Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

It's actually painfully easy to comprehend, IMO.

mbr + dv + woyg

by keirdubois (keir@mybandrocks.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 08:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I concede that for many people it IS painfully easy, but apparently not for everyone.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 09:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rather than seeing "good" or "bad" relationships between the US and any other country, I see a continuum from symbiotic to parasitic.

With so-called first-world economies, the US is largely willing to work out an even exchange of goods, and good-will. With everyone else, it's a matter of how much can the US take from them. Oh sure, there's the usual surface level "aid" and the much touted advantages of being able to get US dollars for "struggling" economies (stuggling for what? Resources needed at home but usually sold abroad? A perfect example of this is how flowers for the Northern hemisphere are grown in the Southern hemisphere, in place of food crops for local consumption and in Africa in particular using non-renewable water resources). The weak never get a fair deal from the strong. Ever.

If Chavez wants to take his ball and go elsewhere, I say more power to him. And he's gonna need it, because US "interests" (i.e. the Corptocracy) still trump any elected government in the Americas - including the one about to be sworn in.

by keres on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 11:57:03 PM EST

Re: Chavez: Speak to the Hand (4.00 / 3)

Maybe, Chavez is waiting for evidence or proof that the United States is entering a new phase of foreign policy. Like maybe when the US starts to give up some of its 750 military bases around the globe or begins to reduce the amount of money it spends on its military budgets. Or like maybe cuts back on military interventions in Afghanistan or Iraq or its military assistance to Israel.

And as for support of Chavez there is Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador. But, not Columbia, American anti drug aid is too an important part of its programs for it to support Venezuela.

I wonder what Obama will do about those toxic derivatives which are threatening the entire banking industry. Chavez may just have to wait patiently while the American Empire self destructs. It may be up to us to make the first move but, then, getting down to reality, isn't Venezuela one of our major oil suppliers?

Suppose you scrub your ethical skin until it shines, but inside there is no music, then what? Kabir

by Dongi 2 on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 05:42:37 AM EST

Obama has hardly offered any olive branches to Chavez. The American Foreign Policy Establishment is just as pathetically un-diverse on Latin America as it is on Israel/Palestine.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:12:09 AM EST

I am reminded of the problems that JFK had with his State Department. The permanent government, and the perpetual aristocracy, are always in place. Obama serves at their sufferance.

by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it depends on who is doing the reporting. OTOH, the door swings both ways:

Chavez was responding to Obama.

TIME
Latin America Looks for a Fresh Start With Obama
[.]
None other than Chavez said last month said "there are winds in favor of relations between the Venezuelan government and the new President of the U.S." Cuban President Raul Castro has said much the same.
[.]
Obama says he's willing to sit down and talk with Chavez and Castro -- but he's not a big fan of the Latin left's populism. In a speech last May in Miami, he did slam Bush's Americas policy as "negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in people's lives and incapable of advancing our interests in the region."
Yet he also suggested that "demagogues like Chavez have stepped into the vacuum. [Their] predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past."
Chavez responded to Obama's criticisms on Thursday: "Don't say Chavez is throwing stones," he said, "Obama already threw the first one."

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 03:30:14 PM EST

It's been a major disappointment to hear Obama and, even more regularly, Hillary Clinton go out of their way to slam Chavez and Castro. Neither is a threat to the US, but the Obama team seems to feel compelled to throw red meat to the "anti-communist" wingnuts.

It's hardly surprising that Chavez would respond in a less than friendly manner. I hope Obama gets over the kneejerking. It doesn't become him.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 03:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It should not come as any surprise, especially from Hillary.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 03:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's actually right, and this comment from Chavez helps to prove it. I don't mind Chavez's policies too much but he runs his mouth in a way that isn't helpful to anyone. And his form of populism and anti-Americanism is limited most by his inability to get along with anyone else in the hemisphere except a couple of leaders that share many of the same faults.

by BooMan on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 04:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chavez: Speak to the Hand (4.00 / 6)

I don't see how any American gets the nerve to criticize any foreign leader for "running his mouth" too much. After the last 8 years only the blindest fool wouldn't be anti-American. It isn't Chavez's job to make nice -- it's Obama's job to make the US worthy of respect again. His reflexive jingoism doesn't get us any nearer to that goal.

I have yet to see any evidence that Chavez (or the Castros, for that matter) have made life worse than it was before for their populations. As long as the US finds it expedient to kiss up to regimes like the ones in Colombia, Pakistan, China, and Egypt, harping on Chavez just escalates our reputation as the world's worst hypocrite.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

by DaveW on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 05:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you see the upside, I don't.

by BooMan on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 05:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chavez: Speak to the Hand (4.00 / 4)

I don't see an upside in America's behavior. The sad truth is even American liberals tend to favor Pinochetists as leaders of Latin America.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 08:02:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chavez: Speak to the Hand (4.00 / 6)

And his form of populism and anti-Americanism is limited most by his inability to get along with anyone else in the hemisphere except a couple of leaders that share many of the same faults.

Dream on BooMan.I'm disappointed to see you drinking American foreign policy kool aid. Travel the hemisphere and people on the street will ask what you're smoking. Take a trip to the NE.

Ha Chavez the demagogue. Yet we hear nothing of Mugabe who has no oil.

It's amusing to watch how Chavez is demonized, the same Chavez who save Americans in the north east and mid west from freezing to death. Ya know about the heating oil fuel discounts for the poor? Still going strong. Ask MA, NH, Maine, if Chavez is a demagogue.

Or the same Chavez who set up the Petro-Caribe initiative for ALL the Caribbean peoples -- huge oil discounts at 60% world price - those funds (the 60%) becomes a 25 year loan at 1% or can be converted for health, education and infrastructure needs. In 2004, with oil approaching $60 barrel he told Caribbean leaders oil would hit $100 in the not too distant horizon.

Funny how American foreign policy hit out at leaders who take care to educate, feed and heal the sick - those less fortunate. In Venezuela, you're either super rich or poor. U.S. foreign policy always side with the rich to take the resources. Why is that?

Study the concept of The Poverty of Affluence. That's what America sold the world to usher in this global financial meltdown. America's consumerism is over...and after those exported fraudulent toxic bonds so is America's influence.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 07:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, but pretty much every leader in South America thinks Chavez is an asshole. That doesn't mean they disagree with everything that he does, especially from a policy point of view. It just means that they don't like him.

by BooMan on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 09:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really??? (4.00 / 3)

Teh only ones in South America that don't like him, are Uribe and Alan Garcia.

On the other hand, Kirchner Fernandez, Bachalet, Morales, Lugo, Correa, Lula da Silva, and Tavare Vazquez get along just fine with Chavez.

So that leaves us with the three Guyanas.

Most of South American leaders might disagree whith Chavez with some things he says. But they do not think he is an ass hole. And, Chavez is really admired by the South American people, manily because he has the guts to say what no other president has the courage to say. Like calling Bush the devil and that he stinks to Sulfur.

by cruz del sur (nicodekoenigsberg@yahoo.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really??? (4.00 / 2)

the three Guyanas are beneficiaries of the Chavez Petro-Caribe Oil discounts.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 02:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just mentioned them because I don't relly hear much from them and did not want to say something that wasn't acurate. Even IF they thought Chavez was an ass, it still wouldn't add to "most South American leaders", and did not justify the research to validate my argument. Truth is most South American get along just fine with Chavez, and most of the people admire him. I guess what they like is that he is not an hypocrit and you always know were he stands. Plus they like when someone can stand up to a "sulfur stinking Devil" :0)

by cruz del sur (nicodekoenigsberg@yahoo.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 05:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really??? (none / 1)

Yes, really. And it isn't limited to South American leaders.

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) - The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to "shut up" Saturday during a heated exchange at a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal.
Chavez, who called President Bush the "devil" on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a "fascist."
Aznar, a conservative who was an ally of Bush as prime minister, "is a fascist," Chavez said in a speech at the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, Chile. "Fascists are not human. A snake is more human."
Spain's current socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, responded during his own allotted time by urging Chavez to be more diplomatic in his words and respect other leaders despite political differences.
"Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," he said, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.
Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, but his microphone was off.
Spanish King Juan Carlos, seated next to Zapatero, angrily turned to Chavez and said, "Why don't you shut up?"

Believe it or not, most people take such behavior to be assholish.

by BooMan on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 12:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really??? (4.00 / 2)

Well, you said South American. Aznar is not South American. If you meant Europeans, then I mikght agree with you. Maybe you could name and link some other South American (other than Alan Garcia and Uribe) that think or said that Chavez is an ass hole.

I do read spanish newspapers all the time, and I can't recall anyone saying anything close to Chavez being one.

by cruz del sur (nicodekoenigsberg@yahoo.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 03:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really??? (none / 1)

The spanish monarchy is hardly loved in Latin America. Particularly among "native americans!"

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 12:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's totally irrelevant. The comments of the Prime Minister were met with applause because normal recognize dickishness and applaud those that put dicks in their place.

by BooMan on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 03:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think he is in an area of the world where dickishness maybe necessary.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you need to have visited Venezuela before and after Chavez

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 02:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, he's a dangerous disappointment floated by oil money and a cult of personality. I love where he says is coming from, and I have patience for people who are trying hard, but he's winging it waaay too much to pretend he's creating a stable future for the people of his nation. Given all the time he wants, he'll just squander too much wealth along the way and back his country into one catastrophe or another. Accidently, but inevitably.

I do like it when he sings on his show. And fires people. That's funny stuff.

In the end, I don't think there's any point in meddling with other countries. I'd rather make our energy infrastructure nimble enough that a Venezuela could decide to stop export and it wouldn't be an existential threat.

I do think we just have to leave well enough alone and deal with other flavors of democracy a little better even as we look to reinvent our own.

I suppose his support for Columbian leftists is a bit onerous, but we've a few 'logs in our eye' on that front as well.

Declaring the bottom is the only way back up..

by anarchronarchist (mincers (-at-) hotmail (-dot-) com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 09:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well if Obama did want to create a more constructive relationship with Castro/Chavez, then Chavez isn't making it any easier for him. He should have known electoral considerations would have required Obama/Hilary to also take a "populist" stand on evil foreign dictators.

However the election and the time for megaphone diplomacy is over... It'll soon be time we judged people by their actions and not their rhetoric - which is more often than not a smokescreen for domestic consumption in any case...

It's time for motormouth to shut up....

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 04:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me if I have a problem with those that claim Chavez is a dictator whether said by Bush, Obama, or you.

He has won election and RE-ELECTION by larger margins than Bush or Obama, and in internationally monitored voting . He nationalized the oil wealth of his nation to benefit all the citizens of his country instead of just the rich and the greedy oil companies.

He may be belligerent towards the US but can he be blamed when the selected president of the US backs a coup to eliminate him.

by smkngman3 on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 01:47:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course all this dictatorship stuff is a far right trope - but Obama had no incentive to depart from it during the election. He would simply have been branded as a communist sympathiser for no net gain in voters. Now, however, it is time for concrete actions, and Chevez should have had the wit to shut up and let the real diplomats get to work. AFAIK Chavez isn't facing another election anytime soon - so he didn't have to play to his audience right now either.

I expect US relations with Cuba and Latin America to be "normalised" within a couple of years. That includes mutual respect, non interference in internal political affairs and mutually beneficial trade.

"We reported back to hearts what we had seen, and told our footsteps all about where we had been."

by Frank Schnittger (Frankschnittger at hotmail dotty communists) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 05:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two things can be true. Chavez is probably on to something about the empire thing, but why go out of your way to p*ss off the Prez before he's sworn in? Must be for home consumption.

by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 08:15:50 PM EST

Actually, I don't see that homefront angle to Chavez. If anything, given Venezuela's racial demographics of a heavy black population, I suspect Obama has a great reservoir of domestic goodwill.

by sleepy (imcotton1991@yahoo.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 09:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The empire thing is beyond doubt. Don't know about Chavez's motivation for speaking up now, though.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 09:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wasn't Chavez involved in suitcases full of money showing up in Argentina for their Prez? Or was it someone else?

by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course it's for domestic consumption. Belligerent assholes like Chavez need to have an enemy to point at and say "those guys want to hurt us - keep me in power and I can keep us safe." It's the same play book that the Iranian power structure uses (with the US as the enemy) and the same play book that the US itself has used to great effect for the last 200+ years of our existence. Hell you can point to just about any country in the world right now and find some belligerent asshole either in power or trying to get power who uses the exact same technique - it's an ancient one after all.

The fact that Chavez has truth behind his words doesn't mean he isn't using it to promote his own power. Real enemies from the outside make much, much better bogeymen than fake ones (which is part of why US foreign policy is so damn bloody stupid - going out of our way to set ourselves up as the bogeyman for powermongers all over the world is just dumb - unless you're one of the powermongers. And even then in the long run all it can do is bite you in the ass.).

by nonynony on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 10:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The United States - and Israel - have always created their own enemies, both the real and the imaginary ones, by the way they conduct themselves in the world.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Sun Jan 18th, 2009 at 10:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed.

Other than being our "enemies", it's silly to put Iran and Venezuela in the same boat.

by sleepy (imcotton1991@yahoo.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 09:50:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The common theme seems to be, nationalize your oil, become our enemy.

Iran had a democratically elected gov. that we over threw when he nationalized their oil assets.

Chavez nationalized his countries oil and was slated to be replaced by a US backed, unelected puppet.

"None other than Chavez said last month said "there are winds in favor of relations between the Venezuelan government and the new President of the U.S."

Obama has not only compared Chavez to Irans leadership, but has called Chavez an "oil thug" and a demagogue.

by smkngman3 on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 02:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is not Iran's leadership, it is U.S. foreign policy.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 03:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And they would not be enemies if the U.S. had not decided to make it so. If the U.S. chose, it could have decent relations with Iran.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 03:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Watch these folks make a Obama-Chavez relationship impossible

Kristallnacht in Venezuela?
By Kathy Shaidle
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 15, 2009

Less than a month ago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez joined his Argentinean and Brazilian counterparts to sign the "2008 Declaration Against Anti-Semitism", under which the three countries agreed to "condemn racism, religious intolerance, racial discrimination and related intolerance."

However, it wasn't long before the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League were obliged to issue another round of their regular condemnations of Chavez, this time for comparing Israel's counteroffensive against Hams to the Holocaust, and for expelling Israeli ambassador Shlomo Cohen shortly after that military offensive began earlier this month.

Approximately one thousand protestors in Caracas celebrated Cohen's expulsion by spray painting graffiti on the Israeli consulate, smashed windows and throwing shoes and firecrackers at the building.

Aimee Kligman, who covers foreign policy for Examiner.com, reported that protesters "proceeded to stamp and burn the Israeli flag" - a gesture "unheard of until now" on the streets of Caracas.

Kligman also warned that a "mini-Kristallnact" might be in the works. "Sources which cannot be revealed because safety is a factor," she wrote on January 8, "have confirmed that attacks are expected on Jewish businesses, schools [and] community centers."

BULLSHIT!

by Cee on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:32:37 PM EST

Good for Venezuela for kicking out the Israeli ambassador. It is a huge dark blot on the cowardly governments of Egypt and Jordan that they did not do the same.

by Hurria (Muslawia@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:45:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]