Chavez Threatens To Blow Up Oil Fields If America Attacks

[LoZoccolo]

If America attacks, Mr. Chavez said, "We won't have any other alternative - blow up our own oil fields - but they aren't going to take that oil."

Some of Mr. Chavez's political opponents at home call his warnings about an American invasion far-fetched and contend he pursues the verbal conflict with Washington to encourage a sense of struggle against a foreign enemy as he heads toward the presidential election in December.

http://www.nysun.com/article/31410

I thinks this shows the lengths of demagogery that he will display, because he would cripple the economy by destroying it's overwhelming cheif export for all the other people there if he were attacked. How will the people eat if the oil fields are blown up?

Plus I'm not seeing any distinction between that sort of rhetoric over there and "terra terra vote for me" displayed by Bush* over here.

Plus there's no way we're gonna attack him. No people who like to cite this and that that happened in the past, we don't even have the resources to do it at this point in time. We probably don't even have the resources to attack Iran.

[AllieB]

1. Here we go again

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[corporate_mike]

5. Chavez' attempt to drive up oil prices so he can profit more

pathetic

[AllieB]

8. You still haven't provided a link from a reputable source to back up

your assertions. Strawman arguments and Fox talking points don't count.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Oooops.

I mistook you for someone else. Sorry.

[AllieB]

19. Who? Fidel Castro?

:D

[ThomCat]

54. Someone has an irrational hatred for Chavez.

:popcorn:

[LoZoccolo]

63. No, I don't understand why people are so up on this guy...

...who seems to be using Bush* tactics to stay in power.

[400Years]

68. Because he is doing right by his people, unlike bush

He is fostering an independence movement for Latin America. Something that has been a long time coming.

I guess your okay with imperialism.

[Phx_Dem]

106. self delete

[ThomCat]

73. Yet, you haven't documented any of those bush tactics

with anything but your word.

This many allows the media to be 95% controlled by the opposition and has not used his broad public support to privatize, regulate or punish the media.

He has used oil money in ways that help the poor and anger the rich, and this, I think, is the primary reason so many corporations and government people in the US hate him.

He survived an attempt to remove him from power that everyone except you sees as sponsored by the US.

Chavez legitimately won elections. He really does represent democracy. He's not only spreading resources and influence downward rather than keeping in with the wealthy elite. And he's helping the rest of South America do the same. And yet I've seen you waste more space here attacking him than I've ever seen you attack any republican or right-wing cause.

[LoZoccolo]

81. Saying that there's some threat from the outside where there isn't...

...is a Bush* tactic.

This many allows the media to be 95% controlled by the opposition and has not used his broad public support to privatize, regulate or punish the media.

Your turn to document, I guess.

He survived an attempt to remove him from power that everyone except you sees as sponsored by the US.

That might be because most people have more sense than I do about getting into these types of arguments with people who are into Chavez and argue from inductive reasoning.

Chavez legitimately won elections. He really does represent democracy. He's not only spreading resources and influence downward rather than keeping in with the wealthy elite. And he's helping the rest of South America do the same.

"It was much better than Cats. I'm going to see it again and again."

And yet I've seen you waste more space here attacking him than I've ever seen you attack any republican or right-wing cause.

That's your fault for not reading my posts.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

102. I got one article that said...

...some diplomat from who-knows-where asserted it. Asserted it. Chavez and Bush* assert things all the time.

I will admit my posts go against the grain of DU, because I don't like to "also-post". I've stressed numerous times that politics is not a place to satisfy yourself emotionally (like Naderites and other self-destructive freaks), which would include things like posting how upset I am about some right-wing thing that everyone else here is upset about. I don't take up peoples' time with that, or stories about how much I hate my Republican neighbors or whatever. It's pointless self-gratification that doesn't do anything to further anything. I've always been clear about issues like that. If I have something novel to post, something that's different from everyone else, I'll post it. If I don't, I won't waste their time with my also-post. And I don't rant about extra-political stuff like who the Pope is or the Mel Gibson movie, extra-political stuff that the Republicans want to make political to their advantage which should be obvious because they picked that strategy to help them win.

But it's too bad that you had to go suspect me of being a certain mythical beast, because while the moderators are likely to let you stay for trying to do an end-run around some well-established rules, I'm not.

I mean what are you thinking? That I came here to be a Republican and then turn around and promote Illinois Dem Net? I will say this, my opinions are a lot more in line with people who I meet there, who actually do stuff for the Democratic Party, than the typical DUer.

[ThomCat]

109. Yes, there are many things you don't do.

Like site any sources, while constantly demanding them of others and belitting or ignoring anything anyone else posts.

[Raksha]

132. So if Bush doesn't attack him, Chavez has no reason

to destroy Venezuela's oil fields...if indeed he said that.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. NYSun is hardly credible...

Sorry, LoZoccolo, but it's true...

[LoZoccolo]

4. .

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=611bc168-784c-4daa-9f3e-556bf9ba0b93&k=6992

[Cooley Hurd]

10. ...and the pic they show is one of irrelevance to the story

A pic of Chavez & Fidel tells me they're biased against Hugo. Sorry, but no cigar...

[LoZoccolo]

16. Is your claim that he didn't say that?

It's in hundreds of newspapers. I could find it in a commie rag if you want probably. Want me to go get that? Would you be satisfied with that?

[Cooley Hurd]

20. "commie rag?"

A - Chavez is a socialist, not a communist.
B - Show me the hundreds of newspapers - links, please.
C - Oasis sucks...:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

27. I just didn't know what you'd be satisfied with...

...so I figured if I could get a commie rag quoting him you'd finally be satisfied.

Here. Google has 114 newspapers with that quote.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22blow+up+our+own+oilfields+but+they+aren%27t+going+to+take+that+oil%22&btnG=Search+News

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. I have a serious question. Please answer sincerely.

Just who are you trying to kid?

[LoZoccolo]

37. Who am I trying to kid with what?

Are you calling me a FReeper? Because if you are you have not done your homework and you're about to get stepped on with the red X.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. McCarthyism went out of fashion over fifty years ago.

Basically, what I'm saying is... your arguments are so ridiculously bad, so patently silly that I don't even think you believe them.

How do you expect anybody else to?

[LoZoccolo]

57. You'll have to point that out to me. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Why would I waste my time doing that?

You know the score.

[LoZoccolo]

65. Well don't bring it up then.

I'm willing to argue with people who are willing to argue. But people who waste my time...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. I didn't bring any thing up.

I'm simply asking you who you're trying to fool?

[LoZoccolo]

69. "Basically, what I'm saying is...

"your arguments are so ridiculously bad, so patently silly that I don't even think you believe them."

You brought that up. And you even admitted it was basically what you were saying.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. I didn't bring up your bad arguments.

You did.

Do you really believe this stuff?

I'll look on you more favorably if you say you don't, it's only a bad joke.

[LoZoccolo]

74. Yes. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. I believe you.

No, really, I totally belive you.

:sarcasm:

[Cooley Hurd]

32. "114" is not "hundreds"

Have you been counting the crowds at peace rallies for the corporate media? ;)

[LoZoccolo]

34. Whatever. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

41. Snappy comeback!

I bow to your wit, Mr LoZoccolo.

[converted_democrat]

45. I just spewed chicken noodle soup all over my monitor and keyboard!!

Damn that's funny! :rofl:

[Xenotime]

110. What's the difference between socialism and communism?

Chavez is a socialist, not a communist.

Dictionary.com
Communism: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

That's like saying, "That's a car, not an automobile."

[400Years]

15. oh no, He's freinds with Castro!!! The horror!

Next thing you know Castro will be sending doctors here to help uninsured people. I shudder just thinking about it.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Go there then.

Odd that people from here don't go there as much as people from there go here.

[400Years]

22. That is against the law thanks to people of your thinking.

[LoZoccolo]

24. Not if you get away with it.

Go! It's such a great place you won't even miss here.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

31. You like the guy so much, what's wrong?

I'm just questioning your credibility, that's all. You claim to like Cuba so much...theoretically.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Well forget you then.

You're dodging and using a cheap tactic comparing me to a right-wing radio host. I don't waste time with people like that, so I'm putting you on ignore.

[400Years]

46. Good

the ignore button is for people who can't handle anything but their preconceived notions.

[400Years]

3. Well, I guess you missed out on the attempted coup recently

but you always seem to ignore inconvenient facts.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Well of course.

He pissed off people in his country and they're after him. He even tried to overthrow the government himself! There's a ton of internal tension there.

[400Years]

11. He pissed off the oligarchy

Which you support.

I guess you think a class based system designed to keep a certain elite rich while everyone else poor is a good thing.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Where did I say that?

Is this that "dialectical thinking" that I've heard so much about?

[400Years]

18. it's implicit in your remarks and your past positions here

You are a corporatist apologist. You freely admit that.

[bryant69]

36. A corportist apolitist vs. a capitalist

Are they the same thing or are they different?

Also could you provide a link to the coup attempt story? I'll understand if you can't as it was a few weeks ago.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[400Years]

43. Do you think taking all our tax dollars and giving them to Halliburton is

Capitalism?

OH, and I'm not sure what an "apolitist" is.

[bryant69]

47. I apologize for making mistake in my typing

I appreciate you correcting me.

Has the other poster literally advocated taking all our tax dollars and giving them to Halliburton, or are you engaging in a little exagerration there?

[400Years]

58. No

I thought your post was made by LoZo. Sorry.

But as far as the point goes, people often like to say we are in a capitalist country but as far as I am concerned we are living in very much of a command/control economy. It's just not called communism because the people raking in our tax dollars go around calling themselves capitalist instead of comrade. The mechanism is pretty much the same though.

[bryant69]

62. That shows a certain unfamiliarity with economics

and economic theory.

Bryant

[400Years]

64. exactly how?

[bryant69]

75. Saying that we are a communist nation who pretends to be capatalist

Shows that you don't really understand capitalism or communism. Or else you are making extreme exagerrations to make a point (as you did before).

[400Years]

88. I see you didn't address a single point I made

Is corporate welfare capitalism?

[bryant69]

94. Well i"m not in favor of coporate welfare

I guess I don't rule it out on a blanket basis - in some cases it's a good thing. When it promotes good corporate citizenship. But too often it is just a giveaway and that's not good.

But to say that it's existence means that our system is the equivelant to communism - well . . . that's not true.

[400Years]

98. I said it was very much a command and control economy

do you disagree with that?

[bryant69]

104. Let's look at what you said in total

"But as far as the point goes, people often like to say we are in a capitalist country but as far as I am concerned we are living in very much of a command/control economy. It's just not called communism because the people raking in our tax dollars go around calling themselves capitalist instead of comrade. The mechanism is pretty much the same though."

I don't know exactly what you mean by Command and Control economy - but when you liken it to Communism, I think I know. There is a central authority running everything. In the case of Communism it was the central community; in America it is "big business." But perhaps I didn't understand what you meant.

If that is what you mean, than yeah, I disagree with you.

[400Years]

112. Disagreeing is one thing

but providing a convincing counter arguement is another, which you have failed to do.

My point is that we really don't live in a capitalist society in the way that people mean when they make that assertion.

If it was not for all of the manipulation of government policy and the vast amounts of corporate welfare things would be very different.

[bryant69]

118. What do you think people mean when they say

that we live in a capatalist society?

That means, to me, that the means of production and control of the economy are largely in private hands. Which, corporate welfare or no, is the case in the United States.

Which statement is more true.

"The government has too much power over business."

or

"Business has too much power over government."

I suspect your answer would be (like mine) the second phrase.

You haven't defined what you mean by command and control economy, incidentally. Who is doing the commanding and the controlling in the United States Economy?

[400Years]

127. Here

When government policy is written by big business and the people on government positions are people from big business you have a marriage of the two, which is technically fascism. But the main point here is that it is definitely not classically defined capitalism in which business competes in a free market unaided and unhindered by regulation.

So when people make that assertion they are ignoring the fact that the very survival of these behemoth corporations rests on their relationship to government.

Command and control means that the largest elements of our economy are directed by centralized government dictates. Take a look around. The "defense" industry is very much an example here.

Chalmers Johnson made this point recently in an interview and it bears repeating. I'll post it here:

===========


TD: The way we garrison the planet has been essential to your rethinking of the American position in the world. Your chapters on Pentagon basing policy were the heart of your last book, The Sorrows of Empire. Didn't you find it strange that, whether reviewers liked the book or not, none of them seemed to deal with your take on our actual bases? What do you make of that?

Johnson: I don't know why that is. I don't know why Americans take for granted, for instance, that huge American military reservations in the United States are natural ways to organize things. There's nothing slightly natural about them. They're artificial and expensive. One of the most interesting ceremonies of recent times is the brouhaha over announced base closings. After all, it's perfectly logical for the Department of Defense to shut down redundant facilities, but you wouldn't think so from all the fuss.

I'm always amazed by the way we kid ourselves about the influence of the military-industrial complex in our society. We use euphemisms like supply-side economics or the Laffer Curve. We never say: We're artificially making work. If the WPA was often called a dig-holes-and-fill-em-up-again project, now we're making things that blow up and we sell them to people. Our weapons aren't particularly good, not compared to those of the great weapons-makers around the world. It's just that we can make a lot of them very rapidly.
===========

[bryant69]

133. Yes and the Defense industry is a large part of the economy

But that's not the whole economy. Where are the command and control elements in the food industry for example?

If you are arguing for complete deregulation (as this phrase seems to indicate "But the main point here is that it is definitely not classically defined capitalism in which business competes in a free market unaided and unhindered by regulation.), that I would be opposed to. Government and Business are going to be entertwined because they both have different but complementary functions.

As for the quote, it sounds kind of like he's opposed to having a standing army - is that correct?

At any rate talking about abuses in the Defense industry is like shooting a dead horse - I of course agree that they exist and that the Republicans are too chummy with defense contracters.

[400Years]

134. Archers Daniel Midland and Monsanto

are very much in bed with government and these massive Agribusinesses receive huge handouts.

I guess you've missed out on that.

[rman]

90. Don't you think the economy is largely controlled by big corporations?

If only for their efforts in lobbying to have the rules changed to their liking..

On a global scale they even have official institutions of control: IMF, WTO, World Bank.

And they call it "free market".

[bryant69]

97. I don't kow what you mean by control

If you mean the largest corporations exert the most power I'd say that's largely true (although obviously the Fed and the Regulatory bodies also have some influence over the economy as well). If you mean they basically run everything in a conspirtorial way and purposefully keep the rest of us down, well, they might try to but they are to fractured to really succeed at that.

[400Years]

99. The Fed is a private entity.

You do know that don't you?

[bryant69]

105. Ah - a nitpick

Yes now that you mention I did know that. But i do not put the Fed in the same bucket as General Electric or Halliburton, although I suppose there are some similarities.

[400Years]

113. that's a mighty big "nit-pick"

[rman]

115. What i mean by control: to make the rules of the game

No conspiracy, just self-interest. Takes one to know one, mutual back-scratching, revolving door politics, etc - out of self-interest.

Western economies and much of the global economy is under the command of big transnational corporate and financial interests. It is a command economy under non-democratic rule.

You have used the word "control" - what do you mean by it? Exerting most power or running everything in a conspiratorial way?

[bryant69]

120. I assumed you meant the latter (running everything).

I don't agree that it is a command economy in a total sense - I would agree that corporations have too much power in America and in the world; but not to the extent that the Communists had over the USSR economy (I realize you didn't say that, but another did, so just making myself clear).

Should large corporations have a certain amount of influence? Yeah - that's the nature of being a large corporation. But they clearly have too much.

Bryant

[rman]

51. There was tension before Chavez

between the same groups where there is tension now. It's just that the other (much larger) group is in power now.
But only now do the MSM speak of "tension" that Chavez is supposedly creating with his policies - same MSM that are owned by the minority that used to be in power in Venezuela.

[ThomCat]

84. Where are your facts?

Who has he pissed off, exactly?

I recall that he was arrested many years ago for trying to support democracy against a former, US supported administration. So what does that have to do with his actions since he WON THE ELECTIONS and became president?

Yes there is tension, but it's the small wealthy elite against him. What's your point?

[AllieB]

14. That seems to be a trend on DU-people who like to argue for the sake

of arguing, while not providing credible evidence to back up their assertions. It sure is tiresome. Case in point that other thread, where there was very little from the anti-Chavez camp except Faux News talking points.

[400Years]

25. no shit

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. "cripple the economy"

Doesn't this guy understand how a foriegn invasion is good for the economy?

Damn commies.

:sarcasm:

[Selatius]

9. Chavez is starting to worry me

As an anarcho-socialist, I worry about the concentration of decision-making power he has amassed. He's got to move in the opposite direction and democratize that power, and he's got to stop it with the US invasion nonsense. If anything, he should be warning his people about corporatists within Venezuela who seek to destroy the uprising of the poor people.

The chances of the US invading Venezuela are low. We're more likely to launch an air campaign against Iran, but I would say the chances of a corporatist plot to launch another coup d'etat are higher.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Oh you neocon! You neocon with a black and red star in your sig!

Your Noam Chomsky must have turned neocon too! Did you get your Faux News talking points from him??!!

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

[400Years]

28. actually diametrically opposed to your position

which is on the side of the corporate elite.

[AllieB]

23. I'm inclined to agree with you about the consolidation of power

however, it's more fun to watch the anti-Chavez camp on DU pull specious "facts" out of their butts.

[Ian David]

35. Chavez wants to ban Halloween and is ambivalent about gay marriage

But I still buy ALL my gasoline from only Citgo and Hess.

At least Chavez takes care of his country's poor people and stands-up to Der Chimpenfuhrer.

[rman]

40. He doesn't stop emphasizing that the power is not his, but of the people

And there a many local community initiatives that are supported by the government. Though a problem is that much of the old bureaucracy is still in place. It's not anarchy (and i know what anarchy is), but it's pretty darn socialist and democratic.

I seriously don't think the US invasion thing is nonsense. It may be 10 or 20 years down the line, but unless we have a global revolution, an oil war on Venezuela seems inevitable to me.

[Selatius]

95. I'm not saying Chavez has no community support, but

what I am saying is that if he continues to consolidate decision-making power upon the state, even if the state holds free elections, what happens if for some reason the state is cut off? As in a coup in Caracas? Are the people going to sit by and wait for help from the central government? What if that government no longer exists? What if the coup plotters succeeded in liquidating that government? The people would be left floundering because they had become too dependent upon the central organ. They'd be waiting for help that may never arrive, and that time spent waiting could've been time spent constructing a new solution.

A movement, if it is to survive, must not only be able to maneuver in conflict, but it must also completely internalize the ideals that animate that movement. It cannot be a movement of a few leaders and many followers. It must be a movement of leaders instead, so if there does come a time when the government is cut off from the people or destroyed in a coup, the people will know how to march forward with arms locked even if their hero is killed.

It's the difference between a movement that flounders when its leader is killed and a movement that continues to endure even if the original instigators are removed.

[corporate_mike]

30. Chavez makes more alarming statements -oil to go to $100

On Thursday, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, one of the world's top oil producers, said oil prices would reach $100 a barrel should concern over Iran's nuclear weapons capability lead the United States to invade the Middle Eastern nation.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002945125_weboil21.html

[400Years]

38. Uh, that is due to bushy boy's war mongering

as the quote you posted makes plain.

[corporate_mike]

42. or Chavez' greed (scare the analysts -- higher oil prices)

works like a charm

[400Years]

50. is chavez about to bomb Iran?

:rofl:

[corporate_mike]

86. he just innocently wants to profit from the whole situation

[converted_democrat]

89. You mean like * and his cronies? Nope, I think Chavez is better than

that.. He's just stating the obvious.. Oil will go through the roof because Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz..

on edit- Chavez actually cares about the poor.. The poor of our country and the poor of his country.. Chavez is a good man, * isn't.. This is all *'s doing.. Don't blame Chavez for stating the obvious.

[rman]

59. haven't had enough in that other thread?

[LoZoccolo]

48. "Hey don't blame me I want it to be $50."

"OK I'll take $75 if you'll give it to me."

(Flashback...three years ago...)

"I don't want to go to war with Iraq."

[converted_democrat]

70. And he's right, but it has nothing to do with him..

* is stirring up shit, and people are worried.. It's *'s fault.. People aren't stupid, even the most dense among us know that if Iran is attacked they will go after the Strait of Hormuz, and block it. It has nothing to do with Chavez, it has everything to do with *.. Chavez was just stating the obvious..

[gordianot]

44. Chavez threads are so much fun to watch.

So rising oil prices are being caused by uncertainty of war with Iran? Here's what you do, let your friends know you are going make statements that give investors the jitters and the price of oil will be raising soon. Let them invest and watch the oil prices skyrocket after you shoot off your mouth. Wish they would clue me in.

[corporate_mike]

49. That's exactly what Chavez is doing -- intentionally driving prices higher

[rman]

55. bullshit

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. I know, it's crazy isn't it?

First he convinces Iran into making nukes, and then he convinces Bush into threatening to nuke Iran.

He's a mastermind alright.

[gordianot]

79. Whose financial base is profiting from higher oil prices?

George W. Bush who also knows Iran is at least a decade from making Nukes. North Korea does not seem to really bother him much, watch him rattle swords at Iran.


Who shares a similar financial base and a couple weeks ago promoted $50.00 a barrel oil? Hugo Chavez is very clever and I admire him while he teaches the neo-liberals a trick or two.

[converted_democrat]

82. Um, did you read that post before you replied to it? He was being

sarcastic..

[gordianot]

96. I think Chavez is intentionally trying to profit and is a mastermind.

Who I loathe is George W. Bush. Chavez has real talent I love it when he upstages Bush.

[XemaSab]

91. Chavez was the 20th hijacker!

Chavez commanded the Japanese forces at Pearl Harbor!

Chavez blew up the Maine!

The lost colony of Roanoake is in Chavez's basement!

Chavez killed Christ!

:tinfoilhat:

[converted_democrat]

80. He is not, and you know it.. * is threatening Iran, and everyone knows

that Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz, and no oil will get through.. That's what's driving prices higher, people are afraid that * is bat shit crazy enough to attack, and no oil will get through.. People have explained it to you time and time again, why are you intentionally being dense? It has nothing to do with Chavez, Chavez was just stating the obvious about the situation..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Well, here's hoping he won't have to. But, I wouldn't count on it.

[Lolivia]

56. It would be his only defense

If a person sees the US invade one country based on false pretenses and take control of that country's oil,

If that person watched as the US starts the drumroll of war toward another country with oil - ostensibly over potential nukes while ignoring hostile countries that have nukes in fact,

If the US then stations naval strike carriers in the Caribbean as a "show of force," because "there is no other symbol of AMerican power like the carrier,"

And that person, rightly or not, truly believed his country was the next target in the bid to control oil, AND

The person led a small country and the US had the greatest military in the world, the person would know there was absolutely no way - none - that the small country could prevent the US from taking it over SOLELY TO GET OIL,

About the only defense is to let it be known that at the first sign of invasion, you would completely destroy the object of that invasion, thereby making any invasion moot.

The US may or may not ever invade, or make plans for strategic bombing or whatever - but if Chavez feels it is a plausible threat, making those statements really is his only defense.

[rman]

67. It's the logical thing to do, not demagoguery

It's their oil, so if someone manages to take it from them by force then the only thing left for them to do is to make sure that if they can't have it, no-one can.

Suppose there'd be a lot of oil on US soil and Russia would send over its military to seize it.

[LoZoccolo]

71. OK, so like, how will people live off of their country if he does that?

All these poor people that he cares so much about.

[titoresque]

76. And if we destroy

them.......will there not be less people?
We're being bullies.....worse. We're about to kill tens of thousands of people for more OIL. Why should Chavez not think he's next?
The writing is on the wall IMO.

[Lolivia]

83. Exactly

If Chavez thinks the US is going to invade - and that's not very far-fetched - saying that is about the only thing keeping those "poor people" from getting killed by the US military.

[rman]

78. You mean you'd want to live under Russian rule?

Thinking that you'd be helpless if you'd have to live off the land.

Or would you resist?

So what do you think Venezuelans will do if the US invades Venezuela?

[LoZoccolo]

85. I don't think they'd commit suicide, whatever they do. n/t

[400Years]

92. people who have been murdered can't commit suicide

[rman]

93. Do you think resisting would be suicide?

[Sinti]

100. On your feet or on your knees, baby. Your choice, you know n/t

[LoZoccolo]

103. Uh, no.

But cutting off their cheif export seems to be.

[Lolivia]

107. But it wouldn't be their export if the US invaded

The very title of your thread states that Chavez would blow the oil fields if the US attacked, and only then. If the US attacked and occupied Venezuela, they wouldn't be exporting the oil anyway. So your argument is really pointless.

[LoZoccolo]

117. He's also arming poor people.

He said he was going to do that like a week or two ago. So he's arming a resistance, which if they win, will have an impovershed country to take care of.

[titoresque]

121. What is your point?

That you'd rather be dead than poor?
I don't understand what you're trying to say here?!

[LoZoccolo]

126. I'm saying it's all bullshit.

He's acting as a demagogue. What he's saying makes no sense other than to get people scared of a U.S. invasion. If he actually went through with it it would leave people starving, and it's not even internally consistent (the oil field destruction plan is incompatible with the resistance plan). Despite all the ass-plucking people are putting out accusing me of being a Bush* supporter, the reason this disturbs me is that it's a Bush* tactic, the same that got people to support him, by making himself seem like the best remedy to an external threat. That makes me sick no matter who's doing it, and I have a responsibility to stand up to things like that.

[titoresque]

129. I agree with you

about Bush scaring us into believing false bullshit. However, Venezuela SHOULD be afraid of us, very afraid. We are a very REAL threat.

[Lolivia]

123. That is a non-point

Arming the people isn't going to make his country more or less impoverished.

Also, see post #56. Saying he will blow up the sole object of any US invasion is probably the only thing that would prevent said invasion.

Just to be clear on your points:

- Are you suggesting Venezuela should be OK with the US invading?
- Are you suggesting they should just hand over their oil?
- Are you suggesting the people NOT form a resistance against an occupying force?
- SHould they just surrender so they won't win (heaven forbid!) and thus have an "impoverished country to take care of?" Are you saying it would just be better for them to be annexed by the US?

Because the only time your scenerio here comes into play is IF THE US INVADES A SOVEREIGN NATION IN AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK TO TAKE OVER THEIR OIL. And if that happens, you seem to feel, for some unfathomable reason, perfectly justified in passing judgment on how they would defend themselves.

Unbelievable.

[titoresque]

125. now that was

better said! :woohoo:

[LoZoccolo]

130. I'm saying none of these plans mean anything...

..because they're not internally consistent. They're just a bunch of hoo-ha to get people on his side.

- Are you suggesting Venezuela should be OK with the US invading?
Depends. If Chavez starts doing the sort of heinous shit his pal Castro does or worse, I might have a different position than now. And for the last time I don't have to support Castro to be a Democrat sheesh. Kennedy? Remember him? Was he a phony or something?

- Are you suggesting they should just hand over their oil?
No.

- Are you suggesting the people NOT form a resistance against an occupying force?
No.

- Should they just surrender so they won't win (heaven forbid!) and thus have an "impoverished country to take care of?"
No.

- Are you saying it would just be better for them to be annexed by the US?
See #1.

[titoresque]

108. assuming your chief export

will be worth shit when your country is occupied
by the U.S. and your infrastructure is destroyed and
half your people are killed.
Think ahead here.....

[Lolivia]

111. you are so right on the money here

no pun intended.

The OP is really arguing in circles.

[titoresque]

114. I basically said what you

did. But you beat me to it :)
:toast:

[Lolivia]

116. well, you know...

great minds and all...

:)

And you said it better

[lonestarnot]

101. Oh gee that's nice.

For shit sakes, what good is a tantrum going to do him?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

122. No.

But your implication that I am has gotten you the red X.

[Bridget Burke]

124. How many minds has the DU Anti-Chavez gang changed?

As I just pointed out in another thread, Chavez is not my ***HERO***. I do think he has some good ideas.

But every time I hear the Usual Suspects bitching about him, my opinion of Chavez goes up a notch.

[gordianot]

128. He does have a very good talent for spitting in Bush's soup.

For that I admire him.

[AllieB]

131. Especially since they never supply credible back up for their BS

Like you, I admire some of the things he's done, but I'm taking a 'wait and see' attitude.

[LeftCoast]

135. Locking

This thread has become flamebait.