[redmenace]

Honestly, I don't know why, other than shear parranoya, that Chavez would be so chummy with Iran. This is also a continuation of my other thread, that I can't find now, 'beady eyes socialists'.

[Mefustae]

Why exactly do we not like Chavez? Other than showing his big brass ones in constantly and repeatedly flipping America the bird, what exactly is so devilish about the jolly bastard?

[Fury]

I don't find it disturbing because I don't even know this Chavez fella.

[redmenace]

I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist. I DO NOT have a problem with Chavez flipping the US the bird and out right attempting to constantly embaressing the US as well, while crying that he expects an invasion.

What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.

[Mefustae]

What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.

Ah, I get it. You dislike Chavez because his nation is forming diplomatic ties with the "black sheep" of the world - Iran, North Korea, etc. - where he could quite possibly influence future dimplomatic decisions of said nations for the better.

I take it you would instead advocate completely and forcefully isolating nations with unfriendly leadership from the rest of the world until they implode from internal pressure?

[redmenace]

I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.[Please show me solid evidence to the contrary] But then hey, he and his country are free to make WHATEVER diplomatic decisions they so desire.

Oh I love your ability to twist words around.

[Mefustae]

I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.

I don't quite understand. Could you elaborate?

Oh I love your ability to twist words around.

Yep, i've been practicing. Thanks for noticing.

[Kazan]

I doubt he is making alliance with black sheep for reasons other than paranoya.

do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?

and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears.  Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.  This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one.  Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.

[Mefustae]

do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?

and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears.  Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.  This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one.  Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.

I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist.

Let's not start a flamewar here, eh? Can't we keep it to friendly sniping?

[redmenace]

do you have any basis for that statement beyond the conditioned response administration mouthpieces have tried (and succeeded) in instilling in you?

and what the **** is it your business that they're socialist? you don't seem to understand the concept of that economics system it appears.  Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.  This is not neccesarily good or bad - but just like capitalism it can be either one.  Remove your cranium from your anus about differen economic systems and stop acting like people who aren't anarcho-capitalists are mass murdering pyschopaths.

I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist.

Let's not start a flamewar here, eh? Can't we keep it to friendly sniping?

Thank you.

And in regards to mouthpiece nonsense, these are my own thoughts on the matter. Besides I don't recall the Bush Administration or Fox News or anyone going around saying stuff about Chavez. Not that I watch, fox news or listen to the bush administraction, But I don't. So unless they are brainwashing me while I play BF2, in which case I wonder why Ford Prefect is not affected, these are my own thoughts on the matter.

Back on subject though, I think Chavez is mostly ignored, lol.[which honestly, pisses Chavez off IMO] I think sometimes he wants to provoke a response out of the US, which is only a suspicion. But, I am only stating that I think he is making a mistake.

The only reason that I was saying the 'beady eyed socialist' was that I wanted to continue that thread but couldn't find it via search.

[Rictor]

I DO NOT have a problem with his being a socialist. I DO NOT have a problem with Chavez flipping the US the bird and out right attempting to constantly embaressing the US as well, while crying that he expects an invasion.

What I do find disturbing is the fact that he is trying to create some sort of alliance of developing nations, some of which are quacks, ala Iran and North Korea [especially NK as the main reason it is a total sespit is its own doing]. The the problem with the enemy of my enemy is that you can get burned in the process.

Well, if Country A, B and C are all under attack (political, economic, rhetorical etc) by Uncle Sam, wouldn't it be logical for them to form some sort of loose alliance? Safety in numbers and all that. Besides, I think Chavez buddying up to Syria and North Korea is more for show, they don't really have a lot to offer in return, and that his partnerships with the likes of India, China and Brazil are more concrete, real alliances.

[redmenace]

And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable. Now the war in Iraq is not at all defendable. But even these alliances for "show" are risky. Not just for how the US sees them,  but the rest of the world.

[Rictor]

Well, I think you have to think about whether this is an anti-American alliance, if indeed an alliance exists and is not merely sensationalism by the media, or a pro-themselves alliance. Here's the way I see it. Venezeula, Syria and Iran (not NK, they're ****ing crazy) can't be said to be anti-American, because they're not out to "get" America. They're not the ones who attacked New York, they're not assassinating leaders and financing seperatists or waging economic warfare or anything like that. These nations only oppose US influence in their region, which is a completely legitimate stance. As far as I'm concerned, the US shouldn''t have any influence in the Middle-East or Latin America to begin with, and efforts to dictate to these places how things should go are bull****. If America pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy, as all nations should, it's very likely that the grievances these guys have would disappear and they wouldn't be able to rally popular support.

I have particular beef when poeople say that for example Iran is anti-American. Projecting US power, or any country's power, across the world is not a right, and when someone calls you on it he's not attacking America, he's attacking the idea of America is a the world's judge, jury and executioner.

[redmenace]

I am not all gun ho about mind your borders and we will mind ours, but the US has been misusing its power for years. That is not a democrat or republican issue, it is a foreign policy issue. I would disagree and say that Iran and Syria is moderatly whack and but do have a right to be pissed off and defensive. But mainly, I am most concerned about Iran's leader. But aside from that, having their conference in NK is insane and stupid.

[Prophet]

I'm on the same page with Rictor. Any doings they have with NK is solely to royally piss off the States. That's what I'd do, and laugh my self to sleep every night. And what the hell does a small country in middle east have to fear from small country in east-asia? At worst the crazy ass four-eyes gets pissed too, and then one would end up laughing all night long.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more countries giving US the finger. Now's the time for that since they are barely keeping all their illegally invaded territories in order. Not to mention their own backyard. Now's also time for Europe to pull its **** together and start acting like they got a pair. No wait, that's not going to happen. Forget it.

[Janos]

I don't find it disturbing because I don't even know this Chavez fella.

He is pretty normal democratically elected leftist populist. Slightly questionable one, since he has media in pretty iron grasp and there are cries about election fraud, so pretty normal autocrat. Amnesty lists stuff that's not nice but pretty standard - threats, assasination attempts, so on. Asshole, but minor asshole.

What's funnier is that US rightists are completely pissed off about him - guess Chavez's rhetorics attract rightists like rotten meat attracts flies - and constantly drum up about how dangerous he is. I don't really know why, maybe because Venezuela's silly antics have an impact of oil prices because they produce that stuff. Or maybe some people just need an external enemy, no matter how laughable - China is out of question, Russia is passé, Iraq and Afghanistan are done, terrism war is a failure, Iran is too big to swallow right now, NK is scary and does not only threat US but Japan and ROK too. So let's hate some South American populist instead!

Ahmadinejad is pretty lol too, but he is in more dire situation where stakes are higher. I don't know how seriously one should take his rhetorics - propably not very, because cleric councils have all the power in Iran and don't want to lose that precious power.

Those two are cuddling up because they don't like USA and, after all, are in relatively similar strategic position and on the same side of the fence. Giving a finger to USA is pretty satisfying, as long as you're untouchable. And it scores easy points too! (USA is eeeevil, now I get hot semihippie chicks!)

[Janos]

And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable. Now the war in Iraq is not at all defendable. But even these alliances for "show" are risky. Not just for how the US sees them,  but the rest of the world.

Pretty much no one outside the USA really gives a **** about Chavez - the worst thing he can do to outside world right now is to ruin his own economy by ****ing with his own oil production. UN is trying to deal with Iran which is not exactly easy, geopolitical situation of the Middle East being what it is.

[redmenace]

This whole subject reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Help help I am being repressed."

[karajorma]

And I don't have a problem, with what you referred to as concrete alliances. I also will NOT dispute the actions in the past such as Panama and Grenada, although those are slightly defendable.

Grenada was a massive **** up from beginning to end. It's even less defensible than Iraq where at least you can fall back on the fact that Saddam is a complete bastard.

In Grenada you don't even have that. The only time the students were in any danger anyway was when the US opened fire on the building they were in.

[NGTM-1R]

What worries me is if NK decides to hand out thermonuclear weapons as party favors...rather like Israel did with South Africa and Taiwan back in the day.