Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on November 07, 2007, 05:34:09 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_protest
To remind people of the fact that prior to the coup, the opposition fired on their own anti-chavez march and it was covered across the world as chavez supporters firing on the opposition--until actual video of the event was released showing the opposite. This is a fact that is still little known. I'm wondering if this is from the same false flag bag of tricks.
-
Regardless, Chavez is a coward.
-
Uncle Hugo would never ever hurt anybody..he loves small children and dogs. ::)
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_protest
To remind people of the fact that prior to the coup, the opposition fired on their own anti-chavez march and it was covered across the world as chavez supporters firing on the opposition--until actual video of the event was released showing the opposite. This is a fact that is still little known. I'm wondering if this is from the same false flag bag of tricks.
Berserker, don't believe everything you hear or read. This is not a fact. Chavez supporters did fire on the opposition, not just then, but numerous other times. Chavez is no saint. He is a scum bag.
-
Regardless, Chavez is a coward.
I don't know much about him. Can you list 3 to 5 cowardly deeds he has done? thanks!
-
I don't know much about him. Can you list 3 to 5 cowardly deeds he has done? thanks!
Silencing media criticism of him, using force against people who don't support him.
-
Silencing media criticism of him, using force against people who don't support him.
haha almost every leader does that dude.
remember valerie plame getting outed?
i'm talking hardcore shit - why do we hate hugo so much? I know iran wants nukes, saddam was wmd, osama was 911. what reasons do we have to hate chavez?
or basicaly ---- what has he done to hurt america?
-
Well in regards to Chavez I could care less, he's not gonna effect my life anytime soon.
My original statement was just an assertion of his cowardice.
-
Feel free to completely refuse to watch these on the grounds that the films are leftist and therefore couldn't possibly contain a single fact worth examining... ::) been there done that... every single time... Forbid there be a guy that comes along and listens to both sides... the insanity ::)
The Revolution will not be Televised
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q
The War On Democracy by John Pilger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148
-
Well in regards to Chavez I could care less, he's not gonna effect my life anytime soon.
My original statement was just an assertion of his cowardice.
Okay. I know the world is full of cowards and assholes. I just want to know why. If I tell a friend that Hugo is a coward or bad for America, I want to know why. I dont want to be the guy who repeats it and doesn't know why.
Can anyone in here give us some examples of how Hugo has hurt America? thanks!
-
haha almost every leader does that dude.
remember valerie plame getting outed?
i'm talking hardcore shit - why do we hate hugo so much? I know iran wants nukes, saddam was wmd, osama was 911. what reasons do we have to hate chavez?
or basicaly ---- what has he done to hurt america?
The real truth is simple as shit... Nationalized oil... That's the same reason we went into Iran to overthrough a democratically elected leadership for a dictatorship and control of the oil... Mosaddeq moved to nationalized the oil. boom, cia comes in, fucks up everything...
-
The real truth is simple as shit... Nationalized oil... That's the same reason we went into Iran to overthrough a democratically elected leadership for a dictatorship and control of the oil... Mosaddeq moved to nationalized the oil. boom, cia comes in, fucks up everything...
we interfered with venezueala?
-
Chavez became a 'scumbag' approximately the same time he tried to nationalize his country's natural resources. Hitler revisited, I'm told.
-
we interfered with venezueala?
yes, absolutely. There is quite a bit to show a heavy American influence in Venezuelan affairs, coup attempt etc... but that post was on Iran. I pointed out the true beef with Venezuela, Chavez nationalizing the oil and cutting out big oil companies. We don't give two shits if he's a dictator or tryant, as long as the oil is not nationalized. Look how many other countries we have been cozy with as long as this is so.
-
Chavez became a 'scumbag' approximately the same time he tried to nationalize his country's natural resources. Hitler revisited, I'm told.
so our oil companies hate it when countries nationalize?
what countries are nationalized? Which are not?
if we're simply labeling countries as "bad" - and starting wars or interfering with their affairs - because they handle their own resource how they want to- that's pretty messed up.
-
so our oil companies hate it when countries nationalize?
what countries are nationalized? Which are not?
if we're simply labeling countries as "bad" - and starting wars or interfering with their affairs - because they handle their own resource how they want to- that's pretty messed up.
That pretty much sums it up... when big oil is cut out along with other privatized resources, with some exceptions, count on an aggressive campaign to be made against that State by the US.
-
Blood, Oil, and Sand: The Hidden History of America's War on Iraq
by Cliff Pearson
August 13, 2002 / Reading Between the Lyin's
"In the 1920s, American and European oil companies discovered and exploited the first oil fields in the Middle East. Since Western Europe had no oil of its own, this discovery was of particular importance to them. But World War II changed everything.
Despite being victors in the war, both France and England were taxed severely by the World War II and began to lose control of their former colonies. Having taken advantage of the war, new leaders had come to power in the Middle East, deposing monarchies that had been set up by the Europeans, and which – because of the war – were no longer being protected by their former colonial masters.
But the big winner in World War II, the United States, became the real player in Middle Eastern oil politics over even the British and French. Despite its own oil resources, the U.S. saw the strategic importance of controlling the flow of Middle Eastern oil: to "contain" the Soviet Union, to rebuild Western Europe (according to their own agendas), and to boost their industries.
But America had hoped to cash in on the Middle Eastern oil bonanza of before World War II. But the new regimes in the Middle East saw it differently. The Middle Eastern nations recognized their potential to become economic world players through their wellspring of oil productivity. Many of them – much to the chagrin of London, Paris, and Washington – attempted to nationalize their oil reserves, only to have the West retaliate.
In 1953, Iran's President Mossadegh nationalized their oil reserves and kicked the British out of their country. The United States responded by having the CIA assist in a coup that re-established the Shah of Iran as ruler. The Shah was very pro-Western, and pro-privatized oil, and Iran remained a Western oil colony until the Khomeini-inspired student revolt in 1979.
In 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal – built by the Egyptian people yet controlled by the British – and declared it to be the property of the Egyptian people. Nasser's plan was to gain international economic staying power by not only beginning a plan to nationalize his country's oil reserves, but to control the very strategically-located canal. Britain, France and Israel immediately waged war on Egypt to take back control of the canal. As part of a peace deal in 1979, the Suez Canal became an international port.
General Abdel Karim Qassem, the ruler of Iraq, also attempted to nationalize his nation's oil. United States CIA Director Allen Dulles immediately and publicly declared General Qassem's actions to be "Communist," but also added that he didn't think the situation "was hopeless." Almost immediately after General Qassem moved to nationalize Iraq's oil, he was assassinated in a coup led by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.
"This coup came as a result of an oil deal between Iraq and a French company, IRAB," says Ahmed Al Bayati, London Representative of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution In Iraq. "This contract upset the West and the Americans in particular. So they encouraged a coup in Iraq at that time."
In 1972, according to former Iraqi oil minister Fadel Chalabi, a former Ba'ath Party member named Al Saadi spoke openly of having been trained for their successful coup by the CIA.
Also in 1972, OPEC, the international cartel of oil-producing nations, raised the price of crude oil from $3 per barrel to $22 per barrel in an effort to collectively profiteer off the West's dependence on their product. President Saddam Hussein reacted to this price-gouging opportunity by immediately nationalizing Iraq's oil fields. The United States reacted by branding Saddam Hussein "unreliable" and a "terrorist leader" and throwing their primary Middle Eastern support to Iran, led by the pro-Western Shah.
"For 25 years, from 1953, the Shah of Iran was the U.S. surrogate in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East region," says former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. "The U.S. sold him about $22 billion in arms from 1972 to 1976. The Shah was our man. The hope of control by the West of the Middle East jades in 1979 when the Shah is overthrown by anti-Western, fundamentalist leader Ayatollah Khomeini. By then, Saddam Hussein becomes again a viable card in Washington's hand. He becomes the actual president of Iraq after 11 years of being its acting vice president, and then perpetrates a sweeping purge of his opponents and attacks Iran – without provocation or apparent reason."
The Stockholm Peace Research Institute shows that, during the Iran-Iraq War, nations lined up to sell arms to both sides in the conflict. According to their online database, 52 nations sold to either Iran or Iraq and 29 countries supplied arms to both sides.
David Welch, former Iraq Program Director for the U.S. State Department, admits that the United States sold some arms to Iraq during the war but insists that it was very little, citing an international "arms embargo" on both countries that made such sales illegal in most cases.
In truth, however, a Congressional investigation found in 1992 that the CIA and the State Department were very much aware that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons, made by and bought from American companies, against Kurdish civilians and Irani soldiers.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Ramsey Clark reports that, from as early as 1972, the CIA and State Department had been monitoring Saddam Hussein's ambitious determination to acquire "non-conventional weapons of mass destruction." Documents obtained by Congress show that in the 80s, during the height of the Iran-Iraq War, the United States knew that a $1.7 billion "agricultural aid" package to Iraq was actually being used by Saddam Hussein to purchase helicopters, trucks, pesticides – and even anthrax. (One document shows the purchase from the United States of "bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240) Batch #05-14-63 (3 each) Class III pathogen).
Immediately Congressional leaders began questioning these practices. But, according to Clark, the U.S. State Department and CIA, under former presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr., began to systematically quell all Congressional inquiries about U.S. support for Iraq's military build-up, and eventually the inquiries faded away.
As a result of Saddam Hussein's unprovoked war with Iran and massive arms purchases, by the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988, Saddam Hussein had managed to ruin Iraq's economy and place them about $40 billion in debt.
Because of this debt, Iraq was desperate to nationalize their oil fields so they could profiteer off their oil productivity and help offset their war-related economic woes.
"OPEC keeps the price of oil stable by limiting how much oil each OPEC member-country can produce," says Siu Hin Lee, an international oil market analyst. "In 1989, after the end of the Iraq/Iran war, Kuwait suddenly exceeded its quotas by 20 percent, driving the price of oil down on the world market. As a result of Kuwait's production hike, Iraq lost almost a third of its oil income. And this was at a time when Iraq was desperate for money."
Kuwait – a major source of oil to the West – is an artificially created country, set up by the British Empire during the "Mandates Period," and carved out of the southern tip of Iraq. The creation of Kuwait by the British took Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf away from them and set up a British-picked royal family, or "emirate," that was friendly to the West, as the rulers. The territory had been in dispute by Iraq for nearly a century. But when Kuwait's newfound wealth added to Iraq's already miserable economic woes, many Iraqi government leaders suddenly "remembered" that Kuwait was theirs, and Saddam Hussein decided it was time to re-annex Kuwait.
As late as six days before Iraq's invasion of Iraq, the U.S. State Department was assuring Saddam Hussein that the United States had "no security agreement with Kuwait." Taking his cue, in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, convinced that the United States would not react. But in reality, the Pentagon was more than ready to react.
"We went ahead and did an exercise, what is called a command post exercise, which is what Internal Look was, to test our ability to deal with this particular scenario, and also to uncover any command and control problem that might exist, any doctrine problem that might exist between the Air Force, the Navy and the armed forces," says former Gulf War Commander-in-Chief General Norman Schwarzkopf. "And it just so happened that we were in the middle of conducting the Internal Look command post exercise at the same time when the crisis developed in the Gulf."
Within hours after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iraq, the United States had managed to freeze all of Iraq's assets and the U.S. Navy had started a blockade of the Persian Gulf – before the United Nations even had a chance to convene to discuss the crisis.
Within days of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense officials were in Riyadh meeting with Saudi Arabian officials in an attempt to convince them that Iraq was determined to invade Saudi Arabia. U.S. representatives argued that Iraq posed a grave threat to Saudi Arabia and that the United States must be allowed to deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Saudi Arabia to help protect the Saudis. As part of this attempt at persuasion, the American officials showed the Saudis military satellite photos of a massive build-up of Iraqi troops in Kuwait, apparently poised to invade Saudi Arabia at any moment.
cont... http://progressiveaustin.org/pearson1.htm
-
Chavez
(http://www.nndb.com/people/992/000025917/amin-color.jpg)
-
Chavez
(http://www.nndb.com/people/992/000025917/amin-color.jpg)
That's not Hugo Chavez. ::)
-
That's not Hugo Chavez. ::)
Right. That's Idi Amin Dada. Chavez is no different. You get my point. ;D
-
Right. That's Idi Amin Dada. Chavez is no different. You get my point. ;D
I can see where you draw your comparison, they've both killed half a million or more people... oh wait ::) Sorry, your point is loco... :)
-
loco,
what has chavez ever done to hurt Americans? please share your list.
-
loco,
what has chavez ever done to hurt Americans? please share your list.
Americans? I don't know. Ask an American.
I can tell you he has hurt, and he is hurting Venezuelans.
-
I can see where you draw your comparison, they've both killed half a million or more people... oh wait ::) Sorry, your point is loco... :)
Not yet, but that's not what I'm talking about. I have seen footage of Amin giving speeches, and when I see Chavez giving a speech on TV, they both sound the same. I know somebody very close to me who recently escaped Cuba. He says Chavez and Castro sound just the same.
Berserker, the bad thing is the other side in Venezuela is just as bad. They are both corrupt. I see no hope for Venezuela. It's like we are cursed to continue our never ending cycle of going from a dictatorship to a democracy, then back to a dictatorship. People are just too corrupt. If we can't rule ourselves, our own lives, then somebody else will rule over us and run our lives.
-
Americans? I don't know. Ask an American.
I can tell you he has hurt, and he is hurting Venezuelans.
LOL... so we hate him so bad, cause he's rough on his people?
Dude, most leaders treat their people like shit. Is that it? He has violated their free speech rights and killed a few? Come on. In other countries we see genocide.
Is that really why we hate him, loco? Cause he hurts his own people? When have we ever given a shit about that in the past?
-
and for that matter loco -
why doesn't the media talk about Darfur's leaders all the time, where millions have been slaughtered?
I've never heard their leader's name once. You'd think in a place where millions more are killed, that leader would be WAY more evil, and talked about way more?
This doesn't pass the smell test, loco, if we only hate him cause he oppresses his own people. What is the real reason? how has he affected US in ANY way?
-
LOL... so we hate him so bad, cause he's rough on his people?
Dude, most leaders treat their people like shit. Is that it? He has violated their free speech rights and killed a few? Come on. In other countries we see genocide.
Is that really why we hate him, loco? Cause he hurts his own people? When have we ever given a shit about that in the past?
Who is we? The US? Are you an American? Then I ask you, why do you hate him? I don't hate him. I don't hate anybody. I don't want him dead. I'm just speaking the truth. He is a corrupt, Castro wannabe. Chavez is turning Venezuela's economy into a personal bank account. If he is so concerned about the poor, why is he spending the country's money on weapons?
And on the video Berserker posted, even the British narrator admits that Chavez has denied his people rights and liberties, then the British guy goes on to justify it by saying "But Chavez says it's only temporary in order to accelerate reform." ::)
-
...
And on the video Berserker posted, even the British narrator admits that Chavez has denied his people rights and liberties, then the British guy goes on to justify it by saying "But Chavez says it's only temporary in order to accelerate reform." ::)
That's the same sort of justification given by the Bush administration for violating our constitutional rights with the Patriot Acts: he does these things to protect us from terrorists. As soon as that infinite abstraction (terrorism) is gone, then so is the erosion of our rights. Right to Privacy, Freedom from arbitrary searches (not based on probable cause), etc.
-
That's the same sort of justification given by the Bush administration for violating our constitutional rights with the Patriot Acts: he does these things to protect us from terrorists. As soon as that infinite abstraction (terrorism) is gone, then so is the erosion of our rights. Right to Privacy, Freedom from arbitrary searches (not based on probable cause), etc.
Ron Paul for President in 2008! ;D
-
Americans? I don't know. Ask an American.
I can tell you he has hurt, and he is hurting Venezuelans.
epic bias... Please tell us where you get your information... Make your case against Hugo ::) Probably the media here which could be considered absolutely racist for it's inability to cover a single Hugo Chavez supporter. The media is a real piece of shit, they'll talk up a storm on a 10,000 anti Chavez march and completely let it slip their mind and forget to show you pro-Chavez marches that dwarf the other. They'll talk up a storm about killings of anti Chavez guys, but completely skip out on the killings that came from anti-Chavez guys. oops, they forgot to mention that, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional...BULLSHIT.. . In fact it has been shown (caught on tape from another angle) that the pro-Chavez gunmen caught on camera shooting into the anti Chavez march was pure fabrication... FROM THE OTHER ANGLE, it was shown that the pro-chavez guys were trying to take out the shooter!!!! They knew this!!! Yet they released it to the media with the bullshit angle and the world was told, Chavez is shooting into marches... Bla, come on.... Did the media show us all the dead pro-Chavez men in the streets when the anti-Chavez guys took control for a day? Nope, that's right, nowhere on American TV... The ONLY people you hear from are the ones out for his neck... No big shock so many think like you do under that kind of epic bullshit.
-
epic bias... Please tell us where you get your information... Make your case against Hugo ::) Probably the media here which could be considered absolutely racist for it's inability to cover a single Hugo Chavez supporter. The media is a real piece of shit, they'll talk up a storm on a 10,000 anti Chavez march and completely let it slip their mind and forget to show you pro-Chavez marches that dwarf the other. They'll talk up a storm about killings of anti Chavez guys, but completely skip out on the killings that came from anti-Chavez guys. oops, they forgot to mention that, but I'm sure it wasn't intentional...BULLSHIT.. . In fact it has been shown (caught on tape from another angle) that the pro-Chavez gunmen caught on camera shooting into the anti Chavez march was pure fabrication... FROM THE OTHER ANGLE, it was shown that the pro-chavez guys were trying to take out the shooter!!!! They knew this!!! Yet they released it to the media with the bullshit angle and the world was told, Chavez is shooting into marches... Bla, come on.... Did the media show us all the dead pro-Chavez men in the streets when the anti-Chavez guys took control for a day? Nope, that's right, nowhere on American TV... The ONLY people you hear from are the ones out for his neck... No big shock so many think like you do under that kind of epic bullshit.
I like you, Berserker, in a heterosexual kinda way. So I hope you don't take my posts as an attack. ;D
Everybody is bias. Chavez is no saint, but neither are his opponents. Even the British guy narrating the video is bias. So, Castro and Chavez say "f-you, USA! I will exploit our own poor just as you've done, but I will keep the nation's wealth to myself, and I will not share any of it with you any longer." And that makes them heroes? Sure, people love them because they have balls to stand up to the US, but they are still crooks who starve the poor.
It's very hard to tell who is telling the truth. Both sides tell some truths, and both sides tell lots of lies. But if anyone here thinks that things are so well in Cuba and in Venezuela, I challenge you to change your citizenship, move to one of those countries, get a job there, and live on a Cuban or Venezuelan salary. Then you'll be closer to the truth.
Berserker, the bad thing is the other side in Venezuela is just as bad. They are both corrupt. I see no hope for Venezuela. It's like we are cursed to continue our never ending cycle of going from a dictatorship to a democracy, then back to a dictatorship. People are just too corrupt. If we can't rule ourselves, our own lives, then somebody else will rule over us and run our lives.
And on the video Berserker posted, even the British narrator admits that Chavez has denied his people rights and liberties, then the British guy goes on to justify it by saying "But Chavez says it's only temporary in order to accelerate reform." ::)