Thousands chant 'Get out, Bush!'.......

[Wolfe]

Now in a previous thread it was Iran accusing Canada for human rights abuses now its Chavez and his people accusing Bush...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/04/summit.protest.ap/index.html

MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina (AP) -- Thousands of protesters chanting "Get out Bush!" swarmed the streets of this Argentine resort on Friday.

Before dawn, thousands greeted a train bringing the last group of demonstrators from Buenos Aires, including Bolivian presidential hopeful Evo Morales and soccer great Diego Maradona, who donned a T-shirt accusing President Bush of war crimes.

Chanting "Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!" the protesters hung from the engine and moved up the sides of the train, trying to shake hands with those inside.

Later, they took to the streets, heading toward a stadium where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made a speech before joining the Summit of the Americas.

Chavez arrived early Friday, saying he was "inspired" by the protesters, who also oppose the U.S.-led negotiations to form a Free Trade Area of the Americas stretching from Alaska to Argentina.

One marcher, Canadian steelworker Dennis Matteau, said free trade must be stopped.

"We have NAFTA, so we know about free trade deals," he said. "They are not good for workers."

The march was mostly peaceful, although some self-proclaimed anarchists spray-painted slogans on a bank. Most businesses along the route had closed, except for a fruit stand protected by a wall of wooden crates.

"So far, I've only lost four bananas," owner Blas Zanghi said.

Shuttling between luxury hotels, Bush met with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner as well as Central American and Andean leaders Friday before joining the 34-nation summit.

Leaders attending the two-day summit agreed ahead of time to focus on creating jobs and reducing poverty.

In recent days, however, attention has shifted to the free trade issue and sparring between the United States and Chavez, a leftist whose government has used his country's vast oil wealth on social programs for the poor.

Now this is interesting.....i want your opinions on that subject....

Wolf 

 

[paracowboy]

Chavez sees himself as the next Castro. He's been creating a Communist state for a while now, and has firmly allied himself with Cuba, China, and North Korea. He's long since created "social reform" programs, promoting Marxism in the schools.

He's a target.

But, he's a clever guy. Gotta give him that. He knows what works in his country to gain and keep power.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Chavez sees himself as the next Castro. He's been creating a Communist state for a while now, and has firmly allied himself with Cuba, China, and North Korea. He's long since created "social reform" programs, promoting Marxism in the schools.

He's a target.

But, he's a clever guy. Gotta give him that. He knows what works in his country to gain and keep power.

Same crap, different label. He's not doing anything different than Bush politically, he's just doing it on the other side of the fence. I'm not sure what "he's a target" meant, though.  ???

 

[paracowboy]

Same crap, different label. He's not doing anything different than Bush politically, he's just doing it on the other side of the fence. I'm not sure what "he's a target" meant, though.  

means he's gotta die. And fairly soon.

 

[Britney Spears]

What exactly did Chavez ever do to you? Or  Bush? Did you have a financial stake in the Venezuelan oil industry before he nationalized it?

Now, I've only done a few courses on Latin American history and politics, so I won't claim to be an expert in Venezuelan social issues, but you obviously are. So, care to explain you viewpoints in greater detail?

 

[paracowboy]

quite simple. He is a proponent of an enemy ideology, he supports terrorism, he supports drug running, he supports insurgency, all to promote instability in the area, in order to increase his own power base.

So, he's gotta die.
Commie = enemy.
Terrorist = enemy.
Drug dealer = enemy.
Enemy = dead.
Dead enemy = happy me.

 

[xFusilier]

So what's your point.  The west have dealt with people of this ilk for many, many years and called them friends/defenders of democracy.  The United States has propped up governments of far worse than Chavez's ilk (Pinochet/the Argentine Junta) all under the name of realpolitik.  So who's to say that  Chavez can't play by the same rules that we (Western nations in the Past) have in the past, and still do. Personally I think a lot of what he says, he says because it irritates the republican square heads in Washington that call the shots right now.

 

[paracowboy]

So what's your point.  

my point is that he's an enemy and has to die. I thought I had made that clear. Where did I lose you?

The west have dealt with people of this ilk for many, many years and called them friends/defenders of democracy.

so? Don't make it right.

 

The United States has propped up governments of far worse than Chavez's ilk (Pinochet/the Argentine Junta) all under the name of realpolitik.

  yeah, and now they're doing something about it. They screwed stuff up, but won WW III. Just as WW I caused WW II, and WW II caused WW III, WW III has caused WW IV. We have to win it, too. We do that by killing the people on the other side, and showing their supporters that our way is better. Carrots and sticks. Carrot = Liberty, Justice, Equality. Stick = bullet in face.

So who's to say that  Chavez can't play by the same rules that we (Western nations in the Past) have in the past, and still do.

me. I already said it. A couple times now. He's doing the same sort of thing we did, true. But in the name of an enemy ideology. That makes him wrong. So he's gotta die.

Personally I think a lot of what he says, he says because it irritates the republican square heads in Washington that call the shots right now.

well, that and the money he's making and the power he's built/is building.

 

[xFusilier]

my point is that he's an enemy and has to die. I thought I had made that clear. Where did I lose you?

Somewhere between John Wayne Movies are a great example of the way international relations should be conducted and now.

so? Don't make it right.

Perhaps, but then again, let's say that you've got a Sgt-Maj in the regiment who was a notorious piss-head and all of a sudden finds Jesus/does the Twelve Steps - what ever - comes back and decides that because Alcohol is evil the entire Company's going to be dry....don't you just find the eyes rolling in the back of the head factor hitting an all time high.  I'm not arguing right or wrong...largely because there is no right and wrong in state to state relations only good for us and bad for us.  I would argue that getting rid of Chavez is probably going to cause the US (and us) more problems than keeping him in power.

I already said it. A couple times now. He's doing the same sort of thing we did, true. But in the name of an enemy ideology. That makes him wrong. So he's gotta die.

What he's doing all this in the name of the 101st Fantasian Motor Rifle Regimient..those bastards ;D.  Define enemy in this context.  I can assure you that if he is, in fact a communist, carrying out the wishes of Islamic Fundementalists is probably going to be pretty low on his list (religon being the opiate of the masses and all that).  What he is doing is hoisting the US by its own petard so to speak, which I do find amusing.  And I fully expect that he is counting on the US, having other pressing matters on it's hands (like the Greatest Strategic Blunder Since StalingradTM) on its hands, doing nothing about it.

well, that and the money he's making and the power he's built/is building.

What, politics is all about money and power...oh my god I have to reasses my entire belief system now, I thought it was all about helping the little guy out and the betterment of society.  Who knew?

 

[xFusilier]

What I'm trying to get across, and probably doing a poor job of it is that before we take Pat Robertson's advice and make sure he "sleeps widda fishes", a couple of key questions have to be answered, namely:

1.  What are the advantages of doing this vice simply staying the course?
2.  What is going to happen if we knock him off?
3.  Is a failed assasination attempt going to add to his credibility?
4.  If he is killed who is going to take over?
5.  Is that person going improve or detract from the situation we are trying to remedy?
6.  What do we do if the situation doesn't improve.

I think that in this particular case that assasinating Chavez or removing him, will probably cause more problems then leaving him in power.  And I agree, given the current geopolitical  situation the single largest thing that the that could be done in the West to increase collective security is to decrease reliance on fossil fuels. But until that becomes a priorty for any current or future occupant of the White House then the answer my friend is peeing in the wind...so to speak.

 

[a_majoor]

To xFusilier, the age of Realpolitik is passing (as events in the Middle East would indicate), just because a course of action was successful or warrented in the past does not mean it should be continued forever. As for Chavez's words, perhaps you might be concerned if you looked at the actual content of what he says, rather than who it is meant to irritate/provoke.

An interesting observation was made by members of a US "A" team in Columbia re Chavez in the book "Imperial Grunts". Chavez is responsible for sheltering drug dealers, providing identity cards to unknown numbers of middle eastern nationals for no apparent cause and supporting terrorist attacks against oil pipelines on the Columbian side of the shared border (to deprive Columbia of oil revenue, destabilize Columbia and prevent an alternative market to Venezuelan oil developing).. The American soldiers suggested that the bombing of the oil pipelines and resultant pollution be exposed, since that would be the only item which would attract the attention of the general US public. Since the general public in the West was pretty complacent about things like Stalin and Mao Ze Dongs genocides and careless attitudes towards WMDs, it seems that environmentalism may indeed trump the real and present danger Chavez poses.

 

[xFusilier]

I would argue that current events in the middle east do not indicate that realpolitik is passing but rather an attempt by a government to justify unpopular actions.  I would argue that in the final analysis, when political ideologies are not in the way the actions in the middle east will be seen to be quite pragmatic.  I do find it interesting that individuals who some short years ago would have derided idealism as a great heapin' helping of hippie sunshine, rather than a guide to foriegn policymaking, now embrace it when it suits their model of the way the world should be.

The fact remains that should the US attempt to deal with Chavez it will be a disaster.  First and foremost no South American government would trust anything the US offers after the assasination/removal of a democratically elected leader.  Carrying out the actions he has carried out seem to be unwise on face value, given that conflict of any kind makes for a bad economy, however, I fail to see how one flamboyant socialist, who has a dislike for the United States consitutes a "clear and present danger".

 

[In the light of things]

I agree with paracowboy.  Para for P.M.,  (unless you're conservative)

 

[Britney Spears]

So, I guess that whole "democratically elected" thing doesn't count any more, not when he decides to stand up to the US, eh?

 

[In the light of things]

Hey, we all know he wasn't elected the first time.  Besides, para could let China stand up to the US, they got the manpower to back it up.  :

 

[Britney Spears]

Hey, we all know he wasn't elected the first time.

Well, not me, apparently. What year was this?

 

[Glorified Ape]

quite simple. He is a proponent of an enemy ideology, he supports terrorism, he supports drug running, he supports insurgency, all to promote instability in the area, in order to increase his own power base.

Strange, for a second there I thought you were tabulating a history of US administrations....

 

[Glorified Ape]

Really?

Which ones?

And what exactly did they do to make them enemies, drug runners etc?

Please tell, I'm curious.

I was referring more specifically to the insurgency, drugs, and terrorism stuff. "Enemy" is subjective.

Terrorism (state-led):

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.05/990311-guatemala.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

Insurgency:

http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/afintro.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/bay_of_pigs.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

Drugs:

http://www.house.gov/waters/71798pr.htm

 

[Canuckx5]

Also... the US supported the Shah of Iran who was a ruthless dictator not allowing many human rights to his people, but because he was Capitalistic rather than Islamic Fundamentalist (who are against the western world and not materialistic i.e. bad trade partners) he was backed, now that sounds like an enemy ideology compared to our government styles doesn't it?
That's one example, I don't know which US Administrations backed him, but i believe his US support started in the 50s and 60s until he was ousted by the Ayatollah Komeni in 1979 before the Iran-Iraq war.

I'm sure you can find more if you just look ...it's not exactly hard to do, but that was the easiest one for me to remember since History 12.

 

[xFusilier]

If you wan't to believe that it's all roses and sunshine surrounding US actions in South America, by all means go to er.  Ignorance is bliss so they say.  However, the US did in fact bullwark several very nasty South American governments on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principal and we all know how well that one works out. The fact of the matter is the US goverment has been implicated in far to many nasty things to be lecturing anyone on morality in international relations.  As for your question about who else should we side with, well the Canadian government should be doing what's good for Canada, cause the US sure as hell wont.