Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

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

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

N/T

... 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

... 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?

... 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.

... 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!

... 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.

... 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.

... 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!

... 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.

... 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!

... 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.

... 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

... 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!

... 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

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

Russia does have free speech and elections, at least as good as in most western countries.

Putin did launch an attack against the hard-core pro-western elite that profited from the policies of the imbecile president that got in power after the communist regime fell.  They have lost virtually all credibility with people inside the country, so they try to blackmail the government by running around western media saying that supposedly Putin is 'anti-democratic'.  In fact, their part won less than 5% of the popular vote (instead of 80% in 1990), so they are somewhat upset.

I do not agree with all of his policies, but he is undoubtedly the best president Russia had since the 60s, imho.

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

Allende I believe was assasinated by the Chileans...

Re Pinochet, he is an evil nasty person.  And he did assasinate political opponents.

However, Allende's regime was leading the country into a civil war, which would have resulted in a lot more death and destruction, and the Allende's side was destined to lose in it anyway.  Further, this civil war could have resulted in a lot more mess; Soviet navy were several days away from Chile at the time.

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

I know that I helped to open this can of worms about the LA dictators, etc.  but, while we are on the subject of Chile; who's idea was it to build up the market to export produce?  By now, I am sure everyone has eaten or at least heard of stuff like Chilean grapes.  Actually, they export many types of produce, but my point is that this type of thing is a good thing, not a bad thing (for a change)!

                            OkieMan

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

There are some that are trained to disbelieve the good intentions of our government. Due to my age and experience ( military and Law enforcement ) I tend to accept what I believe to be in the best interest of my country. My behavior is based on the understanding that sometimes if you  shut your mouth and do what you are told it often leads to teamwork verses disruption.  I often believe the people who came out of the sixties and seventies just never wanted to do what mommy  told them to and constanly protested until mom gave up and resorted to bribery.
   I have been in Cuba five times (illegally I may add) so I am not a blind follower. What is in store for Venezuela is a case of the ignorant following the ignorant. If the people of Venezuela  saw what became of Cuba they would kill Chavez in  heartbeat.Check this out!
 
Top Stories - U.S. News & World Report
Cracking down on Caracas

Wed Feb 9, 4:59 PM ET  

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

While we have our eyes on the Middle East and the recent good news out of there, a danger to democracy is brewing right here in our backyard. Venezuela, long one of Latin America's strongest democracies, is now under siege by its president, Hugo Chavez. Thanks to an ill-judged intervention by former President Jimmy Carter, Chavez narrowly survived a recall election and has now accelerated his subversion of Venezuela's democracy by a scummy deal with Fidel Castro

According to Miami's El Nuevo Herald, Chavez has granted Cuban judicial and security forces extensive police powers within Venezuela. Cubans are already running the intelligence services and indoctrinating and training the military. They will effectively bypass what is left of Venezuela's judicial system when they exercise new powers to investigate, seize, detain, and interrogate Venezuelans and Cubans living in Venezuela, with the right to extradite them to Cuba and try them there. This threatens the safety of some 30,000 Cubans in Venezuela.

All this is a culmination of Chavez's frontal attack on civil society, reducing state institutions to mere shadows with only ceremonial powers. Just for starters, Chavez has rewritten Venezuela's Constitution to enhance his powers, purged critics in the military, set up legislation to pack the Supreme Court, intimidated the media by threatening the expropriation of the licenses of private television stations that supported the opposition, and given succor to thousands of Castro's military and intelligence officers, along with many social and medical workers, while tens of thousands of young Venezuelans have been sent to Cuba for indoctrination.

Spots and pans. Chavez, in turn, provides Castro with 80,000 barrels a day of essential oil. Venezuela's rich flow of oil revenues has enabled Chavez to buy the support of sectors of Venezuelan society and assert himself as the leader of what he calls a "jihad" against American imperialism. Chavez's sense of moral justice is manifest in his alliance with the worst criminal organizations in Latin America, especially the narcoterrorists in Colombia. Just recently, he denounced Colombian authorities because they arrested a senior member of the narcoterrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) who had been given sanctuary in Venezuela.

To get a sense of the degree to which Chavez is intimidating his opponents and harassing dissidents, just read the language of a new criminal law that he pushed through the legislature: "Any individual who creates panic in the community or makes it restless by disseminating false information via print media, radio, TV, phone, electronic mail, or pamphlets will be punished with two to five years in prison." Even the most popular form of political protest, banging pots and pans, done in the presence of members of his government, now carries with it up to a three-month jail sentence.

A distinguished international coalition, including former Czech President Vaclav Havel, Sen. John McCain and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote to Chavez expressing concern that his actions are "a grave threat to democracy."

Alas, our own President Carter compromised the hopes of Venezuelans in the recall election by prematurely endorsing the vote that Chavez did not earn or deserve. Carter's people counted fewer than 1 percent of the polling stations, which, instead of being selected at random, as originally anticipated, were selected by Venezuelan officials. Even then, only 76 of the previously agreed 192 ballot boxes were counted, with either opposition witnesses or international observers present at only 26 out of the 76 boxes reviewed. The Chavez-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) forbade access to the tallying centers, not only to Carter's people but to the representatives of the opposition, and even to the two members of the CNE who opposed Chavez. Two professors from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology  issued a report concluding that there was at least a 99 percent chance the election was a fraud. The audited sample (Carter's) was simply not a random sample, the professors concluded. Various independent exit polls showed that Chavez had lost the vote by 59 percent to 41 percent, instead of Chavez's contention that he had won by that margin.

Jimmy Carter, in effect, provided a seal of approval for a left-wing demagogue intent on destroying democracy in Venezuela even as he seeks to extend his ideology to other parts of Latin America. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) was correct when she pointed out that Chavez is a danger not just to Venezuela but to much of Latin America. Very soon, we must translate those wise words into an effective policy.

... in response to Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and ..., posted by jim c on Feb 14, 2005

God save us from well meaning FOOLS like Jimmy Carter.Nice guy.Totally f--king useless.Worse than that,counterproductive.As he was as president.

Pete

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

Kented,
Good post.  You made some valid points.  Mainly, I was just expressing my frustration.  I certainly understand that there are no simple solutions. However, maybe I could become a highly paid assassin and take out a dictator or two every year or so.  You know, for the money and just for the heck of it.  Then, when I retire, I could write a tell all book and go on the Oprah show.  Sounds like a plan, doesn't it? ha

                        OkieMa

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

The problems in third world countries are enormous and virtually insurmountable.  

How will Colombia solve its drug problem and the government's lack of control of the country when drug money is the only real source of wealth in the country?

Costa Rica's national priority is education and teching English so that they can attract world businesses.  And they compete with third world countries all over the world who sacrific the welfare of their children and their environment for a small piece of the first world's prosperity.

There are indeed no easy solutions and few LA governments are paradigns of virtue.  We are indeed lucky to live in the US.

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

Lets see,I guess I should agree first.It seems we had at least a very big hand in getting Allende out of power and killed in the process.Sometimes I long for the good old days and think that would be a good Chavez solution.I respect the power off a free press more than a lot of people I know and think we would get in big international trouble for doing that now.And its unfortunate that Allende was followed by Pinochet,who was much worse human rights wise.Even though its taken many years to procesecute him he wasn't in power most of that time.And Argentina was arguably worse in their persecution of leftists.
All of this of course gives old dinosaurs like Castro ammunition about how awfull the US is.An argument with some truth sells better than absolute lies.
So I guess we need to let Venizuella suffer under Chavez untill  someone local takes him out.I am actually surprised that the you are poor because someone took it from you argument doesn't sell better than it does in other latin countries.Simple minded arguments work with simple minded people.The problem is the leftist solution is so much worse.Look at Cuba,lose your freedom to make $12 a month while the dictator is king of his own little island and has 5,000,000,000 in the bank.
As far as Iraq,I am a little tired of this no weapons of mass distruction argument.Just about everybody agrees they had them.And Saddam Housein was a guy that needed to go in the worst way,we did humanity a real favor there.But we get a bunch of Muslim nuts fighting over the country as a result.Yes the losers don't like it and will cause as much trouble as the can.I think the majority approves of the new democratic process.
Sometimes In am very disapointed in the lack of guts and heroism in people that knock what we did there. It was and is a NOBLE effort,worthy of a great country.I particularly like Tony Blair,who took a position counter to his own party solely because he thought it THE RIGHT THING TO DO,to his considerable political disfavor.Now there is a HERO,in my opinion.
Reminds me very much of the anti war sentiment in the US prior to WW2.These people were willing to look the other way while Hitler tried to take over the world.Not our problem.Well the world is too small now to think its not our problem.
But,back to agreement,it pisses me off when the power of the US government is used for financial gain by US companies.
We need a MORE heroic president,someone with the guts not only to take on the terrorists but to take on US SPECIAL INTERESTS that have so much power in out international relations.I nominate John McCain.

Pete

... in response to Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and ..., posted by Pete E on Feb 14, 2005

Sometimes In am very disapointed in the lack of guts and heroism in people that knock what we did there. It was and is a NOBLE effort,worthy of a great country.I particularly like Tony Blair,who took a position counter to his own party solely because he thought it THE RIGHT THING TO DO,to his considerable political disfavor.Now there is a HERO,in my opinion.""

Outstanding post.!!

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by Heat on Feb 14, 2005

Heat,
Absolutely correct.  Tony Blair is to be commended for what he did, and is still doing.  Unfortunately, it will probably cost him his job.  By the way, I lived in England for two years. (78-80).  I was in the Air Force.  Anyhow, it was very interesting and I grew to love and appreciate many of the people there. I even got to play in a British country music band for most of my time there.  But, when I got there, the Labor Party had been in control for many years.  Needless to say, socialism abounded.  However, the great part of it was that I was there when Maggie Thatcher was elected Prime Minister. Now there was a strong leader!  She really did an excellent job.  I came back to the States just in time to help get Ronald Reagan elected as President.  Another proud moment.
                            OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  and ..., posted by Pete E on Feb 14, 2005

Pete,
You mentioned pre-WWII.  Good old Neveille Chamberlain.  Now that's my idea of a totally worthless, numb nuts politician!  But, thank the Lord that Winston Churchill came in when he did.  Anyhow, you also made some good points about that stupid "We didn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction"!  I am so sick of that crap.  Of course, they didn't find the stuff.  Good ole Saddam was given so much advance notice that we were coming to get him, he had the stuff shipped to Syria, or some similarly "looney tune" place.  My son was fighting the war on the Iraqi/Syrian border.  They were coming over in droves,and my son and his buddies were getting hit hard; not only by the insurgents coming over the border, but by the Iraqi citizens that were supposed to be helping them find the bad guys.  I got that straight from my son.  In one case, they finally found out who the dirt bag was and killed him.  He was the "captain" of the Iraqi forces that were supposed to helping.  With friends like that, who needs enemies!  By the way, Pete; I want to ask you something.  The girl I am writing to in Cali told me her neighborhood is named Salomia. It is in the northern part of the city.  I know that there some neighborhoods, or barrios that are not safe for gringos to go into.  I cannot make the trip right now, but I am trying to come see her soon.  Are you familiar with this neighborhood?  If not you, then maybe someone else can shed some light on this.  She seems to be a sharp lady, and I really want to get something going with her.  I will be staying at Latin-Internet when I arrive.  But, somewhere along the way, I would probably want to see her apartment.  Also, if I undersand correctly, you rent rooms at your place.  Since you are closer to where she lives, maybe I can set something up with you?  I will let you know for sure when I will be travelling there.  As it looks now, I will not be able to come until school is out for the summer.  If for some reason I can make it sooner, I will let you know.  Anyhow, please get back with me on this girl's neighborhood; that is if you are familiar with it.

                          OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

Adrian says Salomia is a strata 3,not too bad or dangerous.Basically 1's you never go to,2's only during the day and try to avoid that.3's starting to get better,not so dangerous.4-6,various levels of good,6 being the best.But even with a 6  its possible to get in trouble walking alone at night,but not likely.

Pete

... in response to Salomia, posted by Pete E on Feb 15, 2005


Pete,
Thanks, I will stay in touch for future developments.  Hopefully, you and I can meet in person and visit a little while.  But, my main priority is to get down there and see this little lady.  She is something.  Later.

                               OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

I looked up Salomia on the map.I am not familiar with it ,but from the location I would say not a great barrio,how bad I do not know.But thats sort of typical for most of Cali.I will ask my Colombian Friend tommorow.Its kind of northeast,not too far from Calima.Probably a strata 2 or  3.Part of the safety issue is how much you look like a gringo.
Yeah I rent rooms,so if you want to stay here let me know.You can check in at Latin Internet then come by a see my place.I am closer to that Barrio than Latin Internet,which is way south.

Pete

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Cast..., posted by Pete E on Feb 14, 2005

Pete,
Thanks for answering.  Any info you can find out would be helpful.  I at a slight disadvantage at this point, in that I have not actually met this girl yet.  So, I have to be cautious, but she is really beautiful and we are having a lot of fun writing emails to each other right now.  When I know my plans more, I will let you know.  In the meantime, whatever info you can give me on that neighborhood, would be appreciated.  From what she has told me, she has a married sister who also lives in that neighborhood.  However, my chica lives alone.  She is 35, divorced, and her only son is 19.  He was living with her until recently; but as I have been told, he now lives with his father over 30 minutes away.  Pete, I also need to find out how much you charge to rent a room? Later. If you want to write me a private email, send it to kerby@olp.net.

                             OkieMan

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

You do have the balls to defend Chavez, despite the fact that most people on this board are very much against him.  

Venezuela in fact is NOT a poor country; it is very wealthy in fact, just it's wealth is distributed very unevenly, and its economy (aside from the petroleum sector) is very poorly developed.  This results in relatively high prices and general cost of living despite the fact that the majority of people are very poor.  Chavez's policies in theory aim to create a more equitable distribution of its wealth.

What Chavez is doing was done last century in Mexico, and this resulted in a great leap in its development and level of life (which was ultimately compromised though by corruption of its government in the '70s and '80s).  In the short term at least, Chavez aroused great opposition, which resulted in instability and largely denied growth of its economy.  Pinochet in contrast did provide stability, and chilean economy grew because of that (resulting in growth of level of life across the board).

Regarding the polices of the US in Latin America...  Well, every country will defend its interests to the extent it can; it is normal and expected.

BTW, nobody claims that either Cuba or Venezuela is developing nuclear weapons.

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

I pointed out that Cahvez was elected in a free election and recently reelected.  That is not actually an endorsement.  

Like Mexico, Venezuela has oil which is not distributed so that it helps the majority of the population.  Until Hugo Chavez begins developing a nuclear weapon program, I believe the US has more important concerns.  

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by kented on Feb 15, 2005

Well, Mexico actually nationalized its oil way back, and despite a lot of the proceeds of it being stolen, it pays for social services there.  That was one of the main achievements of its revolution.

Chavez did indeed get elected; however, his policies have bitterly divided the country.  I am not against him per se, like most guys on this board seem to be, but more than likely his policies will do more harm than good.

Even though Chavez is not developing nukes, and it is the sovereign right of Venezuela what it wants to do with its oil industry.  However, from the selfish standpoint, if he cuts oil supplies to the US we will all suffer.  $2 for a gallon is bad enough.

US foreign policy is based on advancing interests of its people and businesses, just as that of any other country in the world.  Noone is altruistic out there ;)  And for the disbalance, to say the least, in bilateral relations Latin Americans should blame their own elites rather than the US.

These elites, pursuing their selfish interest, fought to retain the archaic and inefficient distribution of wealth and resources which stymies economic growth leaving most of their countries poor; US did not do that.  These same elites broke up existing viceroyalties into tiny Costa-Ricas that have virtually zero internation influence or defence capabilities; US did not do that.  These same elites have routinely squandered resources of their countries through corruption and borrowed without thinking; US did not do that.  All US does is takes advantage of the existing environment, and it would not be reasonable to expect it to do otherwise.

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

I wouldn't state with such certainty that Allende was assasinated. Yes, the CIA gave the wink, wink, nudge, nudge that an overthrow would be OK by them, but a number of scholars will say he committed suicide. And surrender may have been an option, too.

Same goes for the Venezuelan referendum. Jimmy Carter and Cesar Gaviria blessed it, Colin Powell had his mind on other matters and accepted them at their word. There is evidence that elements of the computer system were rigged and more stories are coming out that Jimmy y Cesar never gave the process more than a cursory glance in the first place.

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

David,
I think it is safe to say that anyone with a brain knows that the Venenzuelan election was rigged from the git go.  I have always been curious about why these slimy dictator types even bother trying to claim the elections are for real?  I guess you would have to live in those countries to fully understand the situations.  I can appreciate the fact that the citizens of the respective countries are afraid to speak out.  The goon squads are always counting on fear and intimidation.  Life does have it's ironies, does it not?  Oh well; Viva Castro and Viva Chavez!  Two deserving dirt bags!  By the way, all of this reminds me of an old Richard Dreyfuss movie. I can't remember the name of it, but he (his first character in the movie) impersonates a banana republic dictator.  I saw this back  in the late 80's I think.  I was very funny, and also had some interesting parts to it.  If anyone can tell me the name of it, I would appreciate it.  I would be fun to rent again.

                    OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

It was about as fair as the US election.

In our banking system, 10,000,0000 transactions a day are recorded and every one of them can be tracted.  In the US we take four years to create an election system with no way to recount the ballots in many areas, too many voting machines in the suburbs and too few in the inner city and thousands of voting irregularities nationwide.

I think the US needs to improve our ability to guarantee fraud free elections before we worry about Venezuela.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Cast..., posted by kented on Feb 15, 2005

There is some truth there.  But, just think.  If that happened, we wouldn't have fun topics like this to BS about!  Just kidding.  Naturally, the US is not perfect.  But, it sure beats whatever is second best. The other half is that I hate liars, and these little puppet dictators are so full of themselves, they wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the butt!  Thanks for your comments.

                              OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Castro  ..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 14, 2005

Moon over Parador

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re:  Venezuela, Chavez, Cast..., posted by jim c on Feb 14, 2005

thanks, I would like to see that movie again.  I think that if we could get Dreyfuss to "take over" some of these countries we have been talking about; life could be more fun.  If not dicator, then court jester! ha

                                OkieMan