I am in no way advocating active regime change of regimes we dont like, but merely being way less friendly. No foreign aid and no military alliance. I also would not be in favor of economic sanctions as I hear they mostly just hurt the civilian population and cause more reliance on the regime.
Are low prices of oil worth having an active role in oppressing the world while enjoying freedom at home?
Foreign aid? Our foreign aid budget is laughable. Unless you're Israel or Egypt you aren't really getting any foreign aid, and what little we do spend tends to be excess wheat and soy.
Also, we don't have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have an agreement to house military bases/materiel there but that's different. Our military alliances are basically NATO, some stuff with Aussies and various Pacific islands thanks to WW-II, the Korean War, and China scaring people. There are certainly things we could do to make life more of a pain in the ass for nations led by varying degrees of despots, and harsher lines we could draw on things, but I'm not really seeing how that's drastically different from what we do now anyway. For the most part we just ignore places until something causes us to bomb them.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
This is not how accusations work. You don't get to declare someone guilty, and then demand that they try to prove their innocence.
Chavez is pretty paranoid (as one might expect, given the CIA's tendenacy to try and kill or stage coups against people of his political inclinations) and he believes in crazy things as a result. That doesn't make him a dictator or a monster.
He won fair elections and uses a democratic machine to put legislation in place. That's a more or less undisputed fact, outside of certain fundmentalist circles in the U.S. You just don't like him becuase he refused to allow Exxon to steal Venezuela's oil reserves or break his country's labor law
Like I said in the other thread, I'm not certain that someone like Chavez is a dictator, but he'll do in a pinch. Proudly getting all snuggly with regimes in Cuba, Iran, and Russia don't do you any favors in that department.
...You mean like when you got all snuggly with Saddam Hussein, the Mujahideen, the Saudi dictatorship, the dictatorship in the Congo, the Khmer Rouge, etc?
Is there actually any record of America ever actually helping a country and "Spread Democracy" somewhere that did not have valuable resources our corporations wanted? Because after watching a lot of documentaries on the effects of our foreign policy I've begun to get the distinct impression that American foreign policy is secretly designed to give plausible deniability to Imperialism by disguising it as helping other nations by way of spreading Democracy. Yes we give people Democracy, to vote for people our Corporations like. I noticed all of the times we sent in CIA to various regions (That I was aware of) it in general was a dictator who did something our companies didn't like.
Egypt is the sole exception I think, where we only stepped in at the end because we found it impossible to stop the Egyptian revolution. The problem now is that the SCAF refuses to give power back to the people because you don't teach democracy at the barrel of a gun. People who only know how to live under a military dictatorship don't know how to make a Democracy and killing a dictator isn't going to teach them how to be democratic. So removing Mubarak just created a power vacuum for the next sociopath to take control.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Unless coal was worth more than gold, four decades of backing the Kuomintang in Taiwan.
That probably has to do with Taipei robbing the rest of the island blind, and being awesome customers for the most expensive stuff coming out of the Pentagon. Even post-capitalist dictatorship, that's still true.
That's not what that amendment did. And he's never been elected to anything but the presidency, as far as I know.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
So he may have been trying to potentially become a dictator. That's a far cry from "is."
There's no "may have been" about it. He was, and he failed. It was a naked power grab that fooled no one (aside from you I guess), least of all the electorate in Venezuela.
Thanks for proving my point. When's the last time a dictator was shut down by losing an election?
We wasn't shut down. He held a second referendum on it a couple years later, after he changed the rules to make easier for him to win, stepped up harassment of the opposition, engaged in widespread inimidation of public servants, and other assorted chicantry. He won that one. Being a dictator doesn't make you immune to public opinion, it just delayed him.
That's not what that amendment did. And he's never been elected to anything but the presidency, as far as I know.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
So he may have been trying to potentially become a dictator. That's a far cry from "is."
There's no "may have been" about it. He was, and he failed. It was a naked power grab that fooled no one (aside from you I guess), least of all the electorate in Venezuela.
Thanks for proving my point. When's the last time a dictator was shut down by losing an election?
We wasn't shut down. He held a second referendum on it a couple years later, after he changed the rules to make easier for him to win, stepped up harassment of the opposition, engaged in widespread inimidation of public servants, and other assorted chicantry. He won that one. Being a dictator doesn't make you immune to public opinion, it just delayed him.
Citation required for all three of your assertions.
That's not what that amendment did. And he's never been elected to anything but the presidency, as far as I know.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
So he may have been trying to potentially become a dictator. That's a far cry from "is."
There's no "may have been" about it. He was, and he failed. It was a naked power grab that fooled no one (aside from you I guess), least of all the electorate in Venezuela.
Thanks for proving my point. When's the last time a dictator was shut down by losing an election?
We wasn't shut down. He held a second referendum on it a couple years later, after he changed the rules to make easier for him to win, stepped up harassment of the opposition, engaged in widespread inimidation of public servants, and other assorted chicantry. He won that one. Being a dictator doesn't make you immune to public opinion, it just delayed him.
Citation required for all three of your assertions.
The Economist has a run a number of pretty fair article's on Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. They aren't as precipitous as I am in declaring Chavez a dictator (yet), but they do document his misdeeds.
Unless coal was worth more than gold, four decades of backing the Kuomintang in China.
That probably has to do with Taipei robbing the rest of the island blind, and being awesome customers for the most expensive stuff coming out of the Pentagon. Even post-capitalist dictatorship, that's still true.
Actually, it's because Chiang Kai-shek and his wife learned to play the conservative element in the US like violins. Communist athiests made great boogeymen to get conservatives to cough up anything they wanted... even before they were stuck on Taiwan.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
This is not how accusations work. You don't get to declare someone guilty, and then demand that they try to prove their innocence.
Chavez is pretty paranoid (as one might expect, given the CIA's tendenacy to try and kill or stage coups against people of his political inclinations) and he believes in crazy things as a result. That doesn't make him a dictator or a monster.
He won fair elections and uses a democratic machine to put legislation in place. That's a more or less undisputed fact, outside of certain fundmentalist circles in the U.S. You just don't like him becuase he refused to allow Exxon to steal Venezuela's oil reserves or break his country's labor law
Like I said in the other thread, I'm not certain that someone like Chavez is a dictator, but he'll do in a pinch. Proudly getting all snuggly with regimes in Cuba, Iran, and Russia don't do you any favors in that department.
...You mean like when you got all snuggly with Saddam Hussein, the Mujahideen, the Saudi dictatorship, the dictatorship in the Congo, the Khmer Rouge, etc?
I'm pretty sure considering some of his tactics that you should put fair in quotes.
Unless coal was worth more than gold, four decades of backing the Kuomintang in China.
That probably has to do with Taipei robbing the rest of the island blind, and being awesome customers for the most expensive stuff coming out of the Pentagon. Even post-capitalist dictatorship, that's still true.
Actually, it's because Chiang Kai-shek and his wife learned to play the conservative element in the US like violins. Communist athiests made great boogeymen to get conservatives to cough up anything they wanted... even before they were stuck on Taiwan.
The problem is that this phenomena went on long after both of them were dead and buried in the ground. And Chiang Ching-Kuo, while at least behaving like he cared about millions of people suffering around him, probably had the charisma of an unhandsome potato.
EDIT: Meant Taiwan, not China. Whoops. China proper has...lots of resources of all kinds.
Actually, *I* don't like Chavez because he stole the property of Exxon, Verizon (?) and any local businesses that weren't part of his "crew."
Oh, and that whole "supporting FARC" thing.
I have a bit of a beef with his using 'chained' broadcasts.
And there's the whole thing with the "Chavistas" committing various acts of thuggery.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I'm reluctant to comment on Chavez, but we practically put Efrain Rios Montt of Guatemala on a shining, well-lit pedestal for more than a decade. Despite the fact that probably has ordered the deaths and imprisonment of more people than Chavez could ever hope to kill, arrest, or otherwise harm by an order of magnitude, even if he were at it for the rest of his life.
Due, in some part, to the fact that what little Montt did in regards to American financial interests, were seen as beneficial, and that his promotion of the School of the Americas system was cited as beneficial to American capitalism in the long run.
Actually, *I* don't like Chavez because he stole the property of Exxon, Verizon (?) and any local businesses that weren't part of his "crew."
Oh, and that whole "supporting FARC" thing.
I have a bit of a beef with his using 'chained' broadcasts.
And there's the whole thing with the "Chavistas" committing various acts of thuggery.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
“It’s very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in Latin America,” Chavez said in a nationally televised speech to the military. “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?”
Yes, Hugo. Would it really be all that strange to imagine a magical death machine that we won't live to find out about when its existence is disclosed in half a century?
He's not making accusations, he's just asking dipshitharblegarble.
Actually, *I* don't like Chavez because he stole the property of Exxon, Verizon (?) and any local businesses that weren't part of his "crew."
Oh, and that whole "supporting FARC" thing.
I have a bit of a beef with his using 'chained' broadcasts.
And there's the whole thing with the "Chavistas" committing various acts of thuggery.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
I am in no way advocating active regime change of regimes we dont like, but merely being way less friendly. No foreign aid and no military alliance. I also would not be in favor of economic sanctions as I hear they mostly just hurt the civilian population and cause more reliance on the regime.
Are low prices of oil worth having an active role in oppressing the world while enjoying freedom at home?
Foreign aid? Our foreign aid budget is laughable. Unless you're Israel or Egypt you aren't really getting any foreign aid, and what little we do spend tends to be excess wheat and soy.
Also, we don't have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have an agreement to house military bases/materiel there but that's different. Our military alliances are basically NATO, some stuff with Aussies and various Pacific islands thanks to WW-II, the Korean War, and China scaring people. There are certainly things we could do to make life more of a pain in the ass for nations led by varying degrees of despots, and harsher lines we could draw on things, but I'm not really seeing how that's drastically different from what we do now anyway. For the most part we just ignore places until something causes us to bomb them.
I don't find the billions of dollars we give to non-democratic regimes laughable. I see it as not only money that could had been spent at home but as money that only helped prop up tyranny so as long as the dictators looked the other way while we parked our planes.
Not drastically different from what we do now? We send these governments millions of dollars so they can stay stable and continue oppressing so as long as they are friendly with us. That's very different from just ignoring them. We are quite complicit in their existence.
And just because we don't have an official military alliance, you can count on American involvement if someone attacked Saudi Arabia.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
Remember, kids. It's ok to steal things as long as it's from people you think aren't nice.
I am in no way advocating active regime change of regimes we dont like, but merely being way less friendly. No foreign aid and no military alliance. I also would not be in favor of economic sanctions as I hear they mostly just hurt the civilian population and cause more reliance on the regime.
Are low prices of oil worth having an active role in oppressing the world while enjoying freedom at home?
Foreign aid? Our foreign aid budget is laughable. Unless you're Israel or Egypt you aren't really getting any foreign aid, and what little we do spend tends to be excess wheat and soy.
Also, we don't have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have an agreement to house military bases/materiel there but that's different. Our military alliances are basically NATO, some stuff with Aussies and various Pacific islands thanks to WW-II, the Korean War, and China scaring people. There are certainly things we could do to make life more of a pain in the ass for nations led by varying degrees of despots, and harsher lines we could draw on things, but I'm not really seeing how that's drastically different from what we do now anyway. For the most part we just ignore places until something causes us to bomb them.
I don't find the billions of dollars we give to non-democratic regimes laughable. I see it as not only money that could had been spent at home but as money that only helped prop up tyranny so as long as the dictators looked the other way while we parked our planes.
Not drastically different from what we do now? We send these governments millions of dollars so they can stay stable and continue oppressing so as long as they are friendly with us. That's very different from just ignoring them. We are quite complicit in their existence.
And just because we don't have an official military alliance, you can count on American involvement if someone attacked Saudi Arabia.
It's laughable compared to anything else the US spends money on.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
Remember, kids. It's ok to steal things as long as it's from people you think aren't nice.
No, it's ok to repossess property from groups that are actively harming you.
And just because we don't have an official military alliance, you can count on American involvement if someone attacked Saudi Arabia.
You say that as if it were a bad thing...
It is.
Let me put it this way for you:
If there were a revolution happening in Saudi Arabia right now America would do everything to help keep the current regime in power.
which, ultimately, is very little. We're quite good a defending against conventional threats, but against a revolution? It rarely worked in the 80's when we were willing to support much more ruthless people than we do now.
That's not what that amendment did. And he's never been elected to anything but the presidency, as far as I know.
Let's call a spade a spade. Abolishing term limits is the first step to becoming president for life. Is there any reliable evidence out there that shows this was not his intent?
I'm not sure about Chavez' case specifically, but does having no term limits really automatically make your government a dictatorship? If so, you may want to have a word with Canada...
I don't see the point of term limits. If someone's doing a good job, what' wrong with allowing the voters to keep bringing him back? It seems like insofar as experience is normally a desirable aspect in an executive or legislator, you'd want policy mixes that would at the very least allow for experienced politicians.
How bout this as a good rule of thumb? If you are proposing amendments that would allow you to rule for as long as you're still breathing, then at best you are a would-be dictator. Chavez is a clown and his countrymen are realizing he is running their country into the ground. He'll be gone in the next decade and Venezuela will be better for it.
Chavez has terminal cancer. He's got between 6 months and 2 years to live....so technically you're correct.
I'm not sure about Chavez' case specifically, but does having no term limits really automatically make your government a dictatorship? If so, you may want to have a word with Canada...
“It’s very difficult to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some of us in Latin America,” Chavez said in a nationally televised speech to the military. “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?”
Yes, Hugo. Would it really be all that strange to imagine a magical death machine that we won't live to find out about when its existence is disclosed in half a century?
He's not making accusations, he's just asking dipshitharblegarble.
The best part is that that's not classified technology. That's an X-Ray!
Unless coal was worth more than gold, four decades of backing the Kuomintang in China.
That probably has to do with Taipei robbing the rest of the island blind, and being awesome customers for the most expensive stuff coming out of the Pentagon. Even post-capitalist dictatorship, that's still true.
Actually, it's because Chiang Kai-shek and his wife learned to play the conservative element in the US like violins. Communist athiests made great boogeymen to get conservatives to cough up anything they wanted... even before they were stuck on Taiwan.
The problem is that this phenomena went on long after both of them were dead and buried in the ground. And Chiang Ching-Kuo, while at least behaving like he cared about millions of people suffering around him, probably had the charisma of an unhandsome potato.
EDIT: Meant Taiwan, not China. Whoops. China proper has...lots of resources of all kinds.
The funny part is that Lenin was a staunch supporter Chiang Kai-shek. The early years of the Kuomintang were organized along Leninist concepts and lines.
Or Pakistan, you can say what you want, but Blasphemy against Islam is out of the question, I guess Pakistan isn't really a dictatorship though.
They just got out of a dictatorship.
Probably gonna shuffle right back into one.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I am in no way advocating active regime change of regimes we dont like, but merely being way less friendly. No foreign aid and no military alliance. I also would not be in favor of economic sanctions as I hear they mostly just hurt the civilian population and cause more reliance on the regime.
Are low prices of oil worth having an active role in oppressing the world while enjoying freedom at home?
Foreign aid? Our foreign aid budget is laughable. Unless you're Israel or Egypt you aren't really getting any foreign aid, and what little we do spend tends to be excess wheat and soy.
Also, we don't have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have an agreement to house military bases/materiel there but that's different. Our military alliances are basically NATO, some stuff with Aussies and various Pacific islands thanks to WW-II, the Korean War, and China scaring people. There are certainly things we could do to make life more of a pain in the ass for nations led by varying degrees of despots, and harsher lines we could draw on things, but I'm not really seeing how that's drastically different from what we do now anyway. For the most part we just ignore places until something causes us to bomb them.
I don't find the billions of dollars we give to non-democratic regimes laughable. I see it as not only money that could had been spent at home but as money that only helped prop up tyranny so as long as the dictators looked the other way while we parked our planes.
Not drastically different from what we do now? We send these governments millions of dollars so they can stay stable and continue oppressing so as long as they are friendly with us. That's very different from just ignoring them. We are quite complicit in their existence.
And just because we don't have an official military alliance, you can count on American involvement if someone attacked Saudi Arabia.
It's laughable compared to anything else the US spends money on.
But why would you compare it? It's okay to waste billions if you're also wasting a lot of billions somewhere else?
You shouldn't confuse the complaint that the US spends the entire budget of a small country on foreign aid that is inefficient and actually harmful with the ridiculous idea that it makes a dent in the total US budget. Of course it doesn't, the US federal budget is fucking 3 trillion dollars, the total government budget is double that and the number three on the list has a budget of about a quarter of that. (The countries with the largest budgets spend the least percentage of it on foreign aid btw, it's just way more in real dollars.)
For a lot of countries the aid given by the US is a large part of their total received aid. If they were to cut it it would have a very serious effect. So it's absolutely not laughable if you look at what the money actually does, instead of at how much a percentage it is of the budget of the largest, richest country in the world by far.
Posts
Foreign aid? Our foreign aid budget is laughable. Unless you're Israel or Egypt you aren't really getting any foreign aid, and what little we do spend tends to be excess wheat and soy.
Also, we don't have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia. We have an agreement to house military bases/materiel there but that's different. Our military alliances are basically NATO, some stuff with Aussies and various Pacific islands thanks to WW-II, the Korean War, and China scaring people. There are certainly things we could do to make life more of a pain in the ass for nations led by varying degrees of despots, and harsher lines we could draw on things, but I'm not really seeing how that's drastically different from what we do now anyway. For the most part we just ignore places until something causes us to bomb them.
This is not how accusations work. You don't get to declare someone guilty, and then demand that they try to prove their innocence.
Chavez is pretty paranoid (as one might expect, given the CIA's tendenacy to try and kill or stage coups against people of his political inclinations) and he believes in crazy things as a result. That doesn't make him a dictator or a monster.
He won fair elections and uses a democratic machine to put legislation in place. That's a more or less undisputed fact, outside of certain fundmentalist circles in the U.S. You just don't like him becuase he refused to allow Exxon to steal Venezuela's oil reserves or break his country's labor law
...You mean like when you got all snuggly with Saddam Hussein, the Mujahideen, the Saudi dictatorship, the dictatorship in the Congo, the Khmer Rouge, etc?
Egypt is the sole exception I think, where we only stepped in at the end because we found it impossible to stop the Egyptian revolution. The problem now is that the SCAF refuses to give power back to the people because you don't teach democracy at the barrel of a gun. People who only know how to live under a military dictatorship don't know how to make a Democracy and killing a dictator isn't going to teach them how to be democratic. So removing Mubarak just created a power vacuum for the next sociopath to take control.
Is there any country on Earth that a large corporation would not want to exist in? ;p
That's an unusual take.
Unless coal was worth more than gold, four decades of backing the Kuomintang in Taiwan.
That probably has to do with Taipei robbing the rest of the island blind, and being awesome customers for the most expensive stuff coming out of the Pentagon. Even post-capitalist dictatorship, that's still true.
We wasn't shut down. He held a second referendum on it a couple years later, after he changed the rules to make easier for him to win, stepped up harassment of the opposition, engaged in widespread inimidation of public servants, and other assorted chicantry. He won that one. Being a dictator doesn't make you immune to public opinion, it just delayed him.
I'm starting to think a lot of his ideas and worldviews are seen through a different filter then most of us.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The Economist has a run a number of pretty fair article's on Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. They aren't as precipitous as I am in declaring Chavez a dictator (yet), but they do document his misdeeds.
http://www.economist.com/node/13061800
http://www.economist.com/node/13061513
Oh, and that whole "supporting FARC" thing.
I have a bit of a beef with his using 'chained' broadcasts.
And there's the whole thing with the "Chavistas" committing various acts of thuggery.
Actually, it's because Chiang Kai-shek and his wife learned to play the conservative element in the US like violins. Communist athiests made great boogeymen to get conservatives to cough up anything they wanted... even before they were stuck on Taiwan.
I have to say I don't think of Chavez as a dictator.
Thug? Yes. Unethical? Very. Self-serving? Absolutely. Corrupt? Oh sweet jebus he makes a Chicago politician like Rod Blagojevich look clean.
But dictators have huge arbitrary sweeping powers. They have literally no real opposition or brakes on their abilities. Chavez doesn't have that.
I'm pretty sure considering some of his tactics that you should put fair in quotes.
The problem is that this phenomena went on long after both of them were dead and buried in the ground. And Chiang Ching-Kuo, while at least behaving like he cared about millions of people suffering around him, probably had the charisma of an unhandsome potato.
EDIT: Meant Taiwan, not China. Whoops. China proper has...lots of resources of all kinds.
See the bolded? That is why the USA hates him. He was mean to our companies, that doesn't mean he isn't a thug or a bit of a bellicose asshat but the only reason we hate him is because he was mean to big business. Cry me a river, I honestly would rather Chavez came over here if for no other reason then we need one, at least one damned person to repossess shit and deal with the rampaging corporations that are currently raping the United States. Is there no one with the balls anymore to dissolve a company or seize property that could actually be used to help people? Or are we left with nothing but a bunch of rotating Dictators that take turns in the state houses and in the board rooms?
Due, in some part, to the fact that what little Montt did in regards to American financial interests, were seen as beneficial, and that his promotion of the School of the Americas system was cited as beneficial to American capitalism in the long run.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/chavez-u-s-may-be-behind-s-america-leaders-cancer.html
Yes, Hugo. Would it really be all that strange to imagine a magical death machine that we won't live to find out about when its existence is disclosed in half a century?
He's not making accusations, he's just asking dipshitharblegarble.
The corporations are ruining everything!
You are so fucking clueless kid.
I don't find the billions of dollars we give to non-democratic regimes laughable. I see it as not only money that could had been spent at home but as money that only helped prop up tyranny so as long as the dictators looked the other way while we parked our planes.
Not drastically different from what we do now? We send these governments millions of dollars so they can stay stable and continue oppressing so as long as they are friendly with us. That's very different from just ignoring them. We are quite complicit in their existence.
And just because we don't have an official military alliance, you can count on American involvement if someone attacked Saudi Arabia.
Remember, kids. It's ok to steal things as long as it's from people you think aren't nice.
Twitch Stream
You say that as if it were a bad thing...
It is.
Let me put it this way for you:
If there were a revolution happening in Saudi Arabia right now America would do everything to help keep the current regime in power.
It's laughable compared to anything else the US spends money on.
No, it's ok to repossess property from groups that are actively harming you.
Sure, but that doesn't make it meaningless. It is still billions of dollars spent upholding tyranny.
which, ultimately, is very little. We're quite good a defending against conventional threats, but against a revolution? It rarely worked in the 80's when we were willing to support much more ruthless people than we do now.
I don't think it's worthwhile to equate revolution in Saudi Arabia with someone attacking Saudi Arabia.
I'm not sure about Chavez' case specifically, but does having no term limits really automatically make your government a dictatorship? If so, you may want to have a word with Canada...
Chavez has terminal cancer. He's got between 6 months and 2 years to live....so technically you're correct.
And Australia, and possibly the UK as well.
The best part is that that's not classified technology. That's an X-Ray!
The funny part is that Lenin was a staunch supporter Chiang Kai-shek. The early years of the Kuomintang were organized along Leninist concepts and lines.
They just got out of a dictatorship.
Probably gonna shuffle right back into one.
But why would you compare it? It's okay to waste billions if you're also wasting a lot of billions somewhere else?
You shouldn't confuse the complaint that the US spends the entire budget of a small country on foreign aid that is inefficient and actually harmful with the ridiculous idea that it makes a dent in the total US budget. Of course it doesn't, the US federal budget is fucking 3 trillion dollars, the total government budget is double that and the number three on the list has a budget of about a quarter of that. (The countries with the largest budgets spend the least percentage of it on foreign aid btw, it's just way more in real dollars.)
For a lot of countries the aid given by the US is a large part of their total received aid. If they were to cut it it would have a very serious effect. So it's absolutely not laughable if you look at what the money actually does, instead of at how much a percentage it is of the budget of the largest, richest country in the world by far.