Venezuelan ambassador:
"THIS WEEK, the State Department announced that it was banning all sales of weapons to Venezuela, alleging that the government of President Hugo Chavez was not cooperating in the worldwide war on terror. Though the sanctions are mostly symbolic — Washington sells few weapons to Caracas as it is — the extreme nature of these false allegations indicates that Washington is continuing its long campaign to delegitimize and undermine my country's democratic government."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"The war on terror cannot be fought a la carte. Nor can it be fought by resorting to methods that contradict the very values and motivations the Bush administration professes to spread around the globe.
If it is serious about fighting the war on terror, it must put politics aside. Allies in the war on terror do not have to agree on domestic issues or political ideology; they must be united only in their dedication to protecting the lives of their citizens, Venezuelans and Americans alike."
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/03/28/democracy_chavez_style.php
I'm still far from convinced that Venezuala qualifies today as "deomcracy", though neither am I convinced that it's a tyranny.
If it is a democracy, and its representatives decide to wage war on a US democratic ally (or to enslave part of its population, for example), US support for democracy does mandate that it support such a move.
Venezuela certainly qualifies as a "democracy" regardless of whether it has a free market economy or not.
And your second statement is ridiculous. You're just making up shit to defend the indefensible.
Nadir: I have not read enough about Venezuela to assess the case made against conidering it a democracy. But I have developed the impression that this case is independant of the lack there of a free market.
On that second point, I'm inventing nothing, and I stand behind my point. Advocacy of democracy does not mandate support for all actions of all democracies. Many supporters of democracy opppose the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, including Pat Buchannon, Tucker Carlson, and other right wingers. It is instead illogical for you or anyone to declare that a supporter of democracy is bound to support all actions of every democracy.
There certainly is no need to support ALL actions of any country or individual, but the US is hypocritical in its support of totalitarian non-democratic regimes like Pakistan, Israel and Egypt while it seeks to destabilize democratic nations like Haiti and Venezuela.
Though Israel is involved in a racist and totalitarian conflict on its soil, Venezuela is guilty only of trying to improve living conditions for its citizens. The fact that they choose an economic route counter to US interests is no real reason for the US to cease weapons sales.
The fact is, the US is worried that it may face its own weapons technology if it has to invade Venezuela at some point to steal its oil, as it has invaded Iraq for the same purpose.
Nadir, you're making quite a few claims here. I oppose you catagorizing Isreal as totalitarian; it certainly is not, if you simply look up that word. As far as it being democratic, look up that word as well, and you must agree that Isreal comes very close. Its few anti-democratic strictures exist only because of the constant state of sieze that surrounds the nation, consisting of millions of people devoted to destroying it. All democracies in war have some anti-democratic strictures. If the people around Isreal would be as accepting of it as they are of, say, true totalitarianism in Saudi Arabia and most other Arab and Muslim nations, there is no reason to think that Isreal would not become even more democratic. Go run through the streets shouting that Moses's mom was a whore, and you will find that your life is in no danger, and no state official will apprehend you. Please rethink your understanding of the word "totalitarianism".
I can find no evidence that the US attempted to destabilize Haiti (when was it stable, anyway?) or Venezuela. I suppose I wish that the US military personel had let the Haitian military coup brutes kill the currupt democrat-turned-thug president that they rescued. But then you would say that they staged his execution. The US is all-powerful and all-evil, and controls all world events, I know. (But somehow can't manage to plant banned weapons in Iraq, or stage some more domestic terror hits to drum up support for Bush. Why's that?)
We will see how Chavez's socialistic petro policies will work! Yes, it will harm US citizens, but it will surely harm Venezuela's citizens even more. Was the US really selling enough sophisticated weapons to Venezuela to make a difference when it invades? And I urge to read the raw economic and military musings of the evil neocons and free marketeers. They consider invading and stealing to be horrible mechanisms for increasing wealth. Only in the imaginations of leftists to modern capatilists perform such mechanations.
In George Bush's dreams Iraqi oil does not flow past starving Iraqis lying in a UNICEF refugee camp to US tankers. Instead, it flows past a thriving population of petro stockholders driving SUVs to thier houses fom Home Depot, where they will get on their Dell computers and order Mission Impossible: 7 from netflix while eating PopTarts and drinking Miller beer and then getting around to installing their new lawn sprinkler heads.
Nadir, you're making quite a few claims here. I oppose you catagorizing Isreal as totalitarian; it certainly is not, if you simply look up that word. As far as it being democratic, look up that word as well, and you must agree that Isreal comes very close. Its few anti-democratic strictures exist only because of the constant state of sieze that surrounds the nation, consisting of millions of people devoted to destroying it. All democracies in war have some anti-democratic strictures. If the people around Isreal would be as accepting of it as they are of, say, true totalitarianism in Saudi Arabia and most other Arab and Muslim nations, there is no reason to think that Isreal would not become even more democratic. Go run through the streets shouting that Moses's mom was a whore, and you will find that your life is in no danger, and no state official will apprehend you. Please rethink your understanding of the word "totalitarianism".
I can find no evidence that the US attempted to destabilize Haiti (when was it stable, anyway?) or Venezuela. I suppose I wish that the US military personel had let the Haitian military coup brutes kill the currupt democrat-turned-thug president that they rescued. But then you would say that they staged his execution. The US is all-powerful and all-evil, and controls all world events, I know. (But somehow can't manage to plant banned weapons in Iraq, or stage some more domestic terror hits to drum up support for Bush. Why's that?)
We will see how Chavez's socialistic petro policies will work! Yes, it will harm US citizens, but it will surely harm Venezuela's citizens even more. Was the US really selling enough sophisticated weapons to Venezuela to make a difference when it invades? And I urge to read the raw economic and military musings of the evil neocons and free marketeers. They consider invading and stealing to be horrible mechanisms for increasing wealth. Only in the imaginations of leftists to modern capatilists perform such mechanations.
In George Bush's dreams Iraqi oil does not flow past starving Iraqis lying in a UNICEF refugee camp to US tankers. Instead, it flows past a thriving population of petro stockholders driving SUVs to thier houses fom Home Depot, where they will get on their Dell computers and order Mission Impossible: 7 from netflix while eating PopTarts and drinking Miller beer and then getting around to installing their new lawn sprinkler heads.
Post a Comment