Most Irritating Third World Leader

[Bort]

I thought up this question after reading this http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818045/ about how Hugo Chavez is thinking of giving away his F-16's to Cuba or Iran. That could deserve a topic on its own but it got me thinking, just who is that third world moron who really gets under your skin? Mine has got to be Chavez, his constant badgering of the US is driving me up the wall. :stare:

[Skybird]

Other. King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia).

[Ducimus]

WHAT?! I have to pick just one?! Awwwweeee :cry:

[August]

The poll is about the most irritating, not the most dangerous.

Therefore Chavez gets my vote.

[TteFAboB]

Chavez, no doubt, because he is the EASIEST to take down.

Stop buying his oil and he falls in a matter of days.

[Konovalov]

The poll is about the most irritating, not the most dangerous.

Therefore Chavez gets my vote.

Gets my vote too. The guy is a top class clown putting on a show over here in London with the city mayor. :nope: :nope:

[scandium]

* Bort]I thought up this question after reading this http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818045/ about how Hugo Chavez is thinking of giving away his F-16's to Cuba or Iran. That could deserve a topic on its own but it got me thinking, just who is that third world moron who really gets under your skin? Mine has got to be Chavez, his constant badgering of the US is driving me up the wall. :stare:


This is where a reality check, i.e. context, can be useful. So look at the context and then tell me what part of this is unreasonable:

a: The F-16s were presumably bought from the US which also presumably supplies the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

b: Venezuela having bought these planes therefore owns them;

c: The US has just decided, ostensibly because Venezuela is insufficiently cooperative in the US War on Terror, to stop exporting arms to Venezuela which would include the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

d: Venezuela, due to this recent decision by the US government, now has a bunch of useless F-16s that it will no longer be able to maintain;

e: Venezuela considers selling these planes, which are now useless to them;

My question would then be: why do you hate capitalism so much, or do you simply not understand how the concept of ownership works?

Editted to add: I personally like Chavez. He seems to me to be a rare breed of leader who actually governs in the interests of his people rather than in the interests of the elite there or of Washington (this may come as a surprise to many here but Washington is actually not the center of the universe). In fact, given the atrocious history of US intervention in Latin America with its history of propping up a succession of terrible right-wing dictators, a reality check really is in order here.

[Kapitan]

well mugabe would be the worst ass hole we have too many zimbabweans in englan and more and more keep coming but because they come from an oppressed country if they are caught they are given visas regardless if they are illigal infact it pays them to come in illigaly cause if they did come in via the legal route they would be turned down at the gate.

[kiwi_2005]

Helen Clark - our prime minister who is turning NZ into a third world! :P

[Skybird]

* Bort]I thought up this question after reading this http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818045/ about how Hugo Chavez is thinking of giving away his F-16's to Cuba or Iran. That could deserve a topic on its own but it got me thinking, just who is that third world moron who really gets under your skin? Mine has got to be Chavez, his constant badgering of the US is driving me up the wall. :stare:


This is where a reality check, i.e. context, can be useful. So look at the context and then tell me what part of this is unreasonable:

a: The F-16s were presumably bought from the US which also presumably supplies the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

b: Venezuela having bought these planes therefore owns them;

c: The US has just decided, ostensibly because Venezuela is insufficiently cooperative in the US War on Terror, to stop exporting arms to Venezuela which would include the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

d: Venezuela, due to this recent decision by the US government, now has a bunch of useless F-16s that it will no longer be able to maintain;

e: Venezuela considers selling these planes, which are now useless to them;

My question would then be: why do you hate capitalism so much, or do you simply not understand how the concept of ownership works?

Editted to add: I personally like Chavez. He seems to me to be a rare breed of leader who actually governs in the interests of his people rather than in the interests of the elite there or of Washington (this may come as a surprise to many here but Washington is actually not the center of the universe). In fact, given the atrocious history of US intervention in Latin America with its history of propping up a succession of terrible right-wing dictators, a reality check really is in order here.

Not too mention the drug war which is an excuse to fight down resistance (local guerillas) to the deportation of local people due to - mostly Us - company interests. Especially Colombia on my mind. Prepare the ground for company interests - and sell it as an anti-drug campaign at home. Nice trick, almost everybody buys it. At the same time, again and again those mercenary companies and mercenaries of theirs that are doing the job down there, are engaged in drug smuggling and murder themselves.

Chavez stands in the way of US interests in southern America, and US attempts to press through a total free trade zone (which again will come at the cost of the poor). That'S why he is portrayed as the bully of the block now. Unfortunately, or thank God (a question of whose perspective you take), he is not the only one resisting the US. Several countries in Southern America have started to become stubborn to US demands, including Brazil (often overseen, but it is one of the coming megapowers of the world like India, China, and the like).

Plus Brazil is independent from oil - a bonus that is hard to be overestimated.

[mapuc]

If I should make the same poll on a Danish/swedish/finnish forum, I bet, that most of them would ask me, why I haven't put Bush on the list.

Markus

[Skybird]

Because every oppostion to him immediately melts in the shining light of his cleverness, competence and honesty. Maybe they should import him - such a bright light may help against winter depression. :88)

[TteFAboB]

Editted to add: I personally like Chavez. He seems to me to be a rare breed of leader who actually governs in the interests of his people rather than in the interests of the elite there or of Washington (this may come as a surprise to many here but Washington is actually not the center of the universe). In fact, given the atrocious history of US intervention in Latin America with its history of propping up a succession of terrible right-wing dictators, a reality check really is in order here.

Do you usually like things you know nothing about, only by what they seem to be?

Answer me these questions, Mr. reality check:

1. Does Chavez has the support of his people?

2. What actions has he taken in the interests of his people?

3. What did you see of terrible in the right-wing dictators propped by US intervention that you fail to spot in Chavez?

[TteFAboB]

Chavez stands in the way of US interests in southern America, and US attempts to press through a total free trade zone (which again will come at the cost of the poor). That'S why he is portrayed as the bully of the block now. Unfortunately, or thank God (a question of whose perspective you take), he is not the only one resisting the US. Several countries in Southern America have started to become stubborn to US demands, including Brazil (often overseen, but it is one of the coming megapowers of the world like India, China, and the like).

Plus Brazil is independent from oil - a bonus that is hard to be overestimated.

You have it all wrong.

The US never offered a total free trade zone, that would severely affect Americans in the benefit of South American poors, as happens with Germany and Romania for example. The original treaty favoured some American sectors and maintained protectionism.

"Several" countries are actually 4: Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador. Peru would join but after Chavez got involved with his candidate's campaign the Peruvians realized he would work for Chavez and not for the interests of Peru, and he dropped in the polls, Garcia might be elected instead, another demagogue, but not a Chavist.

Colombia, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay prefer Washington over Chavez, except for Paraguay those already have bi-lateral agreements with the US. Brazil will most likely join this rank after the election in October.

Brazil is not independent from Oil, who lied this absurd to you?! Brazil reached what is called "self-sufficiency" of Oil, Brazil produces enough Oil to meet the internal demand. Another important point is that this self-sufficiency would not be possible if the Brazilian economy growed like that of India, China and the like, it is because of industrial and agricultural retractions or minor growth that it was possible to supply the demand, and also because the extraction is a state monopoly. But the only Oil self-sufficient nation that worked that I know of is Norway, all the others are dwelled in misery, corruption and tyranny.

[TLAM Strike]

Brazil is not independent from Oil, who lied this absurd to you?!Probably ’60 Minutes’ they did a piece on how all of Brazil now uses Ethanol fuels (80-something % Ethanol) for its automobiles instead of normal oils like in the US.

[Kapitan]

What about the somali leaders whats his name yusef ?

[scandium]

Answer me these questions, Mr. reality check:

1. Does Chavez has the support of his people?


As compared to who, President 29%? Snide remarks aside, yes, he does. He's also widely expected to win re-election in December. See the paragraph at the bottom here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187165,00.html


2. What actions has he taken in the interests of his people?


Among other things, the Bolivarian Missions to fight things like malnutrition, poverty, disease, and illiteracy. He's also intervened to reduce privatization, to overhaul the tax system to increase its fairness, and created a land law forn reform and redistribution. He has reduced unemployment, illiteracy, and poverty.


3. What did you see of terrible in the right-wing dictators propped by US intervention that you fail to spot in Chavez?

Well, for starters, where are the death squads? Chavez is empowering his people, his country's influence in the region, and one could even argue he's aiding the region as whole (certainly many of his actions seem aimed to this end). This is 180 degrees counter to the US propped right-wing government pattern in the region of "reform" that's always followed the same trajectory: massive high interest foreign loans to "modernize" that lead to corruption, bankruptancy and foreign dependence; the privatization of resources and industry that concentrate land ownership and wealth into the hands of an elite few and their foreign investors and further promote poverty, famine, malnourishment, and disease of the indigenous population; the migration to urban areas by the displaced poor to work in sweatshops while living in squalor that leads to more poverty, malnourishment, and disease. Its a vicious cycle that Chavez has been trying to break.

We hate him here in the West because our governments hate him. Why? Because land in the hands of the poor means it'll be used to grow subsistence crops rather than export crops that enrich the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. Because natural resources, like oil, that are not privatized means lost profit opportunity to the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. We hate him because his policies benefit his people at the expense of the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. And because Chavez is his own man rather than the usual Washington propped up puppet that we're used to.

[TteFAboB]

Brazil is not independent from Oil, who lied this absurd to you?!Probably ’60 Minutes’ they did a piece on how all of Brazil now uses Ethanol fuels (80-something % Ethanol) for its automobiles instead of normal oils like in the US.

There were 2 times in modern history when Brazil almost reached independency from Oil in the private transportation system and a fraction of the public trans.sys..

Back in 1936 when WW2 exploded. Brazil didn't produced almost any Oil back then and depended heavily on Oil imports (the demands weren't huge back then though). With the war the imports decreased significantly and all Oil producers outside the Axis were exporting to the Allied war effort. The small fleet of vehicles of the time was converted to run on Gasogen, contraptions were installed in the rear of vehicles, cars and busses, that fueled the engines with coal power. There wasn't any Oil, the demand wasn't that high, and nearly every vehicle that had an engine had to make the convertion to Gasogen, so pretty much Brazil reached independency from Oil except for the few vehicles that kept running on the drops of Oil, excluding the Military, of course.

The second time happened in the 1970's with the Oil crisis. Again it turned out next to impossible to maintain vehicles running on Oil-fuels. The Public transportation system was largely converted to Electric Trams wherever possible, and the lighter vehicles started being manufactured with engines that ran on Ethanol from primarily sugar-cane at the time. Indeed, the Ethanol engines became the majority, but the terrible right-wing General-Dictators didn't knew how to manage the vastly and fast increasing demand for Ethanol, and the system collapsed like the NASDAQ .com bubble.

Today, the gas sold in Brazil must have, by law, from 14% to 28% of Ethanol in its mixture. After the crash in the 70's Ethanol car sales plummeted to extinction, and today there is an increasing demand for engines that run BOTH on Gas OR Ethanol, on any mixture, and the latest invention allows a regular car to fill, with a minimal percentage of Gasoline in the tank, with Ethanol, Diesel (or Bio-Diesel), Natural Gas or GNP, a gas by-product of Oil. But pure Gasoline engines are still the majority in sales, even though these can receive an micro-chip plug-in to run with greater mixtures of Ethanol in the tank.

One point I forgot to mention about this false independency, or as it should be called, self-sufficiency, and how artificial it is: The Brazilian Navy, responsable not only for providing SAR operations in the Atlantic waters where it signed treaties to do so, ensure the safety of the national and commercial waters (13.800.000km² in total), but also with river operations deep into the Amazon, not forgetting the base in Antarctica, is denied Oil to fuel its ships having to reduce consumption to below bare-necessity levels (to the point the training at sea that hasn't ceased had to be reduced to a minimum), an absurd considering as I mentioned that the Oil extraction and greatest company is the state monopoly, this monopoly also sells Gasoline for TWICE the price of a gallon of Gas in America.

Back in the Pacific Tsunami, many nations sent Aircraft Carriers to the region to assist in the delivery of aid. The Brazilian Navy has an Aircraft Carrier, purchased from France, if one wonders why it wasn't sent to help, the excuse was at the time the lack of fuel, and even today, this carrier does short patrols, even though it should be able to endure many months at sea.

So much, for the 60 Minutes disinformation.

[Onkel Neal]

After his luke-warm approach to illegal immigration, add Bush to the list :hulk:

[TteFAboB]

1. Does Chavez has the support of his people?


As compared to who, President 29%? Snide remarks aside, yes, he does. He's also widely expected to win re-election in December. See the paragraph at the bottom here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187165,00.html

Are you kidding? Re-election? Fidel Castro always wins the re-election. The Soviets had many elections, and they always won too. Winning an election does not mean you have popular support if the election is not democratic.

The December election will not be democratic. The opposition won't run because they were already made irrelevant. The electronic voting machine doesn't allow for recounting the votes, all recount pledges were denied before. It is believed that Chavez frauded the election by creating false voters. And the multiple attacks on the freedom of the press silence all critics.

He does not have popular support. He had popular support when he was first elected, now things have changed, any attempt to do marches and protests against him are discouraged by violence, official or civilian.

It is an illusion that Chavez is the leader of the poor, he had support 7 years ago, but no more.


2. What actions has he taken in the interests of his people?

Among other things, the Bolivarian Missions to fight things like malnutrition, poverty, disease, and illiteracy. He's also intervened to reduce privatization, to overhaul the tax system to increase its fairness, and created a land law forn reform and redistribution. He has reduced unemployment, illiteracy, and poverty.

He created a statal super-market chain that sells subsidized food for minimal prices which wouldn't be possible if the super-markets were supposed to sustain themselves or make profit. He also controls the production of the food, either by expropriating the factories or in the primary stage by owning the land and putting workers on the fields under his wages, it's called Feudalism. The other local shops and markets are all closing when one of Chavez stores open nearby. If you haven't seen, the packaging of the itens contain political propaganda, so for example, it's the Bolivarian Beans, with Chavez face on the front of the package and many compliments to the regime written on it, instead of a general brand.

When you say he has reduced unemployment, illiteracy and poverty you are speaking of a fantasy region. None of that has occured. Poverty increased absurdly because the Venezuelan economy suffered a 9% GNP retraction, the economy is collapsing in all sectors, except in PDVSA. It is impossible now to measure poverty because Chavez now denies the official numbers to be published, and also changed the methodology, even though we can't see them. So you are perhaps also being a little dishonest, because I don't know how you had access to numbers the public isn't allowed to see. When I say poverty increased it is by watching as the commerce and service sectors close down and more and more Venezuelans become unemployed, having to depend on Chavez for a job. Illiteracy is different from uneducation, and he is not educating anybody, by the contrary, he closed schools and implemented the Cuban method of "education", which teaches a person to read and write but not Mathematics, Geography, Phisosophy, Sciences, etc.. It is a dumbed down teaching procedure which creates dumber people, the lessons occur through a TV with a video-cassette where a tape is played, you don't necessarily need teachers, only political supervisors, if someone didn't understood, play the video again. Among the lessons, there is political propaganda, for example, the tests require writing why Chavez is a good leader and such, is this education? I call it indoctrination.

Taxes in Venezuela are irrelevant. The state gets nearly all of its money from the PDVSA, the oil company. Venezuelan private companies are evacuating to Colombia and other countries of the region. But even the PDVSA had a dramatic fall in efficiency, since Chavez replaced more than 20,000 employees with his own loyal supporters (also eliminating those who voted agaisnt him in the referendum by violating the secrecy of the voter, and the 1 million-some Venezuelans who signed their names on the petition for the referendum itself), so if the Oil Barril price starts to decline, he will have trouble keeping the structure of the state standing, as it depends almost entirely on the PDVSA, a sign of this is that Chavez is importing Oil from Russia to meet the internal demand, he's more worried about selling or donating Oil around than with his own people.





3. What did you see of terrible in the right-wing dictators propped by US intervention that you fail to spot in Chavez?

Well, for starters, where are the death squads? Chavez is empowering his people, his country's influence in the region, and one could even argue he's aiding the region as whole (certainly many of his actions seem aimed to this end). This is 180 degrees counter to the US propped right-wing government pattern in the region of "reform" that's always followed the same trajectory: massive high interest foreign loans to "modernize" that lead to corruption, bankruptancy and foreign dependence; the privatization of resources and industry that concentrate land ownership and wealth into the hands of an elite few and their foreign investors and further promote poverty, famine, malnourishment, and disease of the indigenous population; the migration to urban areas by the displaced poor to work in sweatshops while living in squalor that leads to more poverty, malnourishment, and disease. Its a vicious cycle that Chavez has been trying to break.

The days of the death-squads are gone, now he uses violence and organized crime instead. Unless you didn't noticed, Caracas is the most violent city in the American Continent, more than Rio de Janeiro was when the organized crime there was kidnapping, and killing and terrorizing the population. Chavez's government is full of corruption, so it is doubly convenient for him to let the organized crime run rampant: First it keeps the Venezuelans inside their own homes, and prevents protests because people are literally afraid of being shot, and secondly this crime spreads panic forcing the population to call for the help of a paternal figure to save them, Chavez.

We hate him here in the West because our governments hate him. Why? Because land in the hands of the poor means it'll be used to grow subsistence crops rather than export crops that enrich the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. Because natural resources, like oil, that are not privatized means lost profit opportunity to the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. We hate him because his policies benefit his people at the expense of the multinational corporations that our politicians are beholden to. And because Chavez is his own man rather than the usual Washington propped up puppet that we're used to.

That, as I've said, is an illusion, why do you fall for it?! He could care less about the poor, they are dying in hospitals that lack surgical gloves and have Cuban doctors that are more interest in gathering intelligence (as all Cuban export doctors are intelligence Agents too) than saving people's lives. A similar Cuban mission was EXPELLED from Brazil for practicing "SHAMANISM" (it was the word used at the report), they were "healing" people based on who-knows-what, they prescribed alot of wrong medications and didn't knew how to do a simple thomography.

I don't care what your government does, says or thinks, I don't care why you want to look at South America and find the leader of the poor against the oppression of the rich. I don't care why you think the only private companies that exist are outside Latin America and I don't know why you continue to wish to believe that Chavez is beneffiting the poor of Venezuela when all he's really interested in is to keep the Venezuelans poor and spread poverty to control them better and stay in power untill 2031, as he said,

But,

I do not excuse you for calling Chavez his own man instead of the "usual Washington propped up puppet that we're used to". Latin America is not a backyard where Washington propps up puppets as they see fit. There's people here, and if someone only decides to look at the continent when they are interested in finding their new global leader, then it's not my fault that you don't have other examples of "own men" that never had anything to do with Washington or were even suspicious of America.

However, Chavez is a puppeteer. He started as a puppet of Fidel Castro, and now has Evo Morales as his puppet. Morales acts only after talking with Chavez, and always with assurances and confidence in Chavez's support, and it always happens behind closed doors or in the shadows of the night. He has pacified Nestor Kirshner from Argentina by purchasing the Argentinian debt. As I mentioned, he meddled in the Peruvian elections to support a puppet of his that previously received money from Chavez to stage a coup that failed. And he's also attempting to put Lopes Obrador from Mexico under his wing. These two latter actions have back-fired, however, and stained the candidates when people realized they were too directly connected with Chavez, and now both changed the speech to appear to be more distant.

I suppose you don't care about his connections with the FARC, or when Chavez bought a Samba "school" during the last Carnival in Rio de Janeiro and won the parade by buying the judges too. He must do all for the benefit of the poor.

Very well scandium, if you want to be with Chavez, ignoring the reality, just because he is anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Democracy and anti-capitalist. So be it, but don't come expropriate my freedom and liberty, you will find people under Chavez's rule, influence and attack to be much less enthusiastic about this new own man's leader of the universe, who doesn't allow his oppositors to even leave the country.

It's too easy to talk about Chavez from Canada.

[Happy Times]

I woted Mugabe. He just gets to me so bad :hulk: What i dont get is that the opression and murdering of white africans in Zimbabve and South Africa goes unchecked in Europe and America. These families have born and lived there for centuries and are in many cases more entitled to be there than some of the majority population.

[Bort]

This is where a reality check, i.e. context, can be useful. So look at the context and then tell me what part of this is unreasonable:

a: The F-16s were presumably bought from the US which also presumably supplies the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

b: Venezuela having bought these planes therefore owns them;

c: The US has just decided, ostensibly because Venezuela is insufficiently cooperative in the US War on Terror, to stop exporting arms to Venezuela which would include the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

d: Venezuela, due to this recent decision by the US government, now has a bunch of useless F-16s that it will no longer be able to maintain;

e: Venezuela considers selling these planes, which are now useless to them;

My question would then be: why do you hate capitalism so much, or do you simply not understand how the concept of ownership works?

What you just stated is irrelivant, because the F-16s were purchased under a Foreign Military Sales contract that was approved by congress before being signed by Venezuela. Under the terms of the contract-common with all foriegn sales of that nature, Venezuela may not sell their F-16s without the approval of the US congress. I understand full well the concept of ownership, but the fact is that under the contract the jets were for the use of Venezuela and only Venezuela, or do you simply not understand how the concept of a contract works?

[The Noob]

That crazy iran guy really Suck! :shifty:

Evo Morales Rocks! :up:

Even if i'm in germany, i find he is cool cos he is for the Poeple and not for the Concerns. :up:

But if he's Really "one of the good ones" we will see soon. :roll:

[scandium]

* Bort]This is where a reality check, i.e. context, can be useful. So look at the context and then tell me what part of this is unreasonable:

a: The F-16s were presumably bought from the US which also presumably supplies the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

b: Venezuela having bought these planes therefore owns them;

c: The US has just decided, ostensibly because Venezuela is insufficiently cooperative in the US War on Terror, to stop exporting arms to Venezuela which would include the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

d: Venezuela, due to this recent decision by the US government, now has a bunch of useless F-16s that it will no longer be able to maintain;

e: Venezuela considers selling these planes, which are now useless to them;

My question would then be: why do you hate capitalism so much, or do you simply not understand how the concept of ownership works?

What you just stated is irrelivant, because the F-16s were purchased under a Foreign Military Sales contract that was approved by congress before being signed by Venezuela. Under the terms of the contract-common with all foriegn sales of that nature, Venezuela may not sell their F-16s without the approval of the US congress. I understand full well the concept of ownership, but the fact is that under the contract the jets were for the use of Venezuela and only Venezuela, or do you simply not understand how the concept of a contract works?

Sure I understand how a contract works - are you saying they're still obligated to follow the terms of this contract when the US won't supply the parts needed to maintain these aircraft? Wouldn't that require Venezuela to maintain good faith when the US, by not selling the needed parts, is not? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

If the US hasn't violated its own contractual obligations, and if Venezuela does sell these planes, and if Venezuela is breaking the contract by selling them, then let the US seek redress with the WTO - you know, like Canada has been trying to do for years over the US's violation of the NAFTA agreement in the softwood lumber dispute (and in which the WTO has ruled repeatedly in Canada's favour while the US repeatedly ignores the ruling... hypocrits).

In any case, that's a lot of ifs for you to be getting your panties in a bunch over. :roll:

[Bort]

Sure I understand how a contract works - are you saying they're still obligated to follow the terms of this contract when the US won't supply the parts needed to maintain these aircraft?
Yes

The old song and dance about not selling parts is BS. The whole thing really is about the fact that the US refused to upgrade the F-16's, never a part of the deal. Even if we do stop selling parts, the contract does not become void, as that was never a provision.

[STEED]

Robert Mugabe :hulk: :hulk:
This man has to be the biggest hypercritic in South Africa, he really gets my blood boiling. http://www.langkawi.dk/midis/6.gif http://www.langkawi.dk/midis/91.gif

[Neptunus Rex]

* Bort]I thought up this question after reading this http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818045/ about how Hugo Chavez is thinking of giving away his F-16's to Cuba or Iran. That could deserve a topic on its own but it got me thinking, just who is that third world moron who really gets under your skin? Mine has got to be Chavez, his constant badgering of the US is driving me up the wall. :stare:


This is where a reality check, i.e. context, can be useful. So look at the context and then tell me what part of this is unreasonable:

a: The F-16s were presumably bought from the US which also presumably supplies the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

b: Venezuela having bought these planes therefore owns them;

c: The US has just decided, ostensibly because Venezuela is insufficiently cooperative in the US War on Terror, to stop exporting arms to Venezuela which would include the parts needed to repair these planes and keep them operational;

d: Venezuela, due to this recent decision by the US government, now has a bunch of useless F-16s that it will no longer be able to maintain;

e: Venezuela considers selling these planes, which are now useless to them;

My question would then be: why do you hate capitalism so much, or do you simply not understand how the concept of ownership works?

Editted to add: I personally like Chavez. He seems to me to be a rare breed of leader who actually governs in the interests of his people rather than in the interests of the elite there or of Washington (this may come as a surprise to many here but Washington is actually not the center of the universe). In fact, given the atrocious history of US intervention in Latin America with its history of propping up a succession of terrible right-wing dictators, a reality check really is in order here.

Not too mention the drug war which is an excuse to fight down resistance (local guerillas) to the deportation of local people due to - mostly Us - company interests. Especially Colombia on my mind. Prepare the ground for company interests - and sell it as an anti-drug campaign at home. Nice trick, almost everybody buys it. At the same time, again and again those mercenary companies and mercenaries of theirs that are doing the job down there, are engaged in drug smuggling and murder themselves.

Chavez stands in the way of US interests in southern America, and US attempts to press through a total free trade zone (which again will come at the cost of the poor). That'S why he is portrayed as the bully of the block now. Unfortunately, or thank God (a question of whose perspective you take), he is not the only one resisting the US. Several countries in Southern America have started to become stubborn to US demands, including Brazil (often overseen, but it is one of the coming megapowers of the world like India, China, and the like).

Plus Brazil is independent from oil - a bonus that is hard to be overestimated.

Here we go with selective historical recall!

South America's issues with empireal powers dates back to before 1900.

And who were those empireal powers? Oh my god, thats right, EUROPEAN EMPIRES!

Chavez is nuts! He creats a fictious issue over the US trying to assasinate him (why would we, he's a nothing!) just so he can appear to be standing up the the US.

Chavez is the one with empireal ambitions. He has convinced Bolivia to nationalize foreign oil and natural gas facilities (even though Bolivia lacks the resources to develope those facilties) when Argentena is the only importer of natural gas from Bolivia. Last time I checked, Venezuela and Argentena aren't exactly best buddies.

No, when the gas companies withdraw from Bolivia, and they will because Bolivia will demand more and more for their "take", Chavez will step in with aid. Chavez's aim is to control ALL oil and natural gas production in South America.

Sound's like empireal ambition to me.

[Fish]

Because every oppostion to him immediately melts in the shining light of his cleverness, competence and honesty. Maybe they should import him - such a bright light may help against winter depression. :88)


:roll: :hmm: :yep: :rotfl:

[mapuc]

So to find the second finalist against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran)
there will be a rematch between Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)

Markus

[Kapitan]

What about mahatma ghandi ?

He was annoying in his own way.

[Dowly]

Other, GWB. The word 'Freedom' has lost it's meaning in my eyes during his 8 year presidency. :nope:

[Tchocky]

Venezuela is a Third World country?

Iran?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Mugabe. We dont want your crappy farms anyway.

[Redbrow]

"Chavez, Chavez, Chavez" Why do most of the answers here sound like the text of a video prompter before the talking heads on the mega-corp-media?? Oh, that's right....Mooo. Let's stay in the box shall we.

Of course since I support the new order I must encourage you in this.

But I don't get emotional about Chavez or other patsies, like Lee Harvey Oswald for example. Some puppets march with lots of strings, and some are hung by one, like bait.

[Officerpuppy]

Kim Jong-Il doesn't bother anyone :rotfl: They are so secretive out there, it's amazing we even know what he looks like.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Kim Jong-Il doesn't bother anyone :rotfl: They are so secretive out there, it's amazing we even know what he looks like.


That's because many Koreans are led to believe Kim Il Sung is still in charge.

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Sung/kimilsung.jpeg

Different name, same old asshat smile :rotfl:

[Redbrow]

My brother goes on these trips where doctors go to 3rd (more like 10th) world countires to help the ill - like Doctors without Boarders (no he has not gone with that outfit, but others). Anyway he is such a moo cow (though once in his youth he was in the Army's SF and really quite outside the box) that he actually thinks Fox has real news.

Anyway, he called me up last year to tell me proudly that he was headed for North Korea and would be allowed to be a part of the doctor's group to dine with Kim Jong-Il.
I attempted to inform him that Kim Jong-Il used to kidnap Japanese movie stars and force them to make his own demented movies, but my bro just blew past that and went on to inflate his ego to the size of a Zeppelin.

He asked me: "Guess what I plan to say to him?" I tried not to play his game. But he insisted (I may be old but he's older than me you know, and so I am helpless before him). So he pestered and pestered me until I said, "Ok what?" Then he told me he was going to invite Kim Jong-Il to come to visit him in America and that he'd offer him dinner at his own house."

By this time my mind was reverting to wondering if theories about reality-shifts were true and whether my brother really was the same guy I knew in my 20s. I wanted to scream, "What have you done with my brother!" But I didn't, (you know I think he drank himself silly or did bad drugs or something in the 90s) instead I asked him why he would utter such words to a human like Kim Jong-Il?

And he said that it was his attempt to make peace between Korea and the USA. Thankfully I know he hates sub games and will never see this posting! and he was just lucky that my melt down near the phone did not cause a huge atomic screech to be sent through the phonelines!
I tried to reason with him and explain why Kim Jong-Il would never leave his shores for California (that's it, my brother has spent decades in California..) and I wondered if his team leader of the doctor group knew his plan. He planned to keep it secret.

Thankfully those plans were put on hold by his group.

[Stealth Hunter]

Kim Jong-Il doesn't bother anyone :rotfl: They are so secretive out there, it's amazing we even know what he looks like.


That's because many Koreans are led to believe Kim Il Sung is still in charge.

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Sung/kimilsung.jpeg

Different name, same old asshat smile :rotfl:

SSDD

(Same S**t, Different Day)

And Chavez gets my vote.

[3Jane]

Do you actually understand the definition of 'third world'

[Tchocky]

Do you actually understand the definition of 'third world' Definitions for "Third World" are fairly controversial and conflicted, but you're correct, some countries on this list do not belong.

[Thunder]

Mugabe.
The repecussions of his insane antics are felt here everyday as thousands of "refugees" flee over the border from "africa's breadbasket" to South Africa, a country where most of the population itself is barely above poverty level.All the while our goverment persues a policy of "quiet diplomacy".
Unbelievable, Zimbabwe is our neighbour, yet the only real pressure is coming from countries 12000 km away.
Zimbabwe(due to "ol Bob Mugabe) has the world's highest rate of inflation - about 8 000% - while four in every five people are unemployed and 80% of the population live below the poverty threshold.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2258266,00.html

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2258679,00.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Do you actually understand the definition of 'third world' Definitions for "Third World" are fairly controversial and conflicted, but you're correct, some countries on this list do not belong.

Indeed. North Korea and Iran shouldn't be on the list. The Iranians, despite how some might think, are actually more advanced than just about any other country in that general region. North Korea is also pretty advanced for it's locality (although the people don't live under the best conditions...).

[Bort]

For the record, I did make a mistake by calling the countries "third world" since that's an obsolete term. "Developing countries" would have been more ideal as all of the nations in the poll are listed as developing countries. Therefore, I deem this poll still valid. :up:

[August]

Do you actually understand the definition of 'third world' Definitions for "Third World" are fairly controversial and conflicted, but you're correct, some countries on this list do not belong.
Indeed. North Korea and Iran shouldn't be on the list. The Iranians, despite how some might think, are actually more advanced than just about any other country in that general region. North Korea is also pretty advanced for it's locality (although the people don't live under the best conditions...).

Huh? I might agree with you regarding Iran (at least if you discount the theocracy the Iranians allow to lead them) but how do you figure NK is advanced? Both China and South Korea, it's two immediate neighbors, are far more advanced in any category you'd care to name.

[Stealth Hunter]

In industrial and natural resource affairs, North Korea is advanced.

It possesses resources that can be used to further construction of a modern economy, such as sizable deposits of coal, several other minerals, and various metals. The river systems of the Yalu, Tumen, and Taedong supplement North Korea's coal reserves and form an exceptional source of power. The country's hilly areas provide timber, cattle and livestock grazing spots, and orchards. Though this terrain prohibits paddy rice cultivation (except in and around the coastal lowlands), corn and soybeans grow quite well on the dry plateaus.

I'm not saying it's the greatest of them, but it's definitely better than most of the countries in Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos, for instance). However, in terms of neighboring countries, I must agree that it is definitely behind (and it shows up like a splotch of red paint on a white wall).

[August]

In industrial and natural resource affairs, North Korea is advanced.

It possesses resources that can be used to further construction of a modern economy, such as sizable deposits of coal, several other minerals, and various metals. The river systems of the Yalu, Tumen, and Taedong supplement North Korea's coal reserves and form an exceptional source of power. The country's hilly areas provide timber, cattle and livestock grazing spots, and orchards. Though this terrain prohibits paddy rice cultivation (except in and around the coastal lowlands), corn and soybeans grow quite well on the dry plateaus.

I'm not saying it's the greatest of them, but it's definitely better than most of the countries in Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos, for instance). However, in terms of neighboring countries, I must agree that it is definitely behind (and it shows up like a splotch of red paint on a white wall).
It has it's share of natural resources I suppose but no more than most other asian countries which don't have the temperature extremes. However its NKs backwards society that keeps it from capitalizing on those resources. Unless that changes I see little opportunity for NK, or Iran for that matter, to truely advance.

[Von Tonner]

Robert Mugabe :hulk: :hulk:
This man has to be the biggest hypercritic in South Africa, he really gets my blood boiling. http://www.langkawi.dk/midis/6.gif http://www.langkawi.dk/midis/91.gif

I am presuming you mean Southern Africa. South Africa is ruled by President Mbeki. Robert Mugabe is the president of Zimbabwe. We have more than our fair share of hypocrits but thankfully, Mugabe is not one of them.:D

[bookworm_020]

Mugabe, For turing one of the most prosperious nation in Africa into a basket case!

Runners up include

Chavez, for a guy to say he's showing the will of the people, and then tries to get an unlimited life turn as president, and put in place powers that look like Orwell's 1984!

Kim Jong-Il, the dear leader whos cost costing the country a great fortune. When a country uses the threat of nuclear weapons to get a better deal on aid, you know something is more than a little wrong.

In industrial and natural resource affairs, North Korea is advanced.
Nuclear weapond and opium??? We still remember the Pong Su here in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong_Su_incident

The river systems of the Yalu, Tumen, and Taedong supplement North Korea's coal reserves and form an exceptional source of power.
So the lights are turned out at night because they want to be enviromentaly friendly?

The country's hilly areas provide timber, cattle and livestock grazing spots, and orchards.
Most of the timber has been felled by the locals to provide fuel for cooking and heating, this has led to a large number of landslides every time it rains.

but it's definitely better than most of the countries in Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos, for instance)
Vietnam and Thailand may have leadership problems, but they're streets ahead of North Korea!