Venezuela warns against US invasion

[cal04]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told thousands of visiting students that if US forces are to invade his South American country, they will be soundly defeated. The US government has strongly denied Chavez's claims that it is considering military action against Cuba's closest ally in the Americas. But Chavez said the US government, which "won't stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela," should be warned of the consequences. "If some day they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we'll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause.

He spoke during the opening ceremony of a world youth festival bringing together student delegations from across the world and convened under the slogan "Against Imperialism and War."
Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."
The Venezuelan leader said "socialism is the only path," and told the students the collective goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of US imperialism."


Earlier, the students waved flags, danced in traditional dress, and held signs praising socialism, Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Ernesto "Che" Guevara. More than 300 students from the United States shouted out their disapproval of US President George W Bush, chanting "Get out Bush!" Other students chanted: "Bush, fascist - you're a terrorist!" Some 15,000 youths from 144 countries travelled to Venezuela for the week-long festival and conference, organisers said.

While tensions have grown between Chavez and Washington, the Venezuelan leader has built close ties with countries from Iran to China. Chavez expressed his support for Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying he expected to continue strengthening relations. He said that like Venezuela, Iran was a country that had been "attacked" for many years by "the hand of imperialism."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Venezuela-warns-against-US-invasion/2005/08/09/1123353307471.html

[sushi]

1. So many countries to beat up

There's Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and now add Venezuela to the list. Better witdraw some troops from Iraq and recruit a few thousand more!

[StevieM]

3. But, hey, Lybia's our good friend now! (eom)

x

[toey]

9. read the quote in my sig line

you're exactly right!

[Eloriel]

45. Your sig line -- Michael Ledeen

self-described "universal fascist," PNACer, NeoCon, Straussian.

Liar, cheat, thief, imperialist.

Machiavellian barbarian (as are all the Straussian Neocons).


I'm beginning to accumulate links for individual neocons, and this is the only one I've got saved for him (at the moment):

Rigorous Intuition: Yellow Cake and Black Shirts
(Michael Ledeen, on Minstrel Boy's Blog)
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/yellow-cake-and-black-shirts.html



BUT, just in case anyone here hasn't run across my other collection of links, on the Straussians and Neocons, here it is:

The Power of Nightmares / BBC exposes the American NeoCons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2876040
Link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104powerofnightmares.htm

ATTENTION PLEASE: If you never read anything else read these bullet points (good synopsis of NeoCon thought)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1880285&mesg_id=1880285

One more time: LEO STRAUSS AND THE NEO-CONS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7200&forum=DCForumID70&archive=yes
WAKE UP! - Strauss / Neocons and Terror PLUS dire warnings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1780890#1781801

Leo Strauss and the Noble Lie: The Neo-Cons at War
http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

Straussian.net -- Leo Strauss and the History of Political Thought
(with Discussion Forums! Book Reviews and a News Blog)
http://www2.bc.edu/~wilsonop/strauss.html

Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
linked to from this thread: Has Straussian ideology permeated the GOP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2121269#2122935

Eurolegal Services - Neoconservatives
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm

PNAC Links Archive (Redux)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=110&topic_id=80&mesg_id=80

Flirting with Facsism (about Michael Ledeen)
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html


Everything You've Always Wanted to Know About Neocons
But were afraid to ask….
by Justin Raimondo, January 9, 2004
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1563

[bribri16]

35. Wonder how many CIA are part of the US students? n/t

[Bassic]

53. That's a good question.

And I sort of wonder who's side they are on.

[burrowowl]

2. Could be

"He spoke during the opening ceremony of a world youth festival bringing together student delegations from across the world and convened under the slogan "Against Imperialism and War."
Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."
Have to add up all deaths: Phillipines, Guatemala, Mexico, Cuba, Irakq sanctions, Vietnam, etc., etc.
Get back to you later.

[K-W]

10. Dont forget the ethnic cleansing that started it all EOM

[sam sarrha]

4. Venezuela's oil is "Lite Sweet Crude".. the benchmark of Quality, little

refining is needed..whoever owns the LSC sets the price of oil

[sam sarrha]

5. Socialism represents the Total Population, Capitalism only bout 2% richest

[norml]

6. Venezuela warns against US invasion

Venezuela warns against US invasion
15:43 AEST Tue Aug 9 2005
AAP

AP - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has told thousands of visiting students that if US forces are to invade his South American country, they will be soundly defeated.

The US government has strongly denied Chavez's claims that it is considering military action against Cuba's closest ally in the Americas.

But Chavez said the US government, which "won't stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela," should be warned of the consequences.

"If some day they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we'll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause.


snip


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=57421

[OneBlueSky]

7. Bush would have no qualms about invading Venezuela . . .

or any other country he deems an "enemy of America" . . . or even non-cooperative, for that matter . . . whether he'd be able to do it -- politically, militarily, economically, etc. -- is another question altogether . . .

[FreeStateDemocrat]

50. Idiot used his only "Get out of jail free" card w/Iraq, The world will not

tolerate this "Bring'em on" invasion unless our favorite facist's can rig a "Pearl Harbor" cover-up. Neo-cons are too busy beating the war drums for Iran and trying to involve Europe as co-conspirators.

[nine23]

8. My partner's grandfather...

...was a French lefty yahoo who fought with the International Brigade in The Spanish Civil war. He was a bus driver on the Pau, France/Madrid run who dropped everything (including his wife, now my granny) to fight Franco and the Fascists. The man had great conviction and some great stories...

I swear, if Bush invades Venezuela, I'm THERE...I'll be in Caracas doing homage to Gramps, fighting the fight against US fascism.

That is, unless the US invades Canada first, in which case my hands will be full. (Invading Canada used to be a Michael Moore/John Candy/South Park joke, but I'll put nothing past the sick, retarted fuck *...)

[DFWdem]

11. Can't take Chavez seriously after this remark:

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."

Certainly the US has some shameful moments in its history, but the above remark shows a profound ignorance of world history.

[not systems]

12. Genocide of the population of North America?

Only nation to drop the atomic bomb?

Killed 3 million on a whim is South East Asia.

Genocidal conquest of the Philippines.

Supported criminal dictators through out the world
for the last 50 years.

Could be "shameful moments" or maybe a pattern of
"most savage, cruel and murderous empire".

[DFWdem]

28. Well, let's see...

"Only nation to drop the atomic bomb?"

In the context of all out world war. I guarantee if Japan or Germany had developed it first they would have used it.

"Killed 3 million on a whim is South East Asia."
"Genocidal conquest of the Philippines."

And Hitler killed over 10 million on a whim, Josef Stalin 25 million. And don't forget about Ghengis Khan, the Roman Empire, or the Moors invasions into Europe.

"Supported criminal dictators through out the world
for the last 50 years."

You have a point. The Soviets didn't support any criminal dictators over the last 50 years. Oh, wait a minute, yes they did.

[RetroLounge]

30. You are correct

Bush is not as bad as Hitler and Stalin, and Ghengis Khan

makes me proud to be American :eyes:

RL

[DFWdem]

33. I'm proud too

Not because of anything Bush has done, but proud of the collective history of the US. As I said, our history is not without shame, but I believe the US has done far more good than harm in the 230 years of its existence.

[TankLV]

71. "We're not as bad as Hitler" - the new amerikkkan slogan.

You're right!

Why didn't others think of this!

Of course, it is lost on many people, the mere fact that we can be compared at all - even if we didn't kill as many or torture as horribly, or any other feeble excuse - that is the whole point!

My, how far we have fallen.

[Bassic]

55. The US is responsible

for the perpetual impovrishment of the Third Worlds working class by forcing them through the IMF, World Bank and WTO to reduce their governement programs to close to zero, compress their workforce and respect "real market prices".

This means that salaries are going way down, many people are losing their jobs while the price of basic elements of life is shooting up 200 to 300%. Though it's not war, I do call that barbarism.

Washington (and the rest of the West for that matter) may not be quite as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, but they sure aren't all that far behind.

[DFWdem]

56. My point exactly

"Washington (and the rest of the West for that matter) may not be quite as bad as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, but they sure aren't all that far behind."

Had Chavez said that rather than "the most evil, murderous, blah blah blah", it would have shown he put a little thought into his speech.

[Bassic]

58. Well you have to take his comment into context

Latin America has been America's playground for a great many years. They are responsible for many an atrocity like Pinochet, the Somosas and the fall of the duly elected Sandinist government in the 80.s (Iran-contra affair) just to name a few.

So add that to W's reing of Terror and it's no surprise that to a Latin American socialist, the U.S. would seem to be exactly that : the most evil empire of all time.

[Judi Lynn]

61. Someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about this aspect

of American history of interfering in Latin America through propping up vicious dictators could get a lightning fast condensed idea from looking at these sketches. If you've read here long, no doubt you've already seen them used to help people who are struggling!

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/CentralAmerica.html
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Caribbean.html

Hugo Chavez has had a chance to see our handiwork much farther back than just his term as Venezuela's President. He lead a coup unsuccessfully against a vicious, dirty dictator, Carlos Andres Perez, who is also a friend of George H. W. Bush. Carlos Andres Perez ordered his military to fire into a crowd of poor people who were protesting the fact he had significantly raised their only transportation costs: buses, far, far more than they could afford.
The massacre was called "El Caracazo."

Click on the thumbnails if you wish to see photos of this event:
http://abn.info.ve/galeria/show.php?carpeta=El%20Caracazo.%20Fotos%20Frasso.%201989

Hugo Chavez was later pardoned by a following Venezuelan President, and Carlos Andres Perez was impeached for massive corruption. He is a prominent voice in the Venezuelan "opposition" currently, living at times in New York, or Miami, and calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

On edit: Excuse, needed to clarify I didn't mean YOU are the one without a clue. Wanted to clear that up! Thanks.

[JimmyJazz]

73. The overthrow of the socialist Guatamalean government which

ultimately led that country down the path of 30 years of civil war. Hondoras, Nicaragua, Chile....I can how from his perspective, the tentacles of American Imperialism in Central and South America would lead him to make that statement even though it is inaccurate.

[Bassic]

83. It is inacurate in our perspective.

But in theirs and in that of other countries who have felt the wrath of the U.S., it might be very acurate indeed. This is not something that can be evaluated in absolute terms, by bodycount, economic statistics or the like. Ultimately, this is a judgement, and judgements are subjectives.

Of course, we don't have to agree with him, but this is how he sees it nonetheless.

[K-W]

59. Or he didnt expect people to interpret his words rediculously.

Im sure we could all have an interesting academic discussion over which was the most brutal empire in history, but that really isnt the point.

The point is that the US is a brutal empire of historical proportions and I have no doubt that under some measures of brutality or another it is number one.

Regardless you are just playing games, youve chosen one sentance out of his speech that was obviously a rhetorical flourish and you are attacking it as if he were literally trying to make a definitive statement about the history of empire.

[DFWdem]

62. He is a head of state

I don't believe I am interpreting his words ridiculously. He has scores of people on his payroll, among them being speech writers, diplomats, generals - all the people heads of state surround themselves with in every country. Because he is a head of state he must know that his words will be taken as official government policy, seeing as how he is the head of the government. That is the type of rhetoric one would expect to hear from a special interest advocate, not a president. I find it hard to believe Chavez doesn't understand that. In diplomacy, there is a reason behind virtually every word that is used. i wonder, would you have said the same thing in the 1930's when Hitler was talking about the Jews being the cause of all that was wrong with Germany and the world, or would you have just said he was using a "rhetorical flourish"?

[K-W]

65. And I thought you were being rediculous before.

I think if you will go check around the world you will find that all world leaders use oversimplistic rhetoric.

So you are arguing that anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together would mistake that statement for an official Venezualan position on the history of empire? As if nations even took positions on on the history of empire.

Your reference to Hitler is comically/tragically off base.

Anyone foolish enough to think Chavez was making some definitive argument about historical empires cannot be serious enough to matter diplomatically.

[DFWdem]

66. You're right

Word selection isn't all that important. To wit:

"You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."
"Axis of evil"
"Crusade"
"Evil-doers"
"Nucular"

[K-W]

69. When you feel like responding to something I actually said,

let me know.

[DFWdem]

93. Okay then, here you go

Chavez says the US is evil, brutal, and imperialistic. Obviously that will influence Venezuala's stance toward the US. If you do not believe this to be the case, just look at the rhetoric shrub uses concerning nations in the world and the US stance towards those nations: Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria. Bush calls them oppressive, dictatorial regimes, and the official US policy towards these countries is, shall we say, less than friendly. You seem to be believe tht the president of Venezuala can say the US is evil and barbaric, yet the official gov't policy towards the US won't be influenced by this perception. Are you really that naive?

[K-W]

97. You are again responding to something I did not say, but

I will indulge you.

Chavez says the US is evil, brutal, and imperialistic.
THe US is brutal and imperialistic.

obviously that will influence Venezuala's stance toward the US.
I think it reflects Venezuala's stance toward the US, I dont think it influences it.


If you do not believe this to be the case, just look at the rhetoric shrub uses concerning nations in the world and the US stance towards those nations: Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria. Bush calls them oppressive, dictatorial regimes, and the official US policy towards these countries is, shall we say, less than friendly.

This hardly proves anything about Chavez, but I dont disagree with you that Chavez's language reflected his and thus to some extent his governments attitude towards Washington.


You seem to be believe tht the president of Venezuala can say the US is evil and barbaric, yet the official gov't policy towards the US won't be influenced by this perception. Are you really that naive?

You do realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing one sentance out of his speech where he called the US the most brutal empire in history. First you harped on the fact that the statement may not technically be true, then you pushed the idea that it was some kind of diplomatic blunder, when in fact it was rather unimportant rhetoric that nobody but you thinks is important.

But now you are apparently backing off your focus on that statement and you are making the completely unrelated argument that Chavez's overall negative message about America will cause his governments relationship with America to become more hostile.

This is of course obviously not true. His speech reflects his policy, it doesnt cause his policy.

But the fact that he is antagonizing Washington is certainly true, but it isnt a diplomatic blunder. First off, Washington made the decision to be an enemy of Chavez, not vice versa. So it is hardly suprising to see him railing against the US government. And secondly his strategy is paying off dividends as he continues to increase his credibility and popularity in the region by opposing destructive US policies.

You seem to think it is some scandalous revelation that Chavez and his government dont like the US government.

[DFWdem]

101. Well...

Chavez says the US is evil, brutal, and imperialistic.
THe US is brutal and imperialistic."

Correct, but no more so than any other nation, and substantially less so than many throughout both recent and not-so-recent history.

Obviously that will influence Venezuala's stance toward the US.
"I think it reflects Venezuala's stance toward the US, I dont think it influences it."

Okay, we can play semantics if you wish. It both reflects Venezuala's stance towards the US and will influence future Venezualan policies towards the US.

"But now you are apparently backing off your focus on that statement and you are making the completely unrelated argument that Chavez's overall negative message about America will cause his governments relationship with America to become more hostile. This is of course obviously not true. His speech reflects his policy, it doesnt cause his policy."

Well, I wouldn't say I'm backing off of the focus of my original assertion; rather, I am explaining why what he said should be taken seriously instead of regarding it as a completely innocent rhetorical flourish. As to the issue of whether Venezuala's policy towards the US will become more hostile, who knows? Obviously the speech itself won't cause a change in policy. If his speech reflects his government's policy, tell me again why Chavez essentially declaring that the US is the worst thing to happen to the world since the bubonic plague is unimportant? Especially when paired with his recent actions of reaching out to Iran, which regards the US as "The Great Satan". Should we invade Venezuala? Of course not. But by the same token I'm not going to fawn over Chavez like he's the second coming.

[K-W]

104. Yah, the US is no more imperialistic than Sweden :p

Correct, but no more so than any other nation, and substantially less so than many throughout both recent and not-so-recent history.

Keep dreaming.


Okay, we can play semantics if you wish. It both reflects Venezuala's stance towards the US and will influence future Venezualan policies towards the US.

It isnt semantics. Your entire argument was that his words were foolish because they would effect policy. And no, it will not influence anything. His speeches do not influence his policy, they are crafted to support his policy.


Well, I wouldn't say I'm backing off of the focus of my original assertion; rather, I am explaining why what he said should be taken seriously instead of regarding it as a completely innocent rhetorical flourish.

The rhetorical flourish was the one statement, which should indeed not be taken as seriously as you took it. I never said that his overall speech shouldnt be taken seriously. But thanks for once again responding to something I never said.

As to the issue of whether Venezuala's policy towards the US will become more hostile, who knows? Obviously the speech itself won't cause a change in policy. If his speech reflects his government's policy, tell me again why Chavez essentially declaring that the US is the worst thing to happen to the world since the bubonic plague is unimportant?

I never said it wasnt important, we were discussing ONE SENTANCE. You have now changed the subject to his overall speech. So stop pretending that my comments regarding the one sentance were my comments about the overall speech.

Especially when paired with his recent actions of reaching out to Iran, which regards the US as "The Great Satan".

Wow, what a completely bullshit argument. Chavez has also reached out to US allies, does that mean he loves the US?

Should we invade Venezuala? Of course not. But by the same token I'm not going to fawn over Chavez like he's the second coming.
Nobody is asking you to, so what are you talking about?

You seem to only be interested in arguing against points nobody made.

[DFWdem]

106. Depends on how you look at it

Sweden couldn't even find the courage to oppose naziism. What's that saying? The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?

"It isnt semantics. Your entire argument was that his words were foolish because they would effect policy. And no, it will not influence anything. His speeches do not influence his policy, they are crafted to support his policy.

Okay, we'll play it your way. His words won't influence policy. Rather, his words show us what his policy is and what his policies will be. With that being the case, he is openly hostile to the US, not just Bush. It therefore stands to reason that he takes issue with the country as a whole, not just the current administration.

"I never said it wasnt important, we were discussing ONE SENTANCE. You have now changed the subject to his overall speech. So stop pretending that my comments regarding the one sentance were my comments about the overall speech."

While you may be discussing one sentence, I am discussing one sentence in the context of the speech, as I prefer to take things in context.

Chavez says "socialism is the only way". I disagree. I prefer to have the opportunity to propser rather than simply survive. If Venezuala wants socialism that's their prerogative. I am of the mind that a better model is 80/20 or 90/10 capitalism/socialism.

[K-W]

108. Perhaps

Sweden couldn't even find the courage to oppose naziism. What's that saying? The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?


It certainly says nothing that relates to our discussion.

Okay, we'll play it your way. His words won't influence policy. Rather, his words show us what his policy is and what his policies will be. With that being the case, he is openly hostile to the US, not just Bush. It therefore stands to reason that he takes issue with the country as a whole, not just the current administration.
I suppose if that was the only information you had you might draw that conclusion, but luckily for us we have lots of information and know that in fact Chavez draws destinctions between the people and the leaders. And only has issues with those people behind policies he opposes.

While you may be discussing one sentence, I am discussing one sentence in the context of the speech, as I prefer to take things in context.

Now you are just weaseling. WE (not I) were discussing one sentance. You then started to discuss the overall context, which I have no problem whatsoever with, except that you pretended my comments about the one sentance were about the entire speech.

Stop taking my comments out of context and there wont be a problem.

Chavez says "socialism is the only way". I disagree. I prefer to have the opportunity to propser rather than simply survive. If Venezuala wants socialism that's their prerogative. I am of the mind that a better model is 80/20 or 90/10 capitalism/socialism.

We can discuss economics another day, but sorry that makes little to no sense when applied to the real world.

[Judi Lynn]

72. Your pResident supports a brutal dictator right now.

Islam Karimov. Uzbekistan. Tortures political prisoners. Boils political prisoners to death.

Graphic illustrations would make the point:

Photo-documentation:

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

The US condemned this repression for many years. But since September 11 rewrote America's strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington's new best friend in the region.
(snip/...)

http://www.thenausea.com/elements/uzbekistan/tortures.html

[TroubleMan]

77. Don't forget how we invaded Haiti and REINSTATED SLAVERY

after "the slaves" freed themselves.

Not to mention all the other messed up stuff we've done to Haiti.

[K-W]

31. Really, I can still take him seriously, perhaps thats just your problem

I find it a good idea not to reach sweeping conclusions about people based on what is obviously rhetoric.

[DFWdem]

37. Whatever

I find it a good idea not to reach sweeping conclusions about a nation based on what is obviously a lack of knowledge of world events over the past 2000 years. Is there a particular reason why he didn't put the words "one of" in front of "the most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."? Like the US, Soviet Russia, Iran, etc., Chavez must have an external enemy on which to focus the animosity of his citizens in order to rally their feelings of nationalism. Looks like we're it.


Edit to remove brackets, which removed a line from the text.

[K-W]

40. Maybe Chavez doesnt care

if people like you blow his rhetoric out of proportion.

[DFWdem]

43. He doesn't need me to blow it out of proportion

He seems to be doing a good job of that all by himself

[K-W]

44. All evidence suggests otherwise.

You seem to be the only one who got caught up on one statement that is rather obviously a rhetorical flourish.

[cire4]

36. Look at it from the Latin American perspective....

There exists no country that has done more damage to the entire South American continent than the United States. From drug policies to trade policies, the US has been absolutely brutal to the Latin American population, especially the working class.

It's easy to see why Chavez would come to that conclusion. He has first hand experience with the effects of the US dominance in the region. Many Latin Americans would come to the same conclusion. It's why Chavez was elected and its why anti-American socialists are rapidly gaining in popularity everywhere from Bolivia to Mexico.

[Minstrel Boy]

39. Exactly.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

The US has held much of Latin America in thrall for more than a century, propping up vicious puppets, waging bloody proxy wars, devastating populations with egregious drug and trade policies. The toll must be in the millions by now.

[Judi Lynn]

42. Much of it was done clandestinely, too.

That would indicate the Republican Presidents KNEW it wasn't right!

Only thirty years later are we FINALLY learning just how much suffering was cast upon the Chilean people with our own taxes funding events and tragedies far beyond our eyes and ears, completely without our knowledge.

There are STILL obviously many Americans who have no idea what the hell has been happening during Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush's loathesome terms of office.

Doesn't keep them from yammering and gibbering like wild men any chance they get, however, calling down hell fire on people who are far better informed from simple awareness and simple ability to learn than they.

[Pystoff]

51. Spain

Ok that go's back a good ways but it's true.

[Bassic]

84. It goes back too far for collective memory.

Right now, and such has been the case for a very long time, it's not Spain but the U.S. who are fucking them over.

[Pystoff]

92. Yeah we get credit for the last 100 years

But Spain gets more credit and it should be applied correctly. I mean lest we forget history in its true form these things should be said right?

[Zhade]

76. Very, very important point!

NT!

[On the Road]

63. If You Go Back to Colonial Days

the characterization is a bit more apt. Depopulation of the Indians began long before 1776, and our founding fathers like Washington were deeply involved.

Keep in mind Chavez is a lot closer to the situation. He lives on a continent which lost over 90% of its population. Diease was part of it, but it weakened the native population enough so that the military could do the rest. The early part of that was done under the Spanish, but since the days of Monroe the US has made sure the continent was ruled by the most oppressive governments possible.

[Mr. Peanut]

75. Well, unfortunately...

we don't always wear the white hats.

[donheld]

100. Chavez was right on the mark

Most of us in the US are the ones with the "profound ignorance of world history."

[Judi Lynn]

109. Just the way our control obsessed right-wing likes it, too.

If the vast majority of us knew what they were up to when they were doing it, we'd be tempted to agitate to prevent it, and they wouldn't get their bloodthirsty, filthy greedy way.

The way it is, we've been finding out around 30 years too late to do anything about it.

[sabra]

13. Chavez: U.S. will ''bite the dust'' if it invades Venezuela

<<SNIP>>
http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/42585.asp

Chavez: U.S. will ''bite the dust'' if it invades Venezuela

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told thousands of visiting students that if U.S. forces were to invade the South American country, they would be soundly defeated. The U.S. government has strongly denied Chavez's claims that it is considering military action against Cuba's closest ally in the Americas.

But Chavez said late Monday that the U.S. government, which "won''t stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela," should be warned of the consequences. "If someday they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we''ll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land," Chavez said to applause. He spoke during the opening ceremony of a world youth festival bringing together student delegations from across the world and convened under the slogan "Against Imperialism and War."

<</SNIP>>

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. He just isn't gonna be happy unless we invade him.

:)

[Bassic]

85. More like he's convinced it will happen.

Aside from Cuba, the U.S. has been quite sucessful in overthrowing left wing governements in South America.

Just wait untill he tries to put his country's oil reserves under state control and watch the wingnuts and fucktards go ballistic...

[Judi Lynn]

87. Actually, it was a VERY ugly friend of the Bushes who already nationalized

the oil. Carlos Andres Perez, who also ordered government troops to fire into a crowd of poor people protesting a vicious increase in their only transportation, the country's bus system. The event was called "El Caracazo."

Carlos Andres Perez was later impeached for massive corruption. He lives sometimes at his apartment in New York, sometimes in Miami, and he is a loud voice of Venezuela's opposition which has controlled Venezuela until Hugo Chavez was elected. He has been calling for Chavez's murder, that he should be shot "like a dog." He is a personal friend of George H. W. Bush.

The nationalization information:

In December 1974, a national commission created by President Pérez delivered a proposal for nationalization. This proposal formed the core of the 1975 law that nationalized the oil industry. The most controversial element of the new law was Article 5, which gave the government the authority to contract out to multinational firms for various technical services and marketing. Despite the controversy, Article 5 provided technical expertise that proved crucial to the industry's smooth transition to state control beginning on January 1, 1976.
(snip/...)

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/venezuela/venezuela51.html



Carlos Andres Perez
Bush friend, friend of
American right-wing
Photos of his career high-point,
El Caracazo:
http://abn.info.ve/galeria/show.php?carpeta=El%20Caracazo.%20Fotos%20Frasso.%201989
Click on thumbnails

There are some great links provided about Venezuela in this DU thread from last February, attended by someone who claimed to be a
citizen of Venezuela, an anti-Chavez poster. He hasn't been back since this conversation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x104886

[Bassic]

88. Indeed.

What I meant was that when Chavez actually tries to implement a diffrent policy regarding oil, one that does not fit with the U.S. agenda, then there may be trouble.

[Judi Lynn]

91. You bet. Undoubted the entire vile contents of the violent right-wing

would sell their first-born for the chance to launch an all-out war on any leader who dares to put his nation's interest first, and not bow down to them, begging their indulgence, seeking their mercy.

They've always identified with the wealthy European-descended ruling class in Latin America and the Caribbean, and favored the stooges who serve them, like Fulgencio Batista and Francois Duvalier.

[Gregorian]

15. Hey, only bush can talk that way.

Here's a hint- spare the bombs. Americans are mostly good people. But if you see a guy clearing brush in Crawford Texas, feel free to liberate.

[getmeouttahere]

16. Viva Chavez!

I have a feeling he won't be alone if the U.S. was stupid enough to invade...

www.handsoffvenezuela.org

[bluestateguy]

17. "We must stop the dictator of Venezuela!"*

*Actual quote heard on a local radio talk show.

[mom cat]

20. We must stop the dictator of the US!

[Cha]

22. Hate radio in America is

like Toyko Rose was in Japan.

[Judi Lynn]

18. He's wise to keep Bush's threat to Venezuela in front of the world's eyes.

Letting the world know that _Bush constitutes a continuous threat to him and for NO REASON WHATSOEVER is absolutely appropriate.

[cliss]

23. Yes, he's been doing this for quite a while.

Chavez is using the self-defense tactic: if you see a mugger approaching you, screech to high heaven. Make a lot of noise. Chances are, you'll deter your attacker.

It seems to be working. The US has backed off, is hesitating. I think Washington has GOT to be thinking of its reputation, at least what's left of it. If they blatantly attack, there will be fallout. I think the schemers prefer to do things in secret, using local paramilitaries and hope no one leads it back to the source.

In the meantime, Chavez is no doubt arming himself. I believe Venezuela is the 5th largest producer of oil, so that makes him a major player. It's not the best oil - but it's

close.

[Mairead]

49. He really knows how to deter a mugger!

Force the US to repeat over and over that it has no intention of attacking. Attract and concentrate world attention so that the CIA can't do another Chile.

[justinsb]

19. Viva Chavez!

It's too bad the US doesn't have the same capable leadership.

www.handsoffvenezuela.org

[underthedome]

25. Why does Chavez get a pass? he strongly supports a military dictatorship

We see people here slamming Bush and U.S. policyies for supporting dictators but people here high five Chavez even though he has an extremely close relationship with Cuba’s military dictatorship. Why the double standard?

[justinsb]

29. Chavez has overcome great odds in just staying in power

he has enacted reforms that have been of great benefeit to the great many poor in Venezuela and according to most independent reports, enjoys great popularity amoung most of the poor and working class. He has not, to the best of my knowledge, endorsed Castro's style of government, but he does have normal relations with Cuba (which IMO the US should also), he has praised Castro for his ability to stand up to the US and for his efforts to help the poor and improve social conditions in a very poor and isolated country.

If Chavez has sought help from Cuba and China it should come as no suprise. The US is openly backing his opposition, including giving them financial support. The US is pumping anti-Chavez propoganda into his country and throughout the world, making accusations without evidence, etc. He has to find allies somewhere given the threat. For doing what is in the best interests of his people, instead of caving in to the demands of the US and multi-national corporations alone he deserves a high-five. Is he perfect? Obviously not. But, it is high time people started standing up for themselves instead of letting the US and it's very wealthy run the world.

[DFWdem]

52. Question re: Cuba

You state that Cuba is a very poor and isolated country. Aside from the US, do any other countries have trade embargos in place against Cuba, and if not, why are they still poor? After all, the inability to trade with the US alone won't keep a country from prospering. If there are no other embargos in place, Cuba can trade with every other country in the world. I fail to see how a US trade embargo would devestate the entire economy of Cuba.

[Judi Lynn]

57. You may feel a need to start filling in the gaps in your awareness

of this subject.

"Denial of Food and Medicine:
The Impact Of The U.S. Embargo
On The Health And Nutrition In Cuba"
-An Executive Summary-
American Association for World Health Report
Summary of Findings
March 1997

Recently four factors have dangerously exacerbated the human effects of this 37-year-old trade embargo. All four factors stem from little-understood provisions of the U.S. Congress' 1992 Cuban Democracy Act (CDA):

1. A Ban on Subsidiary Trade: Beginning in 1992, the Cuban Democracy Act imposed a ban on subsidiary trade with Cuba. This ban has severely constrained Cuba's ability to import medicines and medical supplies from third country sources. Moreover, recent corporate buyouts and mergers between major U.S. and European pharmaceutical companies have further reduced the number of companies permitted to do business with Cuba.
   
2. Licensing Under the Cuban Democracy Act: The U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments are allowed in principle to license individual sales of medicines and medical supplies, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons to mitigate the embargo's impact on health care delivery. In practice, according to U.S. corporate executives, the licensing provisions are so arduous as to have had the opposite effect. As implemented, the licensing provisions actively discourage any medical commerce. The number of such licenses granted-or even applied for since 1992-is minuscule. Numerous licenses for medical equipment and medicines have been denied on the grounds that these exports "would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests."
   
3. Shipping Since 1992:The embargo has prohibited ships from loading or unloading cargo in U.S. ports for 180 days after delivering cargo to Cuba. This provision has strongly discouraged shippers from delivering medical equipment to Cuba. Consequently shipping costs have risen dramatically and further constricted the flow of food, medicines, medical supplies and even gasoline for ambulances. From 1993 to 1996, Cuban companies spent an additional $8.7 million on shipping medical imports from Asia, Europe and South America rather than from the neighboring United States.
   
4. Humanitarian Aid: Charity is an inadequate alternative to free trade in medicines, medical supplies and food. Donations from U.S. non-governmental organizations and international agencies do not begin to compensate for the hardships inflicted by the embargo on the Cuban public health system. In any case, delays in licensing and other restrictions have severely discouraged charitable contributions from the U.S.
   

(snip)

Finally, the AAWH wishes to emphasize the stringent nature of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Few other embargoes in recent history - including those targeting Iran, Libya, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Chile or Iraq - have included an outright ban on the sale of food. Few other embargoes have so restricted medical commerce as to deny the availability of life-saving medicines to ordinary citizens. Such an embargo appears to violate the most basic international charters and conventions governing human rights, including the United Nations charter, the charter of the Organization of American States, and the articles of the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of civilians during wartime.

American Association for World Health
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1208
Washington, DC 20006
Tel. [phone] / FAX [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

http://www.cubasolidarity.net/aawh.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Surely you haven't given a 45 year old embargo much thought, have you? The reach of this embargo is extra-territorial and includes punishment against other companies in other countries trying to do business in Cuba while also doing business with the U.S.

It includes a ban on the sale of any items from other countries which include one small part manufactured in the U.S., as in X-ray machines, dialysis machines, water purification machines, etc., etc., etc.

All imported material from countries far enough away and inclined to do business with Cuba cost many, many times more due to the expense of the added costs for transportation. How hard is this to grasp?

If the most basic elements of daily life have to be imported to Cuba from Viet Nam, etc., it takes far more money to survive.

[DFWdem]

64. That's why I'm asking Judi Lynn

I have never heard of other countries having a trade embargo with Cuba. I find it hard to believe that the fact that the US won't do business with companies that do business in Cuba would have the effect of impoverishing the entire country. As for the cost of importing goods from Vietnam instead of the US being much higher, how many goods do we import from China and other countries in the pacific rim?

On edit: Wasn't Cuba supported by the USSR up until around 1990? Certainly the USSR didn't care if their companies could not do business with the US.

[Judi Lynn]

68. We can't jump start your brain, can we?

This is a quick grab from google, but it's the one I'll have to post, as I'm in a hurry today. I'll check back later if I get some time. It'd be helpful if you'd spend some time and start trying to figure things out for yourself, and not make your starting place a position of total blankness. There's only so much that can be accomplished quickly. Please take it upon yourself to start reading, and getting up to speed, just the way so many DU'ers have done already:

Tools of economic warfare
The Bush administration's current war for regime change in Cuba depends not on cluster bombs and depleted uranium, but on the use of a 45-year old economic embargo as a weapon to isolate Cuba. By preventing other countries from trading with Cuba, the U.S. government hopes to make it impossible for the nation to provide for the needs of its citizens. Cuba will reach a breaking point; the people will rise up against their government and welcome the U.S. "liberators" with open arms. At least that's the way it is supposed to work. A full 400 pages of the 458 page "Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba Report" are focused on the delivery of aid by the U.S. government to a new regime to ease the suffering caused by the crippling economic embargo. The report outlines in detail a plan for rebuilding the country in the U.S.'s image of a model representative democracy with a free-market economy. Does the term nation building sound familiar from some other context?
When socialism ended in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Cuba lost its largest trading partner and fell into a deep economic depression. In the U.S., many hoped that Cuban socialism would follow and it was to that end that they chose that moment to tighten the embargo. In October 1992, less than a month before the U.S. general elections, Congress passed the Torricelli Act. Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. owned companies were prohibited from trading with Cuba. Ships that delivered goods to Cuba were prohibited from docking in U.S. ports for six months after, forcing shipping companies to decide who they wanted to trade with: Cuba or the United States. Because a ship docking in Cuba either loses access to the U.S. market or risk a steep fine if they dock in a U.S. port, Cuba's shipping costs skyrocketed. The law also restricted remittances, prohibited economic assistance and debt forgiveness to any country conducting trade with Cuba, and increased punitive measures for anyone breaking the trade embargo or travelling to Cuba illegally.

Four years later, in another election year (1996), Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act. This Act included another series of harsh measures aimed at preventing non-U.S. firms from trading with Cuba by punishing those who engage in commercial dealings with Cuba. Under the Helms-Burton Act, any naturalized U.S. citizens whose Cuban property had been confiscated since the Revolution now had the right to sue, in U.S. courts, the foreign companies or individuals who they deem have gained from investments in those properties. It also authorized the U.S. State Department to deny visas to the executives, majority shareholders and their families of companies that have invested in property that belonged to U.S. companies prior to the Revolution.
(snip/...)

http://www.doublestandards.org/bastian1.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lest you try to assume it's a problem which pertains only to socialist Presidents in this hemisphere, surely you'd be aided in realizing this problem goes back to the 1800's, and a remark brought forward from a Southern dirtball, J.C. Greenwood, Undersecretary of War, in a memo written on Christmas Eve, 1897:

We must impose a harsh blockade so that hunger and its constant companion, disease, undermine the peaceful population and decimate the Cuban army.
(snip)

we must create conflicts for the independent government. That government will be faced with these difficulties, in addition to the lack of means to meet our demands and the commitments made to us, war expenses and the need to organize a new country. These difficulties must coincide with the unrest and violence among the aforementioned elements, to whom we must give our backing.

To sum up, our policy must always be to support the weaker against the stronger, until we have obtained the extermination of them both, in order to annex the Pearl of the Antilles.
(snip)

http://members.fortunecity.com/10bitteroldmen/bmemo.html

[DFWdem]

95. So what is your complaint exactly?

You seem to say in one breath that it is wrong for the US to prop up dictatorial regimes, which I agree with, but in the next breath say we should resume normal trade relations with Cuba. Where do you think the vast majority of the wealth created from this trade would go? Perhaps into the pocket of the island dictator? Oh, I forgot, Castro isn't a dictator, he's just misunderstood. However, I do agree that we should be consistent. We have a policy of engagement with China, hoping that they will slowly improve their human rights record as their society becomes more open. Why do we not have the same policy towards Cuba? Of course, on the other hand you have the fact that Castro aligned himself and his country with our enemy (Soviet Russia in the 1960s) and then proceeded to import nuclear missiles to within 75 miles of the US mainland, bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear war. I can see both sides of the argument. Obviously you don't want to enrich a regime that is openly hostile to the US, but by the same token you don't want to deny basic necessities to the citizens of that country. How do you accomplish the latter without inadvertently doing the former?

[Judi Lynn]

96. Drop the embargo. Period.

It's not this country's place to destroy that island.

An overwhelming majority of the country's against the embargo and the travel ban, including many, many Republicans.

I'm not going to argue about it. It's stupid to pretend the embargo's appropriate. Only drunken, half-crazed idiots would support it, from that circle-jerk in Miami, and their fellow-dipsticks in the Republican right-wing lunatic fringe.

Help. Commies! Run for your life.

[DFWdem]

98. Okay, end the embargo

But if/when we do this, won't this cause the enrichment of Castro and serve to strengthen his hold on power? And when it does, it could then be said that we are propping up yet another tyrant with our policies. As for whether the embargo is inappropriate, Castro sided with the USSR and allowed them to import nuclear ICBMs to Cuba, which would obviously have been aimed at US cities. Is it really in America's best interests to befriend him? For the record, I'm indifferent towards Cuba. If people want to travel there then more power to them. However, I can understand the position of those who wish to keep the embargo in place as long as Castro is in power, and I also understand the position of those who wish to lift the embargo. Obviously the embargo or the lifting thereof is a bipartisan issue. If it was either Democratic or Republican the position would have been changedsometime over the past 40 years.

[Judi Lynn]

99. You apparently never realized the Russians put the missiles in place

AFTER the United States arranged the Bay of Pigs invasion.

One of the agreements made in order to remove the missiles was that the United States would NOT invade Cuba again.

The very same President, DEMOCRAT JOHN F. KENNEDY, who had been taken in, and allowed the Bay of Pigs, was in the process, up to the very day he was MURDERED to completely re-arrange U.S./Cuba relations.

Kennedy Sought Dialogue with Cuba

INITIATIVE WITH CASTRO ABORTED BY ASSASSINATION,
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOWOval Office Tape Reveals Strategy to hold clandestine Meeting in Havana; Documents record role of ABC News correspondent Lisa Howard as secret intermediary in Rapprochement effort

Posted - November 24, 2003

Washington D.C. - On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in ." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations.

The untold story of the Kennedy-Castro effort to seek an accommodation is the subject of a new documentary film, KENNEDY AND CASTRO: THE SECRET HISTORY, broadcast on the Discovery/Times cable channel on November 25 at 8pm. The documentary film, which focuses on Ms. Howard's role as a secret intermediary in the effort toward dialogue, was based on an article -- "JFK and Castro: The Secret Quest for Accommodation" -- written by Archive Senior Analyst Peter Kornbluh in the magazine, Cigar Aficionado. Kornbluh served as consulting producer and provided key declassified documents that are highlighted in the film. "The documents show that JFK clearly wanted to change the framework of hostile U.S. relations with Cuba," according to Kornbluh. "His assassination, at the very moment this initiative was coming to fruition, leaves a major 'what if' in the ensuing history of the U.S. conflict with Cuba."

Among the key documents relevant to this history:

• Oval Office audio tape, November 5, 1963. The tape records a conversation between the President and McGeorge Bundy regarding Castro's invitation to William Attwood, a deputy to UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, to come to Cuba for secret talks. The President responds that Attwood should be taken off the U.S. payroll prior to such a meeting so that the White House can plausibly deny that any official talks have taken place if the meeting leaks to the press.
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Mr. Donovan's Trip to Cuba," March 4, 1963. This document records President Kennedy's interest in negotiations with Castro and his instructions to his staff to "start thinking along more flexible lines" on conditions for a dialogue with Cuba.
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Policy," April 11, 1963. A detailed options paper from Gordon Chase, the Latin America specialist on the National Security Council, to McGeorge Bundy recommending "looking seriously at the other side of the coin-quietly enticing Castro over to us."
  
• CIA briefing paper, Secret, "Interview of U.S. Newswoman with Fidel Castro Indicating Possible Interest in Rapprochement with the United States," May 1, 1963. A debriefing of Lisa Howard by CIA deputy director Richard Helms, regarding her ABC news interview with Castro and her opinion that he is "ready to discuss rapprochement." The document contains a notation, "Psaw," meaning President Kennedy read the report on Howard and Castro.
  
• U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas.
  
• White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press.
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans.
  
• White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Cuba -- Item of Presidential Interest," November 25, 1963. A strategy memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy assessing the problems and potential for pursuing the secret talks with Castro in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination.
  (snip/...)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This would have probably driven the right-wing bomb-tossing nutball torturer/murderer Batista supporters in Miami berserk.

[K-W]

102. And after we put nukes in Turkey.

The USSR was responding in kind, and Cuba was working with them because the US made sure nobody allied to the US would help Cuba defend itself after we initiated a terrorist war.

[DFWdem]

103. No, I realized that

Was that the cause of the USSR moving the missles in or was it merely an excuse to do so? Additionally, if I was Castro I think I might have told the US that if they tried something like that again then I would bring in nukes from Russia rather than bringing them in as a first option. Of course, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback where history is concerned, so what I would or wouldn't have done in a similar situation doesn't really matter.

[K-W]

105. The USSR was motivated by missles in Turkey.

It was Cuba that was motivated to allow the USSR to place missles by US attacks on Cuba, particularly the Bay of Pigs.

[Judi Lynn]

107. That's right. There were far more raids and attacks going on, too.

There was even an American pilot who got shot down running a bombing raid on Cuba well before the Bay of Pigs. Killed him deader than a doornail.

Factories, passenger trains, a busy department store, etc., etc. all shot up, or bombed. Pathetic.

[1932]

78. I'm reading Richard Gott's _Cuba_

Chavez recommends Gott's book on Venezuela as a useful text for understanding what's going on in his own country, so I, personally, give a lot of credibility to Gott's useful history (which includes insightful criticisms of Castro).

Gott says that Guevara was very interested in building diverse indigenous industries that manufactured and sold just about everything Cuba consumed. Castro went a different direction. Gott points out that Castro was not a Marxist and had possibly one single Marxist in his government in the 70s, and that Castro and the Soviets had a very different opinion on many things (for example, the Soviets weren't interested in armed proletarian internationalism, whereas Castro and Guevara felt that rebel insurrections starting in the mountains and moving to the cities was the way to go).

However, as the US isolated Cuba and Cuba grew to rely on the Soviets to buy their sugar, Castro gradually became an enthusiastic supporter of whatever the Soviets wanted. It was the soviets who told Castro not to bother to try to diversify their economy and to only focus on sugar. Gott doesn't say so, but I suspect that's a big reason the embargo hurts Cuba so much (and personally, I don't think that's a reason to let Cubans suffer today). It makes Cuba heavily dependent on imported consumer goods, and it makes the country entirely a slave to the price of sugar.

Incidentally, another interesting thing Castro did occurred around the time of the Prague Spring. Dubcek (sp?) was a socialist who wanted much greater freedoms of expression, etc. In '68 many Cubans who supported the revolution in Cuba were interested in Dubcek. When the Soviets crushed the movement, people waited for Castro to speak up. On the one hand, they knew Castro must have found some elements of the Prague Spring to be very much in the spirit of what he wanted for Cuba. On the other, he was dependent on the munificence of the Soviets. After a few days, he gave a speech throwing all his support behind the Soviets. He even said that the free press Dubcek promised would become dominated by capitalists and used to undermine socialism, and so it was a bad idea. Then Castro decided to crack down on small businessman in Cuba--he said entrepreneurship was counter-revolutionary (which is antithetical to, for example, what Chavez is doing in Venezuela, where they're encouraging entrepreneurship and they believe the battle is against concentrated wealth and power). Certainly, that undermined the economy as well.

That's as far as I am, so I'm not yet sure how Gott is going to tie this all up. But, I think it might be safe to say that the West's isolation of Cuba forced Castro to throw his lot with the Soviets because they were buying Cuba's only export product (sugar) and they had to acquire everything else from soviet factories.

I also think it's safe to say that if the US set ideology aside and engaged in fair trade with Cuba, Cuba never would have had to throw their lot with the Soviets for economic reasons, and it also seems that Castro might have pursued a different line.

As Wes Clark says, great powers have great responsibility, and the US has used its great power against Cuba to make it go in a direction that caused much more misery than necessary.

[Bassic]

86. Well, who else would want ot trade with them?

They are a small country, extremely close to the U.S.. The E.U. has other tarding partners and Cuba is just too small to attract them, other than for tourism maybe.

They can trade with Canada, which they do, but still, they could do better.

[Judi Lynn]

89. Cuba has trading partners with countries all over the world.

Importation costs, over great distances are excessive.

U.S. legislation has provided extra-territorial threats to companies in other countries to discourage their trade with Cuba if they also wish to trade with the United States. This is mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

The U.S. is playing "keep away" with Cuban commerce to an enormous degree.

American business are rallying strongly against the embargo, and the countries in the General Assembly of the United Nations have been voting for around 14 years by a vast majority to end the U.S. embargo on the island, with only Israel, the Marshall Islands as countries which can be pressured to vote with the U.S. It may change this year, since _Bush has his pet psychopath working as his ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton.

[Bassic]

90. I'm curious to see just how much influence this guy is going to have.

May be some resistance. At least we can hope.

[killbotfactory]

47. that made me uncomfortable, too

but after all the BS propaganda I've been fed during my life, about whatever nation we deem the enemy, and all the horrible crap we've pulled in latin america that I was never told about, I'm starting to doubt the image of Evil Castro that's been ingrained in my head.

[Mairead]

48. "Cuba's military dictatorship"?? Get another supplier, guy, your one is

selling you hallucinogens.

[K-W]

54. Chavez isnt our president and he doesnt arm anyone. EOM

[ButterflyBlood]

81. and Bush kisses the Saudis

at least in Cuba, women can drive, and they aren't publicly executed for adultery. Once Bush tells the Saudis to fuck off I'll be concerned about Chavez and Castro.

[Cha]

21. bush had the crazy idea to

invade Iraq..nothing is out of their scope of insanity.

Good for Chavez speaking Truth to the Power!

[XemaSab]

24. We're already biting the dust in Iraq

Chavez is going to have to pick another metaphor.

[Gyre]

26. Hugo cracks me up!

"Bite the dust". That's some funny shit. I love it how he keeps tweaking smirk's beard (as if he could grow one!) :rofl:

Gyre

[okieinpain]

27. and speaking of cuba, I find it totally funny that because they are

so poor and had to find other means of transportation. they will probably end up with more money on hand and in better financial shape then some big ass world power that we all know. man oh, man may we live in interesting times.

[mirandapriestly]

80. BushCo Is more likely to get rid of Chavez in a Helicopter explosion

then install a pro US puppet. I am surprised he hasn't done it yet, I'm sure plans are in the works. After reading Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man , I worry all the time about Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

82. Do you remember this helicopter crash?

Four Generals Die In Crash Of Helicopter In Venezuela

by Juan Forero, April 21, 2002

CARACAS, Venezuela, April 20 - Four Venezuelan generals, including the newly appointed commander of the air force, died Friday evening when the military helicopter they were traveling in crashed in fog-shrouded mountains just north of here, military officials said today.

The military said the crash, which killed 10 members of the military, appeared to be an accident caused by bad weather. But it is certain to serve as a setback in the government's efforts to reorganize a splintered armed forces, whose military high commanders withdrew support for President Hugo Chávez during antigovernment protests a little more than a week ago.

Mr. Chávez was temporarily deposed but returned to power two days later with the help of officers loyal to him. Since he regained his post, he has been reorganizing the armed forces to ensure that he is surrounded by officers he can trust.
(snip/...)

http://www.lovearth.net/4generalsdieinhelicoptercrashinvenezuela.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It doesn't take much effort to notice that the men were all people Chavez would have valued in the future. It's not hard for me to believe they were killed deliberately to make things more difficult for Chavez, to deny him people who would be useful, and to leave him with a filthy death threat personally, hoping to push him away from the reforms he intends to initiate.

[goforit]

32. WOW!!!........Chavez certainly tells it like it is.

[VegasWolf]

34. What is Bush going to use to attack Venezuela, his good looks? -puke-

[Deja Q]

38. Seems like Red China isn't the problem anymore. Pink Venezuela is.

:eyes:

[splat@14]

41. Chavez needs to chill & wait his turn, we gotta do Iran first.

Crimeny, A tyrants work is never done!

[TrogL]

70. Don't forget Canada

Remember he wants the Northwest Passage and the new pipeline to the Arctic oilfields. Remember last time he wanted a pipeline?

[StaggerLee]

46. You may want to hold off on the rhetoric until next month Hugo

Georgie boy's busy hiding from a Gold Star mother.

And you of all people should know that Georgie can't eat a pretzel without hurting himself, let alone multi-task.

Sheesh.

[Barkley]

60. Support VZ and Hugo: Buy gas at Citgo

The Oil of L.A.


Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.)

Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
by Jeff Cohen
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-25.htm

[lakeguy]

74. right on! i almost ran out the other day because i only fill up at citgo.

[VegasWolf]

67. Hugo calls US "Savage Empire." Our reputation preceeds us. nt

[Greylyn58]

79. The pResident and his cabal are so freakin unbelieveable

I swear they have turned us into the biggest bullies on the planet. Hey...Let's pick a fight and go to war with everyone.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject of war, especially in connection with the current criminals sitting in our White House is from the sci-fi show Babylon 5 and it's on the subject of war and I think really fits this situation:

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiot would fight a war on twelve fronts."

At the rate these bastards are progressing, they might try to turn it into 12 fronts.

[Judi Lynn]

94. Venezuela Warns Illegal Diamond Miners to Leave

Venezuela Warns Illegal Diamond Miners to Leave

By THOMSON DIALOG: NewsEdge Posted: 8/10/2005 7:32 AM

(Rapaport...EFE News, VENEZUELA) Guyanese gold and diamond miners working illegally in Venezuela are being warned to leave the country or face expulsion by Venezuelan soldiers, the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA) said.

The Venezuelan Embassy in Guyana said it was unaware of any intensified military preparations in light of the activity of the illegal miners. But it also added that such a crackdown would be justified if it were to come about.

Word of an imminent crackdown came several weeks after the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission said it was possible that diamonds were being smuggled from Venezuela to Guyana to take advantage of lower taxes. Such contraband would violate the Kimberley Process protocol, an international accord aimed at halting the illegal diamond trade.

GGDMA executive secretary, Tony Shields, said the warning was issued based on information from the International Diamond Exchange that Venezuela has launched fresh efforts to stamp out illegal gold and diamond mining in its southeastern state of Bolivar. The illegal miners are said to be destroying virgin forest and polluting rivers.
(snip/...)

http://www.diamonds.net/news/newsitem.asp?num=12927