Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/3/07 10:55 PM, fli wrote:

However, I don't like the US trying to influence South American politics... not at all.
Do we need another Reagnite error, again?

Wow, I guess only idiots like you would say something so damned ignorant.

At 12/3/07 10:58 PM, Memorize wrote: Wow, I guess only idiots like you would say something so damned ignorant.

Because the Iran-Contra Affair was such a lovely and great idea... Because a country, still paying for the price 20 years latter, is a GREAT tradeoff for his egoism.

Want to know Reagan's greatest embarassment?

José Daniel Ortega Saavedra.

But I'm putting this in context of his role in ignoring the AIDS onsough epidemic for nearly 8 years before it became a world plague...

Look, the extent of our activity beyond our borders should only extend to when we need to defend ourselves, when we need to make peace, give aid for those who ask, and etc.

We should never meddle in the affairs of a country unless our lives are at stake. And before Nicaragua... we had Vietnam to show us that.

At 12/3/07 10:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/3/07 10:55 PM, fli wrote:

However, I don't like the US trying to influence South American politics... not at all.
Do we need another Reagnite error, again?

Wow, I guess only idiots like you would say something so damned ignorant.

The fact that the PEOPLE were able to fight for democracy ON THEIR OWN shows that the US doesn't need to spread it by force.....

They're not the poor defenseless people that need "civiliz......I mean, democratizing" that you think......we don't need to waste our resources fixing their countries.

At 12/3/07 11:32 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/3/07 10:58 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/3/07 10:55 PM, fli wrote:

However, I don't like the US trying to influence South American politics... not at all.
Do we need another Reagnite error, again?

Wow, I guess only idiots like you would say something so damned ignorant.

The fact that the PEOPLE were able to fight for democracy ON THEIR OWN shows that the US doesn't need to spread it by force.....

They're not the poor defenseless people that need "civiliz......I mean, democratizing" that you think......we don't need to waste our resources fixing their countries.

I got a head of myself, and didn't write, basically-- what you've mentioned.
I'm not pro-Chavez, but I think he's correct that the US should not involve itself their politics. (That's as far I can agree with him.) And the thing... the US looks like it is ready to jump in and take over reigns.

I don't think they're defenseless, but I know from history (Vietnam and South America-- and Iraq) that we have that mentality that people need saving.

I don't think they're defenseless, but I know from history (Vietnam and South America-- and Iraq) that we have that mentality that people need saving.

the Philippines (true Civilizing mission that one was),
Cuba (self explanatory)
Mexico (helped dictator Porfirio Diaz we did)
Nicaragua (forced president Zelaya to resign, because we like bananas)
Guatemala (forced overthrow of another president, for economic gain of course)
Dominican Republic (Trujillo, that's ma boy!)
El Salvador (we'll support whichever junta kills them commies)
Ecuador (ousted another president, cause he was friends with Cuba)
Brazil (Joao Goulart, nationalized oil BAD!)

And that's just the Americas.
Shall we move on to Europe, then maybe Asia?

At 12/4/07 02:41 AM, Imperator wrote: Shall we move on to Europe, then maybe Asia?

Please do, I can't think of anything in Europe that America has done that's along the same sort of lines as you've been listing. I'm curious to see what you would list in Europe as I'd like to cure my own ignorance on the subject AND I'd like to take a look at your examples so I can see if there is any problem with them.

Most the sort of stuff you are listing is from the cold war, which considering Europe was the ' front line' means that the standards you are holding the US to in other regions of the world may be different in Europe due to the context and circumstances.

At 12/4/07 01:15 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Please do, I can't think of anything in Europe that America has done that's along the same sort of lines as you've been listing. I'm curious to see what you would list in Europe as I'd like to cure my own ignorance on the subject AND I'd like to take a look at your examples so I can see if there is any problem with them.

The French and their colonies before the Vietnam War...
You can learn it from Apacolypse Now Redux and even The Quiet American (new version, not the old...)

At 12/3/07 11:27 PM, fli wrote:

Because the Iran-Contra Affair was such a lovely and great idea... Because a country, still paying for the price 20 years latter, is a GREAT tradeoff for his egoism.

Are you kidding?

It was a great plan and we got Cha-CHING out of the deal.

What? You didn't think we were doing that BEFORE?

Want to know Reagan's greatest embarassment?

Reagan was the democrat's greatest embarassment.

We should never meddle in the affairs of a country unless our lives are at stake. And before Nicaragua... we had Vietnam to show us that.

I agree... except that my opinion stems from the fact that since the world doesn't appreciate our efforts, that we should just let everyone else handle their own problems while getting killed.

At 12/4/07 05:38 PM, fli wrote: The French and their colonies before the Vietnam War...
You can learn it from Apacolypse Now Redux and even The Quiet American (new version, not the old...)

I got the impression he was on about Nicaragua style things actually IN Europe, not just randomly connected to Europe via imperialist colonies. Either way I'll give those things you suggested a look. Never hurts to learn.

At 12/4/07 01:15 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Please do, I can't think of anything in Europe that America has done that's along the same sort of lines as you've been listing. I'm curious to see what you would list in Europe as I'd like to cure my own ignorance on the subject AND I'd like to take a look at your examples so I can see if there is any problem with them.

We're generally "nicer" to Europeans. But the Marshall Plan and a lot of our stances to smaller euro countries has remained generally unchanged. Marshall Plan was the big one though, where we simply paid or bribed countries to sway in the pro-US directions, rather than forcing change like in much of South America.

Most the sort of stuff you are listing is from the cold war, which considering Europe was the ' front line' means that the standards you are holding the US to in other regions of the world may be different in Europe due to the context and circumstances.

Well in modern politics I think we tend to use Europe in relatively the same way. Front line grunts for US foreign affairs. I mean on one hand we're urging the UN to put pressure on Iran, on the other we had zero qualms about giving the UN the finger when we invaded Iraq......

I think this reflects some similarity to Rome's old "Client Kings"; where Rome basically used other countries as "buffer zones" upon which potentially harmful foreign policies could be enacted but at a reduced cost and risk to Rome itself.

Similarly I think we tend to sway the UN and NATO to our bidding than the truly "round-table" type alliances these organizations are supposed to be......

At 12/3/07 10:48 PM, Memorize wrote: I never said that that meant ALL the violence came from his side. But most of it did.

Yahoo

In a group of Chavez supporters SOME had guns, another group from the opposition (spoiled rich University students) clashed against them, and there was confrontation, which was quite expected.

And then one guy died while crossing a protest.

And how do you come to the conclusion his supporters kill several people?

At 12/4/07 08:23 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

And how do you come to the conclusion his supporters kill several people?

Well, apparently Chavez supporters like to shoot guns at the opposition. And not just recently.

At 12/4/07 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/4/07 08:23 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

And how do you come to the conclusion his supporters kill several people?

Well, apparently Chavez supporters like to shoot guns at the opposition. And not just recently.

Eh, I don't trust videos, even less if they are considered "mature"; provide a more reliable source, please, like Memorize has done.

At 12/3/07 01:26 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: What do you think about it?

Happy, mad, sad?

Discuss.

I think a whole bunch of conflict has been avoided.

At 12/4/07 08:23 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

And how do you come to the conclusion his supporters kill several people?

I was giving an example.

I didn't want to give a bunch of links to prove 1 small thing.

At 12/5/07 03:17 PM, Memorize wrote:
I was giving an example.

I didn't want to give a bunch of links to prove 1 small thing.

Well, a State killing the opposition isn't a small thing...
I guess you haven't learned much from the 70s...

At 12/5/07 05:40 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

Well, a State killing the opposition isn't a small thing...

What?

I guess you haven't learned much from the 70s...

60's, 70's. I only wish more protestors in the US were fatally shot.

At 12/4/07 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Well, apparently Chavez supporters like to shoot guns at the opposition. And not just recently.

That video is bullshit. It's misleading and it never shows what they're shooting at.

And before you say that them ahooting their guns makes the target irrelevant, I seem to recall that the coup against Chávez in 2002 was partially fueled by footage of Chávez crowds firing their guns at an unseen "opposition rally". Days later, a different camera angle revealed that the rally was nowhere near the Chavista militia, which were defending themselves from snipers.

At 12/5/07 06:10 PM, Memorize wrote:

I guess you haven't learned much from the 70s...

60's, 70's. I only wish more protestors in the US were fatally shot.

It really disappoints me that you have no respect for life.
That give you no right to condemn Chavez or Castro.

At 12/5/07 06:22 PM, Empanado wrote: That video is bullshit. It's misleading and it never shows what they're shooting at.

I came to the same conclusion without watching it =D

At 12/3/07 10:55 PM, fli wrote: Well, there are stupid people on both sides...
All I'm glad is that the world has furthered humbled Chavez (and nearly right after the "¿Por qué no te callas?" episode, lolz...)

His humbleness didn't last much, he crashed into a press conference some military leaders were giving, and he called the opposition's victory a piece of shit. (CNN said he had used a "vulgar word", lol)
Actually her said "Una victoria de MIERRRRDA", but you get the point.

He just sore...
All I can say is that he's seriously gotta know when to quit--

And "mierda" isn't that bad sounding of a word... sounds much more nicer when you compare its English equivilent. Sounds like the name of a French wine, or something...

At 12/6/07 11:41 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

It really disappoints me that you have no respect for life.

And it disappoints me that you have respect for scum.

That give you no right to condemn Chavez or Castro.

*looks around* *picks up contitution* *looks at the recent vote on Chavez' law* ...What?

At 12/6/07 03:19 PM, Memorize wrote:

That give you no right to condemn Chavez or Castro.

*looks around* *picks up contitution* *looks at the recent vote on Chavez' law* ...What?

I think what he was getting at is that it's a little odd for you to be in favor of dissidents in Venezuela while simultaneously wanting the death of US Viet protesters....

At 12/3/07 06:35 PM, Memorize wrote: The guy is a nut.

Yes, but he's a POPULAR nut. Coat him in chocolate, stick him in a can and you've got the next big snack food! lol

As far as I'm concerned, either one of two things happened in Venezuela:
1. Hugo Chavez went way too far for most of his supporters.
I can imagine that quite a few proposals on the ballot were good, and were wanted by the Venezuelans (or at least the poor and working class, anyway). However no term limits, censorship of the press and other unsavoury things turned off a lot of moderates. Venezuela has been no stranger to dictatorship, and I doubt the people have forgotten this. This reduced the Yes vote to Chavez's core supporters. Evidence? Most nation-changing referendums like this often get most of the nation's votes out. Quebec's 1995 referendum on seperation saw %90 of quebecers turn out to vote. However this one only saw around %55.

OR

2. This was along the lines of a planned PR stunt
Chavez has been getting flack lately for doing a lot of dictatorial things recently. Solution? Deflate your opponents argument by losing a vote! Ain't no dictator'll let his version of the enabling act get shot down by a bunch of dumb Plebes. Besides, doesn't he have the power to issue law by decree anyway?

Who wants to bet the "Socialist Revolution" is going to march along as if nothing has happened?

And now he is trying again to abolish term limits. I wonder what he will do if it fails again, impose martial law "for the good of the people"?

Linky

This is a good thing for Venezuela. For the first time in a long time, the Venezuelan people have proven that they at least know when they're approaching the point of dictatorial no return.

Also, inb4 Contipec loses his mind.

At 12/3/07 03:10 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Doesn't this kind of negate the argument that he's a dictator in the making? If he really were trying to consolidate the powers for the purpose of a dictatorship then he wouldn't have lost this referendum surely?

Mugabe lost an election recently, and most people would still consider him a dictator.

Meh, either way, this is good for Venezuela. Whilst I'm a left winger, I don't think vesting total power in a single individual is a very good move and that did seem to be where Chavez was moving to

Democracy without economic freedom is essentially two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

At 2/13/09 03:59 PM, JoS wrote: And now he is trying again to abolish term limits.

Mission Accomplished.

At 2/13/09 03:59 PM, JoS wrote: And now he is trying again to abolish term limits. I wonder what he will do if it fails again, impose martial law "for the good of the people"?

Linky

$10 says he rigged it.

Although with coming inflation, I suppose that $10 won't get you anywhere, lol.

At 12/3/07 04:13 PM, Imperator wrote:

Hitler was also democratically elected.

Yeah. Seems like the same sort of desperation and fear that usually accompany changes like that wasn't present in Venezuela.

Democracy tends to die to "thunderous applause" if you will.

Indeed Padme-- i mean imperator

I'm actually not surprised the movement lost, I've read and studied about that area a bit and it didn't seem like he had the proper hold on the people to carry on such a referendum. The opposition movement seemed pretty strong in that country

maybe Hugo wants a genuine referendum before attempting to do a rigged one? We won't know until it happens.