the_gospel_of_thomas:
submitter: Chavez building army of the people to resist U.S. invasion

Yeah, well good luck with that.

/someone should tell Chavez that we are going to use tactical nukes ...

The day the US uses tac nukes on a country like Venezuela is the day you guys abandon all pretense of being the moral leaders of the world, and become the Fourth Reich. Hell, you'll look like shiat if you use them in Iran too.

peacefulwarrior:
Do they have a McDonald's in Venezuela?
If so, they're totally safe.

You've heard that thing too huh? It's pretty funny. "No two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war with one another".

This is great. This is exactly what you guys accuse Bush of doing.

A former military man, a guy that rants on state run media for hours at a time, and a person that seizes for the "good of the poor."

Analysts believe the real motivation behind the militia is to protect against a possible uprising by elements of the Venezuelan armed forces - sections of which supported the 2002 coup.

That little bit right there sums it all up. You guys fantasize of yourselves being "resistance fighters" of a Christian Theocracy here while in the real world your hero's are out one step ahead of silencing any critics in their own country.

Let's see how long we're going to have to wait to see Hugo get another "hero tag" here on Fark.

I'm beginning to think Chavez really is the crazy dictator the Republicans say he is.

America is the enemy under which he mobilizes his people to keep them angry, much like the Mohammed cartoons were the enemy in Iran to cause anger to gain more support for the people in power

And in case anybody was wondering, the ambiguous "terrorists" are the enemy Bush has been using to keep all of us angry and scared and in support.

It's times like these that I envy the Australians and the fact that they have an entire island to themselves and the loonies will have to swim (not drive or walk) to their borders.

/moat anyone?

Having been to Venezuela and talked with some of the people there while I was working on a port economics thing, I can say pretty much with certainty that the majority of Venezuelans support him. While they don't like the stifling of dissent, the only thing they can compare him to are the past US backed regimes in which a few oil billionaires did well while the citizenry starved. Much like our pending situation with Iran, if we would back off our tough talk and let cooler heads prevail, we could see more progress in Venezuela. The one thing that is common to all countries is that no matter how much the internal factions hate eachother, they hate (even the threat of) outside force (economic or military) even more. Through our continued tough talk, and threatening sanctions on the people of Venezuela after they egged the car of one of our ambassadors, we only serve to solidify them while validating his rhetoric.

smoovement So, in your opinion, it is not appropriate for the leader of a nation to maintain the tranquility of order? Even the US Constitution gives Congress special authority in time of invasion or uprising.

You've heard that thing too huh? It's pretty funny. "No two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war with one another".

That's a liberal myth. Yugoslavia anyone?

It's not entirely out of the question that he's right... there is substantial info to back his claim:

They point out that Washington has a long history of supporting rebels seeking to overthrow democratically-elected leftist governments in Latin America. More recently, the Bush administration supported business leaders who forced out Haiti's elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

We've done it before.... most recently being Hati, but said to have happened many times during the 70's and 80's in South America.

Remember the "School of the Americas" was a US Military school to train South American Terrorists for such purposes. It still exists, though under a new name.

In 2002, senior White House officials held meetings with opponents of Chavez who orchestrated a short-lived coup. Washington quickly welcomed the new government, only for Mr Chavez to overturn the coup within 48 hours. In 2004, it was revealed that the US Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy had dispensed $1m to groups seeking a national vote of no confidence against Mr Chavez.

Very willing to do it again.

Would it be an Iraq? No, more like a Hati... but still somewhat bloody for the civilians caught in the unrest.

It's just as mythic as Bush's "no democracies have ever gone to war" nonsense.

czarangelus:
aerojockey: Chavez is slowly losing touch with reality, if he ever had it.

Care to substantiate that claim in any way, shape, or form?

What he means is "the reality that Central and South America belong to the USA, as outlined in the Monroe Doctrine, and unless he wants his country taken by a Pinochet-esque coup, he'd better cooperate". Yeah, Chavez doesn't seem to accept that. And it infuriates people who believe the Americas are the US's private plantation, full of Spanish-speaking ni**ers who better not get uppity.

OMG...different...ideas??
/KILL IT!!!

Action Replay Nick: What specifically has Chavez done that was tyrannical?

Human Rights Watch has some nice articles.

Both Pakistan and India have MCDonalds' and They had a little shooting match (Kargil War)

smoovement:
This is great. This is exactly what you guys accuse Bush of doing.
A former military man, a guy that rants on state run media for hours at a time, and a person that seizes for the "good of the poor."

I think it's safe to say nobody's accusing Bush of doing ANYTHING "for the good of the poor".

Biatch, please. Does -anybody- doubt that if Chavez pushes us over the line, we won't be pulling him out of a spider hole within six months? Chavez isn't even original, he's like a bad stereotype from Bond-movie central casting.

If Chavez had enough money to hire Chuck Norris, they'd have nothing to worry about.

Queso And what, praytell, is Chavez doing that might "push us over the line."
No Such Agency That's pretty much what I'm figuring lies under all this ridiculous rhetoric...

Chavez a nutball eh? Did you rtfa? USA dosen't like leaders don't submit to our busineses will.

Chavez a nutball eh? Did you rtfa?

Did you read anything else about Chavez?

it's bread and circuses for the masses, a classic technique of distracting the citizens from their poverty and his corruption by ginning up and enemy and railing against him all the time.

not like any other country would ever do something like that.

/what is today's color?

Human Rights Watch has accused Mr Chavez of undermining judicial independence by packing the Supreme Court with his supporters, and of stifling the rights of the media to criticise his administration.

Hmm, sounds familiar.

czarangelus> Nothing at the moment, besides failing to observe the diplomatic niceties. I think we'll hurt him more by ignoring his stupid ranting and raving (much as we do with the leftists in the US). Just saying, if he were to offer such a provocation as moved the US to attack, Venezuela would fall like so much rotten timber.

aerojockey: Nope. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's paying attention (and doesn't masturbate to him). His comments and actions have been getting more and more ridiculous over time.

See, I don't listen to anything a politican says. They're all liars and pandering to get votes. That goes for Bush, Chavez, any of the bastards.


Since I know they're all liars, I look at what they do instead. Under Chavez, there are more and better funded schools, more and better funded health care programs, and more and better funded civic services. There's one less corporation. If you were to ask me what the definition of political success was... I'd say it's a hell of a lot closer to that, than the Iraq Quagmire.

Queso A cakewalk, just like Iraq, right? *evil grin*

He doesn't like us. Lets bomb him....but please do it on a monday so you don't mess up TV sports.

Czar: True. Allow me to amend... the government of Venezuela would fall. Just as the one in Iraq did. Our mistake there, of course, was to send in troops to clean up the mess, instead of just pulverizing the place with air power and ship-launched munitions.

Queso and what do you think that would accomplish?

aerojockey Well then, from where I'm sitting, I'd rather have a batshiat crazy Hugo Chavez than a sane W. Bush.

czarangelus: Well then, from where I'm sitting, I'd rather have a batshiat crazy Hugo Chavez than a sane W. Bush.

the_gospel_of_thomas If that picture is supposed to illicit some kind of apology from me, then you're woefully misguided.

Czar: In which case? Iraq, or Venezuela? I'm not in favor of action against Venezuela, as I mentioned before. Let 'em rot, the people of Venezuela will come to realize that the big bad Americans aren't coming to get them after all.

As for Iraq, we could have neutralized any and all capability to produce the potential WMD's that were of concern at the time. Note I said potential, please. The sum-up would be something like "You wouldn't satisfy us that there were no WMD's, you forced our hands, so you can clean up the mess when we're done making sure that there are none."

The only boots on the ground would have been at sites of concern, as we secured the area, did our search, then exited the area of operations. Thus the insurgency would have no "peacekeepers" to vent upon. Hell if I can fathom what Bush and Rumsfeld were thinking when they dreamed up the crock of shiat they put into practice.

I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to mean or prove... OMG Cindy Sheehan (an opponent of George Bush) has met Hugo Chavez (an opponent of George Bush) and they had a photo taken. It's not like they're conspiring together to give forced abortions to sodomized white Christian girls in South Dakota.

Oh, and two can play stupid picture games by the way:

No Such Agency: It's not like they're conspiring together to give forced abortions to sodomized white Christian girls in South Dakota.

Do you know that for a fact?

Oops, lost my second image there:

aerojockey: Key words: From where you're sitting.

Way to try twisting a figure of speech into a meaningful political concession. But no can do. Let me say it clearly so it can't be misconstrued - I think Hugo Chavez would have been a better 2000 choice than GW Bush.


I'll bet he would have nationalized the oil companies (that oil belongs to Americans, not private contractors and the congressthings they bribe,) spent billions of dollars upgrading America's sagging infrastructure, rebuilt America's hopelessly broken public education system, and provided socialized medicine needed by tens of millions of uninsured American families. He's a right bastard!

Seeing as how Venezuela just announced that they have more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, they might be doing very well to resist them a potential American invasion.

/had to be said

czarangelus
Well then, from where I'm sitting, I'd rather have a batshiat crazy Hugo Chavez than a sane W. Bush.

You can have him. Please go to Caracas and pick him up ASAP.

Many Venezuelans will thank you.

the_gospel_of_thomas

here's one for you big guy.

Venezula, Germany, France, Iran (yeah thats right)

Growing list of countries that have far better ethics than USA.

KayakDude: You can have him. Please go to Caracas and pick him up ASAP.

Many Venezuelans will thank you.

70% of them wouldn't.
Have you been trained by Karl Rove personally? I notice that cute "many" in there... "many" Americans are goths. "Many" Americans are gay. "Many" Americans are serial killers. See how meaningless that metric is?

effhead, your GIS-fu is the best.

Czarangelus=Typical liberal arts philosophy major bullshiat.

inconnu If all you've got in your repitoire is ad hominem, then don't waste your time. I get a lot of that and frankly I don't care.

Hey, the US should do this to resist the current Mexican/illegal invasion!

I love how this guy is such an attention whore who is trying too hard, but Bush is nothing less than amused by him. I saw Bush do an interview for Mexican tv and was openly chuckling at the guy.