BoRev ridicules egregious racism at the Wall Street Urinal re Venezuela.

[Peace Patriot]

A truly un-frigging-believable, over-the-top INSANE, fascists-gone-apeshit, anti-Chavez op-ed at the Urinal. I don't call them a toilet for nothing.

Here's BoRev's take on it: http://www.borev.net/2009/12/arab_with_a_capitol_a_that_rhy.html

[bemildred]

1. Well, they hate to lose, it makes them become incoherent.

"Forty-seven years ago, Americans woke up to the fact that a distant power could threaten us much closer to home."

That can't be Cuba, it's got to be the USSR. You got that, this moron wants to equate Iran under the Ayatollahs to the USSR?

[EFerrari]

5. If the Ayatollahs didn't exist, these nut cases would have to invent them.

[ChangoLoa]

11. Like Israel "invented" Hamas you mean?

[bemildred]

26. No, I think that was quite different from what was meant. nt

[Mika]

2. Reads like a certain DUer on this forum.

Disgusting bigotry. :puke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=27374&mesg_id=27989

:puke:

---

[EFerrari]

6. Well, at least now I know why Miami is a paradise on Earth!

:)

[Braulio]

3. Well, they're not doing a good job

PDVSA isn't a very well run company, maybe they got too many incompetent managers?

[EFerrari]

4. Do people still pay for the Wall Street "Journal"?

[Judi Lynn]

7. I think they have stacks of it at the grocery store near the door.

Amateur magicians pick them up so they can use them making those attractive newspaper trees!

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com.nyud.net:8090/img/cache/bcb9b8db117ee64376aedaf7af3595ca/12-18-06-newspapertree2-340x340.jpg

[EFerrari]

8. LOL

:rofl:

:applause:

[Judi Lynn]

9. The guy who scrawled that article has a predictable background:

Wikipedia:

Bret Louis Stephens is the foreign-affairs columnist of the Wall Street Journal and deputy editorial page editor, responsible for the editorial pages of the Journal's European and Asian editions. He was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post in 2002-2004.

Bret Stephens was born in 1973 and grew up in Mexico City. After graduating from Middlesex School, Stephens went to the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics.<2> Stephens is married to Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim.

Stephens began his career at the Journal as an op-ed editor in New York and later worked as an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe in Brussels. In 2006 he took over the "Global View" column from George Melloan, who has retired.

Between 2002 and 2004 he was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post, the youngest person ever to hold that position. He is the winner of the 2008 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. In 2005, Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum, where he was previously a media fellow. He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary magazine.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

http://njjewishnews.com.nyud.net:8090/njjn.com/012209/njJournalWriter.jpg http://www.israelalways.com.nyud.net:8090/images/BretStephensEarlKathleenNov2006_edited.jpg

What a sunny, happy, pleasant lad.

[ChangoLoa]

10. WSJ article is simplistic and dumb but BoRev's response is not much better

The comparison between USSR-Cuba and Iran-Venezuela is risible and childish.

As a Venezuelan of syrian descent, I know that the connection between Venezuela, Baath, Syria and Iran has nothing to do with religion or even political ideology in its "noble" meaning. It's about basic anti-imperialism. The exact kind of anti-imperialism the empire needs to keep on ruling. Very different from, for example, Congress Party's logic.

The people BoRev and WSJ cite are not simply "Lebanese christian". They are of syrian descent, lebanese descent and most of their families reached Venezuela with Ottoman, Turkish papers (Venezuelans call them/us "turcos"). Most are christian, some are muslim, but that doesn't matter much in this particular issue. Many in this "community" have kept strong ties with Syria and Lebanon, some joining the Baathist movement (like the minister of interior's father, El Aissami) and few joining the Hezbollah (or even the Phalanges). IMO, that's what BoRev should discuss in this case. He should explain why these tendencies are no proof that the Iranian-Venezuelan relationship is threatening anyone.

[Braulio]

12. Lebanese terrorists all over the place

I visited Venezuela a few years ago, and he took me to a place called Puerto Azul, which was crawling with Lebanese Christian terrorists, many of them with business ties to the Middle East. Since I happen to be anti semitic because I oppose Israeli crimes in the region, I suppose I'm also a terrorist...but I also think it's kinda stupid for Venezuela to ally with Iran.

[Peace Patriot]

13. How about Colombia allying with Iran? Or Brazil? Are they stupid, too?

"...which was crawling with Lebanese Christian terrorists...". How did you recognize them? By their Crusader shields?

[Braulio]

15. Lebanese Christian Terrorists

You could recognize them because their wives wear gold chains in the club swimming pool. How else?

But tell me, do you manufacture diamonds with your behind? You don't seem to know a joke unless it's labeled "This is a joke coming your way" LOL

[Peace Patriot]

17. You didn't answer my other question? How come Colombia having diplomatic relations with Iran

is okay and not Venezuela? How come Hillary Clinton issues dire warnings only to leftist governments about their behaving like, well, independent sovereign countries that can have diplomatic relations with anyone they damn please, including Iran, just like the US does with Saudi Arabia, the most undemocratic country on earth, or with Colombia, the country with the second worst human rights record on earth? How come it's stupid for Venezuela and not Colombia, huh?

This double-standard is used on many other issues as well--regulation of the public airwaves, unlimited terms of office, rule by decree, nationalized resources, a president being a strong and popular politician, and on and on. If Venezuela does what dozens of other countries do--sometimes doing it better than anybody else (as with Venezuela putting term limits to a vote of the people)--THEY get blasted, as a "dictatorship" or whatever. And the MANY other examples of the SAME thing by countries who are not on our corporate rulers' shit list are never mentioned.

Venezuela has diplomatic and trade relations with Iran for the same reason that Colombia does, and for the same reason that the US has diplomatic and trade relations with Saudi Arabia--because the country's leaders deem it advantageous to their country! And who gets to say what is advantageous for Venezuela, Brazil or anybody else? Hillary Clinton seems to think SHE does. Do you agree with that?

[ChangoLoa]

19. "Alliance" is not "diplomatic relations"

huh?

[Peace Patriot]

22. Iran has seven diplomatic diplomatic missions in South America--

--in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador (member of OPEC), Uruguay and Venezuela (member of OPEC)--and wide ranging trade relations in the region, in addition to Iranian diplomatic missions in Central/North America--including Canada, Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua. Tell me why Hillary Clinton should be dictating the level of diplomatic activity and trade relations between these countries and Iran.

Colombia may have mere diplomatic relations with Iran, not trade agreements (--I couldn't find any information on Colombia/Iran trade, so let's presume there isn't any), while the others have varying degrees of trade relations, with BRAZIL as Iran's TOP TRADING PARTNER in Latin America (see below), and varying degrees of diplomatic activity (visits, meetings between leaders, etc.), but why is it ANY BUSINESS of the US government to be determining these levels of international activity and what on earth is Clinton doing threatening Latin American governments with "consequences" if they don't bend over for the US on its nutso policy on Iran?

If Colombia has little or no trade with Iran, and thus no real alliance (just diplomatic relations) with Iran, that is no surprise, since Colombia is a client state of the US, recipient of $6 BILLION in US military aid, and soon to become the 'South Vietnam' of Latin America, with a huge US military buildup. Colombia has thrown its sovereignty away. But Colombia's relations with Iran--however one might describe them--are side issue. And perhaps Mexico is a better example--until this year, Iran's SECOND largest trading partner in Latin America. Rightwing government, so it doesn't get criticized by the US. Or Peru, which has more trade with Iran than Venezuela Rightwing government, so it doesn't get criticized by the US.

Indeed, it is arguable that US policy on Iran is one of the stupidest national policies ever devised--with the possible exception of US policy on Cuba (and leaving out monstrous disasters like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan). Why is it possible for other governments of the world--including many in Latin America, and China and Russia, to have perfectly peaceful diplomatic and trade relations with Iran, to the benefit of the businesses and peoples in these countries, and not the US? Is it not far better and far more productive policy and far more conducive to allaying any threat that the US perceives in Iran (a country that has shown no territorial ambitions and has attacked no one), to INCLUDE Iran in diplomatic and trade initiatives?

The US--an alleged democracy--never seeks equality among sovereign nations, or a "level playing field" in trade relations. It seeks dominance, and, when its corporate rulers and war profiteers don't get their way, dominance by force. That is why this threat is coming out of the mouth of the US Secretary of State--aimed at Latin American countries with leftist governments, and most particularly at Venezuela, who will face unspecified "consequences" for trading with Iran. She means that she has a great big war machine behind her.

---------------------------

Below, I've highlighted the range of countries in Latin America that have significant trade with Iran--from rightwing Mexico and Peru, to center-left and left Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela. Also, one other important point: Iran is importing a lot more goods from Latin America than it is exporting goods to Latin America. Thus, these trade relations with Iran are BENEFITTING Latin American countries. How dare Latin American leaders do anything that benefits their countries, that the US doesn't approve of! They might find themselves on a plane to Costa Rica?

---------------------------------------

Latin America: Iran Trade Triples

Brazil is Iran’s top partner in Latin America, with Argentina and Ecuador trailing close behind.

BY CHRONICLE STAFF

Last week’s visit to Brazil by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused controversy, but made sense for the Iranian leader.

Brazil is Iran’s largest trade partner in Latin America and the top Latin American exporter to Iran, according to a Latin Business Chronicle analysis of data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The analysis also shows that Iran’s trade with Latin America tripled last year to $2.9 billion.

Brazil’s trade with Iran reached $1.3 billion last year. That was an 88 percent increase from 2007, according to the IMF data. However, during Ahmadinejad’s visit, Brazilian officials said two-way trade in 2007 stood at $2 billion. Neither Brazil nor Iran has released detailed trade data on their two-way trade for 2007 or 2008.

LOW VENEZUELA TRADE

In addition to Brazil, Ahmadinejad last week visited Bolivia and Venezuela. Iran’s trade with Bolivia is miniscule, while that with Venezuela is surprisingly low despite a dramatic boost in business relations between the two countries in recent years.

Total trade between Iran and Venezuela reached $51.8 million last year, a 30.8 percent increase. That makes Venezuela Iran’s fifth-largest trade partner in Latin America, behind such countries as Argentina, Ecuador and Peru.

Thanks to a dramatic jump in exports to Iran last year, Argentina managed to replace Mexico as Iran’s second-largest trade partner in Latin America. Argentina’s exports jumped from $29 million in 2007 to $1.2 billion last year, according to the IMF. The Argentine exports account for practically all of the two-way trade with Iran.

ECUADOR TRADE JUMPS

Another country seeing a strong increase in trade with Iran is Ecuador. It went from being Iran’s seventh-largest partner in Latin America to its third-largest partner behind Brazil and Argentina. Trade jumped from $5.7 million in 2007 to $168.2 million last year, mostly thanks to Ecuadorian imports from Iran. While Ecuador didn’t figure among the top Latin American markets for Iranian products in 2007, it became the largest destination last year after its purchases from Iran grew from $0.01 million in 2007 to $168.2 million last year.

Iran’s trade with Latin America is largely dominated by its imports of Latin American goods, which last year accounted for $2.5 billion, a 240.2 percent increase from 2007. Meanwhile, Iranian exports to Latin America increased by 85.2 percent to $337.6 million, according to the Latin Business Chronicle analysis of the IMF data.

http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=3842

[ChangoLoa]

23. HClinton shouldn't be dictating anything to us.

While I have nothing at all against trading with Iran, I just feel offended, as a Venezuelan and a progressive, when my government praises Ahmadi and Khomeney, calling these fascistoid theocrats "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters", for example. My position on Venezuela or even Iran is 0% determined by the US position. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities between the 2 extreme positions (US and Venezuela).

My "nausea" about Chavez's declarations about Ahmadi is deep because I know Iran, love this country and have many friends there. I know how Ahmadi's gang kills, imprisons and smashes any progressive movement in the country. I've seen the militias acting violently against women because their veiling was considered insufficient and against "subversive" students.

Iranian progressives are really angry at Chavez for his declarations on the last elections and against the civil movement that grew after that.
http://www.londonprogressivejournal.com/issue/show/78?article_id=481

One other thing: does trade mean alliance to you? Is China the biggest US ally in the world right now? Is it even an "ally"?

[Peace Patriot]

25. You sure get around. Venezuela, Iran. I'll bet you were personally witness

to those heartless Iraqi soldiers who unplugged the babies' incubators in Kuwait, too.

Yup, that's how much I believe you.

And I wonder where you were when the bombs came down on Baghdad, more recently, slaughtering at least one hundred thousand innocent men, woman and children. Is that what you want for Iran?

And I wonder where you were when four thousand poor workers were murdered on Chiquita International farms in Colombia, for joining a union. Is that what you want for Venezuela?

Your exclusive focus on countries that my corpo-fascist, war profiteer government wants to bludgeon into submission, and your seeming obliviousness to the interests that you are serving by repeating and embellishing their narratives of hatred toward these governments, make me think that you don't really care about either of these countries or their people.

I could go on listing REAL, documented atrocities of my own government and its putrid allies in Latin America. The list is very long and very, very awful. And nothing the Iranian government has done even comes close to the horrors that the US and its allies have inflicted on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and may well be intending to inflict on the Iranian and Venezuelan people. As for the Chavez government, it has done absolutely nothing wrong on any front--neither on human and civil rights, including equal rights for women and gays, nor on adherence to democracy and the rule of law, nor as to holding honest, transparent elections--and it has done a great deal of good.

So why you are obsessed with dissing the Chavez government, and now the Iranian government as well, I do not know. But it's interesting to me that you are quite well aligned with the US State Department, on both matters, and that you never, ever mention US war crimes, nor the murders and tortures in the US client states of Colombia and Honduras.

[ChangoLoa]

28. I first took you for a reasonable borderline person

Now I'm starting to feel sad for you. So much euphoria for only negative and repetitive narrow-minded "dialog". You definitely can do better than that childish masala..

I hope the unicorn ride goes on well for you in the permanently US-centered world of yours. Just remember there's a whole world out there that doesn't simply evolve around "America". Try to leave some space for doubt in your mind.

[Mika]

14. Visit Miami, which is crawling with terrorists too.

Of course, as you have previously informed us, having "fled" Cuba they are high IQ terrorists. :dunce:

[Braulio]

16. They did flee Cuba

Cuban refugees are famous for their raft building skills.

[Judi Lynn]

20. Hundreds die EVERY year in the desert as they "flee" from Central America and Mexico.

They risk that too, knowing if they are discovered here they will be imprisoned, or possibly beaten, sometimes to death, or murdered any number of other ways by racists, and then they will be deported.

Cubans know if they can make it to US soil, they will be rewarded with a pleasing array of benefits, like instant legal status, total protection from any INS arrests and deportation, instant access to social security, welfare, free ftiood stamps, and another gift from US taxpayers, government subsidized Section 8 housing, financial subsidies for education, free medical treatment, and extremely low cost loans.

IF these opportunities were offered to people of other countries, there would be so many people crowding in here there wouldn't be room to move.

Don't even try to lie to us about things we all know quite well.

Who the hell have Central Americans and Mexican citizens been "fleeing" before they have dropped dead in the desert, or drowned in the water trying to make it to the states?

Fleeing! How can ANYONE be so wildly stupid to try to try that crap? Deceitful, and stupid.

[Braulio]

21. They do flee

Well, the Mexicans flee for economic reasons. Cubans flee for both economic AND political reasons. I believe the Cubans leaving in the 1960's were more likely political refugees, and gradually, as the Cuban middle class migrated or was destroyed (meaning Cubans other than Communist Party members became poor), the flight became driven by poverty on the island. I've noticed that Cubans who left earlier do tend to do much better economically, are more educated, and exercise their political power much more than the ones who arrived later.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Cubans do flee for reasons which go beyond those driving Mexicans. This also applies to some Venezuelans, for example, who flee Venezuela today due to political persecution or inability to find work - the Chavez regime is gradually nationalizing everything, and thus all Venezuelans become government employees. And to be a government employee one has to be allied with Chavez. Which means may smart middle class Venezuelans who don't agree with the government are fleeing the country as well. This is also starting to happen in Bolivia, by the way.

This isn't exactly rocket science, it's done in third world countries all the time, but in Venezuela it wasn't done as much, now it's very prevalent.

[Mika]

24. Its that bigoted IQ thing you posted upthread.

:puke:

"But there's no doubt in my mind .."

Well .. that in and of itself speaks volumes. :rofl:

---

[Braulio]

27. Sorry, would you quote my bigoted statement?

I can't figure out what you're talking about

[Mika]

29. Sorry for the mixup. You posted it in another thread that I linked to in this thread.

Hard to take one seriously when one posts nonsense like this..

Here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=27374&mesg_id=27989

[ChangoLoa]

18. Trafficking precious wood from west Africa is definitely terrorism :)

Seriously, the alliance with Iran could be positive if we managed to keep it on a wise line, as India does. We've always been unaligned and advocated for connecting with fellow "3rd World" countries. We have common positions and interests. Our strategies gain an infinity by being put in common. No one can deny that Iran is structurally a major actor in this group. There's also a powerful ethical dynamics within this movement. Deeply modern.

The stupid thing is to ally with Khomeney and Ahmadi. At any level. I feel nausea when Chavez praises Ahmadi, giving the sword of Bolivar to this fascistoid theocrat, calling him a brother and a "freedom fighter". It's outraging to hear Chavez call the Iranian students fascists (as some pseudo leftists do here). At a concrete level, we gain peanuts from this immoral position. Only enemies, discredit and an insignificant bicycle factory. Shameful and useless.