [/quote]

The horse is far from dead. While you might have had the clarity of mind to judge the war as the mistake is was, many people are still arguing that it wasn’t. Not only that, but similar rhetoric is now being dished out to justify attacks on other countries.

This is not a spilled cup of coffee we’re talking about. It’s a lot of blood, corpses, maimed kids, mayhem and the creation of a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq. It would be wrong to just say “ooops” and carry on, wouldn’t it?

I have no doubt that is what the crushing majority of Americans (and Iraqis, if that matters to you at all) would have favored that alternative. However, that’s not what the “fucking assholes” (to quote Varq.) were after. The idea was to get troops on the ground and military bases in the region.

What the hell? Syria is the most secular state in the region.

Iraq is not a threat to the USA. Never was, never will be.

As of today, 3932 American troops were lost in Iraq since 2003. That doesn’t include the critically injured who get transported to nearby bases, and doesn’t include the mercenary forces (e.g: Blackwater), and private contractors.

Assuming for a second that Saddam was after American lives, he wouldn’t have been able to come close to that in his wildest dreams.

Iraq was a problem alright. For Iran which was savagely attacked by Saddam. For Kuwait. For Israel. For Saudi Arabia. Besides Saddam’s decision to trade oil in Euros, Iraq was in no way a problem for Americans.

I don’t know about that. After all the marching and shouting from the rooftops that took place prior to the invasion, I am not willing to assume Bush’s intentions were good. Not to get cynical, but politicians rarely deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.

It is my belief that Bush knew exactly what he was getting into. In fact, there are some very high ranking people who claim that the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq was taken the week of 9/11. We’ll know some day…

Epic bloodbath? What’s it been up to now? A walk in the park? But let’s stay not go on a tangent here.

I do believe that withdrawing troops from Iraqi soil will greatly undermine the terrorists. It will automatically get the nationalists to drop the guns. It will undoubtedly bring Al-Sadr into the political arena, thus boosting the government’s legitimacy. It will force the Iraqi police and military to toughen up and do what they are supposed to do. As it stands, a lot of them are viewed as traitors because of their association with “the invaders”.

I do not think the people in power in Washington want to leave. Shit, look at the congressional vote to authorize the invasion. Do you see much opposition? Look at Bush’s plans. Look at McCain’s speeches. So, no. I do not “know this”.

Let’s assume for a minute that you have a crystal ball and are sure that the bloodshed will increase, what do you care anyway? Do you pay taxes to protect your street or the streets of people 10,000 miles away? Do you realize the strain the war is having on your economy? For now, you are spending money on guns and ammo to shoot on indigenous people that did nothing to you. That doesn’t qualifies as a moral act, let alone a charity. Any way you put it, as long as the Iraqis don’t get an apology, and the US drops the we-do-as-please attitude on the world scene, people will continue to resent the actions of the American government. I am just one of those, and I consider “bitching about it” a necessity to minimize the risk of committing another “mistake” in the near future.

83

[quote]pat36 wrote:
How’d this turn into a postulation on the Iraq war?
[/quote]

I guess the same way every other thread does?

84

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Ahhh, found the transcript. It not surprising, but enlighting :

http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4992

Here are some excerpts:

“HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 1998 AND SINCE THEN HAS SEIZED CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY AND MICROMANAGED THE ALL-IMPORTANT OIL INDUSTRY THERE, HE FIRED THOUSANDS OF ENGINEERS AND MANAGERS AND INSTALLED LOYALISTS HE HAS ALSO STIFLED DISSENT BLACKLISTING MILLIONS WHO DARE CRITICIZE HIM”

"IN A CARACAS CAFE I MET MERY RIVERO AND ROCIO SAN MIGUEL. THEY WANTED TO TELL ME HOW CRITICIZING PRESIDENT CHAVEZ COST THEM THEIR JOBS, AND MORE. FOR 14 YEARS, ROCIO WORKED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE. IN 2004 SHE SIGNED A PETITION TO RECALL CHAVEZ FROM OFFICE. SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS FREE TO EXPRESS HER OPINION. SO DID 3 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE. LITTLE DID THEY KNOW THAT CHAVEZ WOULD PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR DISLOYALTY.

THE DECLARATION OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SAID THAT EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS IS A TRAITOR. AND EVERY PERSON WHO YOU MET IN THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION WHO SIGNED THIS HAD TO LOSE THEIR JOB. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT THE OFFICE OF THE BORDERLANDS, AND THEY CALLED ME IN, SAT ME DOWN, AND SAID, ‘HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN SIGN AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHO PAY YOU?’ THIS IS SOMETHING I WILL NEVER EVER FORGET. IT IS AN EXPRESSION THAT IS PERMANENTLY RECORDED IN MY MIND. ROCIO’S CAREER WAS OVER. SHE’S NOW BLACKLISTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH MILLIONS. IN 2004 MERY JOINED CO-WORKERS IN A STRIKE AGAINST THE STATE- RUN OIL COMPANY, WHERE SHE WORKED FOR 21 YEARS. WITHIN DAYS SHE WAS FIRED; ALONG WITH 18,000 OTHER STRIKERS. FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STRIKE, A LIST CAME OUT IN THE PRESS IN JANUARY, OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE FIRED. "

Isn’t that nice?[/quote]

You didn’t seem to mind when Bush used similar tactics. But you probably think the bad guys should be held to a higher standard than the good guys.

85

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ahhh, found the transcript. It not surprising, but enlighting :

http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4992

Here are some excerpts:

“HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 1998 AND SINCE THEN HAS SEIZED CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY AND MICROMANAGED THE ALL-IMPORTANT OIL INDUSTRY THERE, HE FIRED THOUSANDS OF ENGINEERS AND MANAGERS AND INSTALLED LOYALISTS HE HAS ALSO STIFLED DISSENT BLACKLISTING MILLIONS WHO DARE CRITICIZE HIM”

"IN A CARACAS CAFE I MET MERY RIVERO AND ROCIO SAN MIGUEL. THEY WANTED TO TELL ME HOW CRITICIZING PRESIDENT CHAVEZ COST THEM THEIR JOBS, AND MORE. FOR 14 YEARS, ROCIO WORKED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE. IN 2004 SHE SIGNED A PETITION TO RECALL CHAVEZ FROM OFFICE. SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS FREE TO EXPRESS HER OPINION. SO DID 3 MILLION OTHER PEOPLE. LITTLE DID THEY KNOW THAT CHAVEZ WOULD PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR DISLOYALTY.

THE DECLARATION OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION SAID THAT EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNED THIS IS A TRAITOR. AND EVERY PERSON WHO YOU MET IN THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION WHO SIGNED THIS HAD TO LOSE THEIR JOB. THIS ALSO HAPPENED AT THE OFFICE OF THE BORDERLANDS, AND THEY CALLED ME IN, SAT ME DOWN, AND SAID, ‘HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN SIGN AGAINST THE PEOPLE WHO PAY YOU?’ THIS IS SOMETHING I WILL NEVER EVER FORGET. IT IS AN EXPRESSION THAT IS PERMANENTLY RECORDED IN MY MIND. ROCIO’S CAREER WAS OVER. SHE’S NOW BLACKLISTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH MILLIONS. IN 2004 MERY JOINED CO-WORKERS IN A STRIKE AGAINST THE STATE- RUN OIL COMPANY, WHERE SHE WORKED FOR 21 YEARS. WITHIN DAYS SHE WAS FIRED; ALONG WITH 18,000 OTHER STRIKERS. FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STRIKE, A LIST CAME OUT IN THE PRESS IN JANUARY, OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE FIRED. "

Isn’t that nice?

You didn’t seem to mind when Bush used similar tactics. But you probably think the bad guys should be held to a higher standard than the good guys.[/quote]
/
When, what, where, and how, precisely, was that?

87

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
It’s a dirty business running a government. Look, I aggree that Iraq was a mistake, I think any fool can see that. I can’t see how relentlessly beating a dead horse is going to make it get up an walk.

The horse is far from dead. While you might have had the clarity of mind to judge the war as the mistake is was, many people are still arguing that it wasn’t. Not only that, but similar rhetoric is now being dished out to justify attacks on other countries.

This is not a spilled cup of coffee we’re talking about. It’s a lot of blood, corpses, maimed kids, mayhem and the creation of a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq. It would be wrong to just say “ooops” and carry on, wouldn’t it?
[/quote]

Have you figured out a way to go back in time and undo the past? That Delorean didn’t actually work. It was just a movie.

[quote]
I don’t agree that Saddam should have been left well enough alone and some intervention was needed. If we were to aggress, I would have preferred a nice peaceful assassination.

I have no doubt that is what the crushing majority of Americans (and Iraqis, if that matters to you at all) would have favored that alternative. However, that’s not what the “fucking assholes” (to quote Varq.) were after. The idea was to get troops on the ground and military bases in the region.

The reason I believe we could have done this with Iraq, vs. other ME countries is because Saddam was secular. He wasn’t driven but religious dogma or rhetoric. He was driven by money and power that’s a lot easier to deal with that ideology and belief. Iraq was unique in this, it would not work with Iran or Syria, etc.

What the hell? Syria is the most secular state in the region.

[quote]
Perhaps, but the people involved in Syria are muslim extremists who funnel money, sponsor and train terrorists on their own soil. That is why we needed an American presence in Iraq on it’s northern border. With Saddam’s blessing of course.

They were to our allies. That’s why you have allies you watch each other’s backs.

The Iraqis and foreign terrorists aren’t killing the U.S. as much as they kill the Iraqis. If we leave there will be a power play and the most violent would win.

[quote]
I do not think the people in power in Washington want to leave. Shit, look at the congressional vote to authorize the invasion. Do you see much opposition? Look at Bush’s plans. Look at McCain’s speeches. So, no. I do not “know this”.

Let’s assume for a minute that you have a crystal ball and are sure that the bloodshed will increase, what do you care anyway? Do you pay taxes to protect your street or the streets of people 10,000 miles away? Do you realize the strain the war is having on your economy? For now, you are spending money on guns and ammo to shoot on indigenous people that did nothing to you. That doesn’t qualifies as a moral act, let alone a charity. Any way you put it, as long as the Iraqis don’t get an apology, and the US drops the we-do-as-please attitude on the world scene, people will continue to resent the actions of the American government. I am just one of those, and I consider “bitching about it” a necessity to minimize the risk of committing another “mistake” in the near future. [/quote]

You seem to have an affinity for the most vial dictators on the planet. You support the acts of terrorists suicide bombers and you support the destruction of Israel. You morality and “caring” for others is selective accord to your agenda. You have demonstrated this time and time again.

88

[quote]lixy wrote:
I come from a place where the government regularly abducts, tortures and kills dissidents, and I would be more than happy to see a regime change to make it more democratic. But if foreign troops ever invaded it under the guise of liberation, I’ll immediately go to defend the same government I loathe so much. [/quote]

You overlooked the best part.

So, your government arrests you and your family, tortures you, rapes your wife, kills your children, and if a foreign government comes in to kick out the dictator you loathe so much, you’d pick up a freaking gun and defend him after all that they did to you and your family because you stand up for sovereignty?? WTF??

There were people who wanted Saddam out, and those people stepped in to take charge of the government and al-qaeda, baathists or al-sadr’s men killed them. They killed a major Shia Cleric who’s name escapes me at the moment…They did likewise to anyone who was there to rebuild the infrastructure. Why constantly condemn the US and ignore the terrorists who are making the country a hell? Yes, Mr Obvious, there wasn’t car bombs or terrorist activities before the war, but you can’t deny the US would have had the country up and running by now if the terrorists (your so called freedom fighters) did not interfere. Is it right for these “freedom fighters” to deny the people of Iraq peace just to kick the US out? The Awakening Council would disagree, but you probably see them as traitors. No?

Getting back more to the hijacked topic at hand: Sovereignty…

What about Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, you know, the main governments the al-qaeda and various other terrorist organizations are trying to overthrow? Would you take up arms to fight off an invader from any of these countries? What if it was the United States? Would you pick up a gun to defend the US? Their a sovereign nation, right? Would you defend them?

89

[quote]pat36 wrote:
…
[/quote]

Now, you’re simply not trying anymore.

90

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You overlooked the best part.

So, your government arrests you and your family, tortures you, rapes your wife, kills your children, and if a foreign government comes in to kick out the dictator you loathe so much, you’d pick up a freaking gun and defend him after all that they did to you and your family because you stand up for sovereignty?? WTF??

There were people who wanted Saddam out, and those people stepped in to take charge of the government and al-qaeda, baathists or al-sadr’s men killed them. [/quote]

You’re kinda making my point here. Saddam was Al-Sadr’s sworn enemy, but he’d sooner die than allow American military presence on his land. If he was to participate in the elections, he would win a substantial proportion of the seats, but he chooses not to as long as the invader is still in Iraq.

Because nobody’s voting the terrorists in. Show me a person who’s financing them, and I’ll make sure their necks gets snapped. Meanwhile, I’ll condemn the US government who forked billions of dollars (not to mention young people) on a war based on lies.

Again with the amalgam between the terrorists and the nationalists? I thought we were past that.

You’ll have to rephrase the question so that I can understand it properly.

91

Why Americans are pissed at Chavez

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmDHnBSct5toz7b2TVDLEfFqy8fgD8UDQB683

92

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Ahhh, found the transcript. It not surprising, but enlighting :

http://www.hd.net/transcript.html?air_master_id=A4992

Here are some excerpts:

Isn’t that nice?

You didn’t seem to mind when Bush used similar tactics. But you probably think the bad guys should be held to a higher standard than the good guys.
/
When, what, where, and how, precisely, was that? [/quote]

You didn’t know Bush put incompetent loyalists in important places? I slipped by when you weren’t paying attention?

I’ll refresh your memory: what qualifications did the guy have who did one heck off a job in Katrinas wake?

How many names do you want?

93

[quote]lixy wrote:

You’ll have to rephrase the question so that I can understand it properly.[/quote]

Ok, sorry, I was in a hurry writing that: If Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt or the US (all of the countries you hate) were under attack by foreigners, or terrorists, and would you back the governments against the invaders?

And what about the foreigners in Iraq fighting the Americans? Do you side with them? They are the ones causing most of the devistation right now. They have no business in Iraq and like I said above, the Iraq would have been rebuilt if not for them.

94

Hmmm. I probably agree with lixy on this one…on the whole, I suspect that people don’t like to be invaded. At all!

If you’re lucky enough to come from a country that hasn’t been invaded - in recent history - you probably won’t get it. Or if you yourself, or your generation hasn’t experienced it, I don’t think you can ever comprehend what a terrible, strange, momentous thing it really is…

I guess I’m going to have to be a bit careful about what I say next. The objections are obvious. But lots of invading countries say they are ‘liberating’ - not invading. I am sure Japan said it was liberating South East Asia from Western colonialism. I don’t think the locals were too thrilled about that.

And before that, what did the western powers say? No doubt they were liberating those countries from something…was it ignorance and superstition? Poverty? Or their lack of modern scientific thought??

Again, I don’t think ‘we’ (am thinking Brits and Americans) can ever comprehend the idea of occupying troops on our soil. Rationalizing it for others is kind of easy…

Having said that, and after all that(!), there are instances where I can’t help but agree with outside intervention, whether asked for or not…Afghanistan obviously springs to mind…

95

I say ‘obviously’…but maybe for some, it’s not…

96

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok, sorry, I was in a hurry writing that: If Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt or the US (all of the countries you hate) were under attack by foreigners, or terrorists, and would you back the governments against the invaders? [/quote]

Duh!

Pre-2003, Iraq was in my personal top three list of most horrible countries. I don’t hate Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries you listed above. I am highly critical of the actions of their governments. Now, if Iran (or France, China, UK, etc…) attacked Ryad tomorrow, you can bet your ass that I’ll be among the first to defend the Saudis.

I knew a guy who went to Iraq with the firm intention of fighting alongside the Iraqis. We used to hang out in his basement playing table tennis and smoking joints. Early 2003, he started getting really mad about the threats on Iraq and got radicalized in a matter of weeks. I evidently do not side with him, nor anybody else who uses violence in non-self-defense situations. Of course, there wasn’t much else he could have done. Going to Baghdad with a guitar, bandanna and flower in his hair would have been pretty useless. For example, everytime I bring up the tragic fate of Rachel Corrie, some jackass immediately points out to the Darwin awards. Haven’t heard from that dude ever since. Probably dead by now. But enough about this…

I totally agree with you on that point. Foreigners have no business firing guns in Iraq. I don’t believe for a second that they are the main culprit of the instability and chaos in Iraq. As I point out in my previous post, the Shi’ites are key. They represent the majority, and as long as Al-Sadr refuses to enter the political arena, there will continue to be trouble in Iraq. Many of his grievances are totally legitimate when you take the time to analyze them.

I’ll remind you that the “no-foreigners” rule works both ways. You had no business going into Kosovo, Vietnam or any of the other adventures that wasn’t sanctioned by the UN.

97

[quote]red bull wrote:
I say ‘obviously’…but maybe for some, it’s not…[/quote]

Just so you know, I fully supported the US invasion of Afghanistan post-9/11 to root out the bastards.

‘Obviously’ was a perfectly appropriate term.

99

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Tell me, what if, say, America was swept up in some crazy anti-Arab hysteria (think “Germany & Jews,” if you have trouble imagining it) and began trying to exterminate its Arabs(crazy idea, isn’t it?), but one of it’s friends on the UN Security Council kept vetoing any action? Would you still insist that no intervention occur? Just wave bye-bye to your buddies?[/quote]

The regime in Kosovo was doing so and Lixy condemns our attacks to save his muslim brothers there. . .

Bringing up Vietnam shows he is also ignorant about history. If it was not right for the US and the SEATO* Alliance to be in Vietnam, what should have done about the Russians who were training terrorists to infiltrate and piloting MIG fighters to destroy a SOVERIGN South Vietman?

South Vietnam was a soverign nation, was it not? Lixy, would you have fought to keep the Russians and terrorists out?

The US did whether you like it or not.

His views shows his clear hatred of anything to do with the US.

  • Vietnam was a member of SEATO and if one member was threatened all other members were supposed to defend that member. The US and other nations did just that, UN approval or not).
100

[quote]lixy wrote:
As I point out in my previous post, the Shi’ites are key. They represent the majority, and as long as Al-Sadr refuses to enter the political arena, there will continue to be trouble in Iraq. Many of his grievances are totally legitimate when you take the time to analyze them.
[/quote]

Ok, What about the Shia in the government? What about the Kurds in the government? What about Ayatollah Sistani? What about the other Shia Cleric who was murdered by al-qaeda? What about the Awakening Council? Why do all of these people back the US? Some did so, like the government, the slain shia cleric, and Ayatollah Sistani, before the terrorist activities began.

You completely forget that we had alot of Pro-US Iraqi people in leadership roles, many who have been killed by your freedom fighters…

(Anyone know the name of the important Shia Cleric or Ayatollah who was killed by al-qaeda? He was a strong leader, and pro-US.)