Chavez attacks US attempt to block warplanes deal

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060114T190000-0500_96551_OBS_CHAVEZ_ATTACKS_US_ATTEMPT_TO_BLOCK_WARPLANES_DEAL_.asp

"CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced an attempt by the US on Friday to block the Spanish sale of 12 military transport planes equipped with American parts, calling it proof of Washington's "imperialism".

His sharp remarks came after the US Embassy in Madrid announced the United States had denied permission for the deal, citing concerns about a Venezuelan government that it said had "grown progressively more autocratic and anti-democratic".


Caracas,Venezuela - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez delivers his state of the nation speech to the National Assembly Friday.
"What is this if not evidence of the horrific imperialism that the government in Washington wants to impose on the world?" Chavez said, reading news of the US move as he addressed the National Assembly on the state of the nation.

"I denounce once again before the world the imperialist attack by the US government against the Venezuelan people and the Venezuelan government," he said."

[Peace Patriot]

1. Go, Hugo! Imperialistic, murdering, thieving fascists!

The Bush junta hates democracy, there and here.

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

No vote tabulation without representation!

[In Truth We Trust]

18. NOW!!!

[Judi Lynn]

2. Isn't this sad? Good grief!

From the article:

Spain said Friday it did not share the US concerns and would go ahead with the deal, removing the US-made components and replacing them with parts made elsewhere.
In Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States concluded that the proposed sale was not consistent with its interests.

"We're concerned that this proposed sale of military equipment and components to Venezuela could contribute to destabilisation in Latin America and have made that view clear to the Spanish, Venezuelan and other governments in Latin America," McCormack said.

Chavez called the US concerns ridiculous, saying "these are transport planes".
(snip)

_Bush will leap at the chance to spill Latin American blood, just like his dad, Reagan, Nixon, if he can only figure out a way to do it without a backlash. Things were easier for those earlier Republican blood-lusting right-wing power-mad idiots, when they could keep the American people TOTALLY in the dark for up to over thirty years. _Bush is the first one to meet a growingly aware public, some of whom don't approve of naked, murderous grabs at crude, barbaric domination.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

3. i love the Internets

:D

[Judi Lynn]

6. Oh, YEAH! The internets. I hear there's rumors......

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

9. Hahaha!

:thumbsup:

[bpilgrim]

20. thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs ;-)

more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

sorry, couldn't resist :evilgrin:

peace

[Peace Patriot]

11. I agree! We were on these events in South America, and the Bush junta's

evil intent, much faster than in the 1970s and 1980s.

Virtually the entire map of South America has gone "blue" over the last several years, with leftist governments elected, often by big majorities, in Brazil, Argentina, Uraguay, Chile, Venezuela and recently in Bolivia. Chavez is not alone. He is just the most visible spokesman for a peaceful, democratic revolution in South America.

"Things were easier for those earlier Republican blood-lusting right-wing power-mad idiots, when they could keep the American people TOTALLY in the dark for up to over thirty years. Bush is the first one to meet a growingly aware public, some of whom don't approve of naked, murderous grabs at crude, barbaric domination." --Judi Lynn

So true! And I would say, not just "some people," but "MOST people" don't approve of the Bush junta and ANY of its polices. Read the issue polls. You will be amazed. 58% of the American people opposed the war in Iraq before the invasion. Feb. '03. 58%! And that number has hardly changed over the last two years except to go up. 63% of the American people oppose torture "under any circumstances." May '04. Despite all the fear-mongering and war mongering. 63%! In fact, the great majority of Americans oppose every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range. You name it. The Iraq war. Torture. Social Security. The deficit. Women's rights. And yet we're having these horrid fascist Bush policies shoved down our throats.

We had better starting getting OUR act together, as the South Americans so obviously are doing. One of the keys there has been TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE, highly monitored elections. So that's where we might start:

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[Missy M]

4. If the deal had been made with the US we would have....

sold them even more. Chavez is right in saying "Washington wants to impose on the world". Kudos for Spain and Venezuela standing up to them!!!!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. I wonder if Iraq will be purchasing any armaments from China or

perhaps Russia in the coming years..... geez, it would be bad to lose "that market".

[Peace Patriot]

5. Chavez is helping poor Americans--what is Bush doing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2042676

From Venezuela to Warwick: low-cost oil comes to R.I.
JIM BARON, Special to The Call01/14/2006

WARWICK -- When Denise Bloomingburgh got an oil delivery to her Post Road home on Friday morning, the guy pumping the fuel into her basement was Felix Rodriguez, president and CEO of CITGO Petroleum Co.

Gathered around him in the driveway of the unassuming yellow house were Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States, Bernardo Alvarez-Herrera; U.S. Sen. Jack Reed; U.S. Rep. Jim Langevin; Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, and former Congressman Joseph Kennedy, president of Citizens Energy Corp. Around them was a ring of reporters, photographers and TV cameramen elbowing to record the scene for posterity.

It was a ceremonial first fill-up of oil from a pool of 3.3 million gallons of discounted oil provided by Houston-based CITGO, which is owned by Petroleos de Venezuela, the state oil company of Venezuela. The oil is to be distributed to low-income families, homeless shelters and community clinics to help defray the unusually high cost of home heating fuel this winter.

CITGO’s agreement to provide the low-cost oil -- recipients will pay about 40 percent below market price for the fuel -- was brokered by Reed.

Last October, Reed wrote a letter to the CEOs of the nine largest oil companies, asking them to donate a portion of their record-high profits to help low-income families, disabled citizens and the elderly pay their heating bills.

CITGO was the only company that responded, Reed said.
(snip/...)

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15928499&BRD=1712&PAG=461&dept_id=24361&rfi=6

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

7. You got that right. And remember - if you goota drive - buy Citgo gas

[CanuckAmok]

8. CBC had Congressman Kennedy on, last month.

He was talking about Citizens' Energy Corp, and he basically ripped Bush a new one. He was talking about how the US/Saudi oil reserves are essentially an illegal cartel, selling crude oil to a restricted market at inflated prices, protected with military might. The Saudis don't even bother flinching at the word "cartel".

He pointed out how Bush has frequently attacked Chavez' oil sale policy, stating it's a cartel, when, in fact, it's "anti-cartel", sold at a fair rate to anyone who can afford it.

Of course you didn't hear any of this, unless you happen to get CBC where you live.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

10. That's right - I'm inside the bubble.

HELP!!!!

[Judi Lynn]

13. You're right. He'll never get on American tv news with the truth. n/t

[leftchick]

16. I WISH I could get CBC

so close yet so far. I live in AmeriKa where our news refers to Chavez as a communist, leftist dictator. Especially Lou Dobbs and Kitty Pilgrim. They seem to hate the man.

:puke:

[MrPrax]

19. I saw that...

I was wondering while watching the guy...why aren't they so candid when they talk to their fellow Americans...I thought this guy was a rare breed among politicians, he actually sees the big picture.

The CBC radio prog As It Happens (which carried in part on some NPR stations)--they get quite a few American politicians responding to this or that and they seem far more 'open' and fearless than they are on American political programs.

I dunno--something in the water, I guess...we have been right beside them for 150 years...you think some of our legendary politeness would rub off on them.

But then again, like the bumpersticker says: "I am a Canadian. It's like an American without a gun." :eyes:

[1932]

23. Have you noticed that As It Happens has anti-Venezuela editorial bias?

[MrPrax]

31. OH yes!!!

I, for the most part, like the program....but since you brought it up :mad:

Yeah, its really obvious too. Last year, prior to the Referendum, they ran a three parter I think...jez I thought it was written by guys too extreme even by neocon standards...

I actually sent them a email questioning exactly who did write this 'contract' piece for them, with of course, generous citations of links with correct information.

Yeah...they seem to take the tactic that....'well giving free lunches to starving school children might be fine, but what of the long term consequences like international trade or human rights'? shit like that...

The National has the same stupid slant--left wingy type gov'ts like Castro or Chevaz must worry about their human rights, whereas, guys like Pakistan's Musharraf or Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji never have to worry about 'leadership' or 'striking a balance with opposition elements'.

CBC does have problems...and don't get me start their coverage of Palestine :mad: :mad:

[TomClash]

15. Helping himself nt

[Peace Patriot]

12. Kick and Recommend! n/t

[sweetheart]

17. The US overrode a similar situation

When the british refused to have their component HUD displays
used to murder people in palestine, the americans refused and
threatened to cut off british defense cooperation. SO the state
department has just used terror weapons to murder civilians in
pakistan, ships those weapons to israel to murder civilians in
its prison-territories, and hipocritically wants them not shipped
to an administration with no such record of mass murdering its
own civilians.

The US geopolitical militarism is heinous, that it can mass murder
civilians without any responsibility, any penalty under the rule
of law, that the army is off reservation endangering the United
states strategically, then treason is a serious charge needs be
levelled at the commanders.

[Pavulon]

21. You mean

when the IDF blows up restaurants, busses, and kills women and children in their homes with point blank rifle shots.

It is our weapon technology. Why would we want to transfer it to someone who is hostile to the us?

[Judi Lynn]

22. Maybe you can refresh our memories of Hugo Chavez's hostility to Clinton.

There are quite a few of us who understand a man has every right to feel deep anger toward an American right-wing pResident who tried to overthrow him, and continued to try to wreck his Presidency through funding strikes and the "opposition's" non-stop destructive efforts, as well as launching a brazillian threats to him fired off at regular intervals through Colin Powell, then Condoleeza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld.

[Pavulon]

24. The US

has no requirement to sell arms to anyone. The guy is on the tube spouting off about the evil administration and imperial US. Big buddies with Castro. Wears lots of Red. nationalizing foreign oil assets. starting the duck walk..

Surprised we don't want to sell him weapons. He can take our petro dollars, the only reason he is even able to buy the stuff, and spend it with Russia.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Oil was nationalized in Venezuela LONG before Hugo Chavez was

elected. It happened in 1973. Here's relative material from a time line. You may note Chavez was elected just a little later than Venezuela's nationalization of its oil:

1973 - Venezuela benefits from oil boom and its currency peaks against the US dollar; oil and steel industries nationalised.

1983-84 - Fall in world oil prices generates unrest and cuts in welfare spending; Dr Jaime Lusinchi (AD) elected president and signs pact involving government, trade unions and business.

1989 - Carlos Andres Perez (AD) elected president against the background of economic depression, which necessitates an austerity programme and an IMF loan. Social and political upheaval includes riots, in which between 300 and 2,000 people are killed, martial law and a general strike.

1992 - Some 120 people are killed in two attempted coups, the first led by future president Colonel Hugo Chavez, and the second carried out by his supporters. Chavez is jailed for two years before being pardoned

1993-95 - Ramon Jose Velasquez becomes interim president after Perez is ousted on charges of corruption; Rafael Caldera elected president.

1996 - Perez imprisoned after being found guilty of embezzlement and corruption.

1998 - Hugo Chavez elected president.
(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm

[Pavulon]

27. I mean the fields

Nationalized last week. Farms. Basically they contracted for one rate and the government raised their take.
Many companies are quietly looking at the effect of loosing their assets in Venezuela in a cuba like "revolution".

Not citgo's parent company, they have been nationalized for years.

Again we are imperialist because we will not sell them weapons. They are doing fine at $60 bb oil and can get the weapons somewhere else.

[Judi Lynn]

29. Cuba-like revolution?

Cuba offered compensation for nationalized properties at the beginning. It was refused. All other countries owning property in Cuba made their arrangements with Cuba back in the 1960's.

Compensation has been re-offered several times since then, and each time rejected.

Do you have any info. on a lack of compensation from Venezuela on the few instances of idle ranch land converted to food production by the Venezuelan government? I've not heard of any yet.

[Pavulon]

34. US oil companies and manufacturers

are concerned. Exxon lost assets last week(or the week prior). Other manufacturers are planning on how to offset the government staling their assets and the money they would have earned from their plants and equipment.

I have idle property, I would love for the government to come take if from me.

Like I said this is about weapon systems. The US has no obligation to sell them anything. Spain, is obliged, not to transfer technology purchased from us to third party nations. Even if they share a socialist leaning.

Hugo Chavez is a distraction and has nothing to do with electing democrats. The us should not be transferring weapon systems to non nato nations anyway(IMHO). He is a distraction from domestic issues.

[Judi Lynn]

41. Our domestic President should not be meddling in Venezuela.n/t

[Pavulon]

48. Agree

They have no impact on domestic issues in the US. They are a large oil exporter and that is the only reason they are even a concern.

[Flanker]

76. Exxon sold their assets to Repsol

If you owned iddle land in a latifundio system I would advocate compensatory expropiation.

[1932]

30. The fields aren't nationalized and neither are the farms.

The deal with the fields, IIUC, is that foreign oil companies now have to be at least 50:50 partners with the VZ gov't for all exploration in VZ. All oil companies but one are happy with the arrangement because they'll still make a ton of private profit. And the farms: they're taking unused large land holdings and transferring ownership to small private owners so that they can put the land to its most efficient use. It's a more pro-private enterprise policy than allowing lords of the manors sit back and do nothing with their assets.

And, by the way, we didn't own the planes and boats that Venezuela was trying to buy. Spain owned them. We contributed some technology that ended up in the final product. It's not being included, but the US is still complaining about Venezuela being a threat to democracy.

[Judi Lynn]

36. Thanks for making those points easy to grasp, 1932. n/t

[Pavulon]

38. Any weapon system we own

is controlled export. The technology was transferred to spain under nato and is restricted use.

This is common practice by all countries.

Sounds like a great deal unless you own the land the government decides to distribute. Worked well for Zimbabwe.

[1932]

53. Did you know that the Marshall Plan in Japan limited land ownership to

4 acres? Land redistribution worked incredibly well in Japan.

The Marshall Plan is an excellent example of why you always want people who believe in New Deal/Keynesian economics to be in the White House and in the exectuive offices in countries all over the globe.

[Pavulon]

56. Different

Meant to rearrange the structure of power in a nation.

[1932]

58. Hello. It was meant to redistribute land from a few wealthy families which

had all the economic and political power, whose concentration of power meant poverty and misery for others, and who held back industriousness by preventing land from going to its most efficient uses.

It was land redistribution in the exact same manner that countries comming off all forms of colonialism and imperialism have engaged in.

Thank god committed New Dealers and Keynesians were at the helm when the Marshall Plan was implemented. THAT'S why it worked. Venezuela is also led by committed New Deal-style Keynesians.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

60. That sounds familiar, almost sounds like........ n/t

[Pavulon]

61. After a massive war that killed millions..

Not to get votes on a socialist platform. Not the same. The people in power provided support and material for the war.

I will all tied to the price of oil. When it cycles back from an bullshit enron rate we have now the effect on the petro economy will be marked.

[1932]

72. I don't understand your distinction.

[K-W]

79. It is very similar, but different in an important aspect.

The only difference is that the US only redistributed to change the power structure on the top, not intending to provide too much power to workers, wherease when popular governments redistribute (if they do it honestly) they put power in the hands of the workers as well as removing it from the traditional holders. Although often corrupt governments do exactly what the US did which is shifting the power to a different set of elites.

[1932]

85. The Marshall Plan in Japan redistributed power to the people.

Give credit where it's due. New Dealers came up with the Marshall Plan. They knew what they were doing.

[K-W]

86. The bankers and businessmen had plenty of say.

As did the military.

[1932]

The technology was easily removed. But why remove the technology at all?

Why did the US object?

Because Chavez is an Keynesian. He's a New Dealer.

What's a bigger threat in the world today to the Bush administration? Ironically, it's someonen who believes in the exact same principles Americans elected to the presidency four times in a row beginning in 1932, and which saved the US from the two biggest threats to America since the civil war -- fascism on the march both militarily in Europe (WWII), and domestically on Wall St (aka the Great Depression).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

59. Yeah, but dude come on. The guy is mean. You know he says things....

and he ....wags his finger in the air and stuff and he.... Oh yeah Fidel Castro yeah how about that? So there take that. Oh yeah what about Mugabe and Kermit the Frog and...... He a also hates Christmas. Get with it Jack.

[1932]

57. The technology was easily removed. But why remove the technology at all?

Why did the US object?

Because Chavez is an Keynesian. He's a New Dealer.

What's a bigger threat in the world today to the Bush administration? Ironically, it's someonen who believes in the exact same principles Americans elected to the presidency four times in a row beginning in 1932, and which saved the US from the two biggest threats to America since the civil war -- fascism on the march both militarily in Europe (WWII), and domestically on Wall St (aka the Great Depression).

[K-W]

78. Yes, it works well except for the wealthy who get a little less wealthy.

Meaning it works great for the vast majority and merely limits the privelidge enjoyed by the wealthy.

This is why the owners of great wealth fear true democracy. They have said it for centuries, they must avoid at all costs the people exercising thier power to turn the privelidges of the few into the rights of the many.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

32. "They are doing fine at $60 bb oil and can get the weapons

somewhere else." Sure they can and probably will. Unfortunately that won't stop these assholes from bitching about it.

[High Plains]

62. They did. From Spain.

[1932]

26. I think the point was that he got on well with WJC (& Rep. Serano, Jesse

Jackson, and politicians and community leaders in Maine, Boston, New York, and in Native American communities, for that matter).

It seems that the tension has more to do with a difference in political philosophies and that it's a debate going on as vigorously within the US in some quarters as it is between Ven. and the US.

Bush seems as hostile towards anti-neoliberal progressives within the US as he is outside the US. If he refused to turn over the reigns of government to progressives inside the US, would you think that was justified simply because he embodies America now by virtue of occupying the white house and because his critics tend to be, well, vocally and passionately critical?

Chavez's criticism of Republican politics today should sound very familiar. It's the same argument that everyone on the left in America should be having. Bush isn't trying to undermine Chavez because he's a threat to America -- all of America. He's trying to undermine him because, like MLK and RFK, his ideas about how the world works are dangerous to the few in America who dominate the rest because an undemocratic, overwhelming imbalance of economic and political power.

Don't get confused into thinking that those two Americas are the same America.

[Pavulon]

28. The US

has been undermining people we don;t like in SA for fifty years. Nothing new.

[Judi Lynn]

33. Why would it be those Republican Presidents who meddled in

Latin America tried to make sure no one knew about it, if it's simply "nothing new?" They were desperate to make sure Democrats in Congress had no idea what they were doing because it was deadly wrong.

Now that information travels more quickly it's going to get harder for power-mad, undisciplined, ignorant Republicans who think being President means you get complete control of this entire hemisphere, to succeed in their underhanded, dishonest, murderous attempts to subvert and destroy progressives in Latin America.

[Pavulon]

35. Democrats too

US foreign policy across all administrations has meddled in SA. The CIA under both parties carried out what was determined to be in our interest.

Both parties had no interest in communism in SA during the cold war.

[Judi Lynn]

39. Maybe you could point to some noted Democratic meddling in

Latin America, outside the Bay of Pigs.

Incidently, John F. Kennedy was attempting to create dialogue with Cuba when he was murdered.

Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOW

Oval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort

Posted - November 24, 2003

~snip~

Among the key documents relevant to this history:


• Oval Office audio tape, November 5, 1963. The tape records a conversation between the President and McGeorge Bundy regarding Castro's invitation to William Attwood, a deputy to UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, to come to Cuba for secret talks. The President responds that Attwood should be taken off the U.S. payroll prior to such a meeting so that the White House can plausibly deny that any official talks have taken place if the meeting leaks to the press.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Mr. Donovan's Trip to Cuba," March 4, 1963. This document records President Kennedy's interest in negotiations with Castro and his instructions to his staff to "start thinking along more flexible lines" on conditions for a dialogue with Cuba.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Policy," April 11, 1963. A detailed options paper from Gordon Chase, the Latin America specialist on the National Security Council, to McGeorge Bundy recommending "looking seriously at the other side of the coin-quietly enticing Castro over to us."
  
  
• CIA briefing paper, Secret, "Interview of U.S. Newswoman with Fidel Castro Indicating Possible Interest in Rapprochement with the United States," May 1, 1963. A debriefing of Lisa Howard by CIA deputy director Richard Helms, regarding her ABC news interview with Castro and her opinion that he is "ready to discuss rapprochement." The document contains a notation, "Psaw," meaning President Kennedy read the report on Howard and Castro.
  
  
• U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.
  White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Item of Presidential Interest," November 25, 1963. A strategy memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy assessing the problems and potential for pursuing the secret talks with Castro in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination.
  
  
• Message from Fidel Castro to Lyndon Johnson, "Verbal Message given to Miss Lisa Howard of ABC News on February 12, 1964, in Havana, Cuba." A private message carried by Howard to the White House in which Castro states that he would like the talks started with Kennedy to continue: "I seriously hope (and I cannot stress this too strongly) that Cuba and the United States can eventually sit down in an atmosphere of good will and of mutual respect and negotiate our differences."
  
  
• United Nations memorandum, Top Secret, from Adlai Stevenson to President Johnson, June 16, 1964. Stevenson sends the "verbal message" given to Lisa Howard to Johnson with a cover memo briefing him on the dialogue started under Kennedy and suggesting consideration of resumption of talks "on a low enough level to avoid any possible embarrassment."
  
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Adlai Stevenson and Lisa Howard," July 7, 1964. Gordon Chase reports to Bundy on his concerns that Howard's role as an intermediary has now escalated through her contact with Stevenson at the United Nations and the fact that a message has been sent back through her to Castro from the White House. Chase recommends trying "to remove Lisa from direct participation in the business of passing messages," and using Cuban Ambassador to the UN, Carlos Lechuga, instead.
  (snip)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/

[Pavulon]

46. BAY OF PIGS..And

dozens of others clearly defined under fifa files. Johnson did his part. This was part of the cold war policy.

[1932]

49. Again, the parites have not been monolithic. Reagan was harder on Pinochet

than Carter. Carter was harder on Apartheid than anyone. Kennedy was better on Latin American policy than anyone and more attuned to the dangers of imperialism than any president other than FDR. Read Parker's Galbraith biography. Read The Pinochet File. (What do you have to lose?)

We certainly could elect a Democrat worse than Bush on Latin America policy if voters got really stupid (Gore's foreign policy advisor in 2000 was an ultra-neoliberal). But there are Democrats who would govern in the spirit of FDR and JFK. It rests on us, the voters, to make sure we help them rise to the top the way voters did with FDR and JFK.

[Judi Lynn]

52. Yep, Johnson was a wreck. He wasn't a good example.

He would have never made it to the White House on his own. He was a real cross-over from the old Southern Democrats who generally became Republicans, protesting Democratic civil rights legislation, and not too much like the Democrats to come.

[1932]

43. Read The Pinochet File. US policy has definitely not been monolithic.

JFK was an excellent example of a president who understood the anti-Keynesian problems with imperialism and who set a different course for US policy. Kissinger worked very very hard to undo that. Carter was too afraid of to do much about Latin America (though he was great with Africa). Reagan actually did more to undermine Pinochet than Carter did, but was terrible in Central America. Clinton clearly gave many Latin American countries the room to breath that they hadn't gotten in years.

What we need is another president like JFK to not just engage in benevolent neglect but to speak boldly in support of Keynesian (and Adam Smithian and Amartya Senian) anti-imperialism. (And I guess it won't be Howard Dean, but I really do think we're on an arc that will return to the course that JFK set.)

[High Plains]

63. Excuse me?

"Both parties had no interest in communism in SA during the Cold War."

That would explain:

The anti-communist Guatemalan coup of 1954
The invasion of Cuba in 1961
CIA cooperation with Bolivian military in killing Che in 1967
US support for the rightist military coup against the socialist Allende in 1973
US cooperation with the rightist military dictatorships of the Southern Cone in the 1970s
US support of the anti-communist dictator Somoza up until 1979, when he was overthrown
US-backed Contra War against Nicaragua, 1980-89
US support for the anti-communist dictatorship in El Salvador in the 1980s

Hmmm, maybe no interest in communism, but plenty of interest in "anti-communism."

[Pavulon]

77. Obviously

I meant they had interest in fighting soviet influence.

[1932]

37. Well, you should read The Pinochet File.

The JFK administration actually marked a radical shift in Latin American policy. JFK said that we were causing more trouble for ourselves and the people of South America by supporting right wingers who ultimately made people miserable. JFK started the US on a path towards supporting social democrats (albeit, not communists, but not fascists). As a result, people like Allende increased their political power.

Nixon marked a departure from that policy. Kissinger went back to supporting pro-Wall St fascists. Then we come around to Clinton, and we seemed to get back on the arc that JFK embarked on at least in Latin America. Of course Bush is trying to undermine it, but the arc of justice bends heavily in favor of the people...

So, this isn't really a "nothing new" thing. It's a question of whether, in the spirit of Kissinger and Nixon, Bush is going to try to get off a sensible path that smarter people like JFK saw as inevitable and that could only be deterred throuh misery and oppression (of which Chile's history from '73 until recently is only the best example in a collection of histories including Panama, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

[Pavulon]

40. After the bay of Pigs?

Lets not play with history. The US across all partied for the last 60 years has used all means, including violence, to fight wars and get its way in SA.

Just like the Soviets did in Africa.

Bush is an idiot but some facts of US foreign policy entrenched in Washington will outlast him and still happen no matter what party is in power in 2008.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Then name the Democratic Presidents who meddled in Latin America.n/t

[Pavulon]

47. Johnson, carter, eisenhour..pretty much every

president in both parties oversaw CIA action around the world during the cold war. This is history.

Only a revisionist would try to go back and criticize these presidents for their actions.

What we should be doing now is a very different question.

[1932]

50. I believe Johnson was laissez-faire in Latin America. Carter was good for

Central America by miles. He gave Panama back control of their most valuable natural resource, which was the only fair thing to do in a country that was so impoverished (read Graham Greene's book on Panama). Carter didn't have the courage to go after Pinochet, though.

Kissinger was the thing that really changed America's Latin American policy. Kissinger took Latin America off the path that it was on, that began with Kennedy's policy of supporting social democrats and ending support for right wing dictators.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

51. Eisenhower was a Democrat? Talk about revisionism. n/t

[Pavulon]

54. was looking at the list and meant to type,,

truman.
My fault..

[Judi Lynn]

55. Don't forget Carter removed many Cuba travel ban restrictions,

which were immediately slammed back into place by Reagan. One real giant step backward there.

Clinton relaxed some aspects of travel to Cuba, as well, and you see what happened when _Bush seized the pResidency.

[1932]

45. Yes, after the Bay of Pigs, you should still read books.

Read The Pinochet Files. Just read the first two chapters if you're lazy. Also read the Galbraith biography by Charles Parker.

[Clutch Cargo]

64. I agree. What obligation do we have to supply him arms???

The guy doesn't like the horrific imperialistic U.S., yet apparently he likes the horrific imperialistic U.S. military equipment because he whines that we won't sell him any. What an asshole!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. They are Spanish war planes. Try reading the article next time. n/t

[Clutch Cargo]

66. With U.S. miltary technology.

He wants the horrific imperialistic U.S. military technology, not the Spanish airplanes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

67. Oh, so you know what he reaaally wants. OK Mr Psychic. What did

Mr Chavez have for breakfast?

[Clutch Cargo]

68. He probably had

Count Chocula cereal in his favorite Fred Flintstone cereal bowl and drank his chocolate milk with a sippy straw.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. That's pretty damn good. At least you didn't say live puppies. n/t

[tkmorris]

70. No he doesn't

he doesn't give a fig whether the "US technology" is in the planes or not. Spain is replacing it, and he still wants the planes. Somehow the Bush admin still thinks it has the right to veto the deal.

Kneejerk hatred of Chavez, coupled with ignorance of the facts. I've never seen that before...... :sarcasm:

[Clutch Cargo]

71. Sorry, I dislike Chavez. It's my right. It's not kneejerk.

It's based upon my observations of his dictator-like behavior and his oft times child-like rants.

[tkmorris]

73. But whenever you speak on the topic

You illustrate quite clearly that you don't know what you're talking about.

I try very hard to not form opinions on topics I am not familiar with. But you go right ahead.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

87. !

:thumbsup:

[stepnw1f]

74. Disliking Someone Should Be Easy to Explain

Just base your dislike on facts.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

82. Child like?

hmmm

[K-W]

83. He has never acted as a dictator and is very elequent

so what on earth are you talking about.

It is certainly your right to form ignorant opinions about people and refuse to listen to reason, but dont expect your preconcieved and incorrect notions to be terribly persuasive to those of us who value facts and logic.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. What are your thoughts, then, on the US wanting to veto the deal...

EVEN AFTER THE SPANISH REMOVED USA COMPONENTS?

Think that's reasonable?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[K-W]

80. We claim to support free markets dont we?

And the military equipment isnt imperialistic and horrific, the actions of the US government are. Weapons can also be used for defence.

It would be like a hitman calling his victim a murderer because he reached for a gun to defend himself.

As far as whining and being an asshole. Im not sure why complaining about the US blocking weapons from a democratic nation would qualify, I do however see how your post would.

[Solon]

75. Problem is, he isn't hostile to the United States, only our government...

That is a big difference, he doesn't like our President, that doesn't mean that Venezuela is a "hostile" nation towards the rest of us. In fact, given his behaviour, it seems like he LIKES Usians and hates the rich fat bastards here. That seems ok with me.

[K-W]

81. And the US is the aggressor.

He is only hostile to us because he resists our attempts to control him and Venezuala. He is hostile as any victim is hostile to his attacker. To lable him hostile as if he is inherently against the US is nonsense. He is hostile only to the extent of and as long as the US interefers in the governance of Venezuala.

[raggedcompany]

42. Viva Chavez!! n/t

[HuffleClaw]

84. good for him!

this meddling in other nations affairs has got to stop. its an embarrassment.