Chavez closes opposition TV station; thousands protest

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's difficult for some people to see things beyond black and white.

And there it is....the answer to a question nobody asked.

Oh, I'm sorry... I don't know I wasn't allowed to make broad assumptions about people. Please continue.

[homesick_american 1]

It's difficult for some people to see things beyond black and white.

And there it is....the answer to a question nobody asked.

Oh, I'm sorry... I don't know I wasn't allowed to make broad assumptions about people. Please continue.

Well, if you're going to constantly accuse other people of doing it instead of saying anything of substance, then you can't really accuse other people of doing it when they haven't.

Now start making sense, you're upsetting fizgig.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's difficult for some people to see things beyond black and white.

And there it is....the answer to a question nobody asked.

Oh, I'm sorry... I don't know I wasn't allowed to make broad assumptions about people. Please continue.

Well, if you're going to constantly accuse other people of doing it instead of saying anything of substance, then you can't really accuse other people of doing it when they haven't.

Now start making sense, you're upsetting fizgig.

Did you really want to argue Dan's point or did you just feel obliged to insult him with your bumper sticker?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not keen to support any covert US foreign policy at this point. Chavez is an a$$hole, so was Saddam Hussein.

So too was Augusto Pinochet - and Margaret Thatcher had nothing but good words for that guy.... Seem to remember she had similar praise for Nicolae Ceauşescu. Says a lot about her...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not keen to support any covert US foreign policy at this point. Chavez is an a$$hole, so was Saddam Hussein.

So too was Augusto Pinochet - and Margaret Thatcher had nothing but good words for that guy.... Seem to remember she had similar praise for Nicolae Ceauşescu. Says a lot about her...

I think Dan brought up some good points - that oil factors into this in a big way. Particularly because Chavez declared it be publicly owned - a radical and outrageous idea for those who see the profit potential. I won't argue over whether the man is a saint or the devil himself. I just find it peculiar that our other supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a beacon of Democracy or Human Rights. Nobody's talking about over-throwing that oppressive monarchy and why? Because in the free market capitalist's eye, an oppressive monarchy is better than Democratically elected Socialist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not keen to support any covert US foreign policy at this point. Chavez is an a$$hole, so was Saddam Hussein.

So too was Augusto Pinochet - and Margaret Thatcher had nothing but good words for that guy.... Seem to remember she had similar praise for Nicolae Ceauşescu. Says a lot about her...

I think Dan brought up some good points - that oil factors into this in a big way. Particularly because Chavez declared it be publicly owned - a radical and outrageous idea for those who see the profit potential. I won't argue over whether the man is a saint or the devil himself. I just find it peculiar that our other supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a beacon of Democracy or Human Rights. Nobody's talking about over-throwing that oppressive monarchy and why? Because in the free market capitalist's eye, an oppressive monarchy is better than Democratically elected Socialist.

Well there is always a danger of falling into the trap of moral relativism when discussing these things, but as far as evil regimes go - we're certainly somewhat selective about who are the "good guys".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm not keen to support any covert US foreign policy at this point. Chavez is an a$$hole, so was Saddam Hussein.

So too was Augusto Pinochet - and Margaret Thatcher had nothing but good words for that guy.... Seem to remember she had similar praise for Nicolae Ceauşescu. Says a lot about her...

I think Dan brought up some good points - that oil factors into this in a big way. Particularly because Chavez declared it be publicly owned - a radical and outrageous idea for those who see the profit potential. I won't argue over whether the man is a saint or the devil himself. I just find it peculiar that our other supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a beacon of Democracy or Human Rights. Nobody's talking about over-throwing that oppressive monarchy and why? Because in the free market capitalist's eye, an oppressive monarchy is better than Democratically elected Socialist.

Well there is always a danger of falling into the trap of moral relativism when discussing these things, but as far as evil regimes go - we're certainly somewhat selective about who are the "good guys".

Certainly. Bush's "For Us or Against Us" Foreign Policy, looks tough on the surface, but underneath it's full of inconsistencies and questionable compromises.

[Captain Oates 911]

Absence of support for US policy towards Venezuela does not indicate support for Chavez or Venezuela. An issue can have more than 2 sides. Contrary to what the Replicates and Demo cans what you to think

Personally, I think of the people of Venezuela keep electing a person like Chavez thats their right. In a Democracy they can elect whatever leader they want. Its hypocritical to support a coup against a democratically elected leader just because they don't want to be friends with you. The US should stay hands off and let them do what they want. But thats not going to happen as long as they have oil.

I think it's a big subject and difficult - who is worse, mugabe or chavez ? why kill chavez but not mugabe ? oil ? and what about the leaders of all the other nasty regimes - kill them all ? mr armoureddinnerjacket of Iran ? kill him ? If all the unwholesome politicians in the world were replaced by US place-men on the CIA payroll, would the world be a better place ?

I am NOT saying it wouldn't by the way, but some of the supported politicians (such as Saddam who was supported and given money and poison gas by the US), or Bin Laden who was given tons of anti-aircraft missiles by the US, and encouraged to bring down planes, didn't seem all that wholesome either.

Only when the US replaces these flawed politicians with more wholesome people, will the policy of undermining foreign governments and killing (exploding cigars etc ), become something worth considering... but the replacements are as grizzly as the replaced

If the Russians had killed Jack Kennedy, would that have been a logical and right thing to do from the point of view of a Russian at that time?

killing foreign leaders such as Hitler would be applauded, but killing the French Prime Minister because he wouldn't back Iraq, would not.

Everything in between is grey area- - but if the US is going to do it - then it could make a better job of it by getting less horrific place men to slot in...

and - to modernize the process, how about some more place-women next time - Imelda Marcos types - that would benefit the downtrodden masses - and some gays and some disabled place men... a dyslexic as leader ? didn't we just try that ?