Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 6889 Location: Cyberspace
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: Venezuela's Chavez Buying His Friends With Oil
<b>Permanent link to <a href="http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/venezuelas_chav_1.php">Venezuela's Chavez Buying His Friends With Oil</a></b>
<b>Excerpt:</b> Borges's website alleges that Chavez has given away more than $5 billion to Cuba, ranging from an electricity project to oil sales exchanged partially for the services of thousands of Cuban doctors.
Borges's website alleges that Chavez has given away more than $5 billion to Cuba, ranging from an electricity project to oil sales exchanged partially for the services of thousands of Cuban doctors. Oil money for electricity in Cuba? Oil money for doctors? That BASTARD!
Borges lists $4.5 billion for Brazil, including plans for an oil refinery. He includes more than $200 million for the United States, including sales of discounted home heating oil to low-income Americans in the Northeast. Terrorism, pure and simple. That ROTTEN BASTARD!!!
Venezuela last year signed the ''Petrocaribe" agreement with 13 Caribbean countries, allowing them to pay 60 percent of their bill up front and pay off the rest as a 25-year loan, at 1 percent interest. Affordable oil? MY GOD. HE"S MAD!!! Somebody shoot him!
Why did you bother to post this? Oh, wait. I see. No obscene profits! It must be killing you.
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 14 Location: Florida Gulf Coast
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:16 am Post subject:
Obviously, you've been drinking too much Kool-Aid again. You failed to not only read the post and what we said about it, but you couldn't see through your own agenda, clouded by so much hate.
Like most of our friends on the Left, the glass you look through always is a bit cloudy, clouded by your own views. People like you are not ones to discuss anything with, you wouldn't get it anyway. But not to worry, my Marine buddies and I fought in the rice paddies of Vietnam for your right to be what you are today. Add to that - my son is in Iraq this very moment, fighting to keep the Islamofascists busy while we fight them on other fronts throughout the world.
As for where you are, that's anyone's guess - but perhaps it's more a question of which planet rather than geographical location on earth.
But we love you anyway. Without people like you, us grown-ups wouldn't have anyone to pick on - all in good fun.
I read it, did you?
The money should be going to Venezuelans, it's their oil, not his!
If they don't like what he's doing, they can vote him out. Do you think the Saudis are spreading the wealth? Get real.
But being the selfish guy I am, I won't fault him for the $200 million that came to the United States, especially relating to the sales of discounted home heating oil to low-income Americans in the Northeast.
Isn't that BIG of you.
I just wonder how much is being leaked out to terrorists and their causes. All in all, it sounds like it's Frijolitol is complaining about "small potatoes" that aren't likely to cause Chavez much grief in the Chavez-stuffed ballot box.
Do you have sources for these accusations, or is it just right wing paranoia?
My son is in Iraq this very moment, fighting to keep the Islamofascists busy while we fight them on other fronts throughout the world.
I wish him well. I really do. I'm just sorry he's fighting for the wrong cause in the wrong place. Now, go get a beer and a dictionary, settle down in your favorite chair and READ THIS. It was posted on another blog some time ago. Pay attention, there will be a quiz.
THE STRAW MEN OF IRAQ: Ten Pro-War Fallacies
Friday's hastily staged congressional vote on withdrawal from Iraq may have been designed to embarrass John Murtha, but the raucous session offered valuable insight into the various rationales for war and the tactics used to attack Democrats who oppose Bush's Iraq policy. A parade of House Republicans went after the Dems and laid out a surprisingly weak case for the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. Here, in my view, are ten of the leading pro-war fallacies...
1. VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO SAW THE INTELLIGENCE BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD, THEREFORE BUSH IS BEING UNFAIRLY SINGLED OUT FOR CRITICISM
The typical framing is: "Democrats got the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion, so blaming Bush for misleading America is purely political." The argument is also presented in 'gotcha' form by people like Sean Hannity, who use a lengthy blind quote about the threat posed by Saddam that turns out to be from Bill Clinton, John Kerry or some other Democrat. The conclusion is that if Bush was lying, they must have been lying too.
There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:
a) The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). As I wrote in this post: "There we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief."
b) In addition to the fear-mongering described above, the contention that Bush 'misled' the public is not simply about Saddam's WMD, but about the way the administration stormed ahead with their plans and invaded Iraq in the way they did, at the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the world, all the while demonizing dissent and smearing their critics.
In both (a) and (b), the crux of the issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.
2. AFTER 9/11, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE THREAT TO MATERIALIZE BEFORE TAKING ACTION
This is often used as a counterpoint to the notion that Bush overhyped the rationale for war. It's a vacuous argument whose logic implies we should invade a half-dozen African countries as well as North Korea, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Every day that goes by that Bush allows these threats to "materialize," he is failing in his duties to protect the American public and should be impeached. And if the pushback is that North Korea and others are being dealt with diplomatically, isn't that exactly the approach this argument purports to refute?
Furthermore, the war's opponents never claimed they'd prefer to "wait" for threats to materialize. This is another straw man. Nobody wants to wait for threats to materialize; they just want to deal with them differently.
3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR
The Iraq War Resolution (IWR) debate has been flogged to death, so there's no need to fully resurrect it here. Suffice it to say that:
a) Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.
b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade. Since Republicans are so fond of quoting John Kerry in support of the case for WMD, here are his words on the floor of the Senate the day of the Iraq War Resolution vote.
"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."
Not exactly an endorsement of Bush's approach or a vote "for war." And a good retort to those who argue that Democrats are "rewriting history."
4. TALK OF WITHDRAWAL "SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE" AND "EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY"
To borrow Samuel Johnson's immortal words, this argument, like (false) patriotism, is the "last refuge of scoundrels." Implying that opposing views are treasonous is the surest way to stifle dissent.
And it's a cheap way to avoid confronting hard questions. Such as: Does anyone seriously believe that Bush's course of action in Iraq has intimidated or deterred the enemy? Doesn't the fact that the insurgency is as strong as ever "embolden" the enemy?
The sobering truth is that there are dozens of recent events and actions that 'embolden the enemy' far more than advocating a disciplined, phased redeployment. Torture of detainees, the use of white phosphorus as an offensive weapon, the curtailing of civil liberties at home, the shameful abandonment of American citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, the cynical outing of CIA agents, the smearing of war critics as traitors, these are far more encouraging to America's enemies. If we are truly engaged in a clash of civilizations, an epic battle against "Islamofascism," then our enemies are far more interested in the destruction of those things that are quintessentially American and that give us the moral high ground (freedom of speech, adherence to international law, upholding ethical norms and standards, respect for human rights, etc.) than strategic redeployment in Iraq.
5. A WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ WOULD HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES
If I learned anything from living in Beirut, it's that predicting the outcome of sectarian divisions in the Middle East is a fool's game. The shifting alliances, the internal pressures, the regional influences, make it next to impossible to say whether or not the removal of American forces would further destabilize Iraq.
It's also grimly amusing that we're expected to believe the prognostications of the very people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators.
For every foreign policy expert who says that Iraq will be worse off without U.S. troops, there's another who will tell you the exact opposite is true. In the absence of any sound predictive capabilities, the endgame should be based on the opening: i.e. the sooner you end something that started out wrong and has had terrible consequences, the better.
For those who counter with the Pottery Barn rule (we broke it we should fix it), the question is: What's the statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Is our attempt to 'fix' Iraq breaking it even further? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix before we try to fix Iraq? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?
6. WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ IS TANTAMOUNT TO "CUTTING & RUNNING"
Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized as "cutting and running." This word-play is so disingenuous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but the best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. It is the height of folly to continue on a tragic and deadly path just to save face. And as we pointed out in #3, enough has been done to "embolden the enemy" that leaving Iraq will have little effect in that regard.
For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.
7. WE'RE FIGHTING THEM 'THERE' SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE
No matter how many times reality intrudes on this fantasy, it's still one of the favored arguments by the war's supporters. And it was repeated more than once in the House debate.
This is yet another straw man: we all agree that it's better to fight our enemies somewhere other than on the streets of America. The problem with the "fight them there" approach is that:
a) Iraq wasn't "there" until AFTER the invasion. (In spite of the mental contortions of Bush apologists who insist there was a substantive Saddam-Qaeda connection.)
b) Our policy in Iraq is creating more of "them."
c) "There" is where "them" (Bin Laden and his cohorts) are. And it ain't Iraq.
A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...
And if remaining in Iraq is really about Bush's resolve to defend America against our enemies by keeping them away from the mainland, let's not forget what Katrina's aftermath tells us about how well this administration is preparing for domestic threats. Imagine the holes in domestic security that could be plugged with the toil and treasure being spent in Iraq.
8. DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR IRAQ, THEY'RE JUST ATTACKING BUSH TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS
Democrats deserve legitimate criticism for their approach to Iraq, but when the Republican Party controls all branches of government, attacking Dems for conflicting positions and a confused message shouldn't be a catch-all excuse for Republican mistakes and lies.
Saying Democrats are muddled on Iraq is a favorite media distraction. But the response is simple: if Bush's policy is to "stay the course," the Democratic policy - whether we accept Murtha's approach or Feingold's or Kerry's - is to "change the course." Simple enough. Changing positions in light of new evidence and new circumstances is the sign of a mature and rational mind. Stubbornly clinging to a failed course of action is not.
It's fascinating how Democrats are always the ones held to account for their Iraq vote, but not Republicans. The question constantly put to Dems, "you voted for it, now you're against it," has a straightforward answer, as phrased by a Democratic senator: "we authorized Bush to put the bullet in the gun, not to shoot us in the foot." We've been shot in the foot by the administration's Iraq policy. Democrats are rightfully reacting to that. The real question - to Republicans - is this: "You voted for this war based on Saddam's threat to America. The threat never materialized. Was your decision wrong? And does your lockstep allegiance to Bush's failed policy make you personally responsible for further deaths beyond the 2000+ American troops who have already given their lives?"
9. HISTORY WILL VINDICATE BUSH
The infinite time horizon is an easy cop out for supporters of the Iraq war. I wrote this in August: "The problem with the Bush apologists' reasoning is that using an infinite time horizon - which they are so fond of - virtually any action, no matter how egregious, can be shown to lead to some positive results. It’s the bastardization of utilitarianism; asserting a causal relationship between a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation and all future good developments in Iraq and the Middle East may swell the hawks' breasts with pride, but it's a dubious and dangerous way to conduct foreign policy. Which is precisely why we need to adhere so strictly to the rule of law, to basic moral precepts, and to established principles of international relations, something that this administration has failed to do, and that the administration's supporters can dance around but can't justify."
10. ISN'T IT A GOOD THING THAT SADDAM IS GONE?
This is the ultimate fall-back for supporters of this disastrous war. Somber references to mass graves, Saddam gassing his people, liberating the Iraqis from a dictator, spreading freedom, etc., are second only to flag-waving and bumper-sticker "support" for the troops when it comes to feel-good justifications for the fiasco in Iraq.
To human rights activists, this faux-bleeding heart conservatism rings hollow. Considering the unremitting suffering and killing and violence and abuse of innocents that takes place on this planet, it is intellectually dishonest to resort to a retroactive humanitarian rationalization for a war that was ostensibly defensive in nature. Especially when we callously ignore the plight of so many others who suffer in silence.
If the trump card question is "don’t you think it's good that Saddam is gone?" then one rhetorical question can be met with another:
Isn't it terrible that we've done nothing to stop the slaughter in Darfur?
Isn't it terrible that Iraq is still a killing field and now a terrorist breeding ground?
Isn't it terrible that a nuclear armed Kim Jong Il is still in power?
Isn't it terrible that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have saved millions of starving children instead of killing tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis?
And so on...
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 7039 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: Anti-Bush Ranting
Dear bushhasdamnedus:
You seem to enjoy this ranting. Truly, it would be a waste of anyone's time to attempt a complete confrontation with your plethora of rantings. However, it seems that you have some core value of rights from which you spew your positions. Granted that in the 60s those rights were probably in time with their expression. But, now, we are in the 21st Century.
Since the 60s when the rights you claim were in favor, what has happened? Aren't there more people starving now, then there were then? Haven't there been more mass slaughtering than there was then? Why did that happen?
When I, John Kerry and George W. Bush were in the military in the 60s, I actually believed, and entrusted, that similar rantings, as you posted, would be addressed by those making such statements in the civilian sector. What happened? We heard a lot about rights back then. Unfortunately, those screaming about rights were not concerned about our rights in the military.
What we in the military entrusted to you in the civilian sector has evaporated. We have less rights and protections now, even in the USA, than we had when were in arms. Our courts have deceived us. Most of our professional institutions are incompetent and running as wildly as many of the rights' hawkers were running the streets of Chicago in 1968.
We listened to your rantings. We even were persuaded by your rantings. Now, our streets are infected with an epidemic of lawlessness. It is precisely the same lawlessness that the ranters of rights displayed in the summer of 1968 in Chicago.
Your rantings about rights have been fruitless. Quite frankly, those voices are frauds. And, our cowering enemies in the 60s recognized the lack of courage behind those ranting voices and became emboldened. Slowly, America's image of a leader and visionary to the world eroded. New visionaries emerged, buoyed by the notion of rights, and began to exert their brand of rights upon the world. Whatever the banner underwhich their brand of rights took hold, one thing was evident: America's notion of rights was not shared.
As the 21 Century dawned, America recalled what provided her a place in the world. When the rights of Americans are concerned, our enemies have found the point of the Third Armored Division quite persuasive. For that matter, every right which you hawk ... and every right that everyone has ever raised ... emanates from the likes of the Third Armored Division. I will even include the fact that there exists people who treat their women equal to men. The likes of the Third Armored Division insures that, as well.
Now, tell me again what you believe Hugo Chavez of Venezuela believes that he owns. Chavez owns what the US Third Armored Division says he owns. Welcome to the 21st Century!
PS: If you need a reference for what I have posted then listed to the chamber of an AK-47 or an M-16 cycle. The reference point is not far behind.
We listened to your rantings. We even were persuaded by your rantings. Now, our streets are infected with an epidemic of lawlessness. It is precisely the same lawlessness that the ranters of rights displayed in the summer of 1968 in Chicago.
The lawlessness, as you call it, were people who felt impelled to protect their right to participate in their government. Mayor Daley broke out his third armored division to prevent it. The ranters broke out theirs. Just the way you would have it, right?
Slowly, America's image as a leader and visionary to the world eroded. New visionaries emerged, buoyed by the notion of rights, and began to exert their brand of rights upon the world. Whatever the banner under-which their brand of rights took hold, one thing was evident: America's notion of rights was not shared.
26 of the last 38 years, since 1968, this country has been inflicted with a REPUBLICAN president. The man who sets this country's foreign policy. If America's image as a leader and visionary to the world has eroded, I submit you can lay it at their feet, and at the feet of men like yourself, who back the notion that might makes right and to hell with anybodies rights except yours. Did you really think the world was going to be content to live as America's doormat? Can the third armored stand against the whole world? I think not. They can barely stand against Iraq. Suppose Iran jumps in. Think, idiot, think.
So, what has your theory gotten us? A useless war against a country that was an empty shell, started by the idiotic fu*k in the president's office for God knows what reason. And North Korea has the bomb, with an America hating nut at the button. Iran is openly working for the bomb, with the express purpose of erasing Israel, with an America hating nut in charge of a huge army. Chavez, democratically elected, in South America, with the oil wealth we give him everyday behind him, ready to cause us any trouble he can, because they hate us, and it keeps him in office. Pakistan, with the bomb, and a government barely clinging to power and a population that hates us.
If the bombs start flying around the Mid East, as well they might, the global calamity that will follow will rival the dark ages. Send in the third armored.
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 7039 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject:
Bush whatever:
First, this form of language is objectionable: "Think, idiot, think." If you have no respect for our posters, we will ban you, and then you can return to sanctuary where such language is popular.
Second, there are no bombs that will be flying out of any location that you mentioned. If you would have spent any time in the military, then you would know that.
Third, all these potentially belligerent countries that you mention exist, because we allow them to do so. These countries sustain existence as a result of our Chritain compassion. They are defenseless against us. Their extermination is but a matter of our convictions.
Fourth, the world of your reference no longer exists. Our food supplies and our energy disappears daily. We no longer have the luxuries of affluence that guided our actions in the 60s. Now, one society is pitted against another. The time for diplomacy has come to an end.
Fifth, do not fool yourself into believing that we have escaped form the jungle into the sanctuary of civilization. That dream has passed. We must now come face-to-face with ourselves. In 45 years, at our present rate of consumption, we will have exhausted our fuel supplies (with or without Chavez' help). You grandchildren (possibly children) are being born into a world in which they will most likely freeze to death before they reach retirement age. Do you believe they will acquiesce and, as they say, go quietly into the night? I don't think so.
When Japan was faced with a loss of fuel in order to sustain the build up of their empire, they marched off into East and Southeast Asia and captured sources of fuel. What will we... and others in the northern climates ... do when we are freezing?
Before responding, remember we will not have enough food, as well. By then, even the desperate attempts to control the world's fisheries with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will have failed. It has failed already. Within a decade, parts of the world with the vigor to enact changes, will commence starving.
Words will mean nothing to people who are freezing and starving. We have come to that point where we will be required to make the hard choices. These will be very hard choices, as they affront many of the core values that you employ as a foundation for your arguments. There are too many people for the world to support.
As for the direction of your comments, it matters not who was in charge. We were let down. Regrettably, the time has arrived to revisit the blueprints of the Wansee Conference writ large. Since we have the weapons and the delivery systems, the choices ... a la Third Armored Division and the like ... will ours to make. Once again, welcome to the 21st Century!
Once again, keep your insulting, undergraduate language under control.
2. Source? The same intel that had Saddam loaded for bear?
3. A lunatic point of view. If you think we could exterminate a country at will, without retribution, you are in dire need of a rubber room.
4. You equate the loss of oil energy with the end of civilization. Another STUPID conclusion.
5. No, they don't need to go quietly into the night. More than likely they will reach over and turn up the electric heat, from atomic power. No shortage of that, if we build it.
We will NOT prevail in a war for oil. The best that we could do is make any oil fields that are left too radioactive to use. It would kinda kill the planet as well, but you don't care.
Parts of the world are already starving. I wouldn't begin to know what will happen there, or how it will end.
Words will mean nothing.... As for the direction of your comments...... et al. Well. . . . Heil, Mein Fuhrer!!! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
Lastly, I still call them as I see them, and you are still an Idiot. A very dangerous, paranoid fool. I am sincerely glad I am on the other side of the globe from you.
You need not reply. I will discontinue watching this thread.
Caracas: ExxonMobil was excluded from a $3 billion olefins project in eastern Venezuela because the company was not qualified, President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday.
"We excluded them because they don't meet the requisites of the project," Chavez said, stressing that ExxonMobil did not voluntarily leave the project.
ExxonMobil on Tuesday said state petrochemicals firm Pequiven had terminated a Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) for a planned 50-50 joint venture sketched out in 2004 to develop an olefins plant. ExxonMobil's removal from the olefins project comes after the company consistently opposed Venezuela's efforts to change the terms of the contracts.
Pequiven said on Wed-nesday it would go ahead with the plant and was seeking other partners.
AROUND 200 mainly Muslim protesters marched to the Danish Embassy in Venezuela's capital Caracas today and burnt a Danish and an American flag, as protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed spread to Latin America.
The demonstrators left a prayer session at a Caracas mosque and marched together, chanting in Arabic, to the embassy where they doused a Danish and an American flag with petrol and set them alight on the building's steps.
It was the first such demonstration in Latin America in a sweeping global protest over the cartoons that has brought tens of thousands of Muslims to the streets from Jakarta to Nairobi, killing at least 11 people so far.
Comment: Caracas police somehow allowed the burning of the American flag in front of the US Embassy!
CARACAS: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called US President George W Bush a "madman" late on Thursday and accused the United States and Britain of planning to invade Iran, Venezuela’s closest ally in the Middle East. "He thinks of himself as the owner of the world and now they are making plans to invade Iran, and plans against Venezuela too," Chavez said in a televised speech.
"The guy is a madman." Chavez, a sharp critic of the US-led war in Iraq, did not provide any evidence of his allegations. Chavez frequently refers to Bush as "Mr Danger" and has accused the US president of being "the greatest terrorist in the world."
Since US Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld compared Chavez to Adolf Hitler last week, Chavez has also begun referring to Bush as "Hitler."
"The Americans are going to have to tie (Bush) down one of these days, because if they don’t he’s capable of destroying half the world," Chavez said late on Thursday.
Leaders, from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, are winning points at home by striking a nationalist and anti-American pose. Their method: Use the international stage to rail against what they see as a disconnect between the values espoused by the world's sole superpower and its actions.
Yet for all their heated rhetoric, the two leaders have a vision for the world, one that seeks to end the "sole superpower" reality. Beyond simply opposing America's robust exercise of power a sentiment increasingly found in the developing world, especially their aim is to join political forces to provide a significant counterweight in the international arena.
Venezuela's close ties to Cuba and efforts to subvert democracies elsewhere make the country one of the "biggest problems'' in the Western Hemisphere, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.
Testifying before the International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, Rice also urged democratic nations worldwide to be "more active in supporting and defending Venezuelan people'' against actions President Hugo Chavez has taken against nongovernmental organizations and labor unions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
