He meant their "nature's pocket."

Hugo Chavez: Man With 1000 Delusions of Grandeur.

He should know that saying "Bring it on" does not generally result in hilarity ensuing.

I adore the shiatty Spanish translations we get, considering 10% of Americans are farking fluent in it.

Anyone have that link of King Juan Carlos of Spain telling Chavez to STFU?

Wait, I do (new window)

In all fairness, what is he supposed to say? "Oh darn, I've been bad. I should let Señor Bush spank me"?

He's kinda type-cast himself as being anti-US. There's not much he could say (assuming he wanted to) that wouldn't get him violently toppled.

And as we all know, NO ONE likes being violently toppled.

//even teh gheys
//and i should know

OK, FARC are some pretty nasty guys, and Chavez is a buffoon, and maybe he's supporting them somehow.

But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

Skeptos: But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

That's never stopped us before. I think Australia and Africa are the only continents the US government won't pretend to care about.

Skeptos: OK, FARC are some pretty nasty guys, and Chavez is a buffoon, and maybe he's supporting them somehow.

But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

Matters in Venezuela and Colombia don't affect us at all, now if you'll excuse me, I have to give my car a $40 fillup and pick up a $5 cup of coffee along the way.

Skeptos: Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

Dude, Venezuela's stability is VERY important to US interests. We get a very high percentage of our oil from them (moreso than the Middle East). Unlike a war in Iraq, it actually IS in our national interest to keep anything from happening to our supply there. We're too reliant on oil not to interfere

The Bestest

Skeptos: OK, FARC are some pretty nasty guys, and Chavez is a buffoon, and maybe he's supporting them somehow.

But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

Matters in Venezuela and Colombia don't affect us at all, now if you'll excuse me, I have to give my car a $40 fillup and pick up a $5 cup of coffee along the way.

When was the United States attacked by FARC, again?

/or Hamas, for that matter

Skeptos: OK, FARC are some pretty nasty guys, and Chavez is a buffoon, and maybe he's supporting them somehow.

But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

You're forgetting America's fundamental role as sole owner and proprietor of planet Earth. All other countries are merely custodians watching over their little fiefdoms when the US is preoccupied with more pressing matters.

Before the Dawn: Skeptos: But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.


Why does the US concern Venezuela?

Could be our history of interventionism in places that we have no jurisdiction. Whenever you see yourself as the world police you should expect other countries to be a bit edgy about anything you do .

I meant Antarctica, not Australia. We just haven't INVADED Australia.

/yet...

Why do we put up with twerps like Chavez? I mean really...hes one guided bomb away from being a footnote. How would we explain our actions? The George Costanza defense. Im sure you farkers are familiar with it. It would be totally belevable coming from Bush, or any other republican.

Sultan Of Herf

Why do we put up with twerps like Chavez?

Maybe because he's the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country?

Hot Pocket?

Hugo Chavez is the number one reason I'd like to find useable, reliable, economically-viable alternative source of energy. I'd like to see that insufferable weevil killed by his own people over alienating his country from the United States

Skeptos:

When was the United States attacked by FARC, again?

/or Hamas, for that matter

Well we've never been attacked by the Janjaweed or the Sudan Liberation Movement, so we shouldn't do anything about those groups either, right?

The Article
Fellow students in Mexico have described the victims [of Colombia's incursion into Ecuador] as activists who sympathized with Latin America's radical left, which has gained some backing on college campuses in Mexico.

Always good to see that Latin America remains a political hellhole.

They just need Richard Dean Anderson on a mission to rescue orphans and missionaries to complete the picture.

Seriously, when has supporting the radical left ever been a good idea?

happycat

Skeptos:

When was the United States attacked by FARC, again?

/or Hamas, for that matter

Well we've never been attacked by the Janjaweed or the Sudan Liberation Movement, so we shouldn't do anything about those groups either, right?

What would you suggest that we "do" about them? And why would it be within our rights to "do" it?

happycat: Well we've never been attacked by the Janjaweed or the Sudan Liberation Movement, so we shouldn't do anything about those groups either, right?

Yes, that's the plan.

I'd like to know if America is on their own list of states that sponsor terrorist organizations, or if the terrorist organizations that America funds are "freedom" terrorists.

Bored Horde: I'd like to know if America is on their own list of states that sponsor terrorist organizations, or if the terrorist organizations that America funds are "freedom" terrorists.

We sponsor terrorists, not turrists! Duh!

strangeguitar - Thanks for the nightmares....

The Bestest: Anyone have that link of King Juan Carlos of Spain telling Chavez to STFU?

Wait, I do (new window)

Once I was the King of Spain
Now I shove humble pie down the throats of South American dictators

/Chavez is that annoying bully who always got beat up when shiat hit the fan

Something had to have been lost in the translation there.

glaurunge: You're forgetting America's fundamental role as sole owner and proprietor of planet Earth. All other countries are merely custodians watching over their little fiefdoms when the US is preoccupied with more pressing matters.

That was awesome.

Sultan Of Herf: Why do we put up with twerps like Chavez?

More importantly, why do we put up with twerps like Bush?

The only good power-hungry despot is a socialist/communist one, like Hugo Chavez.

FTFA: "Bush, who on Wednesday accused Venezuela of squandering its oil wealth internationally "to promote its hostile, anti-American vision."

As opposed to hoarding its oil wealth for the top 2% of its economic hierarchy, which is what happened in the past?

Please. The reps calling for Venezuela to be on the list are both from Florida. Hugo Chavez has a good relationship with Cuba and Fidel Castro, including giving oil to Cuba (among other countries) in return for Cuban doctors helping in the rural health clinics in Venezuela. The Florida reps are basically representing their Cuban-American-We-Hate-Castro constituency, which is their job I guess, but just more of the same reverse-diplomacy that backfires on the US constantly.

There is no credible evidence regarding Venezuela supporting FARC, and certainly less evidence than the numerous documented connections between the Colombian military, politicos, and the AUC. But hey, the AUC are right-wing terrorists / death squads "freedom fighters" on the side of our patron state "ally" Colombia.

Maybe someone in the State Department can help Venezuela with that whole border security issue- 1300 miles of border shared with Colombia, through mountains and jungle. While they are at it, maybe they can figure out how the 330 tons of cocaine, mostly produced in Colombia, get in to the US annually. We can be sure to let them know about our effective border strategies. I was hoping that with the hundreds of millions a year spent mostly on the Colombian military and police by the US, that maybe they could be responsible a little for their porous borders.

OmniscientSean said:

Seriously, when has supporting the radical left ever been a good idea?

1. When the United States elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt four times in a row, getting Social Security and other socialist programs enacted.

2. When American volunteers formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and supported the democratically-elected Socialist government of Spain against the Nazi-backed Fascists.

3. When the Cival Rights act was passed, by the "radical left" who favored equal rights for all Americans, against the violent opposition of conservatives.

4. When President Abraham Lincoln moved to free the slaves, and outlaw slavery... a move that was violently opposed by conservatives, who whined about their "property rights" being violated by a ban on slavery.

5. When the Continental Congress met to discuss revolting against their rightfull King, liegelord, and Sovereign, King George of England.... an action that was, as always, violently opposed by conservatives.

Any other questions?

Really, what nation hasn't been on the USA's "terror-watch" list (or other historical equivalents) at some point in time?

/if all your relationships fail, the common denominator is you
//fully expect some smartarse to list the non-listed countries

General Zang: 2. When American volunteers formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and supported the democratically-elected Socialist government of Spain against the Nazi-backed Fascists.

Any other questions?

Yes. Since the "democratically-elected" government of Spain had ceased to exist by July of that year, who exactly are you trying to fool with this? The Republican, loyalist or Popular Front--whatever you want to call them--had abandoned any notion of constitutional government following the outbreak of the war. The Anarchist in Catalonia certainly weren't the legitimate government of Spain. That the communist violently put down their fellow countrymen should be evidence enough of this. In fact, the whole of the Republican side had become nothing more than a Soviet-backed Comintern revolution following the onset of fighting.

Murdering José Sotelo isn't the response of a government, democratically-elected or otherwise, intending anything other than the subjugation of their opponents. Rampant, State-permitted violence against clergy and other members of the 'conservatives' isn't the response of a legitimate government.

The Abraham Lincoln brigade volunteered to defend a proxy of the Soviet Union whose members sought not democracy but the establishment of another regime in style of that which had already starved and murdered millions.

Skeptos: The Bestest

Skeptos: OK, FARC are some pretty nasty guys, and Chavez is a buffoon, and maybe he's supporting them somehow.

But really -- why does this concern the US? Last time I checked, Venezuela and Colombia weren't even on the same continent as us.

Matters in Venezuela and Colombia don't affect us at all, now if you'll excuse me, I have to give my car a $40 fillup and pick up a $5 cup of coffee along the way.

When was the United States attacked by FARC, again?

/or Hamas, for that matter

FARK attacked the US? Why didn't anyone tell me??

/my car gets 35 mpg. neener-neener-neener
//but it has only an 11-gallon gas tank
///keeps me from being too smug

Freezy Peak: happycat: Well we've never been attacked by the Janjaweed or the Sudan Liberation Movement, so we shouldn't do anything about those groups either, right?

Yes, that's the plan.

You know who else didn't attack us for a while?

General Zang and Remove all Republicans
Some stuff about other "radical leftists"

First off, I'm a registered Democrat, but only because registering Republican seemed more painful, and registering Independent seemed like a waste of time.

Second, I only consider someone a radical when they're after the violent overthrow of the establishment. That certainly means that the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act, and Emancipation don't count (under my definition). As for the American Revolution, well, they were hardly leftists. Hell, one of their sticking points was lowering taxes. (Zing!)

Third, I assumed context would kick in and remind everyone that I was talking about radical leftists in Latin America. Supporting radical leftists in Latin America has historically been nothing but a series of trainwrecks. Which is really not a matter of radical leftists so much as radical militants, since for example Augusto Pinochet was all parts terrible dictator and hardline rightist (the brutal irony being that he overthrew the hard leftist Salvador Allende, who was democratically elected but was himself dragging Chile into even more of an economic wasteland).

Though of course the more important point about politics in Latin America seems to be a need to follow some sort of strong figurehead straight to the gates of hell; Hugo Chavez just happens to be the Virgil of the day. (Which I know is a terrible metaphor, since Virgil in fact led Dante from the gates of hell, but it seemed like too good an allusion to pass up.)

And before you ask, no, I haven't been drinking; far worse, I've been grading homework for eight hours.

Hugo... What can I say? Well... besides ugly, nothing.

http://www.freebeerandhotwings.com/audio/WHWT/WHWT%20080306%20Hugo%20Chavez.wma

^says it all.

/Also wants to feed him some sunflower seeds.

HowlingFrog: Sultan Of Herf: Why do we put up with twerps like Chavez?

More importantly, why do we put up with twerps like Bush?

Because He is the elected President of this country,without Jimmy Carters ok

When was the last time Americans were attacked by FARC?

I guess kidnappings don't count as attacks. Or murdered hostages.

I HAS A PARROT


A PARROT, I HAS IT

Skeptos:
What would you suggest that we "do" about them? And why would it be within our rights to "do" it?


It is sad that there is a willingness to accept genocide as long as it doesn't involve Americans.

Perhaps we could write them a strongly worded letter. Actually, my only guess on what to do would be a similar strategy as was taken with Serbia.

I take it that all these oposition groups in Iran that the US are supposedly supporting are all exclusively pacifist and determined to create change to through hungerstrikes and collecting signatures?

Let's not forget past moments like the finacial support of Irish-Americans of their struggeling brothers back home or the School of Americas that is still opearting to some capacity.

I can't think that any major country in the world could be interested in publishing a truly complete and exhaustive list of countrie who are or have been supporting terrorism. A list of countries who aren't and haven't would be much shorter.