Venezuela, Chavez, Castro and a revolution

[OkieMan]

Tied to what you guys are talking about concerning FARC and Colombia; I read an article in this Sunday's paper about how Castro and Chavez are like minded "good friends".  I guess on Valentine's Day, you might call them "sweethearts".  I would call them partners in crime.  I cannot for the life of me figure how that little cigar chomping maniac has ruled Cuba for almost 50 years! I wish some well trained mercenary would bump off both of those creeps.  Chavez is really screwing up a beautiful country like Venezuela.  Well, now I will get off my soapbox.

                                     OkieMan

[Heat]

... in response to Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and a revolu..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

N/T

[OkieMan]

... in response to Blame America first crowd..., posted by Heat on Feb 15, 2005

Heat,
I assume you are referring to Castro and Chavez. Maybe we will get lucky someday and they will croak!

                              OkieMan

[Malandro]

... in response to Re: Blame America first crowd..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 15, 2005

the ones that have killed dozens of people in Venezuela and Colombia.  He said global warming was the cause of all the rain and chided the US for not signing the Kyoto treaty.  As if that would have prevented the floods.

Perhaps instead of buying MiGs and AK-47s from Russia he could use that money to move the people outside of the flood plain.  but why practice foresight when you can just blame the US for everything?

[kented]

... in response to Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and a revolu..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

We didn't like Allende in Chile and the CIA had him assassinated in 1973.  We got Pinochet and look at what he did.  Twenty years of atrocities and human rights abuses for which he is finally being held accountable (on his death bed).  

There are lots of horrible countries in the world and us imposing our will on them does not benefit them in most cases.  

The commonality of Castro and Chavez is they share the same political point of view but Castro came to power by force and holds power by force and Chavez was freely elected.  He also recently won a reelction.

Venezuela was a poor third world country when Chavez came to power nad it is still a poor third world country.  

The US holds all the cards economically.   When I lived in Costa Rica the US under secretary of commerce (or some under secretary of something relating to international commerce) came to CR and told them that if they wanted favorable trade relations with the US (inclusion in the free trade agreement) they needed to open their telecommunications and insurance industries up to US companies.  CR said OK but they wanted the US goverrnment to stop subsudizing US farmers which gave them a natural advantage over foreign agricultural products which did not have the benefit of subsudies.  Even though this would have saved US taxpayers billions and been doing the same thing the US was asking CR to do (open domestic markets to international competition) the US declined.  The choice for CR was take it or leave it and they had no choice but to allow the US to determine their domestic policy.

All of LA if full of dictatorships and despotic regimes and their history shows this is  common there.  We choose to attack Iraq which doesn't have weapons of mass destruction while Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons.  The US has such incredible power economically that it should be very reluctant to resort to force.  Unless I am mistaken neither Venezuela nor Cuba has a nuclear program.

[doombug]

... in response to Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and a re..., posted by kented on Feb 14, 2005

You hear those same arguments from the left all of time, blaming the U.S. for the world's problems; for meddling, interfering, suffocating other cultures, toppling elected leaders, and whine, and whine.  It's become a cliche to say that it's cliche.

If a dictator, or "leader," of one of these countries shows a pattern of disdain for our country, and collaborates with enemies of our country, how are the PEOPLE of that country being properly represented?  How are the people of OUR country being served--or saved?  Why would they care if the U.S. toppled their unelected leader.  Even "SoDamn Insane" (Sadam Hussein) was popularly elected, though the elections were perpetually fixed, and everyone knew it.  

A particularly clear pattern that I've seen among the oppressed immigrants--immigrants from Cuba, Vietnam, the Kurdistan areas, the former Soviet republics, etc.--is that once they attain citizenship, they lean heavily towards the Republican party upon first registering to vote. [In reviewing their voter cards for completion, it aint hard to see such patterns.]  Not for the domestic reasons that a U.S. citizen would, but because they view the Republican party as one opposed to dictators/communism/oppression/etc.  I'm centrist, so lay off the pro-one way or the other.  I'm uncomfortable with  certain aspects of our past and present presidents--regardless of party-- and if you're fair, you should be too.

I posted a week ago about a Kurdish girl who now lives in Germany, and how she was very thankful for the U.S. presence in the Kurdish areas.  At their dinner table, here is how she describes her father's affection for the U.S:  

"My parents fighters for the Kurds and Iraqi regime was searching for them they tried to kill my dad more than 20 times. So you can’t even imagine how much my dad love America and Bush, In our tradition is normal then when you finished with your eat you say thank you god… My dad always says THANK YOU MR BUSH he is so funny."

She has written me about her parents who were Peshmerga guerillas, about her life in a Germany that despises the U.S., about how she has no desire to return to Iraq (after having experienced life in the West).

About that German sentiment, she says:  

"The problem is in Germany every one demonstrated against this Iraq war they said no to the war it is wrong. But why they didn’t demonstrated at 1988, 16 [of] March, in just one day the Iraqi regime killed 5000 thousands Kurdish people in Halabja. That was a crime too. They hate the American way of life that is all."

And about returning to Iraq (or, Kurdistan) one day:

"They [her parents] want to go back one day and especially my dad but me noooo I don’t want to live there. I want to live in Europe or the USA. You know in Iraq people don’t know anything about emanizipation or women rights. They need more time to learn those things. You know in Germany I always talk about America and that people aren’t bad people they just cant not understand that things they don’t know the facts yes they are every where."

Even in my wife's native country, Peru, you will find a little necessary U.S. dispute brokerage in their history books.  Had the U.S. not intervened during the War of the Pacific (1879-1883) between Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, any or all of those countries could have affectively been merged under the banner of Chile today.

An excellent book you might want to get your hands on is titled "An End to Evil:  How to Win the War on Terror."  It's co-written by former Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, and highlights how half-hearted attempts at maintaining borders, toppling dictators, and profiling potential terrorists has allowed the militants to strike us first.  For those who sympathize with these simple little dictators--who do no harm to us, and for whom toppling would only taint our image--imagine the ENTIRE world living under the following umbrella:

"In the Arab heartland of Islam, the intellectual lights are dimming before our eyes.  Despite its colossal oil wealth and the lavishly funded universities in the Persian Gulf, the Arab world produces virtually zero scientific papers and patents.  A 2002 United Nations report on the condition of the Arab world observed that the nations that constitute the Arab League, total population more than three hundred million, annually translate about 330 books, one-fifth the number translated by Greece, population less than eleven million.  But, then the education system does not exactly stimulate demand for foreign books or ideas:  One-third of the students at Saudi universities are enrolled in Islamic studies."    

And, even more emphatically and to the point:

"Take a vast area of the earth's surface, inhabited by people who remember a great history.  Enrich them enough that they can afford satellite television and Internet connections, so that they can see what life is like across the Mediterranean or across the Atlantic.  Then sentence them to live in choking, miserable, polluted cities ruled by corrupt, incompetent officials.  Entangle them in regulations and controls so that nobody can ever make much of a living except by paying off some crooked official.  Subordinate them to elites who have suddenly become incalculably wealthy from shady dealings involving petroleum resources that supposedly belong to all.  Tax them for the benefit of governments that provide nothing in return except military establishments that lose every war they fight:  not roads, not clinics, not clean water, not street lighting.  Reduce their living standards year after year for two decades.  Deny them any forum or institution--not a parliament, not even a city council--where they may freely discuss their grievances.  Kill, jail, corrupt, or drive into exile every political figure, artist, or intellectual who could articulate a modern alternative to bureaucratic tyranny.  Neglect, close, or simply fail to create an effective school system--so that the minds of the next generation are formed entirely by clerics whose own minds contain nothing but medieval theology and a smattering of third world nationalist self-pity.  Combine all this, and what else would one expect to create but an enraged populace ready to transmute every frustration in its frustrating daily life into a fanatical hatred of everything "un-Islamic."

That is what sitting passively by has brought us in the 21st century.  Though, the Brits should have been doing most of the dictator toppling long before us.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many of our allies in Europe hate us not because of our culture or "unilateralism," but because we have the ability and gall to bring freedom to the oppressed people of the world.  Even Rumsfeld's "Old Europe...New Europe" echos this:  The still freshly-liberated Ukranians and Poles in Iraq, and not France and Germany?  

In any case, it's easy for "some of us" to forget how easy we have it--so simple to preach how the U.S. is such a bully--while "some of us" are comfortably tucked in risk-proof sofas, surrounded by downy pillows, with a warm mug of mocha within easy reach.

Peace out!

[kented]

... in response to Painfully long.  You've been warned, posted by doombug on Feb 15, 2005

Did or didn't the CIA assassinate Allende?  Do you really take pride in this as one of our country's greatest moment?

I don't blame the US for anyone else's problems.  Our government at times does things which create hatred for the US throughout the world and do very little to further our national interest.

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Painfully long.  You've been warned, posted by kented on Feb 15, 2005

No, the CIA didn't.  Though, Nixon did want the CIA to play a role in Allende's downfall because of his marxist bent.  This was still the era of the Cold War, by the way.

The declassified documents are available if you do a Google search.

[Payton]

... in response to Re: Painfully long.  You've been warned, posted by kented on Feb 15, 2005

The CIA did not pull the trigger.  What must be understood about the US involvement in Allende's Chile was to first try to get the "congress" of Chile not to sanction the election since Allende only had like 37% of the vote.  That was the most but not a majority.  When the Chilean Congress told the U.S that they will not make a mockery of thier election process the U.S began to Sell Copper so cheap that Chile could not see their copper.  The CIA was involved in helping start the strike of the truckers and other major groups that Chile needed to thrive economically.  By the time that the Armed Forces of Chile over threw Allende, the country was ungoverneable and so the thought was that there was going to be a standard latin american coup where they over throw the government and in a few years hold an election to turn the power back over to the people.  There was an investigation done on the Allende death and they ballistics and forensics speacialists determined that Allende shot him self.  What went on inside the presidnetial palace to make him shoot himself We will never know.  I believe that he was given an option of death or soemthing that he felt was not favorable.  

You have to admit though Allende's ideas were in the best interest of the country, Free milk for pregnant mothers and thier children.  He wanted to get Chile's copper mines back in Chilean hands so that they could export the products and get the money.  I think the only problem with communism is that there is no man fit to run the system because absolute power corrupts absolutly.  Just like in a democracy ww can see that not all elections are valid and fair.  There really is no perfect way to rule we are humans and greed and selfishness usually are the underlying motives of actions!

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: Re: Painfully long.  You've been war..., posted by Payton on Feb 15, 2005

First of all Allende was not a communist, nor Chavez is.

A large scale reform of society requires great leadership; otherwise, the chaos ensues.  I would even say that a large scale reform is usually doomed unless a dictatorship is instituted.  If not, the opposition which stands to lose everything, will do all it can to destabilize the country (Venezuela is a good example).

Communists claim that if people lose freedom of free enterprise and criticize the government, the state will provide stability with dignified living conditions for everyone, free social services, low crime.  And frankly they almost always deliver that.  However, many other countries reach these minimal standards without the sacrifices that communists ask for.  Japan, which lacks resources and was devastated following WWII, has the best healthcare and education systems, low unemployment, social protection, virtually no crime, examplary stability, and many other things, while retaining democracy and high level of life - with no communists in sight.

Communists correctly identify problems; their solutions have been proven not effective in the long run.

[Payton]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Painfully long.  You've been..., posted by thunderbolt on Feb 15, 2005

You're right Allende ran under the Socialist party but he in order to win the election agreed to put a certain number of communists in his cabinet!  What you fail to mention about Japan is that they have a negative birth rate which means they will eventually be gone anyway!  Every Nation and every political ideology has its problems. Like I said we are human we make mistakes!

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Painfully long.  You've ..., posted by Payton on Feb 16, 2005

Yes, he did have a coalition government with the communist party, but they did not have a majority.  Plus communist parties differ.  In fact, communist party ruled Italy in mid '90s, and noone even noticed.

Japan does have a negative birth rate, as many other 'developed' countries do.  When people begin to value material wealth and career more than having a normal family this phenomenon starts to happen.  

I did not say that Japan was perfect in every single respect; I just said that they resolved issues that the communists claim to be good at resolving, while avoiding all the negatives of communist rule.

And yes, all humans make mistakes.

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Painfully long.  You've been..., posted by thunderbolt on Feb 15, 2005

Well, in actual fact, there has been no "pure" Communist state.  I think that they are operating from a flawed concept anyhow.  For one, everyone does not have the same energy, drive and ambition, but under so called communism, everyone gets the same piece of the pie.  Naturally, that is never going to happen.  If you believe that, then call up Castro and ask him to share his wealth.  I think you know the response.  Karl Marx and his kind were very flawed in their thinking and fed off the "class envy" concept.  I can't blame them though, to some extent; the ruling classes that they overthrew were very selfish too.  The Romanoffs, and most other European monarchs of that era, and earlier, did not care what happened to the peasants in their country.  So, the peasants were easily stirred up by Lenin and company.  Naturally, the poor slobs never did realize their dream.  They just saw their country turned into a paranoid and crazy upside world.  Unfortunately, they believed the "BIG LIE".

                                OkieMan

[Payton]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Painfully long.  You've ..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 15, 2005

Good post!

A question for you though,  After as bloody as the Revolution was in Russia would you not be paranoid?  

Oh yeah and after Lenin dies shortly after Stalin takes power!  That system never had a chance!

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Painfully long.  You..., posted by Payton on Feb 16, 2005

Payton,
Very good points.  But, the paranoia I was referring to endured throughout the "Cold War" as well.  For all I know, the people ove there might still be feeling the effects of that.  Look what happened in the recent election in the Ukraine.  Someone tried to poison Yuchencko (probably not spelled correctly).  It was a miracle he didn't die.  But, at any rate, Putin doesn't seem to be very interested in having true democracy.  He's just got a newer version of an old game -- fear, intimidation, murder, blackmail.  You know, all the things that makes us all warm and fuzzy!

                           OkieMan