Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

Hugo Chavez, the paranoid leader of Venezuela, is trying to piss off as many leaders as he can.  IN the latest episode, he has insulted the Mexican President, and warned Vincente Fox to "not mess with me".

This was precipitated by Fox and Mexico's support of a free trade zone for all the Americas, one that Chavez  opposes.  And in so doing, Chavez called Fox an American "puppy".

The problem is that anyone with any degree of objectivity knows that to be completely false.  Indeed, sometimes Fox and Mexico actually go out of their way to antagonize the US for the simple reason that they want to be treated as an equal to the US, and hence must stand up just to flex their muscles.

And indeed, Chavez, in his myopic stupidity cannot even realize that Mexico does not, as he does, cut off their nose to spite their face.  Mexico has greatly benefited from NAFTA, and would like to see this free trade extended to the whole of the Americas since it has been so good.  But Chavez, and his one trick pony attitude of "If it is American, it must be bad" has trashed the agreement and insulted Mexico all in one idiotic statement.

Trash talking America is one thing.  Indeed, it is the "French" thing to do, and many Americans practice it as well.  But Trash talking your potential allies and insulting them is not the way to gain influence in your hemisphere.  Nor to conduct an economic policy.  Eventually his house of cards will fail, and the people will kick him out of office.  It is inevitable.

And when that happens, you can guarantee that 2 things will occur.  The CIA will be accused of having a hand in it, and it will be Bush's fault.

Maybe for an extra kicker, Pat Robertson will get some credit too!


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 14, 2005
Chavez reminds me of Howard Dean.  Both have athelete's tongue!
on Nov 14, 2005
Chavez, unfortunately, is ruler of a "tinpot" regime with a lot of oil. What a lucky break: You have a state with an abundance of oil and a dictator with grandiose pretensions of his worth. It was only a few months ago that his opposers wanted to usurp him. I predict Chavez, big mouth or not, will go the South American way: Deep in a river with a concrete-filled oildrum wrapped around his South American neck.
on Nov 14, 2005
Chavez, unfortunately, is ruler of a "tinpot" regime with a lot of oil. What a lucky break: You have a state with an abundance of oil and a dictator with grandiose pretensions of his worth.


Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got. And if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that if Chavez is still in power and not overthrown in a coup, there will be a free and fair election in 2006 and Chavez will win.

Chavez is just trying to do what's best for the people of his country, not the foreign owned businesses operating in Venezuela. And that is why the corporate owned media hate him.
on Nov 14, 2005

I predict Chavez, big mouth or not, will go the South American way: Deep in a river with a concrete-filled oildrum wrapped around his South American neck.

I agree.  And like I said, the CIA will be implicated (no evidence, but it sounds good), and Bush will get the blame.

on Nov 14, 2005

Chavez is just trying to do what's best for the people of his country, not the foreign owned businesses operating in Venezuela. And that is why the corporate owned media hate him.

There is doing what is best for one's country, and then there is pissing off your friends, and not influencing anyone.  He has taken the later road.  There is no reason to piss off Mexico and Fox, possibly the most influential ally he could have in his war against the US. (War of words and actions - not overt war).

You can call him anything you want.  Smart will be very hard to prove given his latest rants and paranoia.

on Nov 14, 2005

Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got.

So was Hitler.  You want to call him a saviour for Germany, go right ahead. (Disclaimer: Hitler was only elected once - but that was all it took),

on Nov 14, 2005
"Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got. And if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that if Chavez is still in power and not overthrown in a coup, there will be a free and fair election in 2006 and Chavez will win.


It's so ugly when you feign ignorance. He suspended the legislature of his nation in order to draft dozens of his own laws, he and his cronies drafted the new Consitution, he has made it illegal to insult or accuse him or his flunkies of anything; a crime which extends to the foreign press and election observers. He summarily dismissed the results of a union election, leading to 500,000 people marching against him, during which time he was targeted by a coup.

I could go on for hours, frankly, but it isn't going to matter. latour likes fascists in sheep's clothing. He consistantly praises men cut from the cloth of Bolivar. He loves Allende, Mohammad Mossadeq, etc. All socialists wrecking their nation and exerting dictatorial control, but they pretend to be socialists so the easily fooled like latour eats them up...
on Nov 14, 2005
The case revolves around the conflict that arises when nationalized assets become privatized. That is what Chavez complains about. For more on free trade two aka deep integration click here Link. Right now it must be stated that all regional assets like land, resources and water become a shared problem. For a developing country, the arguement is that this is one problem they do not need.

Remind me to shit kick Paul Martin if he puts water as a shared resource.

on Nov 14, 2005

I could go on for hours

I am interested.  WHy dont you write an article?  I am sure Latour would not like it, but I am interested.

on Nov 14, 2005

The case revolves around the conflict that arises when nationalized assets become privatized.

How does that involve Vincente Fox?  I am not following you here.  Fox did not slam Chavez, he just promoted the "Free Americas" deal.

on Nov 14, 2005
"I am interested. WHy dont you write an article? I am sure Latour would not like it, but I am interested."




coincidentally, I already have, a couple of months ago.
on Nov 14, 2005

coincidentally, I already have, a couple of months ago.

Excellent! I thought you had more since then. Still a Bakerstreet masterpiece tho!

on Nov 14, 2005
Thanks. I'd like to have a bunch of new stuff, but, honestly, Chavez prevents a lot of new news from getting out by threatening dissent with prison time. People fleeing to the US to get away from his tyrrany have tales to tell, though. I prefer more "hard" news sources, but when a government starts threatening the press, you don't get as much.

The pipe dream of people like latour is the idea of "businesses owned by the people", which is, frankly, idiotic. These industries aren't owned by "the people", they are owned by "the government" and whatever sawed off fascist is in charge at the time.

Enevitably they stifle their opposition and oppose their beloved "people" when they are opposed, as Chavez did when the people didn't give him union election results he didn't like.

on Nov 14, 2005
Mexico does not have as many nationalized assets as Venezuala does. Chavez could no longer rule and double dip from his oil fund and be part of an idea such as this. So by accepting Nafta + Mexico exerts more pressure on the remaining south american countries including Chavez's. I have heard many times where Hugo spoke of unifying all of south america. He had proposed an idea last year of forming a trade block similar to the EU. Again NAFTA + puts that idea out to pasture. Either way don't expect kind words from Hugo.
on Nov 14, 2005

The pipe dream of people like latour is the idea of "businesses owned by the people", which is, frankly, idiotic. These industries aren't owned by "the people", they are owned by "the government" and whatever sawed off fascist is in charge at the time.

You know the stupidity of that?  IN a capitalistic society, the PEOPLE do own the Business!  I own parts of Apple, Dell, IBM, and many other companies!  In a Socialist utopia, the people own nothing!  But the despots do own it all!

3 Pages1 2 3