BF2S Forums Media Conspiracy against Ron Paul.

Chavez's comments about America are a lot like the ones we make about him.

He's just playing the same game our politicians do.  Demonize a foreign country to distract the people from your own problems.

It works in every country and in every era.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. They've been pursuing nukes since before the rhetoric (as opposed to threats--one of the reasons why they were added to "the Axis") and have threatened to close the Straits many, many times since the revolution of '79. But, since in your world, history didn't start until Bush was elected, I can see how you might view things that way.

They have been pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, supported by the US at various times, and open to public scrutiny.
Now we don't know what they are doing.

It has only been "open to public scrutiny" a couple of times...when they finally allowed IAEA inspectors in. And the last time the inspectors were there, their findings drove them to have doubts about the "peaceful" nature of Iran's nuclear program. Hence, the UN (and Europe and GCC) call to allow inspectors back in, with unfettered access. Supposedly that has happened. Let's see what happens going forward.

Afghanistan: What pretext, exactly? You seem to be the only human being in the West who doesn't see the clear casus belli there.

The Taliban weren't the enemy, AQ were and yet they were allowed to slip away into Pakistan while we concentrated on the Taliban - don't you find that odd?

Yes, the Taliban were the enemy. They became the enemy the second they decided to abet AQ in their endeavors. As to "allow(ing) them to slip away. Read something about the battle in Shah-i-Kot Valley and then come back. Nobody "let" anyone do anything.

Iraq: go ahead and beat that dead horse.

Because you still don't have any answers, OK.

There are plenty of answers, you just don't bother to hear them.

What "crystal clear threats" exactly? The one where they were put in the same league as Syria, North Korea, and Iraq? How are they not?

You're going to need to try to stick to one argument.

I thought the "Axis of Evil" nomenclature was part of your argument--one of the central parts, IIRC. I guess when your argument fails, you pretend it wasn't yours, then?

There was no threat there, only a categorization.

If your name was list of people someone planned to kill, where other names on that list had already been killed, would you be at all bothered?

The categorization wasn't a "kill list". Only someone with a singular, unwavering, and uninformed world view would see it as such.

But to follow your argument (which you said wasn't part of the argument, btw), 25% of that list was attacked militarily by the Coalition. That means 75% wasn't, despite a long list of reasons to do so. You act as if we have attacked everyone on that list except Iran, and that they should therefore see being on that list as "a threat."

If you have three friends, someone lists the four of you, and one of your friends is attacked, initially, you have every right to be concerned. But when nearly a decade goes by and nothing has happened to anyone else on the list, despite affronts from the people on the list (including yourself) to the person who attacked your friend...to say that person "is threatening you" because of a list they made ten years ago that doesn't clearly correlate to aggressive action on their part is ridiculous.

Your rationale fails, because you refuse to think about the issue objectively.

FEOS wrote:

It has only been "open to public scrutiny" a couple of times...when they finally allowed IAEA inspectors in. And the last time the inspectors were there, their findings drove them to have doubts about the "peaceful" nature of Iran's nuclear program. Hence, the UN (and Europe and GCC) call to allow inspectors back in, with unfettered access. Supposedly that has happened. Let's see what happens going forward.

It was open to public scrutiny until certain people decided Iran would not be allowed any kind of nuclear program under any circumstances, then they closed the doors - being good citizens, signing the NNPT, allowing inspections had not helped one bit.

Yes, the Taliban were the enemy. They became the enemy the second they decided to abet AQ in their endeavors. As to "allow(ing) them to slip away.

When did they 'abet' AQ? They were ready to hand Bin Laden over and negotiate.

Read something about the battle in Shah-i-Kot Valley and then come back. Nobody "let" anyone do anything.

I have, it makes hilarious reading.

There are plenty of answers, you just don't bother to hear them.

LOL

I thought the "Axis of Evil" nomenclature was part of your argument--one of the central parts, IIRC. I guess when your argument fails, you pretend it wasn't yours, then?

It is, you're missing the point.

The categorization wasn't a "kill list". Only someone with a singular, unwavering, and uninformed world view would see it as such.

So what was it, bearing in mind Iraq and AFghanistan were 'killed', and it was publicly known that the same countries were on various neo-con lists for 'intervention' well before 9/11?

If you have three friends, someone lists the four of you, and one of your friends is attacked, initially, you have every right to be concerned. But when nearly a decade goes by and nothing has happened to anyone else on the list, despite affronts from the people on the list (including yourself) to the person who attacked your friend...to say that person "is threatening you" because of a list they made ten years ago that doesn't clearly correlate to aggressive action on their part is ridiculous.

Nothing at all, apart from ever tightening sanctions and ever more specific and belligerent threats from the US and their ally Israel, and obvious military preparations for an attack - local maneuvres and cooperative military exercises, preparation and upgrading of specific stocks of weapons?
Yeah I wouldn't be bothered at all.

You're so blinkered with the idea that you're the righteous crusader you can't see anything objectively.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-31 04:40:01)

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Venezuela: Chavez is crazier than a shithouse rat and thinks the US is Satan. Falls right in line with Iran.

Crazy and thinks the U.S. is Satan? Must be joking.

He's not crazy at all. We hate him because he nationalized a bunch of foreign investments in his country. Most notably oil rigs, and fields.

He doesn't view America as the great Satan. He and a few other central and south American countries are just upset with the U.S.'s overwhelming influence in their countries. That could be used to support your argument that he hates us but it ignores the fact that he tried to normalize relations with the U.S. after Obama was elected.

So no. I don't think he is a shithouse crazy America hater.

Learn more about Chavez, his policies, and the governance of Venezuela.

He didn't try to "normalize" relations with us after Obama was elected. He kept doing the same things he had been doing. He just hoped Obama would not notice/care.

This isn't about not liking Chavez because he says mean things about the US.

Well then since you claim to know more than I do, enlighten me.

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Crazy and thinks the U.S. is Satan? Must be joking.

He's not crazy at all. We hate him because he nationalized a bunch of foreign investments in his country. Most notably oil rigs, and fields.

He doesn't view America as the great Satan. He and a few other central and south American countries are just upset with the U.S.'s overwhelming influence in their countries. That could be used to support your argument that he hates us but it ignores the fact that he tried to normalize relations with the U.S. after Obama was elected.

So no. I don't think he is a shithouse crazy America hater.

Learn more about Chavez, his policies, and the governance of Venezuela.

He didn't try to "normalize" relations with us after Obama was elected. He kept doing the same things he had been doing. He just hoped Obama would not notice/care.

This isn't about not liking Chavez because he says mean things about the US.

Well then since you claim to know more than I do, enlighten me.

Read

(sorry, it's a subscription-required thing for the full monty...I have a hard copy only)

Francisco Rodriguez wrote:

That story line may be compelling to many who are rightly outraged by Latin America's deep social and economic inequalities. Unfortunately, it is wrong. Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chávez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor. Most health and human development indicators have shown no significant improvement beyond that which is normal in the midst of an oil boom. Indeed, some have deteriorated worryingly, and official estimates indicate that income inequality has increased. The "Chávez is good for the poor" hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts.

Soon after joining the National Assembly, I clashed with the administration over underfunding of [the program] which had been created by Chávez to coordinate the distribution of resources to antipoverty programs. The law establishing the fund included a special provision to ensure that it would benefit from rising oil revenues. But when oil revenues started to go up, the Finance MIistry ignored the provision ... When my office pointed out this inconsistency, the Finance Ministry came up with [a] creative accounting gimmick ... [whose] effect was to direct resources away from the poor even as oil profits were surging.

Summary of an interview:

Francisco R. Rodriguez, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, discusses Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's economic policies and argues that his social programs do not actually help the poor. He says that Venezuela's high economic growth has benefited everyone, and the reduction in poverty is "modest" compared to prior periods of growth. He says Chavez's plan to nationalize the telecommunications and electricity industries might well be a "smokescreen" for his aggressive consolidation of political power.

So. From the inside of the Chavez regime. And, despite being given the facts of what his policies were doing, Chavez was convinced that if he just kept doing more of it, the outcome would change. Surprisingly, it hasn't.

What's that definition of insanity again?

It was a presentation of Chavez's policies and results thereof.

Obv the "crazy as a shithouse rat" comment was a joking characterization of his apparent erratic behavior (Satan comment is from his infamous "brimstone" quip at the UN). AFAIK, he hasn't been diagnosed with anything but cancer.

We disliked him long before he nationalized the oil industry, which was complete by 2006. He started straining relationships with the US as early as 2001. So your central argument that our issue with Chavez is his petroleum policy is clearly...wrong. It's one of many reasons the US has strained relations with the Chavez regime.

The link provides more instances of Chavez's poor governance. I simply didn't have time to go through the hard copy article and point them all out.

Don't have much to say here anymore, but Ron Paul getting elected is about the only thing that can save this country.

See you at new years for my annual sentimental drunken hello.
Yours truly,
ATG

A2TG2 wrote:

Don't have much to say here anymore, but Ron Paul getting elected is about the only thing that can save this country.

See you at new years for my annual sentimental drunken hello.
Yours truly,
ATG

I'd have thought Bachmann, Santorum or Palin would be your last hope from the Commie, Socialist, Marxist and Muslim President Hussein Obama who literally wants to destroy America.

FEOS wrote:

It was a presentation of Chavez's policies and results thereof.

Obv the "crazy as a shithouse rat" comment was a joking characterization of his apparent erratic behavior (Satan comment is from his infamous "brimstone" quip at the UN). AFAIK, he hasn't been diagnosed with anything but cancer.

We disliked him long before he nationalized the oil industry, which was complete by 2006. He started straining relationships with the US as early as 2001. So your central argument that our issue with Chavez is his petroleum policy is clearly...wrong. It's one of many reasons the US has strained relations with the Chavez regime.

The link provides more instances of Chavez's poor governance. I simply didn't have time to go through the hard copy article and point them all out.

Our relations with Chavez can't be that bad if we're still buying tons of oil from Venezuela.

Because he can nationalize the money we pay him for oil. As soon as the oil they pump and ship gets to the U.S. and the dollars reach Venezuela BAM the American dollars become Venezuelan.

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yep, should totally ignore the fact that he nationalized billions of dollars worth of investment on the part of American companies and hand him even more money. Another winning idea.

If you've got so many winning ideas, why don't you go run for office instead of wasting time here?

I'm not narcissistic enough.

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you've got so many winning ideas, why don't you go run for office instead of wasting time here?

I'm not narcissistic enough.

LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL

Read my signature; gain wisdom.