Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

“After seeing the failure of Washington-backed capitalist reforms in Latin America, I no longer think a third way between capitalism and socialism is possible. Capitalism is the way of the devil and exploitation. If you really want to look at things through the eyes of Jesus Christ — who I think was the first socialist — only socialism can really create a genuine society.

Bush wanted Iraq’s oil and I believe he wants Venezuela’s oil. But the blame for high oil prices lies in the consumer model of the U.S. Its reckless oil consumption is a form of suicide.”

Hugo Chavez
quote from Time Magazine

Jack,
So, there are the “cognitively challenged” words of “the little fool.” His own words. You suggest he is a “boisterous authoritarian” and a “smiling thug.”

“He gets up on his hind legs and brays about our president because he knows he we are too civlized to respond.”

The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

It is a small matter, a tempest in a teapot. But just one question:

The Bush administration backed the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez. Jack, do you approve of overthrowing democratically elected governments?

Actually, I had read Chomsky’s book before Mr. Chavez’s recommendation.

Only buy my gas from Citgo, too.

I have a measured and cautious opinion of Hugo—but one thing I do like about the man. He pisses off all the right people. There’s something to be said for that, even if he is a ‘dictator.’

“Why do people cut so much slack to boisterous authoritarians and smiling thugs? “

Well, I guess when you’re the President of the United States, towing the imperialist US line makes more economic sense than worrying about human rights and freedoms—just ask Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Columbia, Israel,
Iraq (or what’s left of it)….

The quote sounds like something I would have said in HS. I was not well educated back then. In fact, I was a lot like Hugo is now, so I understand him.

When I was 16, I lived off my parents, so I could boldly talk about the injustice of things. Hugo lives off oil revenue. He has no idea how to create wealth. He is good at passing it around. That certainly wins friends. He is the guy who buys beer for the underaged girls.

If he would read a few books besides Chomsky and take a little more understanding of history, the smiling little thug, or if you like the Kook from Caracas, would know better. Maybe he does. I suspect we give him too much credit for integrity. I think he knows what he is doing is not sustainable, but he figures either he will be gone when the party is over or he will - in fine Latin tradition - be able to blame the U.S. when the fecal matter approaches the cooling device.

In case you cannot tell, I have nothing but comtempt for the little creep. He is good at grandstanding, but with billions of dollars of money to throw around, that is not so hard to do.

Obsolete linguist? Good grief, Jack, Chomsky is one of the giants in the field. One of the reasons I respect him is that he helped kill off the behaviorist nonsense of Skinner and his gang. I would think a good conservative would approve of his slams against poststructuralism and postmodernism. He slams Lenistic modes of socialist thought, and is a great admirer of the Enlightenment, which I hope we all are. He’s one of those guys who says what he thinks, and has gotten blasted by both the right and left for that.

Chomsky is a powerful thinker, well worthy or reading. That is not the same as saying anyone should wholeheartedly agree with everything he says, for, as I said elsewhere, that is worship, not critical thinking.

Tim Crow
“imperialist line”????
Define what you mean by imperialism.
To me it is just a leftist line to throw into a discussion for whatever impact one can make, which usually is very little.

There you go Jack. Proving Chavez’ point that Bush and his followers speak as if they should rule the world. The arrogance of condemning people’s choice of reading material, and condemning another nation’s choice of a freely elected leader appealing to their needs and desires at least in rhetoric, if not in action, is becoming a Republican trademark.

America has its hands full trying to justify its own actions with its own majority population according to the polls. Perhaps we should focus more on American leaders and American problems and let Venezuelans evaluate the propriety of their elective choices, eh?

Clearly Chavez would make a horrible U.S. President. But, then, Bush would likely be assasinated or overthrown if he were president of Venezuela.

Let’s stop distracting from our own issues and problems right here at home using the reading material of foreign leaders as a means to obfuscate incompetence, criminal political behavior, and corruption of our own democratic republic, shall we?

When America’s leaders halt our runaway deficit spending and national debt, when our leaders can claim there is no more significant voter fraud or manipulation of election results, when our leaders have found the means to provide an affordable and sustainable safety net for all its citizens who play by the rules and love their country, when our leaders bring peace, prosperity, and pre-9/11 freedoms and liberties back to our people, then there may be room for American leaders to offer advice to other nation’s leaders.

uhhhh - Tim,

Imperialism, hmmmm - so frickin what.

I’m all for it in other words. The general pursuit of freedom for all people is a worthy objective. If you have to perform some “back room” operations for a group of people that don’t know any better that they’ll eventually be better off being part of a free electorate who chooses leaders than, well, screw them. So we circumvent a couple wackos in the process.

After all, just who are we harming in the process? (well, I guess certain people who would choose to oppress others, stifle freedom, etc.)

And, if part of it is ensuring our continued existence (as a FREE nation - supporting other freedom seeking nations/peoples with our tremendous wealth) through the ensuring the continued flow of natural resources for our consumption then I say …

GIT ER DONE!!

Jack

Boisterous, cognitively challenged, good at grandstanding, smiling thug, authoritive, fool, billions to throw away, lives off oil revenue, no idea how to create wealth, gets up on his hind legs and brays…..what words of discription….of George W. Bush.

“…they’ll eventually be better off being part of a free electorate who chooses leaders than, well, screw them. So we circumvent a couple wackos in the process.”

Just out of curiosity, where’s this free electorate whose choosing their own leaders? I don’t see any.

“So we circumvent a couple wackos in the process.”

Problem with that is, everywhere ‘we’ turn, there ‘you’ are. With moveable principles like yours, everything is up for grabs.

Tim Crow
If this country was an imperialist country, we would own the world. We do not seek additional territory. Our sphere of influence is strong because of people asking for assistance in getting thru their periodic times of crisis.

I know this is off topic, but when I saw this little news item a few minutes ago, I just about lost it. There’s a new movie coming out that some of the wingnuts on the left will love.

In this movie, called “D.O.A.P.” (“Death Of A President”), the current president of the United States, George W. Bush, is assasinated.

Tom T. Hall was right. The country is going to hell in a hand basket!

Jack said
“Listen to Hugo’s speech. It would be fine for late night comedy but not for a serious leader.

Bush said

“I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?” —George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

“No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

“And so I’m for medical liability at the federal level.” —George W. Bush, on medical liability reform, Washington, D.C., March 10, 2006

“Those who enter the country illegally violate the law.” —George W. Bush, Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Oh and Jack, the “dictator” was elected.

tomh:

“Our sphere of influence is strong because of people asking for assistance in getting thru their periodic times of crisis.”

That statement’s pretty funny. Except when I think of places like Iraq.

Uh, just out of curiosity, where do the American poor, the working classes whose paychecks aren’t keeping up with inflation, the veterans living on the streets, the retarded and the disabled, the elderly living on dog food to pay for medication at price-gouging prices, the family that can’t pay it’s medical bills for the wife’s breast cancer treatment (even though they have insurance), the fifty-five year old warehouse worker living paycheck to paycheck whose job just got shipped to India to save the company some money and fatten some CEO’s golden parachute, where do they apply for help?

tomh
It helps to know what the word means

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of these other entities. The term is often used to describe the policy of a nation’s dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the nation considers itself part of the empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

037, excellent debate point for your corner. First rule of debate, define your terminology. Well done! It is so easy to win debates with those who choose to make up their own language where black means white if they need it to.

Thanks David, I read some Chomsky

Using the defination provided, then we can agree that the Islamic fundamentalist are themselves imperialists, starting from OBL all the way down.

They fit the second part of your defination like a glove.

I am amazed that posters here still wax partisan after what Chavez said on US soil.

He is a disgrace and his actions indefensible.
Family fueds (left-rights) are one thing…this wasn’t a family fued…it was an attack on America itself…..He will hook up now with the nacrco-terrists on trhe Columbian border and South American beheadings are right around the corner.

Tim Crow said, “I have a measured and cautious opinion of Hugo—but one thing I do like about the man. He pisses off all the right people. There’s something to be said for that, even if he is a ‘dictator.’”

His coup fails in the early 90s and he becomes president. Dictator, yes, he talks of changing Venezuela’s constitution to keep himself in power. As he buys favors around the world with oil and money, his own poor at home are suffering. Why is he helping our poor? He is trying to buy us off and make himself a “good guy” to the world. This the same man who said we brought 911 on ourselves.

Just because he is radical left does not mean the radical left here has to support him. He is very good friends with Iran. Do you consider Iran o.k? His government takes land from its people without compensation. He is Castro with money.

When did jackasses from other countries gain civil liberties in our country?

“When did jackasses from other countries gain civil liberties in our country? “

When they became governor of California.

SE

I don’t agree with what he said or like what he said but did he attack the USA or did he attack GWB?

Tim

Best comeback I’ve heard in a long time.

Yeah, Arnold is a dictator from another country.

The left’s whole fascination with hating GW remains me of a high school football game. Your team just got their butts kicked all over the field and your only comeback is, “Well, our cheerleaders are pretty than yours.” You lost two games in a row. You get a chance to lose again in two years. Get over it and address what is actually posted for a change. It seems your democratic leaders are at least smart enough to distance themselves from Chavez. They realize that most Americans are not going to approve of the neighbor coming in our house to attack our brother.

It is nuts like Chavez the will keep the republicans in charge.

echop8triot,

You said:

“After all, just who are we harming in the process? (well, I guess certain people who would choose to oppress others, stifle freedom, etc.)”

About 45,000 Civilians have been killed in Iraq due to our military interventionism. The death rate is accelerating.

Not to mention the 2700 US soldiers that have died or the 20,000+ who have have limbs and other bodiy parts blown off.

I don’t know the causulaties to Insurgents or terrorists and don’t really care. I would hope that a leader of our country would care about innocent civilians and our soldiers. I would hope that a US citizen would, too.

If we were fighting a war against Osama, or defending our shores, I could understand this. But we are not. We are in the middle of a civil war between Sunni’s and Shiites, who I might add are being supported by Iran. So we are helping Iran. This is a stupid blunder that GW cannot admit to making,so more Americans will die for it.

Its ourselves we are harming. Wake up.

SE
Don’t take my lack of support for Tomh and Jack points as support of Chavaz. I am no fan. But, neither do I think that OBL or the terrorist are exerting control or dominating us. Wishing does not make it so. Wanting to be an imperialist does not make you an imperialist. The better point would be to demonstrate the value of our imperial policy rather than deny it. Getting rid of the Taliban would be the place to start IMO.

Jack,

Your last post was a great post and then this.

I did not listen to Chavez’ speech at the U.N. He always rants and drifts into hyperbole that makes him look stupid. Bush has a tendency to quote from old westerns like High Noon. Neither are great speakers. Chavez’s point that America has been imperialistic is not, however, lost on his South American audience.

Thumbing your nose at Chavez and Chomsky does nothing to advance your ideas. They have the ring of truth even if some of their ideas carry little weight to serious thinkers. Having the humility to understand this first would be advantagious to all Americans who want to improve our society. The time of our empire is waning, like it or not. Learning to live with the world, rather than bullying it, might be in our interest.

“The left’s whole fascination with hating GW remains me of a high school football game. Your team just got their butts kicked all over the field and your only comeback is, “Well, our cheerleaders are pretty than yours.” You lost two games in a row. You get a chance to lose again in two years.

This metaphor illumines your position more than it captures reality.

Let me make myself clear on Mr. Chavez. I think I indicated earlier that I am watching him carefully, trying to ascertain just where he stands on things, without embracing the trumped up hysteria of the Right about him. This is called, “Thinking for yourself.”

Now, I am able to concede, because I am a Leftist, that I am willing to cut him a little more slack than my friends here in the red column. But I am not about to condemn the man or his policies on your collective say-so. Obviously, some of you have enough evidence to convict. I don’t. Frankly, I must say your track record on things regarding honesty, truth and general factual gleaning leaves a lot to be desired.

And the United States’ track record in South America and the Caribbean is equally dismal. I suspect that the Left’s wins in Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil are a backlash to lousy governance on the Right. Such is life, assuming we’re letting democracy have its way—this month.

So, if Chavez turns out to be another Stalin, or Pol Pot, I’m sure the evidence will come rolling in shortly. And he will fail without any help from us. Until then, I will bide my time.

Gergle, 45,000 civilians killed “as a result of our military intervention” in Iraq is a sickening, contemptable and loathsome lie.

That site you link to, Iraqbodycount, should be ashamed of itself for perpetuating such a loathsome distortion under that label.

Look at their “database” on that site. On the first page alone, which is all I had the stomach to look at, all of the deaths were caused as far I could tell by terrorist suicide bombings, bombs, executions and drive-by shootings.

For example, 67 killed by car bombs, mortar rounds, rockets, roadside bomb, and a bomb in a building on one day.

Ridiculous. This is exactly like saying that the US military intervention during World War II killed 6 million Jews.

The real book that Chavez fans and Chavez himself need to read, the next selection of the Latin American Dictator’s Book Club, is right here.

gergle,

you crack me up. I read hear quite a bit but post very little. Mostly because I’m either laughing too hard at irrelevant facts or too ticked off to respond.

Neo-con is exactly right, your facts stink.

Further, the price our ENEMY pays is of nada, zero, zip concern to me - the more the better. If they want to hide among civilians, then so be it - civilians will be harmed.

Regarding OUR sacrifice. I honor those fighting, those who have dies, those who have been injured with my SUPPORT - both in spirit and monetarily.

And, this is a WAR we are fighting.

Are we “creating” future terrorists? Maybe, but its no excuse to give up the fight. I bet your ancestral line thought we should just leave Germany alone too. I mean, hey, we don’t want to tick off the Nazi’s - we might create more angry ones. oops, yeah, thats not how history went down on that one.

Our sacrifice will be worth it when the world is a safer place for my children’s, children thanks to our victory over the islamic radicalism of these times.

That’s not fair the two Biggest Jackass governors of california were Jerry (I wanna Sleep in my tent with linda ,and Then look at the Sun Brown He was a bizarre person! ) and Gray (give them the money and power for my office) Davis Or recalled Davis that is.

Echop8triot and Neo-Con Pilsner:

How many cars bombs went off prior to our invasion of Iraq again? Not our fault at all. Sorry, but this is the Pottery Barn, just like Powell warned, even if you hide the broken pieces behind the bean bag chairs. But then like that weasel, Paul Wolfowitz said, “hey that’s not my problem, I work for the World Bank, now.”

As to the Accuracy of IBC, read more.

The number of car bombs that went off before we invaded Iraq is irrelevant. Who is carrying out those car bombings? Us or the people we are trying to defeat?

How many people were dying in Saddam’s prisons? How many children were dying because of UN sanctions? For that matter, how many Jews died in concentration camps before England and America declared war on Germany in World War II?

Blaming America for the sick actions of its enemies is pathological.

Echop8triot:

Just a small note: Iraq did not invade poland, France, etc. nor is it amassing tanks and using BlitzKrieg forces across europe. Al Qaeda isn’t either. Creating a fiction to justify your reasoning doesn’t exactly help your argument. Al Qaeda thrives in failed states. We are in the process of creating another failed state. You do the math. Bush’s Freedom Domino theory isn’t panning out either.

War isn’t a joke or some punch line for your privilege to spew. It kills people.

Invading Iraq may have been justified for kicking out weapons inspectors or No fly violations, but imagining that it was a center of terror or attempting world domination is pure fantasy.

Other than that, your analysis is completely irrelevant.

Tim Crow, “Frankly, I must say your track record on things regarding honesty, truth and general factual gleaning leaves a lot to be desired.”

What track record of mine are you speaking of?

llplus2,

I think you give Chavez too much credit. Its nuts like Pelosi and her cohort of idiotic minions that will keep the Republicans in power.

gergle,

You are right that there wasn’t terrorism in Iraq from al Quaida etc, but the reason for this is that good ole Saddam was a far more effective terrorist. A few mortars etc can’t compete with a few hundred VX rounds, just ask the Kurds who survived his gas attacks.

The main problem we face in Iraq right now is that we are in a political hell straight out of Machiavelli. He said that the two ways to rule are by love or by fear. The reason for our problem is that we are neither loved nor feared. It was probably unrealistic to expect to be loved, the Iraqis thought we should be able to restore their entire infastructure in a matter of days. However, they fear the terrorists more than they do us. Since our entire goal is to free the people of Iraq from fear, making them fear us is probably not an option. Making Iraq safe requires that the terrorist be killed, period. We are not creating a failed state, the terrorists are.

Let’s see, Bush calls Chavez’ buddies evil as in Axis of Evil. Chavez calls Bush the devil. Sounds like a school yard spat to me - “I know you are, but what am I?”

My alltime favorite though is where Bush says to among others, Arab nations : “You are either with us or against us”. The Arabs take one look at each other and agree they aren’t with Bush. So, Bush has left them with only one other option. And low and behold, they act increasingly as if they are against us. DUH!!!!

Somebody needs to sit Bush down and explain that highly complex term to him “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”. Never mind, he would screw that up like he did “You can fool some of the, all of the ….”

What a blessing it will be for America if it can muster an intelligent and educated president in 2008.

lllplus2:

“Tim Crow, “Frankly, I must say your track record on things regarding honesty, truth and general factual gleaning leaves a lot to be desired.”

Here, I meant the collective ‘your’, meaning the Right representing this blog. This wasn’t meant to be addressed specifically at you.

Sorry for the confusion.

Trent

I know you read the Apology of Socrates. Remember what Socrates says re people who know a lot about one thing and then think that makes them experts in all others. I should not have made fun of his contribution to linguistics. You are right about that. But just like I would not trust his advice about a heart ailment, I do not trust his analysis of politics. I have read some of his stuff and heard him speak. It makes sense what he says; it is just wrong. That is what makes him so pernicious. He can put into fine words all those misguided feelings we all had as 17 year olds. He bringa adolescent analysis into the adult world and makes it respectable to some people by giveing it adult clothes and teaching it to smoke.

David

Nobody in the world, including Hugo seems to have any problem condemning our choices or our leader.

He is the leader of Venezuela. So what? He has come into a lot of money that he doesn’t know how to earn or steward. He is in process of ruining his country’s fortunes. And when he is done he will blame us. It is a tragedy, like Argentina, which SHOULD be one of the richest countries in the world but for its mismanagement. Remember how they all loved Evita and some still do?

It has been the bane of Latin America for a century. They get a right wing dictator who doesn’t not believe in market forces who tries to manage the economy and “care for” the shirtless poor. Then along comes a a left wing (or populist) dictator who also tries to manage the economy and care for the shirtless poor. If they would just get out of the economy management business, things would be okay. But neither the left nor the right trusts the people. They prefer to give them gifts, sort of like a national Oprah Winfrey, and garner their “love”.

You are right that it is not my business to change it, but it is my business to point it out, especially when the little creep shows up in New York to trash my country.

Tim

Re imperialism - it is not clear what the really means. At the same kook fest that Hugo attended with had Robert Mugabe and whatever his name is from Sudan complaining about imperialism. It would be imperialism if UN or Western troops saved the people of Darfur or Zimbabwe from the predations of their local tyrants. Much of imperialism was like that. We forget that aspect.

The local bully proudly tells the world the he has exclusive right to murder and oppress local people and if anyone tries to stop him, it is imperialism. Maybe he is right. The leftist intelligentsia believes it is, until after the genocide. Then the blame the world for not being imperialistic enough - but they rarely use the word.

Gergle

The ring of truth is not the truth.

Re my posts, some are analytical others are polemical. I like to do both. People praise the analytical ones, but not many people read them.

Let me give you a provocative analytical post. I am traveling these days and I was recently in Serbia. I have noticed that in Slavic Europe the women are very beautiful, but the men are not correspondently handsome. Think Anna Kornikova and Vladimir Putin. Why is that? I know this is off topic, but I wonder.

Besides, little Hugo just p*sses me off.

Just in time for Kwanza and the unreligious lefts
secular chrismas giving… it’s the “Tickle Me
HUGO” doll. Don’t worry, if you can’t afford one,
the government of Venezuala will give it to you.
Just stop by your neighborhood Citgo station for
a fill up. And if that wasn’t enough. For those
too poor to heat their gas homes, if they tickle
their Hugos long enough, the plush adorable dolls
( dressed in full Venezualan military garb ) will pee enough gas to last you ALL winter. Just don’t
ever refer to your Hugo doll as “crazy” or it
might accidentally blow up your house.

Also new out for Fall by the toy makers at Psycho
and just in time for Halloween, is the El Diablo/
Dubya mask. Watch as this high tech mask slowly
changes from the lefts least favorite U.S.
President, to their favorite demon to blame, when
THEY do something wrong. But liberals are warned
to exert caution when wearing this mask for too
long as its chameleon technology will eventually
change from El Diablo/Satan to an even more
frightening face…Hillary Clinton.

Not to be outdone, rival toy company, Nottell
will be coming out with the new series following
“Where’s Waldo?” Where’s OSAMA will be a drawing
of “the tall one” hopelessly lost in a sea of
turbins. “Where’s WMD’s” will be the 2nd in the
series. With this game you must surgically
remove a variety of mass murdering weapons from
a game board shaped like Syria. If you touch the
sides of the board with the U.N. approved
removal instruments a buzzer will sound and the
game board will explode.

All products inspected & approved by
JIHAD Industries Inc., an Allah for Prophet corp.

Jack,

My girlfriend and future fiancee (I’m reluctant to shop for diamonds in Iraq) is Russian, and I’ve noticed the same thing about eastern European men and women. Part of it, at least for me, is that as a straight man, I find the male form repulsive, at least those other than my own. The other thing, I think, is the lingering effects of the Cold War. We were so used to seeing them as enemies that even when they are not (a whole other debate) we continue to see them as enemies.

Good response to gergle. I generally like his/her (I honestly don’t know) writing, though I usually don’t agree with it. My problem with most of the liberal idea of warfare is that we are completely responsible. In my opinion, this is equivilent to me saying that some liberal (in my dreams, Michael Moore) pisses me off, so I go and punch him in the face. By liberal logic, its his fault that I hit him for holding and expressing an opinion that pissed me off. The entire argument of liberalism sounds like an argument of white guilt that says that any attacks against us are our own fault and the chickens coming home to roost.

This nation is in the middle of a cultural war. The likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi are waging a radical, dishonest, propaganda war to take down what they view as “Christian Capitialist‎ America and replace it with an amoral socialism…or “political correctness‎ if you will. This is the heart and core of the progressive movement, which is really a socialist movement.

Its on the backs of this anti Capitalist-America politically correct movement that we see the likes of Chavez, Castro, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Insurgants in Iraq find propaganda support and brothers-in-propaganda against the US/Bush/Republicans…inside the very left wing of the democratic party support flows toward our nations enemies.

Chavez recently embarrassed the left wing nuts though by coming to the US just before the elections and spouting their very propaganda, thus offending the voters. Now we see a parade of the dishonest left trying to distance themselves from the would-be dictator, the very nutcase they were gleefully and smugly embrassing from a distance the voters find distasteful up close so now the libs are temporarily pretending they don’t support the guy, until he gets out of town and they can safely support him from a distance.

The radical lefts’ dishonest propaganda is seen by the left as sort of a fun game and a tool to bring about political change. Thus their “ends justify the means” approach for the barrage of dishonest crap they put out endlessly. But we see around the globe the division these lies and hate create, the very real damage this creates to US foreign policy efforts, and the damage this creates to humanity because the american press and american liberals are supporting the very ones they should be standing against. The pale cover up of the left (that it is Bush who is the “divider”) is a fragile shield to cover their abysmal, unpatriotic and sometimes treasonous behavior.

These thugs who crush humanity and seek to enslave rather than liberate should not be supported in any shape or form but the left embraces them from afar. Whether they be terrorists or dictators the left is supporting the wrong crowd. When these brutalizers of freedom and human rights move up close even the left will hold it’s nose and reaquire (momentarialy) reality. When the gangsters the progressive libs support are on display to the voters this closely, it’s apparently too embarassing for the left to support them openly as they did only days before.

Tim Crow, apology accepted. The right doesn’t have the market cornered on bad info.

I keep reading insults the GW’s intelligence.

GW 2.

Smart dems 0.

SCORE BOARD!

If you can’t outsmart the “village idiot”, how smart are you?

1- Tim Crow is simply wrong about things, but he does indicate he is thinking, which will lead him to a more conservative view point. Milestones on the path to mature thought are the realization that you cannot help others who will not help themselves; that mommy and daddy, as played by the government love all of the kids equally and cannot meet the needs of any one; and that magical thinking, such as socialism can work if it;s done right begs the question of “who gets to make the decisions in my life?”.

2) In any direct debate with Mr. Chomsky, he will quickly fly to calling you a racist because his leftist views are transparent to the facts of history which must be set aside to suit his arguments. This is 1st hand as I corresponded with him about 5 years ago and stopped when he could not profer a coherent argument and used personal attack. I have his letter.

3) Workers are anyone collecting a paycheck. A manager and a janitor are both workers. The manager is less likely to be a leftist because he is most likely smarter and worked harder at his own life. Those who waste their school years and never grow up tend to be the lefties and democrats (voters, not leaders). Lefty leaders are manipulitive power mongers. Gee, that sounds like Hugo!

JohnL

o07 et al

Cleary the Muslims had the franchise on imperialism long long before America was a glimmer in anyone’s eye.

Consider this:

Prior to the British occupation of India (itself an imperialist occupation according to the defination above), for 4 centuries Muslims occupied India.

During this period, it has been estimated that between 60 to 80 MILLION Hindus were annilihated…in the name of Allah.

This ranks second, in the history of the world (next to the Spanish slaughter of the Indians in South America) as the greatest example of extermination of an indiginous peple EVER.

What Stallin did in Russia, Hitler did in Germany, Pol Pot in Cambosia, Turkey to Armenia COMBINED pale next to this attrocity.

While this was going on in the east, Muslim imperialism was threatening the west…North Africa, Sicily (where tens of thousand were horribly killed, Spain),the list goes on.

Simply put, fundamentally, we must study this history ourselves, both on the events that happened to the east and to the west, inoder to understand the essence of this religion.

Yesterday calls were made for the crucification of the pope. Mull that one over.

“Wanting to be an imperialist does not make you an imperialist. The better point would be to demonstrate the value of our imperial policy rather than deny it.”

Jack,

Why do people cut so much slack to boisterous authoritarians and smiling thugs?

Who is cutting Chavez slack? As far as I can tell, no one in the US of any consequence is defending him.

Too bad it is a book by Noam Chomsky, an obsolete linguist who should have stuck to his own narrow specialty.

I know Trent hit this point, too, but you are vastly underestimating Chomsky. Leaving aside his political writing, he is one of the most important intellectual figures of the twentieth century. He essentially founded modern linguistics and also had a huge impact on psychology. Calling him an “obselete linguist” is like calling Einstein an “obselete physicist”. Seriously.

As for his political writings, he is overly dogmatic but seems to have some good points. (I have only read one book.)

037 et al

The last paragraph of my post was 037’s comment that I in turn commented on.

sicilian eagle
If you go back in history far enough most nations can be seen as imperial on some scale.

Is your point that we are war with the religion of Islam?

Jack,

One of the reasons I respond to your articles instead of just rolling my eyes or tossing off something glib is that you are genuinely thoughtful. When you are being analytical, you tend to do it more fairly than most, and when you are being polemical, you are doing it with deliberate self-awareness.

And in the interests of fairness, I admit I haven’t read Chomsky in well over a decade, and even then, it was not his overtly political stuff. In fact, I usually thought others got it more right — in the famous Foucault/Chomsky debates of the early ’70s, I favored the bald French guy.

As far as Hugo is concerned, I think the guy is over the top, at least in his rhetoric. You know, I have sympathy for his efforts to make the lives of the poor better, but I distrust his authoritarian stance and methods. His admiration for Castro, for instance — a dictator is a dictator, regardless of where he falls on the political spectrum. That said, some of his criticisms of the United States are valid, in my eyes. I know you don’t think this, but in my eyes the our government’s use and justification of torture, its violation of fundamental Constitutional principles, and its ideologically grounded invasion of Iraq (which to me has clearly been demonstrated to be as counterproductive as many warned it would be) are nothing to be proud of.

I think there is an authoritarian streak in the current administration, and I distrust all authoritarians.

What is lost in this post discussion is the real issue and motivation behind Chavez. Chavez certainly did himself and his casue a dis-service through his UN speech. He certainly looks like a luanatic and fool(but so does Bush when he talks). But was the content of his speech wrong? What did he say that was really wrong or different than the way GWB talks?

GWB: “Avis of Evil Iran, Iraq and N.Korea”
Chavez “Bush is the devil”

GWB: “You are with us or with the Terrorists”
Chavez “Bush acts like he owns the world”

In addition, GWB sponsored a US coup against Chavez. And it is quite possible (based CIA/US history in that region) assassination attempts as well. So isn’t Bush a natual enemy to Chavez?

What about Chavez’s criticism of the UN? Was he wrong? He sounded like many folks here in the US, including Bolton.

There is a major anti-American backlash taking root in Latin America against the US. Populist Social Democraies are gaining popularity and they are building an Anti-American alliance(anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, anti-US business, anti-US influence). To Latin America, freedom means being free from the US. This is the real problem and Chavez is the sympton.

What we also see in the Middle East and in Latin America is that Democratic countries will not neccessarlily be pro-US.

Cause and effect is finally catching up with us. Our immoral, ruthless and imperialistic history - especially in Latin America has created this backlash(much has been written about this and needs to be understood to put things in persepctive - Recommended book “The Empire’s Workshop”-Greg Grandin).

Venezuela makes it more complicated becasue of its oil and an OPEC member. If Chavez dosen’t keep that oil flowing and/or works with OPEC to raise oil prices. The US will get him out of there. Oil rich countries will never be democratic and will alwyas have a love/hate relationship with us.

So were do we buy our oil? From Exxon/Mobil who gets most of its oil from Saudia Arabia where oil money will support terrorists or from Citgo and Shell which gets its oil from Venezuala where money supports Chavez and anti-Americanism. Every time we buy gas, we lose. We are really stuck….

Posted by: echop8triot at September 22, 2006 08:36 PM

And, if part of it is ensuring our continued existence (as a FREE nation - supporting other freedom seeking nations/peoples with our tremendous wealth) through the ensuring the continued flow of natural resources for our consumption then I say …

GIT ER DONE!!

EC;

1) War and eternal occupation, of another country, does not “ensure our existence”; it will only serve to ensure our continued struggle. (Internally and externally).

2)Free elections, does not guarentee a “free prople”.

3) Our wealth is being squandered in the attempt to rule, or at least influance, another nation. The Russians learned the folly of this in the 80s when they could not keep up financially with the “cold war”. It broke them. And, world domanance of the oil market will eventually break us, too. (And distroy our enviornment - our world, in the process).

4) Never ending consumption without the responsibility that goes along with it, will continue to threaten us, our country and global enviornmental stability, (unto the very end of our world, as we know it…)

If you want to say, “get er done” to that theology? Then you are a bigger threat to our country, (to our world) than any so-called “terrorist” threat, could ever be !!!

It really all about oil. If we could some how use less we would not fund these nuts. I long ago traded in my suv for a focus that gets 35 mpg. And when my friends are crying about gas prices I just smile.

Posted by: tomh at September 22, 2006 09:19 PM

Tim Crow
If this country was an imperialist country, we would own the world. We do not seek additional territory. Our sphere of influence is strong because of people asking for assistance in getting thru their periodic times of crisis.

Tomh;

The current struggle in Iraq is not “for the people”, it is not for more “territory”. It is for world dominance in oil, (and the fact that Sadam was considering doing business in Euro dollars, and that would break us).

And, “we have a strong infulence in the world”, all rightie. Almost all Arabs, hate us now! And, because of the way we have acted in the world, (in the past 5 years), rather than stopping Al Quida, we are now, their flipping poster-boy for recrutement!

Eagle,

You might be amused by an editorial cartoon I saw. It features the Pope standing at the window of his balcony saying “Thanks for proving my point.” Enough said.

It seems it would be fun to a liberal. Blaming everything bad on the powers that be. Feeling bad for everyone. And then, partying ALL NIGHT LONG! YEAH!
Just feeling bad and just wanting to do something, is not good enough. You have to DO something about it. And you cant cry for your mommy every time you stub your toe. Solutions take a lot of hard work. Intent is not enough. You need action.
And, oh yeah…
Chavez is not cool.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 22, 2006 10:06 PM

“When did jackasses from other countries gain civil liberties in our country?”

When they became governor of California.

OMG, Tim,
I think I wet myself, … laughing !!!!!!!

If the USA has such a big SUPPLY of oil, then why isnt gas 15 cents a gallon?
Good Ol’ Saddam wasnt dealing in Euros because he just wanted more food instead to feed his poor citizens.
Who was on the recruitment poster before W?
Bubba wants you… to join Al Qaeda.
All Arabs dont hate us. Just the terrorists. Turkey is having a great time with their capitalism. When there are turkish companies making fashionable burkas, it shows that capitalism anywhere in the world.
And, oh yeah…
Chavez is not cool.

We are not stuck with buying oil form terrorists. We have plenty of space in our own backyard to find oil.
Crying over gas prices?
Blame politicians who will not let us dig.
Do Dems care about the poor?
Tell them to remove the 60 cent per gallon tax. It means a lot to poor people. Rich people can pay that tax all night long.
Buying oil form Chavez is not cool.

Getting rid of the Taliban would be the place to start IMO.

Posted by: 037 at September 22, 2006 10:32 PM

037,
It would be helpful to the conversation, if you actually knew what was happening under this administration. We went into Afganistan to supposedly throw the Taliban out. But, Osama escaped to Packistan. (Remember Tora Bora?). Now, Afganistan is in shambles, not unsimilar to Iraq. And, when GW said last week that he could not go into Packistan to get OBL because it was a “soviergn nation”? Well, one week later he changed his mind (someone obviously brought up Iraq to him, duh!), and he now says that he would go into Packistan after OBL if he had intel about where OBL was. He could ask Packistan I guess. They might know. But unfortunately they were too busy last week letting 200 Taliban out of prison, so that they could go back to Afganistan to continue the fighting there. Thwarting our civilian and military efforts there, for “peace”.

Before you jump in, you may ask yourself here, …

Just who, is in bed, with who?

Ref: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/10/10951/5080

Jack wrote: ‘Why do people cut so much slack to boisterous authoritarians and smiling thugs? All the great dictators have their apologists.’

Good question. I often ponder that question myself as I read posts put forth by the Red Column supporters here on this very blog apologizing for the current, law breaking administration.

Re: Chavez
Look, if you do not understand that most of the underdeveloped nations with any appreciable resources have been strong armed by European and US governments so that we can send our mega-corporations in to make huge profits, then there’s nothing I or anyone can say to you to convince you that these nations have a legitimate gripe against the US.

Is Chavez the answer for his nation and people? I don’t know.

But think of this… Recall the citizens in the Northeast whose homes were condemned, confiscated, then handed over to big private developers? Imagine you were one of those people, maybe someone who had foresight and planning, who intended to stay there and maybe reap some future financial gain by being smart enough to invest in an area with potential. Imagine living in an area that was not ideal, but you were willing to live there because you saw a future. Now imagine the government coming in and taking your home. Without your permission, and in fact after you fought it tooth and nail. You’d be really pissed right?

Now think of living in a country for generations. An outside force (our government) continually meddles with the government and strong arms in dictators friendly not to its own citizens, but to the big money corporations of the USA. For generations you see money being made, but not by you or your family. You see your nations goods “taken” by big business from the good ol’ USA while you and your family sit by and watch the money and the wealth ship out one freighter at a time.

I think, were you a citizen of Venuzela, you might view Mr. Chavez differently. If they have a view of our country and our president that is a polar opposite of your insulated view, then too bad. I think Mr. Chavez got the largest applause of any of the speakers at the UN.

Again, I’m not saying I support Mr. Chavez’s position on all things, I disagree with his open remarks comparing Bush with the devil, and I am certain that he did himself no favors with his tirade, but the people of Venuzela have a right to their own leaders… no matter what we think. You want other world leaders to respect us? Treat them as equals and consider their citizens to be as valuable as our own. We clearly don’t. They clearly have some strong feelings about the US because of it.

As a side note: have you been following the accomplishments of Clinton’s Global Initiatives? Republicans should truly be ashamed of their treatment of President Clinton. I have heard only Joe Scarborough half-heartedly apologize for the right wing extremism that hounded and hunted this basically very good man. Because of that vitriolic witch hunt by the right… and I mean ALL the right, even the moderates… I will never, ever consider voting for a Republican again. Even if I disagree with the Democrats (and I often do) Neither will my wife, nor my young adult children ever vote Republican (they have admitted as much to me).

When I see what Mr. Clinton is doing and trying to accomplish, and I compare that with what Mr. Bush/Cheney is doing and trying to accomplish (and don’t say DEMOCRACY in the middle east - he had no plan for that), well, who is the liar, the cheat, the breaker of the ‘rule-of-law’? Clearly it is Mr. Bush/Cheney. From the entire Whitewater debacle I KNOW what kind of evil there can be in the hearts of some Americans, so Mr. Chavez’s remarks… as vitriolic and as uncalled for as they were… were a bit more understandable to me.

PlayNice,

Yes, I wish we and our government was even a fraction as concerned with serious efforts to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil as we are to devoting massive military resources to topple a nation that at least helped get the lid on terrorism and which served as a counter balance to Iran. The middle east is of huge strategic interest to us primarily because our economy depends on foreign oil. For national security as well as environmental reasons, we have to stop with the baby steps toward energy independence.

Joe;

“Good Ol Saddam wasnt dealing in Euros because he just wanted more food instead to feed his poor citizens.”

Yes, because of our 10 years or so, of boycotts. He was dealing “oil for food” to feed his peopole, and he was broke, had no intent to support “terrorists” and was still hurting form the Gulf war of 1991, and all his WMD had long since broken down in the desert, since 1988.

That is why he was planning to go to Euro-dollars, to get more for his oil. (We had been screwing him for 10 years, now - he was planing to screw us, right back). And, that would have been a disaster to America, who was already having problems with the Euro-dollar, in 2001.

Iraq was mearly a business oppurtunity in the making. Oil for us, more money for big business, (no bid contractors), and a foot-hold in the middle east for GW. A pretty tempting carrot. Especially when he (Bush), could in his eyes, be a bigger man than his father was in 1991, and finish the job that his father failed to do.

Q: “Who was on the recruitment poster before W?”
A: OBL

Q: “Bubba wants you… to join Al Qaeda.”?

A: No, “SEE THIS MAN, (Bush) HE IS OUR ENEMY”

“All Arabs dont hate us.”

You mean they dont show it. Yes, some admire our “freedoms” untill they see just how shallow that really is, and until we are finished throwing money at them.

“Just the terrorists”.

Yes, we must remember the “terrorists”.

Well, conservative figures state that there are only about 5,000 dangerous zealots, world wide, that are of any importance. So, invading Mid-Eastern countries, for just 5,000 zealots? That somehow seams impractical. Especially, when those actions only serve to increase more “terrorist” threats, than they actually curb.

AMEN TRENT!!!

But, I would like to see serious development in renewable energies rather than alternatives; that would just change one “adiction”, for another.

ILT B,

I agree Sadam was a terrorist, or Machiavellian Dictator, or my guess, a Paranoid Leninist. But to me, the issue is whether he was a true regional threat or threat to the U.S. In my opinion he was contained. That was awful for Iraqi’s, but relatively cheap for us. He provided a balance for Iran and negotiating tool for us with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. He was efectively defanged, and it seems to have been a mistake to invade especially given all the warning that were given regarding destabilizing Iraq.

We are now stuck in hell, as you noted, with no good ways out. Now the world sees us as irresponsible and puts us in a light of being either cruel and callous or weak. It was a strategic mistake.

Jack,
The ring of truth is not the truth, but since there is no magic arbiter of what is true, what is the point?

My point was, we have behaved in imperialistic fashion in South America at times and other places in the world, which gives creedance to Chavez’s rants. That is how they percieve us. We have played into terrorist propoganda in Iraq. It would be smarter for us to evaluate our moves with regard to an understanding of both our goals and our image. Our actual behavior may have impact, or it may not. Politics, including world politics, is partly a game of perception.

As to the Slavic perception of beauty, I have no idea how to respond. I was interested in Darwin’s observations of beauty in his book the Voyage of the Beagle. He noted that in some darker skinned culture his white pasty skin was seen as grotesque, but then he kinda freaky looking.

I often see women in this country with creepy guys. Being of the ugly and nice guy persuasions myself, no matter how much I rant about it women don’t listen. But then I have dated attractive women at times(including some Czechs) and found them sometimes like attractive men, self absorbed and supeficial.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at September 22, 2006 11:02 PM

“45,000 civilians killed as a result of our military intervention in Iraq is a sickening, contemptable and loathsome lie.”

Yes, I agree. It is more like over 100,000 civilians killed because of our invasion and more than 3,000 Americans killed and as many as 20,000 - 40,000 permently injured (or a lot more because the figures comming out of this Administration are squed).

“For example, 67 killed by car bombs, mortar rounds, rockets, roadside bomb, and a bomb in a building on one day”.

Yes, and 47 bodys found murdered (who had signs of torture and mutilation) in one day, 3 Iraqui police dead, 2 Americans, and that is in one day, but over 225 in just one week, (last week) !

“Ridiculous. This is exactly like saying that the US military intervention during World War II killed 6 million Jews.”

No, these were not deaths found after we got there. These are deaths that are a result of our being there.

You are saying that Hitler did not kill any Jews, they only were killed after we got there. That is an unintelligent response. We killed no Jews in Germany. And it is not a like comparison to what is happening in Iraq today.

Sadam has done his share of killing his people. He will answer in this world or the next, for his crimes against his people. Who is supposed to answer now? TODAY?

According to you,,,It sure as hell, isnt GW !

An afterthought,

I think our best defense against Chavez is his own legacy in Venezuala. I equally think our strategy in Cuba has been ineffective. Taking the part of Corporations that have victimized South Americans does us no favors.

PlayNice,
I think IBC has done a great job of verifying their numbers. Many people on the left used them at the beginning of the war because the numbers were higher than what the Bush administration was admitting to. Now the left attacks their numbers because they want them to be higher. That’s a pretty good indication of fairness to me. 45,000 is a lot of civilians, to me. So much for precision bombing.

Yes, Gergle, 45,000 civilians dead is a lot of human beings to you and I. But if it were just 30,000 that would be an acceptable number to ‘people’ who support this kind of war. Mainly this is because the human beings are more brown skinned than we are, and are not Christian. Therefore, these casualties don’t ‘count’ as much as real human beings (American whites). Face your prejudices, you war supporters!

Posted by: JohnL at September 23, 2006 06:58 AM

John L

Q: #!1- “who gets to make the decisions in my life”?
A: Well, with GWs track record, it isnt him!

#3 - Sounds more like your a classist, instead of a racist. Something that I am sure, you have in common with GW.

gergle,

You just dont get it do you? The “precision bombing” remark. Where did that come from? Is that ment to support our troops or is it a back-ward slam, against our troops?

My figures are accurate. Or, at least as accurate as any figures can be, taking into account that this Administration is as secretative about the Iraqui body count, as it is about everything else that it does.

You should try talking to some returning officers from Iraq. I have. They will tell you some very clever ways that this Administration uses to cover up the true Hollacost, going on over there.

The problem is that those on the right will never come to reality about Iraq and what is truly happening over there, until it is splayed all over the 6 O Clock news (like Viet Nam was). And, we can see the sea of caskets, drapped with American Flags, that flood onto our T.V. screens, over dinner.

But, with this Administration, THAT.., will never happen. No windows will ever open to show the fresh light of day and let the stench out.

Maybe, that is because, “WE HAVE A LIBERAL PRESS,” …(you know?).

(PS: the last scentance, in case you missed it? That was sarcasm)

PlayNice
I am painfully aware of what has been going on under this administration. Do you find that we should not have attempted to rid afganistan of the Taliban? In my opinion that was the war on terror. I personally think we did not spend enough time or resources their. After that we should have gotten rid of the tin-horn dictaors in African and flooded it with food, water, and medicine and tried to win the hearts and minds of the people their. That would have been a proper use of our imperialist tendencies.

Iraq tally:
2002-2006

3,000 + Americans dead
100,000 + Civilians dead
20,000 + Americans permently damaged
Tortured by Iraquis: Unknown
Tortured by Americans: Unknown
Terrorists Killed or Captured: 0

And, these are only the figures that we know about. I am sure that the actual tally is much, much higher.

037,

We went to Afganistan to get “Osama”, that is why we were there. That is not what we did. We have not done one thing against “terror”. But, we have sure done a lot to support it, under this Administration!

As far as our concerns with the rest of the world. We should have gotten the real people that attacked us on 9/11. That was our first priority. After that, attacking other countries should only be done in self defense, and not as a form of - business expansion.

037

And, oh yes.
We do not have a very good track record for “winning the hearts and minds” of other Nations, under this Administration.

Better leave that to someone else, (that is more equipt for it, in the future).

The precision bombing remark is to point to the oxymoronic nature of the term. There is no such thing. Bombs blow up. They are not precise. Wars do not punish only the bad guys. It punishes everyone.

It’s a comment on the people who sell that sort of propoganda.

You say your numbers are accurate. Where is your documentation? IBC does back up their numbers rather than throwing out some number and avering that as truth.

I think a significant portion of Americans are waking up to lies of Iraq. I think that is reflected in the polls. I may want more to recognize that Bush is sacrificing US soldiers for the sake of domestic politics, but we are not there yet. I think in part that is due to no draft being in effect, which helped us get to this situation.

The refusal of Bush to admit to an understaffing of the occupation of Iraq, should be criminal, in my opinion. This has done more to hurt the US than the terrorists or or any antiwar activity. I suspect it is now too late to be effective without a massive force and 20 years of occupation, which is unlikely to be supported by the electorate. Even James Baker III has more or less stated this. The game is now to shift the blame to the Iraqi government, the anti war crowd, and the liberal press.

Trent

Thanks. I always enjoy your responses. Glad you decided to stick around.

LibRick

Latin America is a very interesting case. Some people blame its problems on the U.S. and the U.S. has interfered in Latin America. I would argue as much on the plus side as the minus. But if you look at the chronology, you find that blame the Yankee just does not make much sense.

Latin America was settled well before the most of what became the U.S. Some of the best land that became the U.S. (California for example) were controlled by Mexico. New England compared to California is not well endowed with resources and it is really cold much of the year. You would certainly expect the people who controlled California & Texas to dominate the people who controlled New England and Virginia, wouldn’t you, especially if you gave them a hundred year head start?

Yet both California and Texas were virtually undeveloped by 1840s. That is why it was so easy for the U.S. to move in. There was almost nobody there except a string of missions and a few cowboys.

As for the rest of Latin America, the U.S. was not a particularly powerful country until late in the 19th Century. When we went to war with Spain, a lot of people in Europe expected Spain to win. We didn’t project any significant power into Brazil or Argentina, except the more or less benign idea that others should not interfere. Peron was hostile the U.S. and favored the Nazis. Getúlio Vargas was more fond of Mussolini’s brand of revolutionary socialism, but joined our side because he saw we would win. (Give the Brazilians their due. They fought bravely on the allied side in Italy).

Take the case of Argentina. In 1900, with lots of British investment (just like the U.S. in that respect BTW) Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world per capita. Then it when the state control route under Peron. They nationalized industries and they never worked well again.

The problem of almost every country in Latin America is state control. Both the left and the right in Latin America believed in it, although with a different set of winners and losers. Brazils motto “Ordem e Progresso” comes from the positivist thinking of August Comte. Great theory as long as you do not try to apply it.

Lately some Latin countries have begun to do better. Chile leaps to mind, but so does the big one, Brazil. Even the leftist there (as often has been the case in the U.S.) respect the market. The people most annoyed by Chavez, if he really gets going, will be the Brazilians.

A very perceptive Latin writer is the Peruvian Herando De Soto (the economist, not the explorer). Read him, not Chomsky. De Soto identifies the problem of Latin America as having too weak property rights. I think he is exactly right. The state is always ready to step in and interfere with private property. This affects the poor most of all, since many of them HAVE property w/o title and they cannot get title because of the way the governments work.

Anyway, if imperialism were the cause of poverty, Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Ireland and Norway would be very poor. They became independent only in the last century. Places like Estonia or Lithuania should be even worse off. If American interference was the problem, most of these same countries suffered a lot of that and not very long ago. Obviously, something else is at work. Wealth creation is an indigenous problem. Foreign investment, if allowed, can help jump start economies, but it is primarily to the credit or blame of the local guys.

America was built with investment from Holland and the UK. They bought much of our country but we bought it back and made much more of it. Latin Americans got similar foreign investment, but it didn’t grow as well in that stiffling climate of state control.

Brazilians used to say that they had to work at night so that they could make money while the government was sleeping. I think the productive people of Venezuela need to do the same when Hugo isn’t looking.

Gergle

Re precision bombing. As I mentioned, I was recently in Serbia. I saw some of the damage NATO bombs did. Serbs seem to have recovered well. The bombed buildings (such as the Defense Ministry) are well destroyed, but not much else was touched.

Since this was Clinton time, I suppose people will say the targeting was better, but pictures of Iraq I have seen tell the same story.

Jack, well a single bomb is better than carpet bombing, I suppose. I went through my home town after an F5 tornado tore through it. It appeared as though a half mile wide bulldozer had leveled and cleaned off the center of town.

As I walked through the path of destruction, I saw several older houses ripped in half. It was as though a giant meat cleaver had been dropped through the house and half was missing. Yet on the second story on one of these, I recall seeing a mirror on the wall with a small shelf under it and small nik-naks sitting undisturbed, mere inches from the newly cut “edge” of the house..

I’ve never heard anyone describe a tornado as precise, nor would I feel safe hanging out in it’s path or in the vincinity of “precision” bomb attacks. It’s a term suited to video games and arm chair war vets, not reality.

Family fueds (left-rights) are one thing…this wasn’t a family fued…it was an attack on America itself…..He will hook up now with the nacrco-terrists on trhe Columbian border and South American beheadings are right around the corner.
Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at September 22, 2006 09:55 PMp

Eagle I’ve never heard of Chavez involvement with “narco-terrists”. Perhaps you’re confusing him with the Regan Admins involvement with the Contras? See link below;

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

It seems that the real objection to Chavez from the US right, is that he is investing his countrys resources in the education health and welfare of its people. He was in fact elected with a far greater margin that Bush. Dictator indeed! The masses in Venezuela were consigned to generational poverty by a small wealthy class who collaborated with US economic imperialism. For his opposition to that at least, I say’ Viva Chavez!

Gergle,

“You say your figures are accurate, where is your documentation”?

Sorry this is old, almost a year and a half old, but the 100,000 of March 2005 has risen now, to 200,000 plus, in Sept. 2006.

http://home.comcast.net/~ndpwnew/PeaceAndWar/TheCivilianDeathTollInIraq.htm

Jack said: “You are right that it is not my business to change it, but it is my business to point it out, especially when the little creep shows up in New York to trash my country.”

I agree, you have every right and even some duty to speak up if leaders of other nation’s are causing harm to their own people or ours. Perhaps I missed it, but, I didn’t hear Chavez trash America. I heard him trash our president as our President has trashed other other nation’s leaders. Ahmadinejad did the same but was more explict than Chavez verbally, that it is not the good American people that he has a problem with, but, their leaders. Clearly, Chavez is providing good deals for many Americans with heating energy at discount and contracts with New York. Chavez’ actions say it is not the American people he has a problem with, but, their government officials like Bush.

Polls show the American people share this view of being critical of our government leaders, but, not America herself. The days of placing our President as the symbol of all that is America ended with Nixon’s impeachment and the Viet Nam War. The American president is not the symbol of America. An American president can dishonor America and her people with his/her actions and lead the country down paths of actions which the majority of America’s people do not agree with.

So, I find your characterization of Chavez’ remarks aimed at Bush the man, a bit outdated when you take personal insult against your country when a foreign leader condemns the actions of our President. And your logic which assumes that because the United Nations sits on American soil, all foreign leaders in attendance must pay homage to our President, is flawed at its core. For all intents and purposes, including legal immunity, foreign representatives in the U.N. are ON NEUTRAL ground, not American holy soil.

Excellent point David

Gergle,

re Saddam: Paranoid Leninist seems like a good description, perhaps paranoid Maoist as well. Your analysis seems pretty good. In terms of realpolitik, it may have been a mistake for us to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam was a bloody dictator, but he was OUR bloody dictator. While there was no way to foresee 9/11 in 1991, at the expense of sacrificing the sovriegnty of a small nation, we might well have used Iraq as a way of influencing Saudi Arabia and as a threat to Iran. I doubt Saddam would have much good to say about a nuclear Iran, it might be interesting to imagine U.S. troops in Iraq not trying to occupy but fighting alongside Iraqis against the Iranians.

re smart bombs: Again, good analysis. We developed these bombs to reduce the number of Airmen and planes exposed to hostile fire. These bombs can reduce civilian casualties, but only if the same civilians aren’t near the target. In the event that this happy turn of events does not occur, the casualties are bound to be high.

re women’s tastes in men: I think I’m in the same boat as you, though I can’t call myself ugly (no offense, but you did write it yourself) as my girlfriend might cut me off. It has been my observation that women seem to like guys I describe as “shitbags‎ because of the perceived danger and the belief (very naïve, in my book) that they can change them. I’ve often found it very ironic that the most beautiful women seem to end up with crappy guys because they seem to seek them out, don’t even ask me why.

LibRick,

Since you obviously haven’t been paying much attention, let me tell you a secret. It’s the terrorists who are killing Iraqis. They’ve been killing Iraqi civilians since we got here, and it was only the fear of Saddam that prevented this before. Perhaps you think that we should start killing people like Saddam so we can be feared and end this insurgency. As for the nonsense about the Iraqis being brown, what a bunch of crap. We killed 100s of thousands of Germans, far more than in Iraq, and they’re white Christians. One would think that people were more racist in the 40s than today. Do yourself a favor and grow up. If we really wanted to kill these horrible brown people, there’d be a lot more dead than even those bullshit inflated numbers of yours.

Jack

Your history of Latin America is incomplete and again you gloss over US indiscretions. You are always too forgiving and rationalizing when it comes to the US - a blind patriot. You need to look at it from the end of the second World War until today. And you will the US has been a destructive force.

The CIA and The School of Americas has trained Latin American Armies in the art of terrorism and torture to be used against its own people.

The Reagan Administration alone supporting the dictatorships of Guatemala, El Salvador, Hondorus and Nicaragua contras - these allies killed 300,000 people, tortured thousands and millons of people in exile, all with US tax dollars and training. (source; Empire’s Workshop p71.)

Do you remember in the 1980’s when the CIA handbook for training the Contra’s was made public - Leaked? It explains in detail how to torture (do not ever say we do not torture, it is there in writing in detail explaining exactly what we do) and it states “We will use the Contras to bring explicit and implicit terror to discredit the Sandanistas”. So are we terrorists too?

Shall I list the Latin American governments we have overthrown or leaders assasinated including deomcratic governments?

What about economics, the explotation of cheap labor, taking of resources, USAID, the IMF and World Bank. All to to promote US business and bring economic austerity into poor countries that need to feed its people.

The paying off leaders to cut corporate taxes, reduce environmental regulations, outlaw labor unions and keep wages low. A business Utopia for US corporations. And you think property rights is the issue? 90% of the property is owned by the ruling elite.

And with NAFTA farming has decreased forcing the people to be dependent on food imports causing food prices to rise and more unemployment.

If a Democratic Socialist is elected and he cuts back on these US business interests and nationalizes industries, He will be assasinated or overthrown by the US.

An economic strategy that is intentionally designed to perpetuate poverty. There is a book called the “Confessions of an Economic Hit man”. The author explains how working for US corporations and the US government his job was to sell debt to latin American Countries. By creating overly optimistic economic forcasts(using loans and development using US business) he knew was a fabrication, forcing them to accept loans knowing they will never be able to pay back. Then we move in so that we can control the countries resources, economy and UN vote. And if they do not take the loans and accept our pay-off(bribes), they will be overthrown or assasinated by the CIA. It is made to look like an accident.

The United States is the “devil” in Latin America. We have a history there we cannot be proud of or show any success. We have supported the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in the name of fighting communism, but mostly to support our globalization. We do not want them to be free or democratic, but business interests.

We do it by proxy. Becasue we are a rich country, we pay other people to do our dirty work and we can hide it from the American people. So there is amazing ignorance of what we have done there. The people of Latin America do want freedom, it is freedom from the US.

After all our meddling, poverty and political instability still dominate. Looking at all this, who is the bigger thug Chavez or the US?

David

It is an old technique for a country’s enemies to try to divide and conquer. Hugo dislikes most things about America, at least as it is today AND as it was when Bill Clinton was president. The little creep hopes to detach Americans who don’t like their president by telling them that it is a personal thing between him and our president.

You and I have lived through several presidents. I have often seen foreign enemies try to imply it was a personal thing. The first president of my adult life was Jimmy Carter. I recall the Soviets tried to portray him as a stupid, out of touch dreamer, whose human rights were his personal crusade. Of course, the bad guys tried to demonize Reagan. During the unpleasantness in Kosovo or even in 1998 in Iraq, our opponents claimed it was Bill Clinton trying to hide his affairs with Monica. Some of my Republican friends fell for that ploy back then as some Dems are falling for the same thing today.

If a Dem is elected in 2008 and Hugo is still around, it will not take him long to shift. Phx8 did us the service of quoting the little guy above. Is that kind of talk compatible with any mainstream American policy? Don’t fall for it.

Re the UN, I don’t think he needs to pay homage. But imagine the outcry if Bush had spoken of little Hugo as I do. Little Hugo called Bush the devil. He did it theatrically. Does he believe in the occult? Is he so black/white, good/evil? If Bush has spoken of any other leader in the way the little creep talked about Bush, what would you think?

All the little guys want to go one-on-one with the U.S. president. Whether that president is Bush, Clinton or Clinton II, they don’t deserve that honor. The Little guy is important, but don’t confuse ONE little guy (like Hugo) with THE little guy.

Stefano

The U.S. has done good and bad. But the idea that we created Latin underdevelopment just does not make sense. If it was U.S. action that did things like that, Korea, Taiwan etc would be very poor. Argentina would be very rich.

In fact, the most successful Latin countries these days are some of those that “suffered” from a lot of recent U.S. attention. I suppose you think it would be better if Fidel Castro types ruled in Central America or Chile.

It is inevitable that when an economically less developed country is close to a more advanced one, there will be an unequal relationship. Read about what is going on today with Brazil and Bolivia.

I have not done an analysis for a long time, but a before Nafta the U.S. had more investment (and made more profit) in Scandinavia than in all of the countries south of the Rio Grande. Those Norwegians are not doing so bad considering all the U.S. “intervention”.

Jeez

I read Chomsky and heard him speak. After doing that, I judged him lacking. I might be wrond, but I have given the guy a read.

My opinions have changed a lot since I was young. There was a time when I thought guys like Chomsky were right. Experience has cured me of that. You know the old saying, if you are not a lefty when you are 20 you have not heart; if you are still a lefty when you are 40 … well you recall.

I don’t know what you are talkng about re Armageddon. I am usually optimistic about the future. In fact, my sunny outlook is what the leftist dislike about me.

Jack,

YOur sunny disposition is what the left doesnt like about you? No. Its the fact that you, knowingly, choose to follow your fearless leader off a cliff. (And, the fact that you would love for the rest of us to follow).

NEWS FLASH OBL dead old age does what bush can’t. In other news three more U.S. troops die in Iraq today.

PlayNice,

I hadn’t heard of the Lancet study, but had heard of numbers as high as 100,000. I’m not sure if you are confusing casualties as direct result of US military actions versus casualities due to the Insurgents/ terrorists. Irregardless, all studies do agree casualties are accelerating and exceed, by far, what Al Qaeda or Saddam ever has done to us.

where the hell is senator Mc Carthy when you need him ?

Does anyone else think that Hugo is bizzaro-bush?

http://members.tripod.com/~wwx2/mccarthy.html

gergle,

I am not confused. I am refering to civilian casualties in Iraq. (Since our invasion). It is unimportant at this point, who has killed them. Military action from US, or the “insurgents” (themselves) or “terrorists” (as you call them). The fact is that they are dead, and that they would not be, if we were not there!

Califrep;

“No one man can terrorize a whole nation unless we are all his accomplices.” E.R. Murrow

(That goes for Bush and for OBL).

You want to know where another Mc Carthy is? I want to know where the man is, that spoke those words so very long ago, in a similar situation, at a similar time, in our Nations History.

http://www.evesmag.com/murrow.htm

playnice

There would still be plenty of dead in Iraq if Saddam was still in power . He wouldn’t let the outside world inside Iraq to count the bodies of the people he had murdered.

I know the left thinks the commercial with the Kurds thanking us is just propaganda. You probably think Saddam’s crimes against humanity and his trial are all propaganda, also.

111plus2, I haven’t seen the commercial you’re talking about. I can well believe that the Kurds are thankful. They managed to effectively set up their own state within a state following Bush 41’s interdiction on flying in their area following gulf 1. At the moment the Shia and Sunni as too busy either trying to kill Americans or each other to turn their attention to the Kurds. The 2003 invasion of Iraq did not change greatly the situation of the Kurds day to day, it just meant that they have managed to consolidate their position somewhat. But the Turks are uneasy at the idea of an independant Kurdistan, and may yet attack the Kurds. So what exactly is the point of an ad by the Kurds thanking the US?

Paul,

go here.

www.theotheriraq.com

I decided to read for myself what Chomsky is saying nowadays. Here’s the Amazon link to Failed States.

playnice

There would still be plenty of dead in Iraq if Saddam was still in power . He wouldn’t let the outside world inside Iraq to count the bodies of the people he had murdered.

I know the left thinks the commercial with the Kurds thanking us is just propaganda. You probably think Saddam’s crimes against humanity and his trial are all propaganda, also.

lllplus2;

Sadam is on trial. Most of the charges against him are pre - 1991. Most of these charges are about the Iranians and the Curds gassed from pre - 1990. If SR. Bush knew about these things, (and I assure you that he did) then why didnt he think that they were important enough to enter Bagdad, when he had the chance in the first Gulf War? (1991)

As to your “Curds thank us” piece. Well in that piece you will note that they have been free and independant for a decade now.

HOW LONG HAS BUSH BEEN PRESIDENT?

I thought so !!!

So Saddam has been a good guy since 1991?

He is not being tried for crimes after 1991, if that is what you mean.

Actually, I am talking about you saying lots of people in Iraq wouldn’t be getting killed if we weren’t there.

I think it is ridiculous to speculate about the number of dead if Saddam was still in power. It is a fantasy argument. I try to deal with reality.

Playnice, the response I made to Echop8triot was about those civilians killed by US troop actions.

I agree, the conflict we have allowed to rise due to mismanagement of the “afterwar” has also been deadly. If I lived in Iraq, I would likely not differentiate which faction killed my family, I would just know that neither power was acting in my interest, but that both were sick and twisted enterprises whom I would come to hate.

But Jack, is Chavez any different than Bush when Bush calls Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il evil? Isn’t calling a person the devil roughly equivalent to calling them evil. This is tit for tat, Jack. And yes, international leaders have been calling each all sorts of things since the clan of the cave bear. Your point still is moot!

You don’t have to like what Chavez said about your president, nor does Chavez have to like what Bush’s White House officials have said of Chavez. Fact remains, Chavez has not harmed Americans. Insulted their President, yes. But, shared his oil at discount with the American people in need.

This fact is counter balanced by a President who chose to stock up on oil reserves as oil prices climbed, doubling the negative impact on Americans by forcing higher tax dollars paid for the national reserve and tightening supply driving prices even higher for American consumers.

Then, magically, 2 months before elections, oil prices drop, at the very same time analysts are warning they will rise again significant only a few months after the election.

When all is said and done, Chavez seems to be helping Americans in their time of need with cheaper oil prices while the president sits on a decline of oil prices “magically designed” to fall only around election time. Curious, That! Very Curious. Well, I am curious anyway. Surely Republicans will say it is nothing more than market forces.

Interesting market forces when the Bush administration gives billions of tax payer dollars to oil company buddies for lease subsidies during a period of the oil industries highest profits in history.

Curiouser and curiouser. I haven’t enough evidence to call this an evil political plot against the American consumer, but, it certainly is a conincidence that demands curiosity and investigation. But, of course, the first rule of evil is to avoid scrutiny, isn’t it? All attempts to investigate have been sqashed by the Republican leadership. Curiouser and Curiouser.

Jack - You claim we have done good in Latin America, but you have not cited any examples. For my education, please tell me what they are.

David
What too many people (and the media) are doing is treating these conflicts are one-on-one matches between our president and the leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela etc. The U.S. is the world’s largest economy, the remaining superpower leader in science etc. The president represents the U.S. N. Korea cannot even feed its people. It is a giant concentration camp. Iran is a local power with lots of oil and not much else. Ditto Venezuela but a little less than Iran. The leaders of these places just are not of the same stature as our president, no matter who holds the office.

You can not like Bush and say so, but that does not mean you have to compare him to the president of Iran. There are about 190 countries in the world. I am sure that many of them has characteristics we would find attractive, some not. Tony Blair, for example, articulates the Bush position better than our president.

Some perspective might be in order. Venezuela is a big producer of oil and is making big money from this resource. Under Hugo’s leadership, however, production is dropping. When prices come down, he will be in serious trouble. This a small and poor country that is poorly run. Many American states have a bigger GDP than Venezuela and so do some American private firms. If we want to one-on-one with our president, there are lots of contenders - heads of other countries, states, regions and even private firms - who would stand ahead of little Hugo.

Stefano

Foreign investment is by far the most important. We (in the U.S.) built our economy on investment from Europe and most countries still seek it. It is always a source of criticism, since it is an easy target, but w/o foreign investment neither the U.S. nor Latin America would be as well off as they are. The U.S. has been the biggest investor.

Security is the great unmentioned. Let me again compare our own history. In the 19th Century, the Royal Navy gave the U.S. defacto protection from bigger and more powerful countries. We could maintain very small military as a result. We have long provided the same service to Latin America. Those small military establishments they maintain would not have been sufficient to protect them from foreign powers. Consider the case of Mexico. The French installed Maximilian as emperor of Mexico when the U.S. was occupied with the Civil War. They continued their support until after the war when the U.S. sent Phil Sheridan to menace the border. After that it was possible for the Mexicans to throw off the emperor.

U.S. foreign policy has a more mixed record, but during the Reagan administration (and beyond) the U.S. worked hard to promote democracy in what was then mostly dictatorships. What people often do when criticizing the U.S. is to focus on one part of the relationship. Of course we maintain relationships with the people who lead the countries involved and that helps them stay in power. I read an article (I think in WSJ) complaining about how the U.S. props up Hugo. We have if you count in all the usual connections between states, even when they are not friendly.

In fact, this is the general problem with criticism of the U.S. We are involved in almost everything because we are so big and powerful. Anything you say about the U.S. is true. You could well argue that the U.S. is “propping up” N. Korea, since our aid has at times kept the place alive, literally. Of course you could also argue that the U.S. is an enemy of N. Korea. Even during the height of the Cold War, much of the technology the Soviet Union used came from America. You could argue we propped up the Soviet Union. You could also argue that we tried to bring it down. The U.S. was the biggest donor to the Taliban. Our aid kept Afghans from starving in the 1990. You could argue that the U.S. propped up the Taliban. Or you could argue we worked against them. My favorite, of course, is Saddam Hussein. For most of his time in office, the U.S. maintained very cool relations. During the Iran war, we figured (accurately) that an Iranian victory was worse than Saddam. We tilted toward Iraq and prevented a Iranian victory, mostly by allowing our Arab allies to share intelligence information. Our contribution to Saddam’s arsenal, however, was 0.47% of the total. (Brazil, BTW, provided more arms to Saddam than we did) You could argue we propped up Saddam. You could also argue that we stood in his way for most of his reign.

What you need to do is look at the big picture.

“Actually, I am talking about you saying lots of people in Iraq wouldn’t be getting killed if we weren’t there.”

Posted by: lllplus2

Yes, that is true. Now if you are asking me to prove it I cant; but, then I do not have to. see,

WE WENT IN THERE,

WE SCREWED THINGS UP,

THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY ….

not Sadams, …..
ours.

How many HE (Sadam) may have killed in the mean time, if we were not there, is a very moot point indeed.

Hello,,,,,Sadam isnt in charge now, we are.
And do not even dare to tell me its the Iraqui government. No. The reason that many Iraquis today are being killed is the very fact that…

WE ARE STILL THERE!

Terrorists are not killing people there, they are killing each other, (Iraquis are killing each other, it is called a “civil war”), and we are in the middle, and they are killing each other for power yes, but - also because ….

WE ARE STILL THERE!

We have been asked to leave, but we havent. We said we would leave if we were asked, but we didnt. The President of Iraq asked us to leave last July. But we didnt. We have not done what we promised to do, therefore …

WE ARE STILL THERE!

And Iraquis are still dying because of us, not because of “Sadam”.

Play

You have hit on the fundamental problem with facing down any threat. If you fight it, people die. You could argue that nobody sh