Venezuela aims for biggest military reserve in Americas

[cal04]

Around 500,000 Venezuelans will start a four-month military training programme today to turn them into members of the country's territorial guard. They are the first group of a total of 2m Venezuelan civilians who have so far signed up to become armed reservists. By the summer of 2007, Venezuela is likely to have the largest military reserve in the Americas, which is expected to be almost double the size of that in the United States.

The huge recruitment drive is part of President Hugo Chávez's plan to create a people's army that would answer directly to him in the event of civil unrest or an armed conflict. General Alberto Muller Rojas, one of the members of the army high command who helped to devise the new thinking in military strategy being adopted by Venezuela's leftwing government, said: "If for example the United States were to invade Venezuela one day, and that's what many people are expecting, the only way we could repel such an attack would be a full scale guerrilla war against the foreign aggressors.

"Our professional army only numbers 80,000 soldiers, so we would need to use civilians like in Iraq to fight the Yankee forces." Top military officials are confident that a reserve force of 2m, or one in five adults, would be sufficient to dissuade any country from invading Venezuela, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter and fifth biggest supplier of crude oil to the US. Many of Venezuela's state-owned companies, such as the oil giant PDVSA, have started their own territorial guard units. However, they are being asked to join the formal training programme offered by the armed forces. Richard Arrais, 40, a marketing executive who works at PDVSA's headquarters in Caracas, has his own office and works in a nine-to-five job Mondays to Fridays. But once a week he and his friends meet up as reservists.

He said: "Since January we've been holding informal meetings to discuss military tactics and to receive courses such as first aid. "But the training starting this Saturday will be tougher. There will be drill, weapons training and assault courses, as well as a military exercise in the countryside." Mr Arrais and others like him say they are happy to give up every Saturday in defence of their fatherland and the values of President Chávez's socialist revolution. They believe internal opposition forces and the United States could strike at any moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1723274,00.html

[WhiteTara]

1. and the arms race continues n/t

[corporate_mike]

49. meanwhile Venezuelans live in poverty

[WhiteTara]

53. as do Americans

the whole world is suffering from this madness of guns.

[corporate_mike]

54. Americans have a much higher standard of living than Venezuelans

[WhiteTara]

62. Having not been to Venezuela

I can not guess, but I imagine that in many places you are quite right. Have you been? I understand the country itself is beautiful. Has it been as polluted as so much of the rest of the world?

[Bacchus39]

69. yes and no

there are many unspoiled areas in the Amazon region, the Gran Savannah, the Angel Falls region, the Andes, and the Orinoco region. Lake Maracaibo, the main oil region, is highly polluted and the big cities like Caracas have quite alot of pollution.

any river that runs through a city is likely quite polluted.

[WhiteTara]

70. Do you live there?

What do you think of Chavez generally. Do you like the country? The people? What is the culture there. I was looking at the country, but could not find the culture. Couldn't find links to museums, galleries, etc. What does that mean?

[Bacchus39]

71. no, but visited several times

I am not real fond of Chavez.

the people are great. very friendly. Venezuela never has fully developed its tourist industry so the country doesn't really get the notoriety it deserves.

the culture is like caribbean coastal latin america. very lively and festive. In the mountain areas its more conservative and subdued.

I have heard Ven called the most "americanized" of south america. I think because of things like the popularity of American entertainment like movies and music, american cars but it didn't seem that too many people speak English. I also don't think Ven has the rich cultural history that other latin nations have of food, dress, dance, and music. like Mexico or Colombia or Argentina, or Brazil or Peru. they do have their own food and music of course but its really not known for its cultural features or or great Spanish colonial cities in comparison.

but the natural features are spectacular. its so varied. great beaches. you got the mountains. the savannah area and the Amazon rain forest basin. and the plateau area where Angel Falls has to seen to be believed. You would expect a dinosaur to approach you at any moment.

the coffee is kick ass too.

[WhiteTara]

73. thanks for the travelogue

I have thought I might like to go there at some time.

[Bacchus39]

75. you should

Canaima, the Angel Falls area, should not be missed.

[IsItJustMe]

64. not for long

[Jack_DeLeon]

84. Everybody has the right to defend themselves.

[happydreams]

57. and whose fault is that? Shit the US has had

a couple of hundred years to enable democracy in that country and we come to find out that all we did was undermine it at every turn. :mad:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. Should countries with more than X% poverty forfeit armed forces?

Or perhaps limit them to an amount that allows the US to run roughshod over them?

[corporate_mike]

61. They should spend billions and billions on guns

Maybe that will help our gun manufacturing industry

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. I guess that means a yes.

But to which of my two questions?

[corporate_mike]

88. They are delusional if they think they can defend themselves by going poor

You have to become an economic powerhouse before you can become a military powerhouse.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. That don't have to become a military powerhouse.

Was Vietnam one?

[IsItJustMe]

63. spurred on by * war mentality scaring the hell out of everyone

[liberalmike27]

2. Sad, isn't it

That all these countries have to spend all this money to defend themselves against us.

Sure it is an arms race, but who is the sponsor? Interestingly enough, the five on the 'security' council.

[TankLV]

3. The rest of the world better follow their example if they don't want to be

"preempted" on another whim from a WAR CRIMINAL repuke again, that's for sure!

It would be foolish NOT to.

[1932]

11. Most of it will be spent on salaries for working class people, which is...

good.

[davepc]

55. Whats so sad about the people having the means to defend themselves?

Either from outside threats or their own government.

The flip side of this is Chavez or any other Venezuelan leader can't run ruff shod over the people, because they'll have the means to defend themselves.

An armed citizenry is a GOOD THING.

Thomas Jefferson would approve.

[DBoon]

4. Glad to see someone respects the true spirit of the US 2nd Amendment

a well armed militia...

[madeline_con]

5. And in a few years, these new recruits will oust El Presidente.

It happens every time....

But Viva Hugo in the meantime.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Venezuela prepared for possible US sanctions: minister

Venezuela prepared for possible US sanctions: minister

www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-04 12:22:55

CARACAS, March 3 (Xinhuanet) -- The Venezuelan government was considering measures to counter possible economic sanctions being imposed against it by the United States, Foreign Trade Minister Gustavo Marquez said on Friday.

Venezuela has been developing its economic ties with Argentina with a view to shielding the country from events like the recent U.S. interference in Venezuela's purchase of warships and military planes from Spain, he said.

"Faced with this and the challenge of developing the Venezuelan economy, we must respond by promoting regional integration," said the minister.
(snip/...)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/04/content_4256234.htm

[murray hill farm]

23. Judi Lynn...i have been meaning to ask u this...

so, when i saw your post..thought to do it now..it is off subject some..but u are, in my mind, the DU expert on central and south america. Countries like Mexico and Venezuela ship a good % of their crude oil to the usa to be refined..and in the case of mexico, at least, then buy back..through some formula, the refined gasoline from the oil. Do you know the present capacity for refinery in these countries, if either..or others with the same arrangement, have now in their own countries...and/or plans to develop more refineries in their own countries in order to cut dependency on the usa to refine their oil? Thanks, Pat

[Judi Lynn]

24. I don't know a thing on this, sorry. I'll be keeping an eye out for any

thing written on this subject from now on, however, and will post it as soon as I find anything. I'll be sure to keep it in mind.

It's a good question, as I'm sure you know, for the countries which are making history in pulling themselves out of the desperately unsatisfactory position they were in, under the boot of radical right-wing nutjobs in Washington.

They have learned they must not allow this "divide and conquor" crap to continue. The oil thing probably is going to be a matter of independence to them.

(for your kind remarks, but this is all a new area to me, only since I was awakened, somewhat, by what I was starting to see because of the Elián Gonzalez event in Miami. I started to see we'd been unaware of some very BAD political history. I got a serious encouragement from reading the comments of posters at the old CNN sites, who had personal knowledge of US actions in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Colombia, and Cuba. I am so glad I spent all my time pouring over that very fast moving board, attended by very many passionate, brilliant people, minus the Miami right-wing "exiles.")

[murray hill farm]

27. Thanks!

I think it is a good question too..ha! I have searched, myself..but with not much luck..so i will be watching your posts..as i always do anyway, to see what u might be able to turn up. Pat

[Judi Lynn]

34. Hi, mexicopat. I've found a few references to new refineries.....

January 9, 2006
Volume 84, Number 2
pp. 18-19
Latin America
The region is enjoying commercial success and hatching big plans for future growth

~snip~
Grupo Ultra, which controls ethylene oxide chemicals maker Oxiteno, is studying an enormous petrochemical project with Petrobras in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The $6.5 billion project would include an oil refinery and an ethylene unit based on deep catalytic cracking technology. The complex, slated for start-up in 2011, would have a capacity of 1.3 million metric tons of ethylene, 800,000 metric tons of propylene, and about 1 million tons of aromatics.
(snip)

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/84/8402wcolatin.html

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

The Liberation of South America

A not too quiet revolution is occurring and it will change the geopolitical alignment of the world. From the Orinoco River to Tierra del Fuego, South American nations are electing left-wing governments and seeking economic and political policies that are independent of United States demands. The U.S. administration failure to forecast these occurrences and its lateness to implement policies to prevent the trends suggests the end of American economic and political dominance of South America. Regional trade treaties will hinder U.S. exports to South America, radical governments will increase their demands on investors, national cooperation will counter U.S. influence and local considerations will combat globalism. The United States can either continue on a path towards isolation that will lead to economic decline, or start a new era of genuine cooperation that will raise Latin America's living standards and enable America to maintain its own quality of life.
(snip)

Local Agreements
Chávez has promoted the Petrosur regional oil production project. An accord between Brazil's oil company Petrobras, Venezuela's oil company PDVSA, and Argentina's energy company Enersa has started comnstruction of an oil refinery, that will process 200,000 barrels of oil/day in northeastern Brazil as part of a plan for regional energy integration. The accord also allows joint exploration for oil off Venezuela's coast and in Argentina.
(snip)

Venezuela's state-run Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and Uruguayan oil company ANCAP are negotiating a project for expanding Uruguay's La Teja refinery in order for it to process 50,000 barrels of heavy oil.
(snip)

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Liberation_of_South_America.html

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

Uh, oh! You may find this one interesting. Do you remember "Harken" Oil, connected to _{George W. Bush's} earlier not-so-hot oil days, which he bailed out from, still financially intact, before the company took a large loss, and many people believed he had connections with the SEC, I think, (I'm not so focused on bidness things) which he used to keep from taking a bath? HARKEN just showed up again in this article:

Costa Rica

In November 1999, U.S.-based Harken Energy began a seismic exploration program in Costa Rica in the Caribbean Sea. Despite promising results, the company has been unable to aquire the approval of the Costa Rican government to commence drilling operations due to opposition from environmental and indigenous activists. The current Pacheco administration has expressed its opposition to any oil activities in the country.
(snip)

Also:
According to OGJ, only Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica have operating crude oil refining capacity in Central America. The countries each operate a single facility, with total crude oil refining capacity for the three of 66,000 bbl/d. Panama and Guatemala both closed their refineries in 2002.
(snip)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Central_America/Oil.html

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

Latin Trade Panorama

(snip)
Petróleos Mexicanos, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, will draft a plan to build a new refinery in northern Mexico within eight months. The refinery would process 150,000 barrels of oil a day at full capacity should it become a reality. Pemex currently operates six refineries. Terms were not disclosed.
(snip)

http://www.latintrade.com/dynamic/

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

This is getting interesting. It looks as if there is a lot going on there we haven't heard about, and why shouldn't they work together for their common and regional interests? God knows it's about time their own countries started managing their resources rather than having outsiders plundering them perpetually.

I'll be looking for stories when I get enough free time. It looks like there's probably quite a bit more to locate in searches for someone who just has hours to spend snuffling out some great information.

[murray hill farm]

38. You are good!!!

Yeah..amazing, isn't it? In so many ways..and at so many levels, these new refineries are the key that will allow these countries to completely free themselves..and their valuable resources from any dependency or connection on the USA..and it probably has not been broadly publicized for that very reason. And, there i probably a lot more going on..then we can know. Good job and thanks!

[Judi Lynn]

86. Mexicopat, Colombia has four oil refineries. Just ran across this:

Colombia had four refineries producing for domestic and export markets. In 1987 two refineries--located in Barrancabermeja and Cartagena--accounted for virtually all of Colombia's crude oil distillation capacity of 226,000 barrels per day (bpd). The Barrancabermeja plant was new and was considered among the most sophisticated and productive refineries in the world, capable of processing 150,000 bpd. The Cartagena plant had a refining capacity of 70,000 bpd. Two other refineries--the Norte de Santander and Putumayo refineries--had a combined capacity of only 6,000 bpd.
(snip/...)

http://countrystudies.us/colombia/73.htm

If the name of the second town, Cartagena, seems familiar, it's because that's the town where, they claimed, the FARC had planned to do in _{George W. Bush} when he was attending to important matters of state in 2004: :eyes:

Last Updated: Saturday, 27 November, 2004, 04:00 GMT

Colombia 'foiled attempt on Bush'
By Jeremy McDermott
BBC, Colombia

There was tight security around the Bush visit
The largest guerrilla group in Colombia ordered an assassination attempt on US President George W Bush during a recent visit there, a senior official says.
Colombian Defence Minister Jorge Alberto Uribe said Mr Bush was targeted in the city of Cartagena last Monday.

Informers and other intelligence sources revealed the attempt, he said.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4047199.stm



_Bush ♪ left his ♪ pal ♪ ♪ in ♪♪♪ Cartagena ♪

[HuffleClaw]

7. they are DESTABILIZING THE REGION ! ! ! ! !

expect condi to rant about this shortly. and spain just now decided to ignore bushco. threats and are following through on that arms deal too, i guess bush's 'capital' isn't what he claims it is.

[Judi Lynn]

8. African Union is to support Venezuela to join Security Council

Caracas, Friday March 03 , 2006
African Union is to support Venezuela to join Security Council

The African Union Commission will provide "total support" to Venezuela to join the United Nations (UN) Security Council, president of the organization Alpha Oumar Konare reported.

Konare forwarded a communiqué to the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry stating that the African Union (AU) would make every effort for member states to back Venezuela's nomination, the Foreign Ministry pointed out in a press release.

Venezuelan Vice Minister for African Affairs Reinaldo Bolívar expressed satisfaction for Konare's reply following the visit of a delegation headed by him to Addis Ababa. On that occasion, Bolívar met with AU Vice-President Patrick Mazimhaka and commented Venezuela's desire to be a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2007-2008.

"This is an most important news, because the African Union gathers 53 countries, and 51 out of them vote in the UN General Assembly. We are making a significant step before the African Union, which is a compact organization as they set the guidelines by consensus," Vice-Minister Bolívar noted.
(snip/...)

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/03/03/en_pol_art_03A678769.shtml
(This is an anti-Chavez "opposition" newspaper)

[1932]

9. And they're only three days drive from the Mexican border!

Flashback.

[Rex]

10. When you spend more on your military than the rest of the planet.

Well...these things have a way of brutally balancing themselves out. :(

[Robeson]

12. I hate this....

...because I hate militarism, period. But the U.S. has played it's hand. It has demonstratively shown it will trump up phony charges against a nation, in order to gain and exploit that nation's resources. If one was a leader of a nation, which had valuable resources, especially the 5th leading oil exporter of the world, what other reaction could they have, but to protect those native resources. Much of the World sees the U.S. as belligerent. Given the U.S. history for intervention in other nations, how could they not? It's a fact.

[1932]

13. I read Richard Gott's book on Venezuela. Venezuelan army operates as a WPA

as well as a self-defense force.

They build schools and railroads out into the country.

I'm sure they'll be using the army not only to dissuade invasion from the north, but also to build infrastructure, and they'll use it to move money down to the working class.

[Robeson]

14. Oh, I'm not knocking him....

...with Washington's greedy eyes staring at his oil reserves, he'd be negligent not to take care of his country's national interest.

[sofa king]

28. Most armies around the world are conscript labor, and most can't fight.

One of the things that emerged after the Cold War was that a huge chunk of the Soviet Army was spending much of its time as farm labor, apparently disguised on the books as "training." It is suggested by some that the Americans were privy to the cooked records, and deceived into believing that the Soviets were far better prepared for war than they actually were.

Military observer James Dunnigan has pointed out that there are several different types of armies. Most of them, he says, are not "real" armies. He identifies five major types. Ceremonial armies are designed to look good on the parade ground. They don't train much because training degrades and dirties valuable equipment. Political armies are really political parties with guns, designed to stage coups and intimidate and suppress other political factions. Police armies may be apolitical, but they are still inwardly focused on supressing general internal dissent. All three of these types can be combined, as was the case of the Iraqi army until recently. All of the above are often rented out as conscript labor, because they can't afford or do not wish to practice driving, flying, and shooting, which is how you train a "real" army. (The fifth type is the army-for-hire, such as that of the Fijians, who regularly work for the U.N.) In both Iraq wars, America was concerned that the Iraqis might have a "real" component--the Republican Guard. This turned out not to be the case, either time.

Most lopsided wars of the last half of the 20th Century, such as the Falklands War (ground forces only--Argentine pilots were excellent and only missed defeating the British Navy because they didn't know how to reset the fuses on their U.S. made bombs), can be viewed as a conflict between "real" armies and bullshit armies. The bullshit armies always disintegrate when faced with the firepower a real army is trained to generate.

It doesn't take much to make a "real" army, aside from boatloads of cash, equipment, replacement parts, and ammunition--which most armies of the world do not have. Until recently, most units in the U.S. Army got a month or less of actual in-the-field training each year, and most individuals within the U.S. Army actually train far less than that. That was enough to ensure they were better than anyone else they faced. (They're getting plenty of training and experience now--the hard way.) Truly elite units, such as the SAS, GROM, the Rangers or Special Forces, spend as much as six months each year training. It makes all the difference, but it is fantastically expensive--and it does not make the trainees bulletproof.

However, none of the above directly addresses what Hugo Chavez proposes to do. Chavez is proposing to create what is essentially a pool for a future guerrilla war. Aside from basic training designed to familiarize the inductees with weapons use and taking orders, you don't want these people to be well trained, lest they get the bright idea to do something you don't want them to do. When America invades or has its proxies overthrow the government, Chavez will snap up these guys wherever he can find them and put them into impromptu units designed to observe, harass and evade, just as the Fedayeen did in Iraq--much better than the bullshit Iraqi Army did, by the way.

[1932]

29. A slightly different characterization one would get from Gott's book

and from the Aleida Guevara book on Chavez.

When Chavez was in the army he was banished to an outpost in the middle of nowhere.

He used his time there to build ties with the local indigenous tribes. They were actually hunted by whit, european hunters. Chavez brought an end to that. He got the army involved in starting a community theater and recording oral histories and building infrastructure. IIRC the president of the senate is a woman from that tribe. She discusses this in the Guevara book.

What it amounts to is that Chavez sees the army as an opportunity for poor people to make a living and to contribute to society, and not an instrument for protecting the prerogatives of capital.

(Chavez himself joined the army to get a free education and to become a professional baseball player -- it was his only opportunity out of rural poverty -- and he used it as a springboard to address the terrible poverty and unequal distribution of power in Venezuela.)

However, it's also clear from the documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, that a big reason the coup failed is because these people in the army, who believed in these same things, were actually in the army and had the power to undo the coup.

[Jack_DeLeon]

92. Excellent point.

[IndianaGreen]

31. This is the greatest American tradition: the people's militia!

It was enshrined in the Second Amendment, and has become a mantra: an armed people is a free people!

The only militarism in here is the United States's use of its military to impose imperialist policies on other countries.

One, two, three, four, many other Iraqs!

[tom_paine]

46. Correct. Still Chavez having an army that answers "directly to him"

sounds suspiciously like the Bushevik Citizen Corps, which will eliminate the need for local government and the Congress so that the entire nation answers to El Bushadente.

Chavez must be very careful to avoid becoming the antiChrist he fights.

And that's even if he's the Good Guy that many DUers seem to think he is, something about which I am not convinced.

[daleo]

15. Some clever wording here, I think

"By the summer of 2007, Venezuela is likely to have the largest military reserve in the Americas, which is expected to be almost double the size of that in the United States."

But the U.S. active army will still be tremendously larger than the Venezuelan active army (by at least a factor of 10 to 1, maybe 20 to 1).

[IndianaGreen]

33. The US military is dying for OIL in Iraq

Bush doesn't have the troops to invade Venezuela and attack Iran while losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If any good is going to come out of this is that the defeat of America's armies will bring down American imperialism and will open an opportunity for long-lasting peace.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

16. looks like good planning-the U.S. WILL attempt to TAKE resources from any

country that can't defend itself--period.

We're tha greedy GANGSTAHS with a badass drug(oil) habit...
NO morals in Korporate Amerika-
we have to feed our habit-and the habits we pass on to our offspring-
It'll be water next-

SOME countries are learning to plan ahead...good for them!!!

In SOME regions people actually care about one another--
In SOME regions the greed seed hasn't sprouted up ...yet--
but we U.S.ers intend to plant the greed seed in every corner of the world under the guise of "DEMOCRACY"..
Freedom?
maybe they just mean Freedom to do business.
We are making offers "they can't refuse" and we don't understand it when they refuse...
solution: PRE EMPTIVE STRIKES.
:shrug:
??
.

[Pavulon]

26. Like Saudi and Kuwait?

which have no defense. Chavez is consolidating power, Just a matter of time..

Greed exists everywhere. Primordial.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

37. what's yer point? Saudi and Kuwait give payola to Korporate Amerikka

Koropate greed is Amerikan value

[Pavulon]

39. So does citgo

they own major ports and the 3rd largest importer of oil to the us.

The statement was blanket. The funny use of the letter k does not offset the reality that the majority of the us economy is KKKonsumer based.

No one has invaded mexico, a massive oil supplier. AmeriKKKa is a silly term, that detracts from real problems.

Personally I could care less about leftist countries in SA. When oil cycles back down so will they. Chavez, and his military, are irrelevant to winning elections.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

41. if you don't like my humoppr don't read it - put me on ignore-- ok?

Seeya when you have something imoportant to say

[IsItJustMe]

68. I like your humor and fricking A right Korporation Korporation LOL

Korporation

[Judi Lynn]

42. No one has invaded Mexico? Oh, my gosh.

Let's be ripping out your old history books, why not?

After much of Mexico was stolen (after being invaded, of course) to form the American west, the U.S. did dominate Mexico until this very day. Colonially bent idiots in Washington have no reason to invade Mexico.

Mexico has a very good chance of electing a leftwing President this year, by the way.

[Pavulon]

43. Yes

we invaded Mexico for oil. Mexico sells massive amounts of oil now. We have not invaded canada, they are a massive oil producer and just as close. They elected a right wing government. Mexico is free to elect whom ever they want, as is canada. I could care less unless they directly effect american elections.
Neither country's election of left or right wing parties help us elect democrats. Nor does association with chavez. I am a democrat, an american democrat, I have no aspiration for a global leftist agenda.

The two don't go well together IMHO.

[Psephos]

44. Pavulon - you're a breath of fresh air

I couldn't agree more - let's keep our eyes on the prize and off all the distractions.

It astonishes me to what lengths some will go to make all history and current affairs fit a pre-hardened ideological grid. Korporate this, AmeriKKKa that, the sheeple are stupid, Rove secretly runs the planet from a bunker in Nevada, and there's no grief anywhere in the world except that which fat murkins have caused. Meanwhile the repugs laugh into their beers.

OK, that felt good... :-)

We need a lot less ideology and a lot more practicality. If we don't put some points on the board next election, we're going to all spend another two years here posting angry conspiracy theories while the repugs have their way.

Peace.

[Pavulon]

45. Thanks

The state of america's working poor, disorganized organized labor, and real security are issues that are ignored. We are getting the shaft here.

I don't disregard the opinions posted but think real accomplishments can be made here, now. People are pissed, normal people. Katrina is a primary example of governmental failure. If they can't cover that how would they cover an NBC event.

Recasting what the party is about is needed. If you work for a living and aren't a multi millionaire its in your interest to vote D. Getting that out there is how to win. Tax cuts are nice, so is running up the visa, eventually you have to pay. Fiscal conservatives are pissed.

Strip the bullshit away from the nuts about security and the god votes republican crap and we have a winner.

The basics are how we win, these guys are f'n up. They are not managing the country properly.

[Psephos]

47. "If you work for a living...it's in your interest to vote D."

It's the perfect message.

You're *so* right about fiscal conservatives being pissed, too. This is a natural bridge issue. If you read the Pew Research report on the composition and demographics of the American electorate, you can see that most Republicans are middle class or lower middle class, and that fiscal conservatism has little correlation with income. This is a lightning bolt in our hands if we ease back on the "gotcha" politics and amplify the message that "D" stands for America more than it stands for Democrat.

This report is a gold mine for those who want electoral victory. It contains a lot of surprises, and we must be prepared to abandon a few cherished notions if we want to make the most use of it.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/196.pdf

Peace.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

48. -----cough cough cough!!----smoggy moutain breakdown---whew eeee!

Hey now, JSYK ->the "k's "are a joke-- a sarcastic twist to add color- get it?
Whew!! ---some people are stone cold stiff!
Lighten thoust load bretheren, lighten!

Reaize this while you're "Lighten"ing :
the Mega Corporations' Adminstations do NOT care about workers' well being nor consumers'.

Business lesson one (just for you):
The ideal corporation produces a "widget" with no Labor cost at all...and regardless of any "harm" caused by the widget or the from manufacturing of that widget
(ex:tobacco/cigarettes) --(environmental pollution ex: look no further than the deformed babies in Mexico)

And lesson #2-- : Any place resources may be "acquired" they WILL be- ideally without environmental protection laws or child labor laws,
History proves this and it is unlikely that trend will change any time soon.

Big Business is NOT your friend ...nor mine.
It's these Ultra Mega Billion Dollar industries that are destroying and NOT HELPING this planet!

ADVICE:
You really should vote Repub_lickan if you don't understand this simple point.
Or vote for a DINO who holds dear these same korporate values.

Now go study up on history and business and come back for the test!

[Pavulon]

56. Have studied Business

and seen a bit in my time. My formal education is not as valuable as my time traveling and working for different companies that do business in SA and in the East.

I am not a fan of uncontrolled corporate power. However corporations are necessary and beneficial when controlled. IBM files thousands of patents and employs many people. Corporations advance technology to advance their profit. I deal with engineering and computers so it could e said that the technology I work on costs people jobs. Or it keeps them from repetitive tasks. A good machinist would rather use a CNC lathe given the chance.

Many companies are not exploiters. Others are.

Global companies can exploit overseas but they can also be embarrassed by these acts. It is also criminal for US companies to behave this way.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

74. funny!!! Now study history!--connect the dots!

and see what has been done in the past by "corporations" who exploit-

in context--
we are not talking about small businesses-
It's mega Korporations.

The U.S. Govt-representing some Mega Billion Dollar Korporations- had wanted to exploit Venezuela's oil reserves.

Venezuela's democratically elected president has prevented this.

The U.S. corporations are pissed.

The U.S. Govt steps in and starts a propaganda campaign to demonize a foreign leader as it justifies military and economic actions against a soverign nation.
Q: WHY?
A: GREED!

Now think about why it is wrong to mix Corporations with govt...think about it-

The definition of Fascism as given by Musolini was "the merger of Corporation and State".

People end up dead or devastated.
It's not a harmless little business manuever.

Korporate greed is the root of these "invasions" and "sanctions".

Why the hell do you think we are in IRAQ?

[hughee99]

17. One thing struck me when reading this...

a people's army that would answer "directly to him" in the event of civil unrest or an armed conflict

Mr Arrais and others like him say they are happy to give up every Saturday "in defence of their fatherland and the values of President Chávez's socialist revolution"

I'm probably reading too much into this, or just misunderstanding it, or maybe I've just seen too many Nazi documentaries on the History Channel, but for some reason, this is what stuck in my head after reading the article.

[David__77]

22. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with Venezuelans defending their socialist fatherland? I know that "fatherland" has bad connotations when applied to, say, Germany or the US, but there's nothing wrong with patriotism in developing countries faced with great theats from the global powers.

Furthermore, these words are not Mr. Arrais', but the editorial comment of the right-wing paper's writer.

[hughee99]

30. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it...

That's just what stood out to me. It's probably just the way the article was written.

[IsItJustMe]

65. Seems like I have heard the word 'homeland' somewhere also

[cantstandbush]

116. You can have a dictator that most are willing to follow. We have one

despite the fact that we don't want one.

[Psephos]

18. Live by the sword, die by the sword

There's a reason he's keeping the active-duty army small while building the reserves.

Peace.

[1932]

20. To give money and jobs to poor people?

To help build railroads out to small towns?

[Psephos]

21. To reduce the risk of a coup from a too-large active-duty army

Chavez has first-hand experience of why that's important.

If I wanted to build railroads and give work to poor people, I wouldn't make them learn how to fire a gun and sleep in a barracks to do it.

Just a thought...

Peace.

[1932]

25. the army is loyal to him

and they lay railroad tracks, by the way,

[northzax]

59. from both sides, remember

Chavez knows all to well about military coups, having planned and executed one of his own.

He is creating a private army, accountable and answerable to his cult of personality, not to the Constitution of Venezuela, or the elected government, but to him. Great, another 'populist' Latin American military strongman. What do we figure he will do with his army loyal to him after he leaves office? I mean, he will leave office, won't he? or will he simply change the Constitution again to serve another couple of terms?

[1932]

72. This reads like fiction. Like a fantasy.

[northzax]

77. which part?

that Chavez participated in a military coup in the 80's? or that a military leader building an army that is answerable to him, not to anyone or anything else, is a recipie for disaster? There is simply not a good history, anywhere in the world, of strongmen (and you really can't call Chavez anything else, can you? he basically rules by fiat, with a rubber stamp legislature) with private armies responsible to him and him alone. Whether 'progressive' or 'regressive' there isn't a good history, anywhere, of such strongmen giving up power. If he does, then more power to him, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Please list the Democratic reforms that Chavez has implemented that reduce the power of his presidency? What power has he delegated to the parliament?

Just because you may like his policies, doesn't mean you can't criticize him for not pursuing democracy, Chavez is only slightly more democratic that Musharraf at this point, instead of ruling by brute force, he rules by the cult of personality. Let's see him start to install government systems to maintain his revolution after he leaves office.

oh wait, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1901 Here's Chavez threatening a referendum on serving an unconstitutional third term in office! oh dear. I'm sure he's just bluffing. I wonder how his private army will vote?

[1932]

82. This part:

"He is creating a private army, accountable and answerable to his cult of personality, not to the Constitution of Venezuela, or the elected government, but to him."

Do you have any evidence that any of that is true. It's fantasy.

Also, I'll add that your logic is dumb.

Read what Chavez said: he will propose AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION DEMOCRATICALLY to allow for third terms.

Since when is following the constitutions own processes for its amendment "unconstitutional"? Please. Read what you're writing before you hit the 'post message' button.

[northzax]

83. er, the article posted said he was creating a militia

that was loyal to him. didn't it? or did I misread the article? wait, let me check...yup, it's loyal to Mr Chavez's revolution. not to the state, not to the people, to his revolution.

and he already amended the constitution to prohibit a third term, and when I questioned that, everyone assured me that he would follow that. I guess not. But he'll ask for a third term, I suppose, a third 6 year term, at the end of which, he will have ruled the country for what, 19 years?

one thing about consitutional amendments, in democracies, they usually grandfather in people. when the US, for instance, changes the Constitution, say to forbid a third term as President, it applies after the next election, and not to the incumbents.

seriously, what are the odds that Chavez loses that referendum? I will give you 100-1 odds on that. A leader of a democracy gives up power, a dictator doesn't. which one is Chavez?

[1932]

87. reread what you wrote

think hard about what you consider evidence and argument.

think.

are you sure that you're not making stuff up (or believing someone else's made up stuff)?

Do you know what the organizational stucture of the militias will be?

Do you know who wrote Venezuela's constitution? Do you know how and when it was written?

Which amendments to whose constitutions have been "grandfathered" in? Do you want to make an argument based on real and actual constitutional debates about whether that's appropriate (presuming you could even cite a relevant analogy)?

Sometimes what passes for informed discussion here at DU is pathetic.

Uninfromed opinon driven by fantasy and relying on others' acceptence of cliched notions about how the world works is NOT discussion and debate.

[northzax]

90. well, I know the constitution of Venezuela was ratified in 1999

and that Chavez lead the movement to rewrite it. I know it was written by a Constitutional Assembly elected directly from the people. I know that on February 4th, 1992, Chavez lead a failed military coup d'etat against the then government of Venezuela. I know that the Constitution imposes a limit of two six year terms for the President, who has the power to dissolve the national assembly by fiat.

I konw that the constitution allows for amendments, proposed by either 15% of the registered electorate or 39% of the National Assembly. There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the President to initiate the amendment process (Title IX, Ch. 1, Art. 341) Assuming that 50% of the national assembly approves any amendment that comes out of that body, or the 15% popular vote rule, within 90 days there is a national referendum on the amendment with a simply majority of those voting needed to pass it. How am I doing?

I can't think of a leader of a nation, who changed the constitutitonal process or even historical precedent to allow himself to serve more time than stated in the constitution at the time of his election, who relinquished power voluntarily. I know of no democracy in the world that has a strong president who serves for longer than ten years that remained a democracy for very long. I know of no leader in Latin America who came out of the military, eventually obtained dictatorial power (which, with the ability to dissolve the National Assembly, the President of Venezuala basically has) that has voluntarily and peacefully relinquished power in an electoral transition. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist 85 that there should be no term limits on a strong presidency, to be fair, but he wanted a king, basically. Remember, if we had the same constitutional amendment process as Venezuela, only needing 50%+1 to amend the Constitution, Bush could have simply dropped the last elections, in time of war, surely he would have had enough supporters to put them off for a couple of years. Any time you amend the constitution, remember that you are giving that power to the person you least trust and fear the most as well.

As for the grandfather issue. have you ever read the 27th amendment to the US constitution? that one went into effect at the beginning of the next elected house and senate, meaning all the house and 2/3rds of the senate faced reelection before it began to effect them.

so, meet my facts, please feel free to point out where any of my facts are 'misinformed' and if you don't like my reasoning, tell me what you don't like, be specific, but stop the casting of general aspersions on what I write. Give me one leader who militarized his country and voluntarily relinquished power. one. Cite the history on your side, or explain why Chavez is exceptional. go ahead. give me facts, I did. Tell me how your world works, about why you would have no problem with Chavez serving 20 years as a strong president of Venezuela, why that's actually GOOD for democratisation in Venezuela. You mock my view of the world, founded in history. please explain your view of the world, founded in, well, you better explain that.

[1932]

91. Chavez can't give himself a third term.

The constitution has to amended through a democratic process.

How would you grandfather in a rule that wouldn't allow him to run again? You'd have to have an amendment which says only Chavez cannot run for president (or you'd have to write it in a way aimed at not letting Chavez run again).

And you know what? Chavez would have TO RUN AGAIN AND WIN to serve a third term.

Do you see the democratic processes involved?

[northzax]

93. kinda defeats the entire concept of a constitution, doesn't it?

if 50%+1 of the population can change it whenever they want to? Why bother having one?

[1932]

94. I guess they'll have to amend it so that it requires more than 50%

if that's what they want.

That's democracy.

Perhaps the more static a constitution, the more screwed up the democracy.

Maybe this will be a good democratic experiment.

Anyway, so are you now arguing that you disagree with the Constitution? Because at the start of this exchange you were saying that you thought Chavez was a constitutional threat.

[northzax]

97. The constitution is meaningless

until there is a transfer of power within the rules of the document. Until it is tested, and people give up power (which people are not wont to do) under it's rules, then it is simply a piece of paper legitimizing a current government. If it is a strong document, it will survive not having Chavez around to enforce it.

What, in your opinion, are the limits on what a majority can do? within a constitution, of course. If it is that malleable, if 50%+1 elect someone dictator for life, is that democracy?

[1932]

99. Quite a catch-22 there. People are so happy with constitution

they keep electiong the leader of the party they associate it with.

I don't think there's any evidence that Chavez is winning because of a faulty constitution. It seems to be quite the opposite. He's being rewarded because people are so happey with it.

By the way, remember the coup in 2002? The coup's first act: tear up the constitution. Chavez's government's first act upon returning: reaffirm the constitution.

In The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, there is the absolutely BRILLIANT scene where the Coup Attorney General -- the guy who tore up the constitution -- gets read his constitutional rights by the returning government.

THAT, northax, is the truest test of the constitution. It survived the coup. It's not a meaningless document. This is obvious.

"elect someone dictator for life" -- you realize how silly that sounds, don't you? (BTW, for the record, I think America is very fortunate that, in 1932, FDR was "elected dicator for life" for the first of four times.)

[northzax]

101. people get elected "for life"

all the time. Is that democratic. that was the question.

For instance, Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov in Turkmenistan was elected "President for Life" was that democratic? what's your definition?

[1932]

102. FDR got elected and reelected for life. I loved that - very Democratic!

It was exactly what America needed to save us from fascism.

Sound familiar?

Anyway, again, what Chavez is proposing isn't even the first step in the process for a constitutional reform (which would have to be done by the National Assembly). And even if this were an amendment, it's not the first step. That is initiated either by petition or the National Assembly.

So, this question is sort of moot. But I do think FDR is an instructive parallel.

[northzax]

105. indeed, and what did it take to remove FDR from office?

did he lose an election? nope, he died. And it was what Europe needed to save it from Fascism, the Nazis were never a serious threat to the United States. Also, FDR didn't change, or try to change, the written rules that he was elected under. He simply disregarded tradition, not law. And the country responded by banning such activity afterwards. So maybe not such a good example.

so, if you keep a big enough enemy out there, and keep people afraid enough, you can be president for life. Of course, the US was actually at war at the time, unlike Venezuela, which, from what I can tell, isn't actually at war, right?

[1932]

109. He saved us from American fascists. (Read Philip Roth's last book.)

And, uh, you need to freshen up on your history. FDR tried to change the "written rules." He tried to amend the constituion. He exceeded the bounds of the constitution with his interpretation of laws passed (with his federal regulations) and with the laws he supported, according to the conservative Supreme Court at the time. To Republicans, FDR serioulsy disregarded the law. I'd guess that FDR disregarded the law moreso than Chavez, if measured by the number of times his laws were overturned by the supreme court.

(BTW, IIIRC, I believe FDR was even talking about a constitutioinal amendment to guarantee education or health care, or something like that, but he died first.)

Venezuela isn't electing Chavez because they're afraid of external threats. They're electing him because of his attitude about the distribution of economic and political power.

[northzax]

110. you just cited a work of fiction! fabulous

and FDR didn't change the written rules as refers to his terms of office, that was my point.

[1932]

112. Unfortunately, there's no historical text addressing what happened

when FDR didn't get elected president in 1932. However, Philip Roth, a very smart man who understands fascism and American history, wrote a very interesting book about what might have happened if he hadn't been reelected. And his argument isn't that we were fighting a fascist invasion from abroad, but one at home. If you want to know more about the evidence on which Roth relies to make this very plausible argument, read up on Smedley Buttler. Also read Richard Parker's biography of JK Galbraith, especially the parts about corporate america's resistance to gearing up for war.

BTW, your point was the one you wrote in your previous post, and you were very wrong about it.

Perhaps if FDR had been term-limitted, he would have tried to amend the constitution. It would have been the patriotic thing to do, obviously.

[IndianaGreen]

95. Are you and 1932 one and the same person?

I find it odd that this thread is resurrected by your post and 1932 responds within minutes. What gives?

[1932]

96. That better be a joke.

If it's not, then I'm insulted that you'd think I'm so insincere in my beliefs that I could post crap like that alongside my own posts.

Incidentally, I was just reading the Venezuelan constitution. It has provisions for amendments (changing to articles) and reforms (changes in provisions). And guess what? Chavez is advocating neither. He's proposing a referendum so that the people can say what they think of a third term. It's not legally binding. Of course, if the vote is overwhelming, then the National Assembly and the people are welcome to take up the process for a reform (it wouldn't be an amendment, since the term limit exists, presumably, within an article as a provision). But it's inaccurate to say that Chavez is threatening to change the constitution. He can't do that. Only the National Assembly can initiate a reform of a provision to the constitution.

[northzax]

98. technically, you are slightly incorrect

if you present a petition representing 15% of the electorate to the Electoral Commission, then a referendum on a constitutional amendment must be held within 90 days.

frankly, I'm not sure what your beliefs are, besides the idea that Chavez can apparently do no wrong.

[1932]

100. That's the process for an amendment.

Which means a wholesale change in an article of the constituion. The term limit is certainly just a provision within an article, which requires a different process.

Either way, Chavez proposed neither. He proposed a referendum on a question which has no legally binding significance other than to show the public in general and the opposition in particular that he has public support. Even if the vote were 100% in his favor, no legal consequences would follow on.

[northzax]

104. the point is that no one really knows

which would be required, because there is no historical legacy of interpreting that constitution. It is a long and incredibly complicated document (roughly 35,000 words, as you know, with 350 different articles) There isn't any agreement about what most of it means, in real terms. Which is good, but it takes time to sort out and amend (or alter) gradually to reflect lessons learned from the implementation of it. If the document is strong, as you say, then it doesn't matter who is running Venezuela, I could be the president and it would still be in effect.

[1932]

106. That's A point, but it's not THE point raised by your posts.

You've said a lot of things about Chavez becoming a dictator and you've said things about the legal significance of referendum he suggested he might call that aren't accurate.

That Venezuela has a new constitutions which the supreme court will, hopefully, for a long time be interpreting, is not really the point that justifies all those allegations.

[northzax]

108. when it walks like a duck

and talks like a duck, one begins to think one is looking at a duck. Chavez should serve his two terms, if he is reelected, and help the country be stable inside the framework the people established for their government, not use his personal popularity to change the rules to get himself more power (you don't think that if he wins the show referendum that he'll move forward with a real one? sure.)

[1932]

111. It looks like that's going to happen unless the National Assembly reforms

the constitution. And, as far as I can tell, Chavez isn't asking the National Assembly to reform the constitution.

If Chavez thinks he can force the National Assembly to reform the constitution, why isn't he just asking them to do it? Why talk about a non-binding public referendum? Sounds like a waste of time, unless you were merely trying to remind the small opposition of your popularity.

Anyway, if you want to predict the future, you should base your predictions on facts and not on some of the fantasies and misapprehensions I've seen you posts.

You can try from the beginning to make your case, but I want to see you treat this like you would a college paper. And on college papers you get an F for supporting arguments with unsubstantiated opinion, cliches, and fantasy.

[Judi Lynn]

103. I'm sure it was a joke. I think she was pointing out the fact you've got

someone breathing down your neck!

There are a few posters here determined we're going to accept the right-wing position on Latin America and the Caribbean, after all we've learned over the years. Hmmm. Not likely.

[northzax]

107. um, where did I say anything that is the 'right wing position'?

I take it all back. there is no history of military strongmen in Latin America. There is no history, anywhere on the planet, of oil rich countries being ruled by a strongman. There is no history of anyone manipulating public opinion to maintain power. there is no history of people changing the ruling documents of a country to allow themselves to serve additional terms of office. Why when someone proposed it for George Bush, no one here thought it was a bad idea, right?

[1932]

113. You're relying on cliches.

What do those military strongmen have to do with Chavez? What's the connection? What's your argument? Are you just trying to attach cliches to Chavez? That would earn you a failing grade on a college paper.

[Judi Lynn]

114. The military strongmen in Latin America who come to mind were right-wing

and were fully supported far beyond decency by American right-wing Presidents. You don't have to mine your memory long to recall the long and vicious history of School of the Americas-trained monsters torturing and murdering entire villages.

The untrained eye can almost envision the countries are finally starting to stand up on their own feet, and shake off the fear of their northern neighbor/bully and start working on their own bully-free union.

[Judi Lynn]

115. Fittingly enough, 0007 just posted a great article which refers to

Latin American "strongmens'" regimes:

But there has been a slow process in every one of the countries, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, all the way through, there's been a process of overthrowing the dominant dictatorships - the military dictatorships - almost always supported, and sometimes instituted, by the United States.
(snip)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2152178#2152191



Kissinger, left, and Pinochet

[lovuian]

19. Chavez is going to need an army to keep control

and keep others from taking the oil...

unfortunately 500,000 is not many...

[IndianaGreen]

32. The people are in control, and they will remain in control

long after Chavez is gone. The elites are fucked, but they deserved to get fucked!

[VegasWolf]

35. Wonder if the North Americans will ever wake up like that and take

back control from the elites here in government and religion?

[Pavulon]

40. If you are sitting in a house

that is climate controlled, eat food from a grocery store, and participate in the american, or european, system YOU are elite.

Nothing in the us compares to third world poverty. I have seen it, it smells, and is depressing.

The religious aspect of your post is correct.

[IsItJustMe]

66. And the corporations and capitalists don't like him because he

believes that the Venezuela should own its own oil rather than a bunch of foreign investors.

I believe thats the real reason why * and friends don't like him.

[goforit]

36. Look at what bush has created.

[Judi Lynn]

50. Venezuela to buy back $3.9 bln in bonds, pay loans

UPDATE 2-Venezuela to buy back $3.9 bln in bonds, pay loans
Wed Mar 1, 2006pm ET

By Ana Isabel Martinez

CARACAS, Venezuela, March 1 (Reuters) - Venezuela said on Wednesday it plans to buy back $3.9 billion of Brady bonds this year and pay about $700 million in outstanding bilateral and multilateral loans in a measure to trim foreign public debt.

Finance Minister Nelson Merentes said Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, plans to reduce its foreign public debt by around 15.2 percent this year to $26.38 billion as the government benefits from soaring petroleum prices.


"We are going through a gradual process of reducing our debt," Merentes told reporters at a press conference.

Venezuela has joined Colombia, Brazil and Mexico in recently announcing buy backs of foreign currency denominated debt in deals analysts expect to further draw investors into domestic bond markets in Latin America.
(snip/...)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyid=2006-03-01T165947Z_01_N01299989_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-VENEZUELA-BUYBACK-UPDATE-2.XML

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On edit: adding articles.

Fuente: © World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org

Venezuela To Pay Off $4.7 Billion In Foreign Debt

/noticias.info/ Venezuela will pay off $4.7 billion of its foreign debt in the coming months, the government said Wednesday, reports Dow Jones.

The amount includes approximately $3.9 billion as a Brady Bond buyback and the rest in bilateral and World Bank debt, Finance Minister Nelson Merentes told reporters at a press conference. The debt reduction plan will bring total government external debt to 21 percent of GDP by the end of the year, down from 23.4 percent at the end of 2005, according to Finance Ministry data. Under the debt strategy, the country will save as much as $670 million this year alone in interest payments and another $600 million a year in interest and principal payments up until the year 2020, Merentes said.

The country will also move to manage its internal debt with a plan that could include buybacks and giving local debt holders new securities, Merentes said. The government expects to complete this refinancing of locally issued bonds by June. As far as the debt owed to multilateral institutions, only the loans owed to the World Bank will be completely canceled. The minister insisted, however, that paying off the balance owed to the World Bank says nothing of the country's ongoing relationship with the lending institution. Venezuela currently owes roughly $220 million to the World Bank and has yet to negotiate new projects with bank officers stationed in Caracas.

Reuters writes that Venezuela has joined Colombia, Brazil and Mexico in recently announcing buy backs of foreign currency denominated debt in deals analysts expect to further draw investors into domestic bond markets in Latin America. Merentes said the program was aimed at freeing up funds for more public investment and providing financing to expand President Hugo Chavez's social programs for the poor.
(snip/...)

http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=150766&src=0

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

Venezuela to Pay About $800 Million in Loans Early (Update2)
March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela's government said it will pay back about $800 million in loans to the World Bank and commercial banks ahead of schedule this month, taking advantage of record oil exports to cut its foreign currency debt.

The loan repayment coupled with a buyback of $3.9 billion of outstanding Discount and Par Brady bonds announced Feb. 25 will help the world's fifth-biggest oil exporter save about $600 million a year in interest payments, Finance Minister Nelson Merentes said at a news conference in Caracas. The government's bonds rallied after the announcement.

``This will free up money that can be invested by the government to spur economic growth,'' Merentes said.

Venezuela wants to lower its international debt to 18.3 percent of gross domestic product by the end of 2007 from 23.4 percent at the end of last year, Merentes said. Venezuela's oil exports surged to $48 billion last year, helping drive foreign reserves up to $28.6 billion last week from $9.3 billion in March 2002.
(snip/...)

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aK73kaeDNeto&refer=news_index

[ronnie624]

51. I see Chavez is "throwing around billions" again.

From Bloomberg:

"Merentes said that Venezuela has earned $75 million from trading Argentine bonds since last year. Venezuela has bought $2.3 billion in Argentine debt since May and has resold $1.1 billion to 25 Venezuelan financial institutions, he said."

[ret5hd]

52. sounds like a very smart man. n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

85. Holy shit, you mean there is a government in the Americas...

that is actually trying to reduce debt instead of spending itself into oblivion.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

60. I find these Venezuela/Chavez threads fascinating...

... for several reasons:

1) The populist/socialist movement in South America is a threat to the corporatist/robber-baron. Is this movement merely a predictable backlash to decades of oppression that will backfire or is this a new regional power developing? While witnessing these two worlds collide is intellectually stimulating, the likelihood of people dying in the process is sobering.

2) 1932 and Judy Lynn always provide detailed information and sources. Reading these threads is educational.

3) I think I am seeing a pattern form in these threads. The same critics show up, provide less information (or "information" that is soon discredited -- I recall something about a bridge needing repair) and then start back-slapping each other. This amuses me.

[IsItJustMe]

67. Very good observation. And I also have notices some die hard capitalists

running around up in here. Free traders or globalists if you will.

Sounds like they promote some of the very policies thats got us into the existing problems we now face.

All I can say is: Good eye! Good eye!

[1932]

76. Hey, thanks for the kind words!

I really have to tip my hat to J.L. too.

[rman]

78. Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread

(copy)

Official DU Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=311462
Edited on Fri Feb-03-06 10:37 AM by JohnnyCougar

Holy balls. I haven't been on here much lately, but I am shocked at the right-wing extremist propaganda floating around here about Hugo Chavez. DU is usually my safe-haven from this sort of propaganda, but to see Chavez baselessly trashed on here by so many has made me feel compelled to post this. I will try and identify the top falsehoods repeated about Chavez, and give some appropriate context to them that lay these "tyrant" and "oppressor" claims to rest. And the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are being cited against Chavez irritates me on two levels. Firstly, these organizations put out reports on every country, and are almost wholly negative. Amnesty International's profile on France is about as long as the one about Venezuela. But I highly doubt France is considered a tyranny by anyone. Secondly, the reports ignore the context of the situation happening in Venezuela.

First of all, there are a few articles I suggest people read to get an understanding of Chavez's peaceful revolution in what once was a corrupt and oppressive state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050411/parenti
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/01/feature3.shtml

Secondly, if you read these articles (which I really, really recommend you read, because they are highly informative, well written and interesting) you will realize how desperate of a state Venezuela was in before Chavez took power. 80% of the country was poor, and 44% or so were officially in poverty (to the point where they couldn't afford proper diets). The former government was a band of corrupt cronies that languished of the profits of oil sales, and said basically "fuck the poor."

Chavez was the leader of a failed coup attempt in 1992 against the then scumbag of a president. But the coup failed, and Chavez took full responsibility, admitted his failure, and served his time in jail. The president whom he attempted to overthrow was impeached a year later.

Chavez gained a lot of supporters attempting that coup, and his base continued to believe in him. In 1998, Hugo ran for President and won. The poverty-stricken, starving, illiterate "brown skinned" Venezuelans supported Chavez in a landslide victory. Since then, Hugo has been trying to clean up a government that had run for decades on massive corruption. The middle and upper class in Venezuela hated him because he was "brown" and because of his fight against the kleptocracy they had grown rich with. The Venezuelan court was highly corrupt. The parliament was worse. The plutocracy used car bombs, coups and violent protests to try and undermine Chavez's democratically elected government. The right-wing television stations would run anti-Chavez propaganda uninterrupted for days at a time, using racist cartoons and outright lies to brainwash the middle class and the upper class into thinking Chavez was a tyrant. Right-wing publications in the US picked up on this propaganda and of course reprinted it here. Obviously, it still circulates.

Chavez has taken control of the Citgo oil company and used parts of its profits to start schools and free healthcare clinics for Venezuela's massive poor. This totally angered the right wing. But since Chavez has become president, Venezuela's poor are much healthier, millions of people can now read, and he is attempting to diversify Venezuela's economy. The people there love him. He is the first leader that actually cared about him in forever.

Here are some of the most prominent right-wing attacks on Hugo Chavez debunked.

Chavez is attempting to censor political speech and take control of the Venezuelan media.

After the corrupt right-wing media in Venezuela inspired a coup, kidnapping and later a ridiculous attempt to recall Chavez, as well as violent protests, Chavez made an anti-slander law to curb the false propaganda the private media was spreading. While no one, to my knowledge has been arrested for violating this law, it has worked to curb some of the anti-Chavez propaganda and racist remarks made in the private Venezuelan media. When asked in October if Chavez would actually arrest anybody with this law, he responded: "I am not going to accuse anyone because they insult me, I don’t care if they call me names, I don’t care what they say about me. Generally I do as Don Qixote said, if the dogs are barking it’s because we are working." Furthermore, there are many opposition media outlets in Venezuela, and only one state-owned outlet. Chavez could shut the opposition channels down, but he doesn't. He just limits the racist, riot-causing propaganda they usually encourage.

Chavez is packing the Venezuelan courts with cronies

This is true. But that's fine with me. The former judges were highly corrupt, and some were organizers of the coup. The Venezuelan courts were known for their widespread corruption before Chavez. These courts let off people that kidnapped Chavez at gunpoint during the coup attempt.

Chavez is hurting the economy

According to a press release in mid-2005, Venezuela has the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, with growth rates in the first two quarters of 7.5% and 11.1%, respectively. It had a 17.8% growth rate in 2004. The non-oil sectors grew at a faster pace than the oil sector, rising 8.7% and 12.1% in the first two quarters of 2005. Venezuela's economy is growing at the second-fastest rate in the world, topped only by China. Furthermore, Chavez's programs are wiping out illiteracy and providing healthcare to the poor for the first time ever. He has also been the first President to really enforce Venezuela's tax laws. The rich were getting away with cheating on their taxes time and time again. He has considerably raised the minimum wage. So basically, Hugo is allowing private enterprise to flourish (despite requiring them to follow tax laws) and still using money to support the poor. What he has already done has been nothing but a victory for human rights in Venezuela. Millions upon millions of people now have hope and health that would have never had it otherwise. But despite this, false right-wing anti-Chavez propaganda continues to circulate around the echo chamber...even on DU.

What Chavez has done is inspire a popular revolution with little to no violence at all, completely overthrowing a horrendously corrupt government in Venezuela and liberating masses of nearly starving poor. Instead of leading by force like he did in 1992, this time the revolution worked.

But I can say one more thing for sure: If I were next to Hugo Chavez, I would hug him, too!

If you know of more false propaganda being spread about Chavez, please debunk it below! I probably missed some things.

[Judi Lynn]

80. News item: Venezuela car sales rise 41 pct in February

Venezuela car sales rise 41 pct in February
Mon Mar 6, 2006pm ET

CARACAS, Venezuela, March 6 (Reuters) - New car sales in Venezuela jumped 41 percent in February from a year earlier, the Venezuelan Automobile Chamber (CAVENEZ) said Monday, as the economy registered strong growth on high oil prices and booming government spending.

A total of 21,222 cars were sold last month, compared with 15,080 units sold in February 2005. Sales rose 4 percent over January of this year.

Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, has benefited from record-breaking crude oil prices, and its gross domestic product grew 9.4 percent in 2005.

President Hugo Chavez, up for reelection in December, this year has already announced a minimum wage hike, salary increases for government workers, and eliminated a bank transaction tax.
(snip/...)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=economicNews&storyid=2006-03-06T194250Z_01_N06283999_RTRIDST_0_AUTOS-VENEZUELA-SALES.XML

[Judi Lynn]

81. Russia to help Venezuela put first astronaut into space

Russia to help Venezuela put first astronaut into space
18:46 | 06/ 03/ 2006

MOSCOW, March 6 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Space Agency is ready to help Venezuela put its first astronaut into space, the agency's head said Monday.

"The Russian Space Agency is prepared to cooperate with Venezuela in all space projects and is ready to help to train the main and reserve national astronauts," Anatoly Perminov said during talks with Venezuelan Ambassador to Russia Alexis Navarro Rojas.

The agency said the first flight of a Venezuelan astronaut was possible only in the fall of 2008, and that it would draft the relevant agreement in the near future.

Rojas said in turn that Venezuela saw its involvement in space exploration only with the help of Russia.
(snip/...)

http://en.rian.ru/world/20060306/43964400.html